A Historical Overview of Stereophonic Blind Testing

135

Comments

  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,668
    edited July 2012
    arny wrote: »
    What I see is that they quotes show that you falsely turned a long comment about alternative methodologies for ear training into a ludicrous generality and presented just the ludicrous generality until I pointed it out to you. It seems unlikely that you asked anybody who didn't share your negative opinions to review the paper because it is rife with easily rebutted errors.

    Go back and re-read your post #32. You did not accuse me of "ludicrous generality" regarding Clark's papers. You specifically accused me of "nonsense and complete fabrication".

    If my writings are so rife with easily rebutted errors, why would you be up at 4am posting on an audio forum discussing them?
    arny wrote: »
    The ABX Comparator was offered for sale because so many people said they wanted it. It never sold in large numbers (<100), and it was never other than very marginally profitable. For example the parts cost of the RM2 relay module was over half its sales price and it was not easy to assemble.

    I am aware that the ABX Comparator was a commercial failure. Please clarify something for me. First you said that the ABX Comparator was offered for sale because so many people said they wanted it. Then you said that less than 100 were sold. Does this mean that most of the people who indicated interest did not go through with a purchase?
    arny wrote: »
    Whether that is show or real remains to be seen.

    I was sincere.
    arny wrote: »
    Which I have yet to see you logically explain why stereo is so different from mono, or why so many people do so well with ABX and similar listening test methodologies in stereo and multichannel.

    With all due respect, if you do not understand the difference between stereo and mono, you should not be involved in stereo equipment evaluation. If you have, or have access to, a good quality properly setup stereo system that has a preamp that is switchable between mono mode and stereo mode, the difference between mono and stereo should be readily apparent.

    With regard to why so many people do so well with ABX in stereo and multichannel, I cannot speak for them. I do not know what their listening preferences are. I do know that some people could not care less about spatial properties. Perhaps this is the class of stereo users that do well with ABX.
    arny wrote: »
    (1) is the same as saying that perceptual coders have nothing to do with audio, since the application of blind and double-blind tests has been absolutely critical to their development, both directly and indirectly.

    I thought you didn't like paraphrasing?
    arny wrote: »
    (2) You don't say that almost all if not all of your evidence about scientifically and mathematically rigorous subjective listening techniques predates the development of ABX and the other blind testing techniques that most of us are talking about.

    I assume that people can read the dates of the literature I cited and come to their own conclusions...as you did.
    arny wrote: »
    Never heard of ABC/hr or ITU BS 1116, I take it!

    LOL!

    Yes, I have heard of both of them. The Robert Harley book "The Complete Guide to High-End Audio" (2004) that I cited in my stereo evaluation methodology paper (2010) has an interesting anecdote on page 573 regarding the "Double-Blind, Triple-Stimulous, Hidden Reference (ABC/hr) method. Supposedly, renowned audio expert Bart Locanthi, using only his ears, immediately picked up an audible flaw in music that had been processed with codec that had been tested with 60 experts using 20,000 evaluations with ABC/hr.
    arny wrote: »
    Really? Looks like another one of your paraphrases. Before you apply what I said to the above claim, first find the malady I mentioned in DSM IV. I never talked about mental health issues.

    You spoke of "denial". Perhaps you deny that denial is a mental health issue.
    arny wrote: »
    I guess you need to explain that because you've lost me.

    Ok. I'll take another crack at it. You said:
    arny wrote:
    Raife I not pleased that you are so agressively jumping to any number of false conclusions that are potentially detrimental to people's opinion of my character and publicizing them on a public forum.

    People can see your comments that I based my conclusions on and then decide for themselves if the conclusions are accurate...can't they? It's not like I'm going behind your back badmouthing you to people who don't know you.
    arny wrote: »
    Raife I suspect that if you succeed in getting yourself up to speed in modern audio, you'll be ROTFL at what you said above, probably within just a few weeks or even a few days!

    Why is my "getting up to speed in modern audio" of concern to you? As I have said before, if I am am as out of touch with "modern audio" as you purport, then my views should promptly fall on their face shouldn't they? That means you don't need to be up at 4am posting on an Internet forum trying to refute them...correct?
    arny wrote: »
    You seem to completely underestimate the role that blind testing has had on the most important developments in audio and AV media over say, the past 20-ish years.

    No I do not.
    arny wrote: »
    Furthermore, it is possible to show that $ millions have been lost and promising careers have been adversely changed when people failed to make business decisions in audio based on the results of DBTs.

    Please cite a few credible references for this. I would love to read them.

    Also, please cite some credible references that display the requirement and usefulness of blind tests, particularly ABX, in evaluating the spatial properties of stereo systems.
    "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
  • markmarcmarkmarc Posts: 2,293
    edited July 2012
    I stand corrected, post #38.

    Beyond that, your diatribe against my fairly measured posts further point towards internal demons that unfortunately have created a great personal struggle.

    "Remember, I'm under official pressure to avoid conflict.". If that is the case, then obviously it would be best for you to disengage and allow others who support your position to take up the cause.
    Review Site_ (((AudioPursuit)))
    Founder/Publisher Affordable$$Audio 2006-13.
    Former Staff Member TONEAudio
    2 Ch. System
    Amplifiers: Parasound Halo P6 pre, Vista Audio i34, Peachtree amp500, Adcom GFP-565 GFA-535ii, 545ii, 555ii
    Digital: SimAudio HAD230 DAC, iMac 20in/Amarra,
    Speakers: Paradigm Performa F75, Magnepan1.6 w/SkiingNinja x-overs, Totem Signature One's & Model 1's, ACI Emerald XL, Celestion Si Stands
    Analog: Rega RP1 w/Ortofon Super OM40, SimAudio LP5.3 phono pre
    Cable/Wires: Cardas, AudioArt, Shunyata Venom 3
  • megasat16megasat16 Posts: 3,534
    edited July 2012
    Let's see. The discovery of Higgs Boson particle may be the key in determining an ABX test legibility or improve a man's hearing capacity tenfold to end all the arguments about the audio by means of mono, stereo, or multichannel and so called blind, double blind, ABX tests and all the side effects known as placebo and nacebo effects.

    After all, the atoms are sticky to each other by means of God Particle before they are disintegrated and transmitted in a metallic structure. Any weakness in Higgs Boson in such transmission system could disrupt the rearrangement and re-constitution of the arrival atoms at the end of the terminating equipment known as speaker, the air transmitting medium and the ear transducer which picks up the noise.
    Trying out Different Audio Cables is a Religious Affair. You don't discuss it with anyone. :redface::biggrin:
  • arnyarny Posts: 37
    edited July 2012
    Go back and re-read your post #32. You did not accuse me of "ludicrous generality" regarding Clark's papers. You specifically accused me of "nonsense and complete fabrication".

    If my writings are so rife with easily rebutted errors, why would you be up at 4am posting on an audio forum discussing them?

    Because I happen to wake up at 4 am most mornings, and was looking for something to pass the time.
    I am aware that the ABX Comparator was a commercial failure. Please clarify something for me. First you said that the ABX Comparator was offered for sale because so many people said they wanted it. Then you said that less than 100 were sold. Does this mean that most of the people who indicated interest did not go through with a purchase?

    No, I think that we sold more Comparators than we had actual requests when we started making them. I think we sold more comparators than a good market analysis might have projected. There were 6 ABX partners and we had 6 different market analyses. There were many unknowns because it was a unique kind of product for us.

    With all due respect, if you do not understand the difference between stereo and mono, you should not be involved in stereo equipment evaluation. If you have, or have access to, a good quality properly setup stereo system that has a preamp that is switchable between mono mode and stereo mode, the difference between mono and stereo should be readily apparent.

    That would appear to be a very unhelpful truism. It makes you look pretty insufferable from where I sit.
    With regard to why so many people do so well with ABX in stereo and multichannel, I cannot speak for them.

    I don't think that you have a good understanding of who you speak for.
    I do not know what their listening preferences are. I do know that some people could not care less about spatial properties. Perhaps this is the class of stereo users that do well with ABX.

    Obviously, you've never been very successful with ABX, unlike the 10s of thousands who have been.

    I thought you didn't like paraphrasing?

    Another misapprehension of yours, possibly very self-serving.
    I assume that people can read the dates of the literature I cited and come to their own conclusions...as you did.

    The literature doesen't really matter. Contrary what some believe, there is life outside of the literature. ABX as written up by Clark which you still can't see the difference of, was developed almost completely outside of the mainstream of audio, telephones, hearing, whatever you can think of. Most of us learned about those things, but well after the fact of ABX as we developed it.
    Yes, I have heard of both of them.

    To make the kinds of statements you've made with appropriate qualifications, you would need to go well beyond merely "hearing of" ABX/hr to say the very least. Thousands of people who do not pretend to the kind of authority you've claimed for yourself with apparently all forms of blind testing have spent dozens of hours doing ABC/hr tests. You see you've made some very global claims about blind testing.

    The Robert Harley book "The Complete Guide to High-End Audio" (2004) that I cited in my stereo evaluation methodology paper (2010) has an interesting anecdote on page 573 regarding the "Double-Blind, Triple-Stimulous, Hidden Reference (ABC/hr) method. Supposedly, renowned audio expert Bart Locanthi, using only his ears, immediately picked up an audible flaw in music that had been processed with codec that had been tested with 60 experts using 20,000 evaluations with ABC/hr.

    There are many explanations for that which do not impugn the effectiveness of ABC/hr. The short answer is that all of these methodologies are tools, not perfect solutions. AFAIK, nobody stopped using ABC/hr because of Robert Harley's book or Locanthi's anecdote despite the fact that Locanthi has a far better CV than RH. In the real world of mainstream audio not many people worry about what RH thinks or says and that appears to be a very good thing.
    You spoke of "denial". Perhaps you deny that denial is a mental health issue.

    Denial appears 7 times in the online DSM 4, but never as a treatable disorder and never as a mental health issue all by itself. It is generally considered to be in the realm of activities of people that do not have serious disorders or that need treatment or are said to have a mental health issue. In short, denial is not unique to people with mental pathologies or mental health issues. In fact everybody goes there at least a little.

    People can see your comments that I based my conclusions on and then decide for themselves if the conclusions are accurate...can't they?

    It is clear that you convinced a lot of naive people that for all intents and purposes, the audio testing equivalent of the idea that water always runs uphill.
    It's not like I'm going behind your back badmouthing you to people who don't know you.

    You badmouthed my friends and claimed the authority to properly do that in public.

    You have said, and not modified or retracted:

    "
    "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."

    I am a blind testing proponent who you admit that you know is well known as such. That puts me on the injured party list as member of a class of people that you have publicly characterized as, for all reasonable intents and purposes, either a fool or a fraud.



    "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."
    Why is my "getting up to speed in modern audio" of concern to you?

    I want the best for you.

    As I have said before, if I am am as out of touch with "modern audio" as you purport, then my views should promptly fall on their face shouldn't they?

    You see I have this hobby... ;-)

    That means you don't need to be up at 4am posting on an Internet forum trying to refute them...correct?

    I don't need to be up at 4am, but often I am. I usually catch up on the NASCAR shows, last night's network news, and Charlie Rose. By then my DVR has captured the BBC news so I can watch it without commercials. My DVR usually has about 40+ hours of stuff in it so that I can fill the time getting up to speed about what happened in my world before 8 am. But sometimes I do other things...

    But I am not so hard up for things to do at 4 am that I would do your research for you. That would not be the best thing for you.
  • arnyarny Posts: 37
    edited July 2012
    markmarc wrote: »
    I stand corrected, post #38.

    Beyond that, your diatribe against my fairly measured posts further point towards internal demons that unfortunately have created a great personal struggle.

    You think that was a diatribe? ;-)
    "Remember, I'm under official pressure to avoid conflict.". If that is the case, then obviously it would be best for you to disengage and allow others who support your position to take up the cause.

    Not so obviously - that's apparently one of your big problems Mark, you seem to think that what you reason out in your mind should be obviously true to everybody, if only they were smart enough to get it or be informed of it. ;-)
  • arnyarny Posts: 37
    edited July 2012
    I find your complaint especially bizarre in light of the fact that it was you who came to a public forum assaulting my character.

    I presume you are talking about my first post. Here is what I said:
    arny wrote:

    The conclusion that "They (meaning DBT advocates) 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" is not warranted by the evidence presented above, and the evidence presented above is woefully incomplete and even contradicts the author's conclusion.

    I think that I will just back up a few lines above the above summary to show where this paper goes awry:

    "According to **** and Vanderkooy, It is better to blindfold or otherwise visually handicap music listeners."

    Nonsense. A fabrication. I have known **** and Vanderkooy personally for decades, have sat with them in DBTs whose results they subsequently published in the JAES, and they think no such thing, and engage in no such practices.

    "According to Clark, the best ear training is gained from listening to pink noise, sine waves, pulses and artificially enhanced distortion."

    Again nonsense and a complete fabrication. Clark's (Clark is a decades-long personal friend, one time business partner, AES Fellow and past AES national officer, a highly -respected and internationally known audio expert) primary tool for listener training is a collection of music from regular commercial soruces, much highly appreciated by other listening test advocates both sighted and blind, that is known as the LTT. Those who are intersted in more details can start here: http://www.dlcdesignaudio.com/

    Unfortunately, that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the misinformation and grotesque errors that fill the previous several posts by DarqueKnight, AKA RAIFE F. SMITH II .

    This is what I posted to this thread when I first came here. Please show where I even mentioned your character, let alone assaulted it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't my post about a post and not a person? I mentioned your name, but only as the author of the post, which is a true fact that has no inherent moral value.
  • arnyarny Posts: 37
    edited July 2012
    Go back and re-read your post #32. You did not accuse me of "ludicrous generality" regarding Clark's papers. You specifically accused me of "nonsense and complete fabrication".

    Raife, if you read post 32 with good mental clarity, you will see that its object is a certain post that it quoted, and not any person or a certain person. A certain person was mentioned at the end of the post, but only as the author, which is a true fact that has no innate moral consquences.
  • littlewoodboatslittlewoodboats Posts: 826
    edited July 2012
    I have a question regarding the "Doctored" audio for training purposes.

    What are we doctoring to over emphasize for listener training? What are you training the listener to hear?
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,668
    edited July 2012
    arny wrote: »
    Seems like opening responses with dismissive statements is a big thing around here - I see two in quick sucession.

    That is a very unhelpful truism, and continues the tone of dismissiveness.

    Back to dismissive talk. :-(

    From your comments below, I would not think that you would mind dismissive talk:
    arny wrote: »
    Therefore, I dismiss this issue on the grounds that it isone of the of the prices of finding out reliable information. There appears to be no way to avoid it. It was an issue before I invented ABX. It is an issue with every kind of listening test that obtains reliable evidence. So what? You just overcome it or stop pretending that you are finding reliable evidence.
    arny wrote: »
    Again, I dismiss that as being a necessary criteria for a listening evaluation on the grounds that the very idea that components or products are going to be compared is not representative of how consumers play their home audio systems.

    arny wrote: »
    In my view of this forum, Post 39 was not made by Raife and contains no quotes. Are there two different views of this forum, one of which I am not privy to? In my view of this forum Post #39 was made by "Cooljazz" and is an attack on the AES which creates quite a few problems all by itself. I'm ignoring the obvious attempt to distract.

    You childishly slam Mark for making a simple typo, then go on to make these grammatical and spelling errors:
    arny wrote: »
    Raife I not pleased that you are so agressively jumping to any number of false conclusions that are potentially detrimental to people's opinion of my character and publicizing them on a public forum. I've already seen that this is one of those things that you do unknowingly, and hope that you someday stop denying that it can be a problem for you. Thanks for demonstrating this again in such close proximity to the OP.

    In case you don't see the errors above: "I not" is not correct grammar. Is should be "I am not". You left one of the "g's" out of the word "aggressive".

    I know you stopped by to avenge your honor, but when you slam people for simple typos and then make grammatical and spelling errors, it does not help your credibility.
    arny wrote: »
    Remember, I'm under official pressure to avoid conflict.

    If that is true, why are you making petty jabs at people due to typos? We all make them.

    arny wrote: »
    Because I happen to wake up at 4 am most mornings, and was looking for something to pass the time.

    Thanks for the explanation.
    arny wrote: »
    It is clear that you convinced a lot of naive people that for all intents and purposes, the audio testing equivalent of the idea that water always runs uphill.

    Could you quantify what you mean by "a lot of naive people"? A "ballpark" figure is enough. I think you may have left some words out of your statement above. It does not flow logically. If you read the sentence out loud the lack of continuity may become more apparent.

    Why do you think I have all this influence? The way you are carrying on about me makes it seem like I am trying to get people to follow me to Jonestown, Guyana.

    If my ideas are only accepted by "naive" people, won't they be even more influenced by the "stronger medicine" of ABX and other blind testing methodologies? It should be a simple matter to show people that my ideas have no merit shouldn't it?
    arny wrote: »
    I am a blind testing proponent who you admit that you know is well known as such. That puts me on the injured party list as member of a class of people that you have publicly characterized as, for all reasonable intents and purposes, either a fool or a fraud.

    I don't recall characterizing anyone that way, blind test proponent or otherwise. I specifically said in this thread that I didn't care what stereo testing methodology people use. I just shared what worked for me.

    You and others have ridiculed me publicly. You don't see me complaining about it do you?

    Injured party? What happened to chalking up my writings as highly flawed attempts to undermine listening tests that fail to justify extensive and expensive purchases of non-functional and poorly functioning boutique audio gear"? After all, that is what you said about my writings on the Hydrogen Audio forum on October 3, 2010 isn't it? Here is the quote and link:
    I see nothing in the entire article that suggests that the author says hs [sic] is adressing [sic] just a subset of blind listening tests. If you can find it, quote it. If you can't, we'll chalk it up as just another one of your many hihgly [sic] flawed attempts to undermine listening tests that fail to justify your extensive and expensive purchases of non-functional and poorly-functioning boutique audio gear.

    [Source: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=83979&pid=725306&mode=threaded&start=0#entry725306]

    As evident by your comments on the Hydrogen Audio forum, you first became aware of my ideas in this forum thread nearly two years ago. Why are you just now claiming "injury"?

    What have you been denied due to some naive person being influenced by my ideas? You realize that I am just some guy on an Internet forum...right?
    arny wrote: »
    I want the best for you.

    Your genuine concern is deeply appreciated. I also want the best for you, and everyone.
    arny wrote: »
    Raife, if you read post 32 with good mental clarity, you will see that its object is a certain post that it quoted, and not any person or a certain person. A certain person was mentioned at the end of the post, but only as the author, which is a true fact that has no innate moral consquences.

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Arnold, I really don't want to keep going back and forth like this. Again, please provide supporting documentation to support this claim:
    arny wrote:
    Furthermore, it is possible to show that $ millions have been lost and promising careers have been adversely changed when people failed to make business decisions in audio based on the results of DBTs.

    In addition, what documentation do you have for the following:
    Also, please cite some credible references that display the requirement and usefulness of blind tests, particularly ABX, in evaluating the spatial properties of stereo systems.
    "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
  • arnyarny Posts: 37
    edited July 2012
    I have a question regarding the "Doctored" audio for training purposes.

    What are we doctoring to over emphasize for listener training?

    The audible difference that we want the listener to hear.
    What are you training the listener to hear?


    The audible difference that we want the listener to hear.
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,668
    edited July 2012
    arny wrote: »
    I am a blind testing proponent...

    I do a little blind testing myself every now and then. In fact, the case study in my stereo evaluation methodology paper published in 2010 used a blind-tested subject.
    "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: 6,668
    edited July 2012
    arny wrote: »
    You badmouthed my friends and claimed the authority to properly do that in public.

    I thought you were just here to avenge your honor. I hope your friends appreciate your efforts.

    I don't know your friends well enough to badmouth them.

    I do recall publicly disagreeing with some ideas they presented in the literature.

    You do understand the difference between disagreeing with a person's ideas and badmouthing them personally don't you? You should, since you claimed that your statements alleging my "fabrications", "nonsense" and "grotesque errors" were aimed at my forum posts rather than me personally.
    "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
  • headrottheadrott Posts: 5,490
    edited July 2012
    arny wrote: »
    I presume you are talking about my first post. Here is what I said:



    This is what I posted to this thread when I first came here. Please show where I even mentioned your character, let alone assaulted it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't my post about a post and not a person? I mentioned your name, but only as the author of the post, which is a true fact that has no inherent moral value.

    Hi Arnold,

    I have no personal investment in who is correct or incorrect in this debate (although I do have an opinion which is not relavent to the issue I am bringing and you have brought up). However, I do know what is correct and incorrect when it comes moral values. I do not see how you can say that there are no moral implications by bringing up Raife's act of writing "fabrications" and is not morally impactful on Raife's character. In plain english, you are accusing Raife of saying untrue things. If you think this has no moral implications, I question your morality. I know this has no direct relation to what we are discussing, but as it directly impacts the character of Raife (the thread starter) then I think it is relavant. If you feel that Raife is fabricating statements aboout the subject, you will absolutely need to back those claims up with cited documentation refuting Raife's claims.
    Relayer-Big-O-Poster.jpg
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion." :\
    My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....


    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,668
    edited July 2012
    This is an interesting thread, but I won't be making any further posts tonight. It's time for my therapy. A coin toss will decide whether I do "stereo sweetspot therapy" or "home theater low frequency effects therapy". Chao amigos.
    ListeningRoom.jpg


    HT-P5-P10.jpg
    "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
  • BlueFoxBlueFox Posts: 13,903
    edited July 2012
    Bud - Silicon Valley

    Lumin X1 file player
    Sony XA-5400ES SACD
    Pass XP-22 pre, X600.5 amps
    Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers, SPOD spikes

    Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on preamp, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
    Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
    Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables

    Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
    Three 20 amp circuits.
  • headrottheadrott Posts: 5,490
    edited July 2012
    This is an interesting thread, but I won't be making any further posts tonight. It's time for my therapy. A coin toss will decide whether I do "stereo sweetspot therapy" or "home theater low frequency effects therapy". Chao amigos.
    ListeningRoom.jpg


    srsdk.jpg

    Raife, I don't know that the fellows at the AVS forum know there are these two options. Perhaps the reason for this post?
    Relayer-Big-O-Poster.jpg
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion." :\
    My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....


    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
  • littlewoodboatslittlewoodboats Posts: 826
    edited July 2012
    arny wrote: »
    The audible difference that we want the listener to hear.




    The audible difference that we want the listener to hear.

    Would you give an example of what the audible differences might be? Were I to take part in one of your tests what might you ask me to listen for?

    Are the tests subjective in that I am to give my thoughts on the overall sound experience? Are the tests such that you might want me to listen for crossover deficiencies and phase shift?

    I can understand using doctored material to exaggerate technical deficiencies so listeners could understand what they might be hearing. I am not trying to break your balls I am just trying to understand the methods behind your testing criteria.
  • BlueFoxBlueFox Posts: 13,903
    edited July 2012
    So, I am rereading my old stereophile and the absolute sound magazines, and in the absolute sound October 2011 issue on page 10 is an editorial "Just What Is A Golden Ear, Anyway". In it, the author mentions a software tool to train non-audiophile subjects "how to identify, classify, and rate the quality of recorded and reproduced sounds according to their timbral, spatial, dynamic, and nonlinear distortion attributes." It is developed by Dr. Sean Olive of Harmon International.

    I Googled it and this what I found.
    http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/
    Bud - Silicon Valley

    Lumin X1 file player
    Sony XA-5400ES SACD
    Pass XP-22 pre, X600.5 amps
    Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers, SPOD spikes

    Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on preamp, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
    Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
    Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables

    Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
    Three 20 amp circuits.
  • schwarcwschwarcw Posts: 7,266
    edited July 2012
    Read more about Arny Here
    Carl

  • markmarcmarkmarc Posts: 2,293
    edited July 2012
    BlueFox wrote: »
    So, I am rereading my old stereophile and the absolute sound magazines, and in the absolute sound October 2011 issue on page 10 is an editorial "Just What Is A Golden Ear, Anyway". In it, the author mentions a software tool to train non-audiophile subjects "how to identify, classify, and rate the quality of recorded and reproduced sounds according to their timbral, spatial, dynamic, and nonlinear distortion attributes." It is developed by Dr. Sean Olive of Harmon International.

    I Googled it and this what I found.
    http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/

    BlueFox,
    At last year's RMAF, Sean Olive was demonstrating the software as well as the basics of his testing. Interesting stuff on the process of how they train critical listeners.
    Review Site_ (((AudioPursuit)))
    Founder/Publisher Affordable$$Audio 2006-13.
    Former Staff Member TONEAudio
    2 Ch. System
    Amplifiers: Parasound Halo P6 pre, Vista Audio i34, Peachtree amp500, Adcom GFP-565 GFA-535ii, 545ii, 555ii
    Digital: SimAudio HAD230 DAC, iMac 20in/Amarra,
    Speakers: Paradigm Performa F75, Magnepan1.6 w/SkiingNinja x-overs, Totem Signature One's & Model 1's, ACI Emerald XL, Celestion Si Stands
    Analog: Rega RP1 w/Ortofon Super OM40, SimAudio LP5.3 phono pre
    Cable/Wires: Cardas, AudioArt, Shunyata Venom 3
  • markmarcmarkmarc Posts: 2,293
    edited July 2012
    arny wrote: »
    You think that was a diatribe? ;-)



    Not so obviously - that's apparently one of your big problems Mark, you seem to think that what you reason out in your mind should be obviously true to everybody, if only they were smart enough to get it or be informed of it. ;-)

    Your verbosity is only equalled by your extremely self delusional arrogance. I'm going to power up my rig and enjoy Aaron Copeland's majestic Grand Canyon Suite on vinyl. Ciao!
    Review Site_ (((AudioPursuit)))
    Founder/Publisher Affordable$$Audio 2006-13.
    Former Staff Member TONEAudio
    2 Ch. System
    Amplifiers: Parasound Halo P6 pre, Vista Audio i34, Peachtree amp500, Adcom GFP-565 GFA-535ii, 545ii, 555ii
    Digital: SimAudio HAD230 DAC, iMac 20in/Amarra,
    Speakers: Paradigm Performa F75, Magnepan1.6 w/SkiingNinja x-overs, Totem Signature One's & Model 1's, ACI Emerald XL, Celestion Si Stands
    Analog: Rega RP1 w/Ortofon Super OM40, SimAudio LP5.3 phono pre
    Cable/Wires: Cardas, AudioArt, Shunyata Venom 3
  • arnyarny Posts: 37
    edited July 2012
    Would you give an example of what the audible differences might be?

    A timbre shift.
    Were I to take part in one of your tests what might you ask me to listen for?

    A timbre shift.

    Are the tests subjective in that I am to give my thoughts on the overall sound experience?

    You can say what you will when the test is over and the results have been collected. If it turns out that you were reliably hearing a difference, then your comments might have considerable interest and value.
    Are the tests such that you might want me to listen for crossover deficiencies and phase shift?

    That would be a reasonable thing to do listening tests about.
    I can understand using doctored material to exaggerate technical deficiencies so listeners could understand what they might be hearing.

    It makes sense to me to pick more or less undoctored program material that makes it as easy as possible to hear the difference that we are interested in studying. That's what Clark's LTT music collection is all about, for example.
    I am not trying to break your balls I am just trying to understand the methods behind your testing criteria.

    The testing criteria is do anything reasonable to obtain positive results. It is well known that false negative results can be obtained by picking the wrong music selections.
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 24,148
    edited July 2012
    All I see is a bunch of hot air from Arny, so far you have shown absolutely ZERO documenting evidence. It's hot enough where I am in the Midwest I don't need your hot air added to that as well.

    Who are you again? And what makes you the expert? The expert that talks and talks and talks and talks but provides nothing to support your POV and opinions. You know what they say about the sphinter muscle, apply that to your opinions.

    This was mildly fun (entertaining not informative) reading when you first started your diatribe, but now it's grown into weary and inconsistent ramblings.

    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!
  • arnyarny Posts: 37
    edited July 2012
    headrott wrote: »
    Hi Arnold,

    However, I do know what is correct and incorrect when it comes moral values. I do not see how you can say that there are no moral implications by bringing up Raife's act of writing "fabrications" and is not morally impactful on Raife's character.

    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.
    In plain english, you are accusing Raife of saying untrue things.

    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.
  • arnyarny Posts: 37
    edited July 2012
    heiney9 wrote: »
    All I see is a bunch of hot air from Arny,

    I suspect that you are in a perceptual state where everything I say will appear to you to be hot air. Therefore I will do the logical thing. ;-)
  • littlewoodboatslittlewoodboats Posts: 826
    edited July 2012
    Thanks for the reply. I do not follow any of the industry magazines or literature so until I saw your name mentioned here I had not heard of you. I read DK's write-ups with great interest as they seem well thought out with an easy to understand presentation. Had I not purchased a set of vintage Polks and registered here I would have never heard of him either. DK and the rest of the members here have been quite helpful to me in my goal of better stereo. While I might find your work interesting I am not sure I see how it applies to me.

    I understand this is an Apples to Cumquats comparison but take the case of competitive Bar-B-Que. The judges go to classes to learn how to judge in competition. The judges overall winner and the peoples choice winner are almost never the same team. Judges have their specific criteria where the unwashed masses only know what they like.

    Thank you for taking time to answer my questions.
  • arnyarny Posts: 37
    edited July 2012

    I understand this is an Apples to Cumquats comparison but take the case of competitive Bar-B-Que. The judges go to classes to learn how to judge in competition. The judges overall winner and the peoples choice winner are almost never the same team. Judges have their specific criteria where the unwashed masses only know what they like.

    The difference between evaluations at a Bar-B-Que and evaluations of audio components such as fuses, speaker cables, and such other things that the OP seems to busy himself with are many, but the main one is that almost all if not all of the offerings at a Bar-B-Que do in fact taste different. I am aware of no serious disputes related to that fact.

    Similarly, different loudspeakers, the same loudspeaker in different rooms, the same loudspeaker positioned differently in the same room, the same loudspeaker in the same room oriented the same, but the listener oriented positioned differently, are all generally accepted to sound different. I've ABXed some of those permuations, they were some of the easiest tests that I ever did, and ditto for everybody else I know of who has tried.

    But what about those power amps, DACs, music players, receivers, cables, capacitors and etc., etc. that fill so much time and space on many audio forums and high end publications? Not so much! ;-)
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 24,148
    edited July 2012
    More hot air and nothing to back it up. I can say stuff too, doesn't mean it's anything more than an opinion. You seem to be blasting DK for voicing his findings (which in the end are opinions) but atleast he has shown comprehensively how he derived his conclusions. So far nothing from you but, well.......hot air.

    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!
  • Joe08867Joe08867 Posts: 3,935
    edited July 2012
    My favorite line from the Stereophile debate.
    Don?t get me wrong. Tests are important. The more accurate the tests, the better they can provide a sense of what is going on mechanically and electronically. But tests can neither adequately describe nor convey everything we hear, sense and feel. Nothing can replace the experience of comparing the sound of equipment with live performance. Whatever your musical tastes may be, you'd be wise to thoroughly indulge in the real thing before placing your bets on equipment that may test better than it sounds.

    I believe in electronic testing but I don't really care about blind testing. I do my own and believe my eyes (Visual Testing) and ears (Audio Testing). That is good enough for me. No study will tell me how I will feel about an item, be it a movie, electronic gadget or art. My personal opinion and judgement are all that is needed.
    WOW!

    That's like working your way through Katie Perry in order to get to Rosie O'Donnell.
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 24,148
    edited July 2012
    Erik Tracy wrote: »
    Meanwhile - over at AVS - they are having a circlejerk on this thread....classy.....

    Why would you think anything different? AVS and the "sheeple" are known to come over here, stir the pot and then act as classlessly as possible over at the AVS forum about it. It usually happens when things get slow and boring over there.

    Nothing new and just cements the culture that permeates that site.

    Same crap, different day.

    Whatever gets them off.

    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!
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

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