The Sound Of Hard Drive Enclosures

1235

Comments

  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,126
    Dr. Sean Olive (Harman Listening Lab) talks about The Dishonesty of Sighted Evaluation:

    A Blind Versus Sighted Loudspeaker Experiment

    This question was tested in 1994, shortly after I joined Harman International as Manager of Subjective Evaluation [1]. My mission was to introduce formalized, double-blind product testing at Harman. To my surprise, this mandate met rather strong opposition from some of the more entrenched marketing, sales and engineering staff who felt that, as trained audio professionals, they were immune from the influence of sighted biases. Unfortunately, at that time there were no published scientific studies in the audio literature to either support or refute their claims, so a listening experiment was designed to directly test this hypothesis. The details of this test are described in references 1 and 2.

    Just wanted to post another point of view.

    Hate to burst your bubble again, but... (apologies to the short attention span readers) ...

    For future reference, it would be great if you would use the forum's search function prior announcing a "revelation". Similar to your "news" about Bell Labs doing ABX tests (for monophonic audio evaluation), the Olive article you just cited, and the 1994 paper it is based on, has been discussed before in this thread from 2012:

    http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/131718/stupid-things-you-hear-from-the-dbt-null-test-crowd/p1

    If you read carefully, you will find that your views and comments in this thread mirror those of forum member Syndil's.

    I provided a brief critique of the Olive/Toole 1994 paper on page 8 of the thread referenced above, please pay particular attention to the parts highlighted and underlined in red:

    Olive said they were trained audio professionals, not trained listeners. Every "medical professional" is not trained in the practice of medicine. Nurses, EMT's and medical doctors are all medical professionals, but all do not have the same medical training and experience. Saying that someone is a trained medical professional is not the same as saying they are trained in brain surgery. Saying that someone is an audio professional is not the same as saying they are trained in stereophonic evaluation.

    Actually, the paper ("Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests, and Other Interesting Things", Floyd Toole and Sean Olive, 1994) makes it very clear that the difference between being an experienced stereo listener is quite different from being a trained stereo evaluator:

    "Experience is one of those variables among listeners that is very difficult to quantify. For example, musicians are experienced listeners but, is experience in focusing on musical attributes equivalent to that of focusing on timbral and spatial attributes? Some evidence suggests that it is not.

    Gabrielsson found that musicians who were not also audiophiles, were not especially good judges of sound quality[4]. The famous pianist Glenn Gould came to appreciate the insights of non musicians[5]. Our own tests have confirmed this. So, listeners with different backgrounds could be expected to have differing abilities or preferences in subjective evaluations. This is an enormously broad topic, but we thought that it would be interesting to take a first step towards understanding the importance of this variable."
    (p. 2)

    The 1994 Toole and Olive study divided subjects into two groups: inexperienced and experienced listeners as follows:

    "The effects were tested using male experienced listeners and both male and female inexperienced listeners. In these tests, listeners were considered to be inexperienced if they had no previous experience in controlled listening tests. Other definitions are possible, which might include persons with no critical listening experience whatsoever. The participants were categorized under the following headings."

    Therefore, "experience" in this case related to participation in controlled listening tests. There is no indication that any of the experienced listeners had training in stereophonic sound evaluation. Furthermore, the tests in this study were conducted in monophonic sound! (p. 3)

    "The tests were conducted over a period of 1.5 weeks using a multiple ( 4 loudspeakers at a time) presentation method. The monophonic tests were conducted with the loudspeakers adjusted for equal loudness within 0.5 dB using B -weighted pink noise. Playback levels, which were constant throughout the tests, were set for typical "good listening." (p. 3)

    http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/comment/1760298#Comment_1760298

    Many blind test cultists like to throw up the Toole/Olive studies, while being totally ignorant of the fact that most of their work was done with monophonic sound, and therefore have little to no relevance to stereophonic sound evaluation. Make sense?

    One thing you should understand about me is that I have been studying this topic for a long time. I'm not just some guy on the Internet parroting what was read from questionable sources. ;)

    Questions for you @Absolute_Zero : I have repeatedly said that I am a stereophonic sound enthusiast, which means I am interested in the spatial aspects of music reproduction.

    1. What sense did it make to throw up a study done in monophonic sound, when this is a thread, and a forum, devoted to stereophonic sound, which is sponsored by a manufacturer of stereophonic loudspeakers?

    2. What relevance would a study done in monophonic sound have to stereophonic sound system performance?

    3. Did you even read the 1994 paper that is referenced in the article you linked to and quoted, or did you just get excited about seeing something that apparently supported your position and ran with it?
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • DSkipDSkip Posts: 13,607
    DK,

    I really enjoyed your emphasis on the effect of bias. I can relate to that. Although I have my personal biases towards certain brands, I can readily admit when one doesn't do well in a rig or if something else is just a better product for the application. It doesn't change my bias (most times), but I can overcome it with reason.
    audiothesis.com/

    Speakers: Harbeth: P3ESR, 30.2, SHL5+; Usher: CP-6311, Be-10, T-515; Rosso Fiorentino: Elba, Fiesole, Volterra; Polk: T50, Signature S60, S55, S35, S30, S20, S15, RTA 15tl, Sonner Audio Allegro Unum
    Preamps: Shuguang S200MK, Dayens Ampino, Parasound P5
    Amps: Shuguang S845MK, Dayens Ampino Monoblocks, Parasound A23
    Integrateds: Dayens Ampino, Triode Corporation TRV-88SER, MastersounD: Dueventi, Compact 845, Evolution 845; North Star Design Blue Diamond
    Sources: AURALiC Aries, AURALiC Altair, Denon HEOS Link, North Star Design: Magnifico, Supremo, Incanto, Intenso, Venti
    Cabling: Wireworld
    TV: Sony XBR-75X940C
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,126
    Further Thoughts on the Toole/Olive Study:

    Dr. Olive stated: "My mission was to introduce formalized, double-blind product testing at Harman. To my surprise, this mandate met rather strong opposition from some of the more entrenched marketing, sales and engineering staff who felt that, as trained audio professionals, they were immune from the influence of sighted biases.Unfortunately, at that time there were no published scientific studies in the audio literature to either support or refute their claims, so a listening experiment was designed to directly test this hypothesis. The details of this test are described in references 1 and 2."

    I did a study on the history of subjective stereophonic audio evaluation in 2010. I provided many references from the scientific literature that supported the idea that blind and double blind studies were unnecessary due to the multidimensional nature of stereophonic sound and due to the performance criteria that must be evaluated:

    http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/104701/a-survey-of-early-stereophonic-system-subjective-evaluation

    Here is the introduction to the article:
    Introduction

    Subjective non-blind evaluation methods, based on listener training, careful listening, and documentation, were preferred at the inception of stereophonic sound by its inventor, Dr. Harvey Fletcher, and by other scientists at Bell Telephone Laboratories, the General Electric Corporation (GE), the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and by scientists at many other reputable research organizations who worked on improvements to stereophonic sound equipment.

    This article provides an overview of the subjective stereophonic sound evaluation methods from the 1930's to the 1960's. The term "stereophonic" did not enter the literature until it was introduced in 1927 by Bell Laboratories (the research and development division of the Western Electric Corporation). Up to then, multichannel audio systems were known as "auditory perspective" systems. After 1927, the terms "auditory perspective" and "stereophonic" were used interchangeably in the scientific literature. "Stereophonic", or "stereo" for short, can correctly be applied to any multichannel audio system using two or more speakers where the intent is to generate a three dimensional sound stage.

    Here are my references from the scientific literature listed at the end of the article (particularly note the references in red and their dates of publication):

    [1] World Book Dictionary, 1973 ed. Vol. 2., p. 2033.
    [2] Fletcher, Harvey, "Symposium on Wire Transmission of Symphonic Music and Its Reproduction in Auditory Perspective-Basic Requirements", Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 13, 1934, pp. 239-244.
    [3] Moor, J. and Leslie, J. A., "The Stereophonic Reproduction of Speech and Music", Journal of the British Institution of Radio Engineers, London, September 1951, pp. 360-366.
    [4] Fletcher, Harvey, "Hearing, The Determining Factor for High-Fidelity Transmission", Proceedings of the I.R.E., Columbus, OH, June 1942, pp. 266-277.
    [5] Steinberg, J. C., and Snow, W. B., "Symposium on Wire Transmission of Symphonic Music and Its Reproduction in Auditory Perspective-Physical Factors", Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 13, 1934, pp. 245-258.
    [6] Somerville, T., "Survey of Stereophony", Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, Convention on Stereophonic Sound Recording, Reproduction and Broadcasting, London, March 1959, pp. 201-208.
    [7] Harvey, F. K. and Schroeder, M. R., "Subjective Evaluation of Factors Affecting Two-Channel Stereophony", Journal of The Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1961, pp. 19-28.
    [8] Moore, H. B., "Listener Ratings of Stereophonic Systems", IRE Transactions on Audio, September-October 1960.
    [9] Schjonneberg, K. and Olson, F., "Listening Test Methods and Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1961, pp. 29-36.
    [10] McCoy, D., "Distortion of Auditory Perspective Produced by Interchannel Mixing at High and Low Audio Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1961, pp. 13-18.
    [11] Moore, H., "Effect of System Parameters on the Stereophonic Effect", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1961, pp. 7-12.
    [12] Beaubein, W. H. and Moore, H. B., "Perception of Stereophonic Effect as a Function of Frequency", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 1960, pp. 76-86.
    [13] Fowler, Charles, "As The Editor Sees It", High Fidelity Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 1, September 1951, p. 8 and cover.
    [14] Clark, D., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.


    Again, @Absolute_Zero wishing you success with your studies.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,126
    machone wrote: »
    DK,
    Why can't you purchase a better power supply with the same voltage/amps and build a cable?

    My experience has been very positive with cleaner/faster power supplies.

    I always prefer to consult the manufacturer prior doing performance mods or adding electrical accessories. In this case, I might experience some difficulty finding someone in technical support who knows what I am talking about.

    DC power supply replacements/upgrades are usually straightforward, but you never know if the manufacturer has a little trick up their sleeve.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • befuddlebefuddle Posts: 126
    While trying to keep score on this one I think the point [pardon the pun] and game match goes to DK on this one,Although extremely deserving as he obviously put up a long arduous, frustrating ordeal to prove his objective...Kudos Sir!!
  • The crux of the matter is monophonic, stereophonic, binaural, what have you, that you can only train to reduce bias, but not eliminate.

    I've read what DK has posted, I read his reasoning behind it, I've read what I could of the Bell labs, Olive/Toole and I have a different read on it and simply don't agree that you can have the same outcome of peoples tallied responses in regards to debiased trained listeners vs truly blinded.

    You find me a study that shows that the outcomes are the statistically meaningful as the same then we would have something to talk about.
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 23,460
    Saying you have a "different read" without supporting it, is like farting in the wind.

    Care to expound? I doubt it.
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 23,460
    heiney9 wrote: »
    Saying you have a "different read" without supporting it, is like farting in the wind.

    Care to expound? I doubt it.

    Actually, Absoulute Zero has supported his position. He did not go to the nth degree in documenting, but he did cite the study done at Harmon Kardon and gave a link. He also did not find it necessary to name call and make snarky remarks about others.

    Have you gone to the link Absolute Zero provided and read the article? I did. Very informative. There seems to be no generally accepted and standardized testing methods. Major manufacturers of speakers try them out internally and with people off the street using a variety of testing methods including double blind tests. He has also challenged DKs premise about being able to eliminate-reduce bias in people that know what they are listening to and what playback equipment is being used.

    All he did was take a small portion of something and cut and paste. It's nice when you can take something completely out of context and call it definitive support. Who named called? Please show me where there was name calling.

    I can post links all day long. What's your point?

    H9

    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • K_MK_M Posts: 938
    heiney9 wrote: »
    heiney9 wrote: »
    Saying you have a "different read" without supporting it, is like farting in the wind.

    Care to expound? I doubt it.

    Actually, Absoulute Zero has supported his position. He did not go to the nth degree in documenting, but he did cite the study done at Harmon Kardon and gave a link. He also did not find it necessary to name call and make snarky remarks about others.

    Have you gone to the link Absolute Zero provided and read the article? I did. Very informative. There seems to be no generally accepted and standardized testing methods. Major manufacturers of speakers try them out internally and with people off the street using a variety of testing methods including double blind tests. He has also challenged DKs premise about being able to eliminate-reduce bias in people that know what they are listening to and what playback equipment is being used.

    All he did was take a small portion of something and cut and paste. It's nice when you can take something completely out of context and call it definitive support. Who named called? Please show me where there was name calling.

    I can post links all day long. What's your point?

    H9

    Must be your Bias....! DK name called several times. Are you unable to fathom that....??
    Lsi15, Lsi9, LsiC,Rta11t,M5jr+,M4,SDA 3.1TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, Rti6....Still listing stuff, a work in progress.
    B+W-
    Epos-
    Infinity-
    Advent-

  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,126
    K_M wrote: »
    Must be your Bias....! DK name called several times. Are you unable to fathom that....??

    I did? I don't recall such behavior. Since I did it "several times", would you be so kind as to refresh my/our memories and post quotes. Thanks.

    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • K_MK_M Posts: 938
    heiney9 wrote: »
    Saying you have a "different read" without supporting it, is like farting in the wind.

    Care to expound? I doubt it.

    Actually, Absoulute Zero has supported his position. He did not go to the nth degree in documenting, but he did cite the study done at Harmon Kardon and gave a link. He also did not find it necessary to name call and make snarky remarks about others.

    Have you gone to the link Absolute Zero provided and read the article? I did. Very informative. There seems to be no generally accepted and standardized testing methods. Major manufacturers of speakers try them out internally and with people off the street using a variety of testing methods including double blind tests. He has also challenged DKs premise about being able to eliminate-reduce bias in people that know what they are listening to and what playback equipment is being used.

    I think they believe there is going to be some "Winner". Whoever posts the most google links, or discusses their view to death, is the "Victor".

    The burden of proof always lies on those making a claim of something unknown or not usually accepted.
    Therefore "Bias removal training"......uhm.

    Still waiting to get links to the training seminars, or even a link to how it is done, if self taught etc.
    Lsi15, Lsi9, LsiC,Rta11t,M5jr+,M4,SDA 3.1TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, Rti6....Still listing stuff, a work in progress.
    B+W-
    Epos-
    Infinity-
    Advent-

  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 23,460
    edited March 29
    K_M wrote: »
    heiney9 wrote: »
    heiney9 wrote: »
    Saying you have a "different read" without supporting it, is like farting in the wind.

    Care to expound? I doubt it.

    Actually, Absoulute Zero has supported his position. He did not go to the nth degree in documenting, but he did cite the study done at Harmon Kardon and gave a link. He also did not find it necessary to name call and make snarky remarks about others.

    Have you gone to the link Absolute Zero provided and read the article? I did. Very informative. There seems to be no generally accepted and standardized testing methods. Major manufacturers of speakers try them out internally and with people off the street using a variety of testing methods including double blind tests. He has also challenged DKs premise about being able to eliminate-reduce bias in people that know what they are listening to and what playback equipment is being used.

    All he did was take a small portion of something and cut and paste. It's nice when you can take something completely out of context and call it definitive support. Who named called? Please show me where there was name calling.

    I can post links all day long. What's your point?

    H9

    Must be your Bias....! DK name called several times. Are you unable to fathom that....??

    Except the poster specifically quoted my post and implied (since he was directing the rest of the post at me) I was name calling. He didn't say it in a general way, he said it to me.

    Are you unable to fathom how a BB works or what reading comprehension is?

    H9

    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • K_MK_M Posts: 938
    K_M wrote: »
    Must be your Bias....! DK name called several times. Are you unable to fathom that....??

    I did? I don't recall such behavior. Since I did it "several times", would you be so kind as to refresh my/our memories and post quotes. Thanks.

    No, I will not, that would only be counter productive.



    Lsi15, Lsi9, LsiC,Rta11t,M5jr+,M4,SDA 3.1TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, Rti6....Still listing stuff, a work in progress.
    B+W-
    Epos-
    Infinity-
    Advent-

  • K_MK_M Posts: 938
    heiney9 wrote: »
    K_M wrote: »
    heiney9 wrote: »
    heiney9 wrote: »
    Saying you have a "different read" without supporting it, is like farting in the wind.

    Care to expound? I doubt it.

    Actually, Absoulute Zero has supported his position. He did not go to the nth degree in documenting, but he did cite the study done at Harmon Kardon and gave a link. He also did not find it necessary to name call and make snarky remarks about others.

    Have you gone to the link Absolute Zero provided and read the article? I did. Very informative. There seems to be no generally accepted and standardized testing methods. Major manufacturers of speakers try them out internally and with people off the street using a variety of testing methods including double blind tests. He has also challenged DKs premise about being able to eliminate-reduce bias in people that know what they are listening to and what playback equipment is being used.

    All he did was take a small portion of something and cut and paste. It's nice when you can take something completely out of context and call it definitive support. Who named called? Please show me where there was name calling.

    I can post links all day long. What's your point?

    H9

    Must be your Bias....! DK name called several times. Are you unable to fathom that....??

    Except the poster specifically quoted my post and implied (since he was directing the rest of the post at me) I was name calling. He didn't say it in a general way, he said it to me.

    Are you unable to fathom how a BB works or what reading comprehension is?

    H9

    If I was mistaken, my apologies. I assumed he meant the insults from the previous day.
    Lsi15, Lsi9, LsiC,Rta11t,M5jr+,M4,SDA 3.1TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, Rti6....Still listing stuff, a work in progress.
    B+W-
    Epos-
    Infinity-
    Advent-

  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 23,460
    K_M wrote: »
    heiney9 wrote: »
    K_M wrote: »
    heiney9 wrote: »
    heiney9 wrote: »
    Saying you have a "different read" without supporting it, is like farting in the wind.

    Care to expound? I doubt it.

    Actually, Absoulute Zero has supported his position. He did not go to the nth degree in documenting, but he did cite the study done at Harmon Kardon and gave a link. He also did not find it necessary to name call and make snarky remarks about others.

    Have you gone to the link Absolute Zero provided and read the article? I did. Very informative. There seems to be no generally accepted and standardized testing methods. Major manufacturers of speakers try them out internally and with people off the street using a variety of testing methods including double blind tests. He has also challenged DKs premise about being able to eliminate-reduce bias in people that know what they are listening to and what playback equipment is being used.

    All he did was take a small portion of something and cut and paste. It's nice when you can take something completely out of context and call it definitive support. Who named called? Please show me where there was name calling.

    I can post links all day long. What's your point?

    H9

    Must be your Bias....! DK name called several times. Are you unable to fathom that....??

    Except the poster specifically quoted my post and implied (since he was directing the rest of the post at me) I was name calling. He didn't say it in a general way, he said it to me.

    Are you unable to fathom how a BB works or what reading comprehension is?

    H9

    If I was mistaken, my apologies. I assumed he meant the insults from the previous day.

    What do you mean "if"? Read the damn post. What "assumed" name calling from the previous day did I do?

    You are a real piece of work. You deflect everything and take responsibility for nothing.

    H9
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,126
    K_M wrote: »
    K_M wrote: »
    Must be your Bias....! DK name called several times. Are you unable to fathom that....??

    I did? I don't recall such behavior. Since I did it "several times", would you be so kind as to refresh my/our memories and post quotes. Thanks.

    No, I will not, that would only be counter productive.

    Translation - "No, I cannot, that would only prove that I am a pathological liar." :s

    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • K_MK_M Posts: 938
    edited March 29
    heiney9 wrote: »
    K_M wrote: »
    heiney9 wrote: »
    K_M wrote: »
    heiney9 wrote: »
    heiney9 wrote: »
    Saying you have a "different read" without supporting it, is like farting in the wind.

    Care to expound? I doubt it.

    Actually, Absoulute Zero has supported his position. He did not go to the nth degree in documenting, but he did cite the study done at Harmon Kardon and gave a link. He also did not find it necessary to name call and make snarky remarks about others.

    Have you gone to the link Absolute Zero provided and read the article? I did. Very informative. There seems to be no generally accepted and standardized testing methods. Major manufacturers of speakers try them out internally and with people off the street using a variety of testing methods including double blind tests. He has also challenged DKs premise about being able to eliminate-reduce bias in people that know what they are listening to and what playback equipment is being used.

    All he did was take a small portion of something and cut and paste. It's nice when you can take something completely out of context and call it definitive support. Who named called? Please show me where there was name calling.

    I can post links all day long. What's your point?

    H9

    Must be your Bias....! DK name called several times. Are you unable to fathom that....??

    Except the poster specifically quoted my post and implied (since he was directing the rest of the post at me) I was name calling. He didn't say it in a general way, he said it to me.

    Are you unable to fathom how a BB works or what reading comprehension is?

    H9

    If I was mistaken, my apologies. I assumed he meant the insults from the previous day.

    What do you mean "if"? Read the damn post. What "assumed" name calling from the previous day did I do?

    You are a real piece of work. You deflect everything and take responsibility for nothing.

    H9

    I meant NOT YOU....geez!!!
    Lsi15, Lsi9, LsiC,Rta11t,M5jr+,M4,SDA 3.1TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, Rti6....Still listing stuff, a work in progress.
    B+W-
    Epos-
    Infinity-
    Advent-

  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 23,460
    Glad you can speak for others while deflecting your own comments.

    H9
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,126
    edited March 29
    befuddle wrote: »
    While trying to keep score on this one I think the point [pardon the pun] and game match goes to DK on this one,Although extremely deserving as he obviously put up a long arduous, frustrating ordeal to prove his objective...Kudos Sir!!

    I am not trying to "prove" anything. This is just entertainment and sport. As I have documented previously, this topic has been discussed many times before in other threads. The blind test proponents in this thread are using the same tired, worn, misleading, and unscientifically substantiated arguments that were disproved before most of them were born.
    The crux of the matter is monophonic, stereophonic, binaural, what have you, that you can only train to reduce bias, but not eliminate.

    For the 1,000,001th time, I didn't say bias needed to be eliminated. It is the effect of bias on the decision making process that needs to be eliminated. So sad you can't grasp this simple, basic concept.

    I've read what DK has posted, I read his reasoning behind it, I've read what I could of the Bell labs, Olive/Toole and I have a different read on it and simply don't agree that you can have the same outcome of peoples tallied responses in regards to debiased trained listeners vs truly blinded.

    You are sounding like a parent who is in deep denial about their child being a ravenous drug addict and serial killer.
    You find me a study that shows that the outcomes are the statistically meaningful as the same then we would have something to talk about.

    I have already posted links to many sources of credible scientific studies, but you refuse to read and learn. You would rather be hoodwinked by dishonest research that confirms your biases.

    Actually, Absoulute Zero has supported his position.

    How so?

    1. Stereophonic audio is multidimensional sensory stimuli.

    2. The peer reviewed sensory science literature has proven that forced choice discrimination test methods, like A/B and A/B/X, are not appropriate for multidimensional stimuli.

    3. No one has posted any credible scientific evidence that contravenes 1 and 2 above.

    That's all there is to it.

    Have you gone to the link Absolute Zero provided and read the article? I did. Very informative. There seems to be no generally accepted and standardized testing methods. Major manufacturers of speakers try them out internally and with people off the street using a variety of testing methods including double blind tests. He has also challenged DKs premise about being able to eliminate-reduce bias in people that know what they are listening to and what playback equipment is being used.

    The article is more entertaining and misleading than informative. The following statement:

    "While double-blind protocols are standard practice in all fields of science - including consumer testing of food and wine -"

    The field of food and wine only uses blind tests with untrained (naive) subjects, and then only in very narrow and specific circumstances. The sensory science literature specifies trained listeners for multidimensional stimuli.

    The article said that "Unfortunately, at that time there were no published scientific studies in the audio literature to either support or refute their claims".

    This is certainly not true and I posted references to several such studies done long before Olive and Toole's 1994 study.

    Here is my point:
    The article he referred to is by the man in charge of product testing at HK (including JBL). JBL is one of the largest speaker manufacturers on planet earth. He gave a link to the entire article and only quoted a portion from that article. Just maybe this man that works for HK knows a thing or two about product testing. Just maybe this man is an industry expert on this subject. And the HK product tester advocates for Double Blind Testing.

    Or maybe he says whatever to "support" his point. Olive does not even believe stereophonic reproduction is a valid medium and most of his research involves monophonic audio. That alone should tell you a lot about his motives.

    His job title is irrelevant. Either what he says is scientifically justified or it is not.
    K_M wrote: »

    Still waiting to get links to the training seminars, or even a link to how it is done, if self taught etc.

    Your level of intellectual laziness is astonishing. You have been told several times that the answer to this question has already been provided in this thread, yet you are still begging for someone to spoon feed you information.

    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • K_MK_M Posts: 938

    Still waiting to get links to the training seminars, or even a link to how it is done, if self taught etc.

    Your level of intellectual laziness is astonishing. You have been told several times that the answer to this question has already been provided in this thread, yet you are still begging for someone to spoon feed you information.

    [/quote]

    So you are unable to just copy and paste or link to this training information?

    As I said before, I looked and did not find it.
    Starting to think I am gonna pull the curtain back, and not see a wizard!


    Lsi15, Lsi9, LsiC,Rta11t,M5jr+,M4,SDA 3.1TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, Rti6....Still listing stuff, a work in progress.
    B+W-
    Epos-
    Infinity-
    Advent-

  • machonemachone Posts: 829
    Bye
    Mojo Audio Joule v5>>Quantum Byte w/JRiver 21 and Fidelizer>> Starlight 7 USB >> Marantz SA 8005>> Equinox 7>>
    Hafler DH-110 Preamp + (Musical Concepts LXII Elite Mod) >>Equinox 7>>
    Hafler DH-500 Amp+ (Musical Concepts PA-6 Elite Mod) >>Belden 5000 10 ga cables>>
    SRS 2.3TL (Fully Modified)...SDA-1A (Fully Modified with Dimensional Tweeter Delete)
    1KVA Dreadnought
    Pioneer PLX-1000 Turntable - Shure SC35C/N35X - V15III/VN35HE
    Yamaha TX-540 Tuner...Sony DVP-NS575P DVD Player

    Separate subpanel with four dedicated 20 amp circuits.
    1. Amplification 2. Analog 3. Digital 4. Video

    "All THAT IS LOST FROM THE SOURCE IS LOST FOREVER"
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,126
    edited March 29
    K_M wrote: »
    As I said before, I looked and did not find it.
    Starting to think I am gonna pull the curtain back, and not see a wizard!

    Since you obviously saw where I had insulted people "several times", if you post just two quotes where I insulted someone, I will indulge you just this once and repost the training information that apparently is invisible only to you. :)

    Deal?

    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • lightman1lightman1 Posts: 8,680
    bt26rfpizt5e.gif
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,126
    edited March 29
    Summary

    Hardware Store Owner: May I help you?

    Customer: I need something to kill flies.

    Hardware Store Owner: I've got just what you need: an Acme XR-100 fly swatter, it's fast, lightweight, accurate, and deadly.

    Customer: I would prefer to use a big, heavy, sledgehammer. Do you have any in stock?

    Hardware Store Owner: Uh, yes, but why do you want to use a sledgehammer to kill house flies?

    Customer: A sledgehammer was recommended for killing flies by a lot of Internet web sites, and by Sean Toole, who is an expert on household tools. I'm also going to use the sledgehammer to drive nails and screws into the wall, crush ice, and crack nut shells.

    Hardware Store Owner: But why would you want to swing a big heavy sledgehammer when a lightweight swatter is proven to be more accurate, convenient, and effective?

    Customer: I want to make sure the fly is dead. I'm not worried about the weight. My next door neighbor is coming over to help me swing the sledge hammer. My neighbor is also going to confirm that the fly is dead.

    Hardware Store Owner: Why do you need a neighbor to confirm the fly is dead? Can't you see that for yourself?

    Customer: Eyes can be tricked and fooled. At least one other pair of eyes is the only scientifically proven way to be sure the fly is dead.

    Hardware Store Owner: It makes no sense to use a sledgehammer to kill a house fly.

    Customer: Are you saying that a sledgehammer can't be used to kill a house fly? What scientific proof do you have that a sledgehammer can't be used to kill a house fly?

    Hardware Store Owner: No, no, no. That's not the point. Yes you can use a sledgehammer to kill a house fly, but you will miss more times than you will hit, and you will damage your floors, walls, and furniture, and possibly injure yourself. For sure, you will have extra expense to repair whatever you hit besides the fly.

    Customer: That's OK. A sledgehammer, plus secondary visual confirmation, is the only scientifically proven way to make sure the fly is dead.

    Hardware Store Owner: No, you're wrong. All you need to do is train yourself to accurately hit a target with the swatter and you can be certain the fly is dead if it is splattered on whatever surface its struck.

    Customer: Where can I receive this fly swatter training? Can I get a certificate in fly swatting?

    Hardware Store Owner: No. You just practice at home hitting a target by yourself. I practiced by tearing off a small corner of a sheet of paper and hitting that as fast as I could.

    Customer: Can I use the fly swatter method along with my neighbor to help swing it?

    Hardware Store Owner: ??? WHAT ??? Why would you need to your neighbor to help you swing a flyswatter?

    Customer: Both of us swinging the swatter would be twice as fast and twice as accurate. Plus, my neighbor would provide confirmation of the kill. You should try it.

    Hardware Store Owner: I am not going to ask a neighbor to help me swing a fly swatter and then confirm the fly is dead. That's ridiculous and totally unnecessary.

    Customer: What are you afraid of?

    Hardware Store Owner: Nothing. One Wilton Bash 10 lb Sledgehammer with 36" unbreakable handle coming right up. That'll be $112.20 with tax.

    Customer: Thank you.



    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • vmaxervmaxer Posts: 3,998
    That's funny I don't care who you are.
    Pio Elete Pro 520
    Panamax 5400-EX
    Sunfire TGP 5
    Micro Seiki DD-40 - Lyra-Dorian and Denon DL-160
    PS Audio GCPH phono pre
    Sunfire CG 200 X 5
    Sunfire CG Sig 405 X 5
    OPPO BDP-83 SE
    SDA SRS 1.2TL Sonicaps and Mills
    Ctr CS1000p
    Sur - FX1000 x 4
    SUB - SVS PB2-Plus

    Workkout room:
    Sony Bravia XBR- 32-Inch 1080p
    Onkyo TX-DS898
    GFA 555
    Yamaha DVD-S1800BL/SACD
    Ft - SDA 1C

    Not being used:
    RTi 38's -4
    RT55i's - 2
    RT25i's -2, using other 2 in shop
    LSI 15's
    CSi40
    PSW 404
  • Absolute_ZeroAbsolute_Zero Posts: 70
    edited March 29
    Summary

    Hardware Store Owner: May I help you?

    Customer: I need something to kill flies.

    Hardware Store Owner: I've got just what you need: an Acme XR-100 fly swatter, it's fast, lightweight, accurate, and deadly.

    Customer: I would prefer to use a big, heavy, sledgehammer. Do you have any in stock?

    Hardware Store Owner: Uh, yes, but why do you want to use a sledgehammer to kill house flies?

    Customer: A sledgehammer was recommended for killing flies by a lot of Internet web sites, and by Sean Toole, who is an expert on household tools. I'm also going to use the sledgehammer to drive nails and screws into the wall, crush ice, and crack nut shells.

    Hardware Store Owner: But why would you want to swing a big heavy sledgehammer when a lightweight swatter is proven to be more accurate, convenient, and effective?

    Customer: I want to make sure the fly is dead. I'm not worried about the weight. My next door neighbor is coming over to help me swing the sledge hammer. My neighbor is also going to confirm that the fly is dead.

    Hardware Store Owner: Why do you need a neighbor to confirm the fly is dead? Can't you see that for yourself?

    Customer: Eyes can be tricked and fooled. At least one other pair of eyes is the only scientifically proven way to be sure the fly is dead.

    Hardware Store Owner: It makes no sense to use a sledgehammer to kill a house fly.

    Customer: Are you saying that a sledgehammer can't be used to kill a house fly? What scientific proof do you have that a sledgehammer can't be used to kill a house fly?

    Hardware Store Owner: No, no, no. That's not the point. Yes you can use a sledgehammer to kill a house fly, but you will miss more times than you will hit, and you will damage your floors, walls, and furniture, and possibly injure yourself. For sure, you will have extra expense to repair whatever you hit besides the fly.

    Customer: That's OK. A sledgehammer, plus secondary visual confirmation, is the only scientifically proven way to make sure the fly is dead.

    Hardware Store Owner: No, you're wrong. All you need to do is train yourself to accurately hit a target with the swatter and you can be certain the fly is dead if it is splattered on whatever surface its struck.

    Customer: Where can I receive this fly swatter training? Can I get a certificate in fly swatting?

    Hardware Store Owner: No. You just practice at home hitting a target by yourself. I practiced by tearing off a small corner of a sheet of paper and hitting that as fast as I could.

    Customer: Can I use the fly swatter method along with my neighbor to help swing it?

    Hardware Store Owner: ??? WHAT ??? Why would you need to your neighbor to help you swing a flyswatter?

    Customer: Both of us swinging the swatter would be twice as fast and twice as accurate. Plus, my neighbor would provide confirmation of the kill. You should try it.

    Hardware Store Owner: I am not going to ask a neighbor to help me swing a fly swatter and then confirm the fly is dead. That's ridiculous and totally unnecessary.

    Customer: What are you afraid of?

    Hardware Store Owner: Nothing. One Wilton Bash 10 lb Sledgehammer with 36" unbreakable handle coming right up. That'll be $112.20 with tax.

    Customer: Thank you.



    More like: "I have hearing so good I can snatch a mosquito out of the air with this pair of chop sticks."

    Click, I turn off the lights in the room and wish you good luck.
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,126

    More like: "I have hearing so good I can snatch a mosquito out of the air with this pair of chop sticks."

    Click, I turn off the lights in the room and wish you good luck.

    I certainly have never claimed to have superhuman hearing. I don't know of any of my audiophile friends or even any members of this forum who have made such an asinine claim.




    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • don't know of any of my audiophile friends or even any members of this forum who have made such an asinine claim.

    Lol. That's funny. Tell another.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!