|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: RE: Yeah, I've read it. posted by Axon on September 13, 2007 at 12:36:04
Look at two of their statements:
"The CD has adequate bandwidth and dynamic range for any home reproduction task." Oh really? I’ll bet no attention whatsoever was devoted to low-level resolution and dynamics; whenever one hears talk about “dynamic range” it’s only about how loud something can go, never how well it can reveal the music at low, bit-strangulated levels. (Talking PCM here.)
Even worse:
"The burden of proof has now shifted." And now I’m mad as hell! Cleverly they have slipped this article into a forlorn albeit vaguely respected journal, from which a campaign can be mounted to shoot down any opposition. “See? Read the article the JAES if you don’t believe me.”
You say you might "email Meyer and ask him for full documentation on the tests". Good! Also ask him what the equipment was, esp. the speakers -- and if you would, please, pass the response along to me.
clark
Follow Ups:
"I’ll bet no attention whatsoever was devoted to low-level resolution and dynamics; whenever one hears talk about “dynamic range” it’s only about how loud something can go, never how well it can reveal the music at low, bit-strangulated levels."
We looked for music with low-level detail and gave our subjects lots of chances to hear it and use it for the tests. That was one of the things the extra bits was supposed to do better, so of course we tried to test for it.
""The burden of proof has now shifted." And now I’m mad as hell!"
Whoa, easy there. This statement was about whatever should or should not be written at this point in a particular refereed journal. Unless you're planning to write for it, which something tells me you aren't, it doesn't apply to you. -- E. Brad
clarkjohnsen,What equipment are you using, what speakers? You don't seem to list your system, neither do you disclose it when throwing out quality judgments about hardware and software all so knowingly and sharing your own personal "test results" concerning phenomena, gear, and gadgets.
Just occurred to me since you always speak of component quality and its consequences for the credibility of evaluations and evaluators.
You are not hiding that on purpose, are you? I thought you are a reviewer, given the profile you've given to yourself.
I have a feeling you'll prefer to stay mum on this one.
TL
I could speculate what kind of contest you might be involved in, but I'll await your response.
z
...see link.
We'll get back those misrepresentations on another day. Now it's the weekend.
TL
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but if you have a point to make on a specific post, you are obviously free to articulate your comment just like everyone else if there is reason for that.TL
WGAF?
The subject is the the BAS's report, isn't in? On that topic, if you wouldn't mind terribly, what we're hearing reported bcak by readers of the full report is beyond dismal. Let's re-examine shall we?
"... the test description and analysis is surprisingly thin. No equipment readout, no results breakdown by listener or location or whatnot, no detailed description of listening venues, no musical selections. No null hypothesis, no description of type I/II error."
Holy Crapola, seems the requirements for doing "scientific" research are getting pretty lax these day.
Care to comment or would you prefer to stay num on this one?
We hope our perceptions ain't slippin
But we swear to God we seen Lou Reed
Cow tippin
Dahlin',
Maybe you are the visionary amongst us, but I don't see how there can possibly be a whole discussion thread going on to collectively criticize an article that apparently one (1) person has read. Look at the misinformation evident already.
You tell me, but that doesn't seem like living up to the exacting standards those same critics' expect of scientific rigor, does it. Many of these critics aren't even believers in science or show much of a scientific worldview in the first place, so why do they care. As such it would be quite comical, even, were it not for the fact that the attitude is so widespread.
My point above, too.
TL
In fact it would have been better than the foolishness you offered.
Perhaps your position is something like... Shoddy science is better than no science or something similar. I really don't know but for those that have any proper conception of science their motto would surely be... Shoddy science is worst than no science at all.
Anyway, you go back to sparring with CJ if that's what turns you on but please refrain from comments on science if you please.
Thanks in advance
ps. Sweetie allow me to give you a little hint, don't hit Clark with "I thought you are a reviewer" because he's certain to counter telling you that he *isn't* a reviewer and very likely point you to his Reasons I'm Not A Reviewer (or whatever it's actually called) article. Ever hear the expression "Know thine adversary"?
ta-ta
We hope our perceptions ain't slippin
But we swear to God we seen Lou Reed
Cow tippin
In fact I would have preferred to speak of things like "reason" and "rationality" instead, but I wasn't sure if the terms would be familiar enough. Point proven.But you can also think of these issues in terms of consistency or intellectual honesty, if you know what I'm talking about.
Does that help?
Are you saying that clarkjohnsen "*isn't* a reviewer" in the same way he "prefers not to" publish anything?
So many pieces of advise in one message - that's so sweet of you! But don't you fear it might seem a bit sissy to be so nice to others?
TL
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: