Stupid things you hear from the DBT/Null test crowd....

tonyb

Nothing wrong with a good debate Pep. I love a long one myself from time to time. Though we all may not agree with each other in the end, discussion is how we move forward. Heated as these things get sometimes, alot of information and knowlege can be had if one keeps an open mind.

Systems

tonyb wrote: »

Nothing wrong with a good debate Pep. I love a long one myself from time to time. Though we all may not agree with each other in the end, discussion is how we move forward. Heated as these things get sometimes, alot of information and knowlege can be had if one keeps an open mind.

But treated like a MEMBER eh Tony?
From 2 posts to 10k, we are all the same members regardless of how far we push our point?
From 2001 to today, we are all members of Polk?

Diversity is a wonderful thing.

130,000 members.

That is a VERY powerful number!:cheesygrin:

Syndil

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I do not need to insinuate when your comments are a matter of public record. Syndil's post #233:

Once again, the lack of reading comprehension rears its ugly head. My point was that Toole, who was writing about Olive's study, may have used the word "experienced" to include the meaning of "trained." I never claimed that they had the same definition. All A are B ≠ all B are A.

Incredible!! This is a textbook example back of peddling:

No, this is exactly what you said in your last post:

Do you suffer from multiple personality disorder? It appears that part of your mind is unaware of what the other part has said.

No, I suffer from engaging in a debate with someone who does not know how to read, apparently. I know exactly what I said. You failed to comprehend what the meaning of those words were, and my intention was clear. Apparently I need to take the reading level down a few notches. But I do appreciate the fervor on which you latch on to your misinterpretations and go at them with gusto. Get that windmill.

It is amazing that you believe that the oft quoted paper by Toole and Olive (1994), which used untrained subjects and monophonic audio, is relevant to stereophonic systems evaluation, but studies showing that evaluator bias can be trained away is not relevant to stereophonic audio.

Not more amazing than believing a video comparison has any relevance to a stereophonic comparison.

Oh really? Backpeddling much? Syndil's post #238:

Not at all. Reading comprehension, once again. Nowhere did I say that bias could be trained out of the video observers; I said that bias did not need to be trained out of the video observers, because the method in which the video comparisons could be conducted was not vulnerable to bias, due to the dissimilarities between video and audio testing.

So which is it? First you say that eliminating the effect of bias with training is a myth, then you grudgingly admit that it can be done, but the example I offered does not apply to audio...since it is video.

Absolutely 100% wrong; no such admission was made. See above point. I have said in this thread that training the bias out of an observer is an impossibility and I stand by it. It would be convenient for you had I made such an admission, and judging from the tenacity with which you grasped on to that misinterpretation you clearly wished I had. However your eagerness got the best of you, introduced bias into your reasoning, and caused you to observe something that was absolutely not there.

I was not comparing audio trials to TV trials. I was comparing the methodology used to train TV evaluators to the methodology I have proposed to train stereo audio evaluators. I used the TV trial example to show that evaluator bias can be effectively dealt with through training to the point that blinding is not required.

The methodologies do not compare due to the differences in audio and video.

Another aspect of maturity is the ability to accept when you have been proven wrong.

Time and again I have addressed your points directly, clearly demonstrated their faults (as in this post), but you have yet to acknowledge any of it. Take your own medicine. When I am proven wrong, I will acknowledge it.

Summary of Syndil's Science:

1. Bias absolutely cannot be trained out of a person, or made to be irrelevant to a particular evaluation exercise. The only way to deal with subject bias in audio is with blinding.

2. The case of visual bias being effectively eliminated in video trials is irrelevant to stereophonic audio because video evaluators do not need to use their memories.

More conclusions based on your initial misinterpretation. Bias was not eliminated in the video trials; it was never a concern to begin with due to the nature of the subject material. No amount of bias will turn black into white. However people can and will hear things that are not there due to bias.

3. The fact that some hardcore racists, of all ages, races, ethnicities and genders, have overcome their biases through training and experience is irrelevant to stereophonic audio...because science says that visual bias in audio is absolutely insurmountable.

Sigh. Another analogy. What a shock. Now we are equating "observer bias" with "racial prejudice?" Really?

4. Comparing visual bias or racial bias to auditory bias is comparing apples to oranges, but a study using monophonic sound is directly applicable to stereophonic audio evaluation. The 1994 study by Toole and Olive which used blind and non-blind trials with untrained (but experienced) listeners and brief (looping 30 second) monophonic audio music samples is a perfect example of how people use stereo systems in the home.

Wow. Still hard to believe someone played the race card in an audio discussion. Kudos once again. Surprised you haven't mentioned Hitler yet. Anyway, yes, both are apples to oranges. Monophonic audio has a lot more in common with stereophonic audio than video (or racial prejudice) does, and that one study is not the only study in existence to show how notoriously susceptible to bias audio testing can be.

I appreciate the tenacity with which you attempt to defend your position, for which you are obviously utterly convinced of your correctness, but you are not really making any relevant points for me to offer a rebuttal to. Instead I am left with the mind-numbingly tedious deconstruction of your flawed argument. It almost feels like I am being trolled.

Really it comes down to this:

I agree...and the evaluation of stereophonic audio with trained listeners is one of them.

This is the key point at which we disagree, and I don't believe any amount of further debate at this point will offer any further insight.

Systems

This is the key point at which we disagree, and I don't believe any amount of further debate at this point will offer any further insight.

So what? :cheesygrin:

Syndil

Enjoying the show, I presume?

heiney9

If Syndil was my attorney arguing my case, first I'd fire him, then have him disbarred , then try to force a mental evaluation. Talk about a mind numbing, tediously flawed argument. Your inconsistency is becoming legendary as are ALL the absolutes you use to try and bolster your POV.

H9

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

If Syndil was my attorney arguing my case, first I'd fire him, then have him disbarred , then try to force a mental evaluation. Talk about a mind numbing, tediously flawed argument. Your inconsistency is becoming legendary as are ALL the absolutes you use to try and bolster your POV.

H9

Funny, I've seen errors and misinterpretations from both parties throughout this debate. However, you choose to single out Syndil simply because his beliefs don't agree with yours. This is a wonderful way of showing your bias, and therefore providing another example of why I believe bias is an important aspect of the human psyche that needs to be dealt with when comparing audio components.

heiney9

BeefJerky wrote: »

Funny, I've seen errors and misinterpretations from both parties throughout this debate. However, you choose to single out Syndil simply because his beliefs don't agree with yours. This is a wonderful way of showing your bias, and therefore providing another example of why I believe bias is an important aspect of the human psyche that needs to be dealt with when comparing audio components.

Never said anything different about bias being an issue that has to be dealt with. So I'm not sure why you are jumping on me about that aspect of the discussion. Blind tests aren't necessary to remove sighted biases in stereophonic audio reproduction.

Everypoint in his rebuttal has been about the other party needing to learn reading comprehension and "that's not what he said", yada, yada, yada. Nothing concrete has been shown by him, just that we don't have reading comprehension.

In fact in honor of Syndil I;m going to tell you that's not what I said, you need to learn better reading comprehension. See how I completely dismissed you and your points without ever having to substantiate my position.

H9

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

Never said anything different about bias being an issue that has to be dealt with. So I'm not sure why you are jumping on me about that aspect of the discussion. Blind tests aren't necessary to remove sighted biases in stereophonic audio reproduction.

And, that's where I disagree with you and DK. I don't believe that bias can be trained away; it is simply too ingrained into the human psyche.

Everypoint in his rebuttal has been about the other party needing to learn reading comprehension and "that's not what he said", yada, yada, yada.

I've seen that in spades from both parties.

Nothing concrete has been shown by him, just that we don't have reading comprehension.

I don't think anything concrete has been shown by DK either, so there ya go.

In fact in honor of Syndil I;m going to tell you that's not what I said, you need to learn better reading comprehension. See how I completely dismissed you and your points without ever having to substantiate my position.

Okay. Have a nice day! :cheesygrin:

Jstas

You people really need to get out more.

DarqueKnight

Syndil wrote: »

It almost feels like I am being trolled.

Oh Syndil, you are not being trolled. You are just being asked to explain your points without circular logic and contradictory statements.

Furthermore, I was quite through with this discussion several pages ago. It was you who expressed bitter disapointment that I was "throwing in the towel":

Syndil wrote: »

Now you're just nitpicking semantics and being insincere, failing to seriously address any of my points. Throwing in the towel, I see. Guess we are done here!

Now, as for your belief that training = experience:

Syndil wrote: »

Once again, the lack of reading comprehension rears its ugly head. My point was that Toole, who was writing about Olive's study, may have used the word "experienced" to include the meaning of "trained."

Well, I proved that Toole did not mean for experience to be taken as synonymous with training.

Syndil wrote: »

I never claimed that they had the same definition. All A are B ≠ all B are A.

Yes you did:

Syndil wrote: »

I've noticed you are hanging your entire argument on that difference, training vs. experience. Tell me, is it possible that the word "experienced" might have been used for brevity, but to include the meaning of "trained" as well? If you are trained, are you not experienced?

You also have not explained why video observers are immune to the influence of knowledge of price, brand and aesthetics:

Syndil wrote: »

Nowhere did I say that bias could be trained out of the video observers; I said that bias did not need to be trained out of the video observers, because the method in which the video comparisons could be conducted was not vulnerable to bias, due to the dissimilarities between video and audio testing.

Syndil wrote: »

Bias was not eliminated in the video trials; it was never a concern to begin with due to the nature of the subject material. No amount of bias will turn black into white. However people can and will hear things that are not there due to bias.

It is understood that bias is not an issue when viewing the colors black and white. There is a stark contrast. Likewise, bias is not an issue when hearing a loud or a soft sound or a bass sound or a treble sound. The biases in this debate have to do with product knowledge such as price, brand name, and aesthetics.

You have not explained why you think price, brand and aesthetics will not affect video evaluators. Black is not white, but there are different shades of black and white. One of the key performance parameters of televisions is black level. Is it not possible that an untrained evaluator might "see" deeper blacks and crisper whites in an expensive prestige brand television with sleek aesthetics than in a moderately priced unknown brand with plain aesthetics?

Syndil wrote: »

No amount of bias will turn black into white. However people can and will hear things that are not there due to bias.

Certainly you are aware of the existence of optical illusions. People can and will see things that are not there. Television creates an illusion for the eyes just as audio creates an illusion for the ears. Indeed, the perception of motion on a television screen is illusion. Television evaluators rate the quality of that illusion, just as trained stereo evaluators rate the spatial rendering of stereo equipment.

My point is that if television evaluators can be trained to ignore the price, brand and appearance of television sets, stereo evaluators can be trained to ignore the price, brand and appearance of stereo components.

Syndil wrote: »

Time and again I have addressed your points directly, clearly demonstrated their faults (as in this post), but you have yet to acknowledge any of it.

You did not address the point of why a monophonic test with untrained listeners is applicable to a stereo test with trained listeners. The main performance parameter of stereo is the spatial representation. Training is required to properly evaluate that spatial representation. Monophonic sound does not have a spatial representation. This is why I am asking you to elaborate on why the results of a mono test with untrained listeners is applicable to a stereo test that requires trained listeners.

Syndil wrote: »

Wow. Still hard to believe someone played the race card in an audio discussion. Kudos once again. Surprised you haven't mentioned Hitler yet. Anyway, yes, both are apples to oranges. Monophonic audio has a lot more in common with stereophonic audio than video (or racial prejudice) does, and that one study is not the only study in existence to show how notoriously susceptible to bias audio testing can be.

I, and Bluefox, were not playing the race card. We were providing an example where a strong observer bias had been effectively dealt with. If a racist person can learn to love people of other races and a misogynistic person can learn to love women, why can't a person learn to ignore the price, brand and appearance of stereo equipment?

Is it your belief that the knowledge of the price, brand and appearance of stereo equipment is a stronger biasing agent than racial prejudice and misogyny? Please explain...if you can.

sucks2beme

Here's my point- blind (not DBT) listening is ok.
The point of this whole argument is if we can listen
and judge without bias. And that is used as a basis to
call our opinions of equipment and cables null and void.
This is the part that pisses most of us off. Given the amount
of time we spend agonizing over the sound of our systems and
the pieces that make it up, it's almost insulting. Many of us swap
stuff around a lot out of our closet (damn gear whores) because
a lot of stuff sounds DIFFERENT to us, so better is a relative term.

BlueFox

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I, and Bluefox, were not playing the race card. We were providing an example where a strong observer bias had been effectively dealt with.

Exactly. Talk about a lack of reading comprehension. :rolleyes:

To think there are people in the world who are so stupid they will think silver gear sounds better than black gear, or vice versa, is amazing. To think that this 'bias' is so ingrained that it cannot be overcome is astounding. In fact, that thinking sounds like a bias trying to justify another bias. :eek:

evhudsons

Like a blind man discussing clean glasses with a deaf man, interesting and useful information but it's up to a third party to decide for themselves. They both want to drink from clean glasses, but differ on how to test or judge for cleanliness, plus what sort of cleanliness is somewhat different for both of them. The third party such as me can glean great info from this debate, and wind up with visual, as well as olfactory and tactile clean glasses.

Without debate, the creators of nuclear energy would not have been able to produce a bomb. This is a worthwhile read for folks like me.

DarqueKnight

BlueFox wrote: »

Exactly. Talk about a lack of reading comprehension. :rolleyes:

To think there are people in the world who are so stupid they will think silver gear sounds better than black gear, or vice versa, is amazing. To think that this 'bias' is so ingrained that it cannot be overcome is astounding. In fact, that thinking sounds like a bias trying to justify another bias. :eek:

If it is agreed that visual bias in stereo can be remediated through training like other forms of visual bias, the justification for stereo blind testing evaporates.

It is like getting a Hindu to eat a hamburger.

heiney9

I predict Syndil will come back and say that there is no sighted bias in visual comparisons, therefore it can't be eliminated if it doesn't exist. I'm sure he won't post a single link to corroborate his statement, we need to take it as fact because he is saying it. Perfectly circular logic, ala Syndil.

Watch for it

H9

evhudsons

I think I just had one eyeball completely circle itself in it's socket.

agfrost

Syence!

steveinaz

We made a Turkish dude eat bacon once. he liked it.

evhudsons

I've retired more than one vegetarian, but not intentionally. Nothing like bacon or sausage in bean soup. Once they have a sampling they turn omnivarian again.

halo71

steveinaz wrote: »

We made a Turkish dude eat bacon once. he liked it.

pfffttt.....This one time at work I farted and almost made the receptionist blow groceries.:eek: She gaged and her eyes watered a bit....I was a little disappointed.

BlueFox

Here we go again. Time to close the thread. Just like the other thread that deteriorated into chile jokes. :rolleyes:

mdaudioguy

pepster wrote: »

But treated like a MEMBER eh Tony?
From 2 posts to 10k, we are all the same members regardless of how far we push our point?
From 2001 to today, we are all members of Polk?

Diversity is a wonderful thing.

130,000 members.

That is a VERY powerful number!:cheesygrin:

Everybody, join in...
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/M9BNoNFKCBI&quot; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

headrott

BlueFox wrote: »

Here we go again. Time to close the thread. Just like the other thread that deteriorated into chile jokes. :rolleyes:

At this point, I believe that's what Syndil is hoping for................

Edit: Rather than fessing up that the bias he claims to be in everyone that compares stereophonic audio components, but he claims are not in those that compare video signals are actually biases that he has not overcome.

DarqueKnight

....

headrott

^^^^^^^^"That's Hot"...............^^^^^^^^

txcoastal1

The good, the bad, and the new improved

newrival

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Absolutely not.



Here are some dots for you to connect.

1. Forced-choice discrimination test methods, such as ABX, A/B, etc., are not suitable for multi-dimensional stimuli. They are more suited for simple discrimination tests where the subject's senses are not affected by a number of simultaneous stimuli. A "dimension" in this case being a characteristic or unit of measurement.

2. A stereophonic sound field is multi-dimensional in nature in that it presents a complex set of simultaneous stimuli to the listener: sound stage height, width and depth; the location and character (clarity, weight, detail, dynamics, etc.) of images in the sound stage, and tactile sensation.

3. The Bell Laboratories scientists who invented home stereo systems were experts in the application of forced-choice discrimination test methods to telephony audio. Such methods, like ABX and A/B, were well suited for discerning simple quality differences in limited bandwidth telephone voice circuits.

4. When these same Bell Laboratories telephony scientists turned their attention to developing home audio equipment, the evaluation methods for such equipment was based on trained listeners who knew how to properly evaluate all the dimensions in stereophonic sound reproduction. Furthermore, peer-reviewed scientific journal literature clearly states that the stereophonic test methods used by Bell Laboratories scientists were intended to be adopted by the consumer.

What could be more clear and straightforward than 1-4?

If someone sends me a $100,000 amplifier for comparison to what I now have. I don't need to be "blinded" to evaluate what I have against the $100,000 amp. I won't be impressed by the $100,000 price tag. I have sense enough to realize that high price does not always correlate to high performance. I'll play the same music through them multiple times, carefully catalog what I hear, and let the evaluative chips fall where they may.

If someone screams that my test results are invalid because I didn't do a blind test, I'll just remind them that the entire concept of home stereo is invalid because Fletcher and his crew didn't do blind tests when they were inventing the thing...even though they knew how.

I can appreciate all that, but I stilll do not understand how ABX would not be used in the training of listeners? This goes to my point of there being no reliable baseline. How else could you confirm tha a listener is properly "calibrated." Would a trainee not be responsible to prove a consistantly reproduceable level of hearing and analysis? And if they would be, how else would you be able to verify they are indeed hearing it the same as the next. To me it would seem that some testing would be needed to verify the level of their accuracy, or even just to train the listener in what they are listening for.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I've never thought of ABX testing as a way of evaluating differences in equipment (preference), only a tool to see if a difference really exists. Nothing more.

Specifically, I see it as method of verification. Reproduction is key to scientific research and the fact that a device (human) potentially subjected to huge amounts of interference and bias makes me skeptical.

headrott

newrival wrote: »

I can appreciate all that, but I stilll do not understand how ABX would not be used in the training of listeners? This goes to my point of there being no reliable baseline. How else could you confirm tha a listener is properly "calibrated." Would a trainee not be responsible to prove a consistantly reproduceable level of hearing and analysis? And if they would be, how else would you be able to verify they are indeed hearing it the same as the next. To me it would seem that some testing would be needed to verify the level of their accuracy, or even just to train the listener in what they are listening for.

You can appreciate DK's points, but do you acknowledge them as being relevant? I don't think you would be asking the questions you asked if you found DK's points relevant.

newrival wrote: »

Specifically, I see it as method of verification. Reproduction is key to scientific research and the fact that a device (human) potentially subjected to huge amounts of interference and bias makes me skeptical.

What good does it do you if trained audiophiles verify there is a difference in audio equipment? Does that benifit you in hearing stereophonic audio by removing your bias against trying different audio components?

Syndil

At this point I am in fact throwing in the towel. I no longer find this thread amusing. I will address one final point, which has been the cause of my frustration throughout:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Syndil wrote: »

I never claimed that they had the same definition. All A are B ≠ all B are A.

Yes you did:

Syndil wrote: »

I've noticed you are hanging your entire argument on that difference, training vs. experience. Tell me, is it possible that the word "experienced" might have been used for brevity, but to include the meaning of "trained" as well? If you are trained, are you not experienced?

If one cannot grasp the meaning of my above quotes, then one is not worth trying to have a debate with, as they simply lack the mental acuity to hold meaningful discussion.

If, for example, we lived in a world where all dogs happened to be red, and I saw a red object, I would not necessarily claim it was a dog. Apparently DK would.