|'); } // End -->|
In Reply to: Re: Well, I never suggested any sound card... posted by john curl on March 4, 2007 at 11:46:17:
> Andy, you just don't know what you are talking about, BUT you
> certainly have strong opinions about what we can or cannot hear.
I suggest you reread the post you have replied to when it comes to claims about what you hear.
> The problem is that ABX testing is a very poor way to detect small
> differences, except for level and frequency response.
What is the basis for this statement? Does it involve things that can be measured and independently checked?
> Some here, like Jon Risch and Clark Johnson, are virtual experts in
> ABX testing, yet they don't necessarily use it to prove audio
Experts? Clark openly admits science does not apply to audio so how can he be an expert. I do not know much about Jon other than a few wacky statements about cables which would seem to be rather a hindrance to a claim to be an expert in any area related to scientific thought.
> In the end, it is easiest just to trust your ears.
Only if you are completely ignorant of how sound perception works and do not wish your results to be accepted by mainstream audio or science.
> Of course, you can make a mistake on occasion, but so what?
Without knowing what depends on the consequences the question is not answerable.
> It is better than never hearing any differences in an ABX test, when
> they are apparent in open listening, and reappear when you listen a
> second time, or compare products.
What is wrong with this? It would appear perfectly normal to me.
> Why do you think that people rarely do ABX testing anymore,
In the audiophile area? I would assume most are aware that the outcome is not going to be what they want and so quite sensibly avoid it. In other audio areas like computer audio I believe it is widely used.
> and test boxes are not as available as in the past?
Because there is no market for them. I was surprised there was ever a market in the first place.
More wackiness: "I do not know much about Jon other than a few wacky statements about cables." Any C & V there?
"Experts? Clark openly admits science does not apply to audio so how can he be an expert. I do not know much about Jon other than a few wacky statements about cables which would seem to be rather a hindrance to a claim to be an expert in any area related to scientific thought."
It is easy to be uninformed, but that is still no excuse for not even bothering to look. I seem to recall one of the more famous objectivists that used to post here that insisted that other people look things up for themselves. I am not claiming to be an expert on DBT's, but I have studied things a bit, done some controlled listening tests (which are the basis for my DIY audio cable designs), and provided DIY information over a wide range of topics that is pretty much well accepted and taken to be valuble and worthwhile as DIY projects.
Well, I'll make it easy by providing the URL's and info here.
My AES paper is preprint #3178, "A User Friendly Methodology for Subjective Listening Tests", presented at the 91st AES convention, October, 1991. I can send a free copy to anyone who requests it via e-mail, or if you are stubbornly independant, you can purchase a copy at the AES website it is available for $5, and can be ordered from:
Posts about ABX/DBT:
A discussion of selected ABX/DBT issues:
I have also given a paper on a new test signal I developed, a copy of this can be had for the asking, the text is at:
"A NEW CLASS OF IN-BAND MULTITONE TEST SIGNALS"
by Jon M. Risch, presented at the 105th Convention of the Audio Engineering Society, 1998 September 26-29th, San Francisco, California as preprint #4803
Some of the other DIY subjects that are not audio cable related are:
DIY Acoustics projects and advice/info
(and in point of fact, I will say that I _am_ an expert on acoustics, I even have a patent for a new and basic acoustic principle.
Loudspeaker with Differential Flow Vent Means, #6,549,637
DIY Isolation Transformers and Balanced Power
DIY AC Line Filters
Digital Audio Component Isolation Filter
Steve Eddy schematic (top picture)
my additional "tweak" for the Digital Iso Filter:
A New and Unique Speaker Crossover Topology:
and so on (see bottom of pages for next page)
Other patents I hold:
Record Handling Device, #4,452,480
Augmentation Amplifier #5,586,194
Method and apparatus for creating a virtual third channel in a two-channel amplifier APP #20060013406
Other work I have been involved in:
Fundamental research into vinyl record playback:
Proofs of an Absolute Polarity
Absolute polarity is an interesting phenomenon (wherein) those who don't hear the effect mostly doubt the opinion of those who do. (John Roberts, AES) A newly-devised test (herein called triple-blind) once-and-for-all assesses polarity audibility variously among audio engineers, hobbyists and musicians. Results decisively affirm the sensation; many trial subjects moreover testify that Absolute Polarity's palpable reality constitutes an essential addition to the audio engineering armament.
Preprint Number: 3169
Convention: 91 (September 1991)
> It is easy to be uninformed, but that is still no excuse for not even
> bothering to look.
Thanks for the CV but I think you may have lost the plot somewhat. Why should I look you up? In addressing John's statement I have not misrepresented the basis of my statement and your strong promotion of cables makes clear your relationship with the scientific method.
Not that I have followed any of your links to find out one way or the other but there is nothing in your CV that would prevent you from being an unscientific loony.
The AES is a club for the audio industry and getting papers accepted at their conferences means that the organisers considered the paper to be of interest to their members (or they were struggling to fill up the programme) it does not confer any scientific merit on the contents. To do that you need to get it accepted, reviewed and published by a reputable scientific journal. The reviewers will require adherence to the scientific method which can be a big stumbling block for enthusiastic audiophiles. Even then, subsequent work may show it to be wrong but it will generally be accepted as "scientific work".
Patents also confer no scientific merit whatsoever on what is patented. In fact it is easier to patent nonsense than it is to patent something sensible because there is more competition in the latter category. You will notice that it is quite common for the wacky audiophile products like Klaus's resonating cups to claim patents or patent applications to help support the marketing.
That pretty much pegs your mind set and attitude. Now I know not to waste anytime on your replies.
Andy, you are: "Cruisin' for a bursin' " ('Grease') with such slander. After being a member of the AES for more than 40 years, I might have some criticisms, but you have just slandered (or is is libeled?) an organization that was founded to help audio engineers make better audio designs. In fact, it has deviated from that path in recent decades, because it was taken over by the Ph.D. academics, and peer review has been used with a vengeance as a tool, to reduce new ideas and to remove progressive ideas from the pages of the 'JAES'.
Is it any better in any other scientific society? I really doubt it. Politics and prejudice always seems to be part of the picture, and I don't know of any scientific society with really clean hands, or a perfect record in weeding out 'faked research', 'attempts to steal vital information' or 'active suppression of new ideas'. This appears to go with the territory of trying to make a new and better understanding of physical reality; be it hard science, or a better audio product.
When Lord Kelvin ( you know, the guy who we named the degree scale after) said "X-rays are a hoax!" in 1900, he was former President of the British Royal Society. Allowing such sloppy thinking, without proof, must imply that the British Royal Society is not very scientific either.
There is no market for ABX boxes, because people found them opaque to listening differences. This means either that the differences didn't exist (your take on this) or that the test hides the differences (my take from experience). Your opinion on this should get you out of the discussion of audio in general, why do you bother? Or is it because you like to heckle people who do hear differences in audio products?
Where do you get off telling us what 'science' is? Are you some sort of 'expert' on the subject?
> This means either that the differences didn't exist (your take on
> this) or that the test hides the differences (my take from
Implicit in your response is an assumption that what is heard is only a property of the sound that impinges on you ears. A scientist or even someone with a bit of common sense does not make this assumption.
You are welcome to put forward the view that the ABX box modifies the signal in some unmeasureable way. This is only a view rather than a scientific hypothesis because it is untestable if one cannot measure it. I am afraid to those with some understanding of the basis of science your view will not get taken seriously because the subject clearly lies in the scientific domain.
> Your opinion on this should get you out of the discussion of audio in
> general, why do you bother?
I am not following you. I have a technical interest in sound and audio, particularly the former, but this is an audiophile site and so it has only marginal relevance. My interest here is in audiophiles.
> Or is it because you like to heckle people who do hear differences
> in audio products?
Heckle? I ask questions about posts and, unlike most here, answer the ones I am asked in turn.
Elsewhere in this thread I have been asking you whether you can measure the differences you hear and have explained why this is a relevant question. You have not answered.
> Where do you get off telling us what 'science' is?
What is and what is not science is relevant when thinking about how much weight to give various statements. Sound and audio lie in the scientific domain unlike, say, religion and much of music and so statements about the performance of audio based on "unscientific" information is relevant.
> Are you some sort of 'expert' on the subject?
> You are welcome to put forward the view that the ABX box modifies the signal in some unmeasureable way.>
More likely this type of forced-choice test affects the receptive/cognitive abilities of the ear/brain interface to identify small audible differences other than gross loudness or frequency response.
This type of test has never been scientifically validated for this purpose.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: