|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Let's not let the facts bother you, eh? posted by jj on December 05, 2002 at 19:25:02:
Still won't admit that no current test is perfect, will you?
Follow Ups:
As you and everyone else knows, you have materially and unquestionably misrepresented my position.Your statement constitues a full and explicit accusation of professional misconduct on my part.
I require a full and complete retraction of the false position you have laid at my door.
Your trolling is starting look quite familiar, and your willingness to create false positions speaks ill of you.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
Oh bullshit. Like you haven't done the same to me. Get over yourself.
Your claims go very strongly against many people's experience.In particular the length of auditory memory simply destroys any chance of having a good result without proximate switching that is listener controlled.
And, of course, the "mob aspect" will rule as well.
If you want credibility, put up a paper for review.
You're starting to look like a straw man working for the anti-DBT camp in my mind.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
"Your claims go very strongly against many people's experience."Sorry, it's fact. Probably been done other places too, but again, because it is proprietary you will find no publically available documentation.
"And, of course, the "mob aspect" will rule as well."
Mob? Whose mob? Yours for not wanting to explore the possibility that in order to satisfy all the DBT critics, you'll have to better than what you are proposing now? The fact that there may be labs which HAVE overcome the difficulties with the published data? The only fact here is that your mind is closed to the possibility that some of the published difficulties have been overcome and you have no interest in persuing it.
"In particular the length of auditory memory simply destroys any chance of having a good result without proximate switching that is listener controlled."
Okay, so you can EXACTLY remember a complex auditory input for 10 minutes or more?
"If you want credibility, put up a paper for review."
Are you really that dense? One, I have made it abundantly clear multiple time that this is NOT my doing. Two, it is PROPRIETARY, I have also made this abundantly clear multiple times. Does someone need to knock it into your head with a hammer and chisel?
"You're starting to look like a straw man working for the anti-DBT camp in my mind."
-Mob? Whose mob? Yours for not wanting to explore the possibility
that in order to satisfy all the DBT critics, you'll have to better than what you are proposing now? The fact that there may be labs which HAVE overcome the difficulties with the published data? The only fact here is that your mind is closed to the possibility that some of the published difficulties have been overcome and you have no interest in persuing it.-Persuing what? That's a lie. You haven't offered anything TO persue, only a bunch of unsubstantiated, extremely extraordinary claims. You have contradicted some of the most strongly demonstrated principles of auditory testing, but you won't even offer anecdotal evidence, let alone any extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claims.
First, it's you who claims that the test you report on, but won't
take responsibility for (even here) is perfect. I'm not making novel claims, you are. You claim an advance, but you won't provide any evidence to evaluate.Second, the mob aspect of multiple subjects is not a conjecture, it's
a known, done deal. If you're going to use multiple subjects you're
going to have to show some major evidence that you've come up with a way to completely avoid that.Then you deceptively state - Okay, so you can EXACTLY remember a
complex auditory input for 10 minutes or more? -As you are well and truly aware, unless you don't even read what I
write, I am the one asserting that 200 milliseconds is the far limit
for comparisons of small acoustic differences. I have no idea where your "10 minutes" comes from, nor why you have deceptively implied that I claim any such thing.No, you can't recall that long. That's why any test that does not
allow each and every listener to switch AT WILL is extremely suspect.
You've indicted your own test. It's your test that has a delay between the similar parts of the same presentation, not mine. Couldn't you at least get your story straight?Finally, you ARE making claims here, and extraordinary ones. Claiming
that it's not your test, that it's proprietary, and the like, are
lame, weak excuses. You've described the test, so it's not proprietary OR a trade secret. You've made claims about its sensitivity, so you've obligated yourself to support those claims,
so:Submit a paper, and we'll see what comes of it.
You made the claims, now deliver the evidence.
You've made extraordinary claims, and used multiple instances of
extremely deceptive "logic" in your defenses. To wit: You imply,
completely without justification, that somehow 10 minutes of detailed
partial loudness memory are required for time proximate testing, when
that is just the opposite of the truth. You state baldly that I am
claiming that "tests are perfect" when in fact you are the only one
here implying that, and for your test. You won't say when or where these tests happen, so we can't confirm your claims that way. You won't even use your real name, and deny yourself even that bit of credibility.You may know something, but your presentation suggests only that
you're talking (if your own description is correct) about a seriously
insensitive test. You will put up no evidence, but you repeat the same empty claims over and over again.You appear to have nothing to offer. Write the paper, and get it peer-reviewed. Until you do, I'm afraid that I'll have to regard your claims as specious.
Frankly, you read like a straw-man instantiation of the subjectivist's claims about people who do DBT's.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
Maybe you should just go revisit some recent history:http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?141
And then maybe you'll come to realize that the same old same old ain't gonna cut it. That's all I've been trying to do JJ, is get you to realize this, but you are so damned entrenched you can't see it.
Put up or ...
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: