A Historical Overview of Stereophonic Blind Testing

cnh

doctor r wrote: »

And your point at using a two year old thread to take a personal barb at a member is? Your only posts (7) performed just this morning to benefit whom?

I think this pretty much sums up my point above. And now as a "mature" adult. Regardless of any further commentary below. I must bid all adieu.

cnh

DarqueKnight

arny wrote: »

I'm repeatedly accused of wanting to educate people.

The sincere desire to educate is a noble aspiration. I don't understand how it could be used in an accusatory fashion.

As you noted, I have welcomed you to this forum and I have welcomed your insights on audio equipment evaluation. I was disappointed by your decision to share your specific insights regarding setting up a proper blind test for my loudspeakers.

DarqueKnight

Rutgar wrote: »

The coffee table question is a perfectly legitimate question.

I agree.

For a long time I did not have a coffee table in either the two channel listening room or the home theater room. I actually do not like the look of most coffee tables, although I realize that they provide a more balanced aesthetic to a seating group. The main reason I don't like coffee tables is that I like artistic-looking area rugs and having a "blob" of furniture in the middle of it detracts from the beauty of the rug. The glass coffee tables allow me to meet the "balanced aesthetic" criterion and still see the rug artwork underneath.

I did have some concern, but I did not hear a difference in either room after the glass tables were installed.

cnh wrote: »

The mature individual knows when to STOP and WALK away! The child, not so much.

Noted and agreed.

doctor r

A good teacher knows how to guide their students down a path of discovery. To negate a potential student's experience and to infern that the only redemption for their "erroneous" thought processes is to blindly follow the teachers path is not only disingenuous, but smacks of religious zealotry (and the perfect way to lose any potential student's interest). How does one place themselves in this tenuous position and expect to be engaged in any serious discussion?

arny

doctor r wrote: »

A good teacher knows how to guide their students down a path of discovery.

Of course.

To negate a potential student's experience and to infern that the only redemption for their "erroneous" thought processes is to blindly follow the teachers path is not only disingenuous, but smacks of religious zealotry (and the perfect way to lose any potential student's interest).

That relates to this thread how?

How does one place themselves in this tenuous position and expect to be engaged in any serious discussion?

What is unclear about "exchange information".

I'm beginning to think that some people are in the position of bringing a peanut whistle to a gun fight. ;-)

IOW, they have no actual information to exchange, just a bundle of misapprehensions that they are married to.

Some may think that it is easy to make a lot of bizarre accusations like:

"ABX and blind testing proponents say that they want to apply a scientifically rigorous testing methodology to stereophonic audio in order to determine if the claimed differences in audio components actually exist. However, they ignore decades of scientifically and mathematically rigorous subjective listening techniques that were developed by the inventor and subsequent researchers in the field of stereophonic sound."

hoping that nobody notices.

Statements like:

"Stereophonic music reproduction is designed according to the principles of sound localization, long term sonic memory of actual musical events, and the reception of tactile sensations from the sound stage. Blind audio testing, which includes visually obscuring all or part of the sound stage, rapid switching of musical selections and off-axis and group seating, impairs the listener's ability to localize sounds (seeing), to internalize and evaluate aural cues (hearing) and to receive correct stereophonic tactile information (touching). Any stereophonic audio system testing methodology which compromises and hinders the processes of human sensory perception is useless."

Are going to be credible only to people who are ignorant of the relevant facts.

"Blind audio testing, which includes visually obscuring all or part of the sound stage" False. Knowing the identity of the power amplifier or other component playing at that instant is not necessarily a part of the sound stage. Furthermore, the sound stage that is reproduced as a part fo music is a virtual, not physical object that exists in the listener's mind.

"rapid switching of musical selection" Is obviously false - the rapid switching that my be involved in a listening test would never change the musical selection since time synchronization of the musical selections being auditioned is essential for blindness.

"Off-axis seating and group listening" are not necessarily part of bias controlled listening. I believe that most blind tests that have actually happened involve only a small number of individuals, often just one person. Off-axis seating and group listening are often done as part of normal listening for enjoyment. With all this worry about listening that is like listening for pleasure why is this non-essential issue suddenly so important?

I see nothing above but a bunch of straw men.

That I'm apparently the first person to point these asymmetries with actual practice out is probably an indication of how little actual experience many people have with blind listening tests as practiced in this millenium.

DarqueKnight

Well Arnold,

You've been here for four days, so I hope that, by now, you have rebutted everything to your satisfaction. I appreciate you coming and offering your insights in this thread. I'm sure that anyone interested in the topic will take the time to explore all available options and make a choice that suits their needs and interests.

Take care and have a great weekend.

headrott

arny wrote: »

Factual errors, misperceptions, and misapprehensions are just common parts of life. Human beings commonly fabricate impressions in order to help themselves relate to things that they aren't understanding well.

Hi Arnold,

Unfortunatley, you did not address one of the major points I brought up, but instead tried to continue to allude that Raife is making false claims. Also, are you also alluding that Raife is making "factual errors", "misperceptions", and "misapprehensions"? And because of these acts he has commited, it is causing him to "fabricate impressions"?

The reason I bring this up again is that these allogations you are making directly reflect on Raife's character and credibilit. You did not address this in your last post and I think it should be addressed. If you are saying that Raife is incompetent and therefore is unkowingly "fabricating impressions", then you need to say this and you will still need to use cited documentation to refute Raife's claims. Otherwise, it is you who is fabricating information (impressions) correct?

arny wrote: »

So what? Saying untrue things or as is more commonly said making false claims is very common behavior. If it were a hanging offense, the world might come down to you and me and one of us would be getting ready to hang the other! ;-)

Remember, a false claim is not necessarily a lie. A lie presumes that you know that what you are asserting as truth is actually not true.

Yes, I thought you might bring up the fact that making a false claim is not always a lie. It can simply be misinformation passed on (as you were saying above) due to factual errors, misperceptions, and misapprehensions. That I would agree has a different connotation to it than knowingly stating false information.

So, it still comes down to the question I posed above, are you saying that Raife is incompetent and cannot accurately pass on information and therefore has a different motive involved. If this is the case, then you should state your cited documentation to refute Raife's misinformation. You should want to do this as a scientist so that truth is dispensed rather than the "fabricated impressions" that are posted by Raife in this thread. Aslo, as friends and colleagues with the scientists that Raife misrepresented, you should want to have their work represented accurately. So, please show us using cited documentation how Raife has knowingly or unknowingly misrepresented the work of **** and Vanderkooy, and of Clarke. This way, we all can learn something.

DarqueKnight

Greg,

As a favor to me, I respectfully ask that you, and the forum in general, not request any further information from Arnold or engage him in any argumentative discourse. Over the last four days, Arnold has had ample time to provide documentation to support his views, opinions, assertions and accusations. If his comments bother you, or anyone else, that much, please use the forum's convenient ignore feature.

Thank you for your understanding and your indulgence of my respectful request.

headrott

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Greg,

As a favor to me, I respectfully ask that you, and the forum in general, not request any further information from Arnold or engage him in any argumentative discourse. Over the last four days, Arnold has had ample time to provide documentation to support his views, opinions, assertions and accusations. If his comments bother you, or anyone else, that much, please use the forum's convenient ignore feature.

Thank you for your understanding and your indulgence of my respectful request.

Understood Raife and I will honor your request. For the record, I was not attempting to be agrumentative or inflamatory towards Arnold. I was simply asking Arnold to factually back up his claims, which I think is a reasonable request.

arny

headrott wrote: »

So, it still comes down to the question I posed above, are you saying that Raife is incompetent and cannot accurately pass on information and therefore has a different motive involved.

All I know is that a lot of errors were made, and I see zero interest in correcting them.

Many of the errors weren't anticipated by the papers he misinterpreted, so its not like one can just fine a reference in them that refutes his errors.

Face

Rutgar wrote: »

But I must confess DK, that I find the glass coffee table confusing, and believe it is a sound killer.

How much it does, or does not interfere depends on the dispersion characteristics of the speakers used. An array may not be affected as much as a traditional, high dispersion 2/3 way.

Rutgar

Face wrote: »

How much it does, or does not interfere depends on the dispersion characteristics of the speakers used. An array may not be affected as much as a traditional, high dispersion 2/3 way.

Wow, I guess I never would have thought that such a simple question would garner so much response! And I promise everyone, that I wasn't trying to stir anything up.

I guess I never really considered speaker design being relevant, as to whether or not a coffee table is an audio faux pax. It has been my long understanding that anything between the speakers and the listener isn't good, and so I thought I would ask. I will accept DK's word that it causes him no audio issues. After all (as OB likes to say), it's his butt in the center seat. :cool:

DarqueKnight

As the author of this thread, I have asked a moderator to remove certain off-topic posts and lock it as there has been ample opportunity for all interested parties to state and substantiate their views.

Please do not make any further posts as I have also asked the moderator to delete any posts after this one.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the subject.