 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.215.206.130
In Reply to: RE: How could you cite it since you don't even seem to know what it was? posted by Pat D on July 23, 2010 at 06:18:51
1. This citation is in the OP
"If we take the famous amplifier shootout reported in Stereo Review back in 1985 we find all kinds of problems in protocols, methodologies and statistical analysis. they were in short really bad tests. what I have yet to find with this particular highest of profile ABX DBTs is any of the same in depth analysis and criticisms of the protocols and statistical analysis from objectivists that we see in the two threads cited above in which tests with positive results have been reported. in fact I have yet to find *any* examples of any of these objectivists ever making such in depth analysis of protocols and statistical analysis against *any* ABX DBTs in audio that resulted in a null."
This is what the word citation means as I used it in the previous post.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cite
"to bring forward or call to another's attention especially as an example, proof, or precedent"
have fun finding a new tangent of obfusecation on this one Pat. ::snicker:;
Follow Ups:
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Is this what it has come to Pat? is this some sort of panic attack?
Where did it appear?
You appear to know practically nothing about it, and certainly do not have first hand knowledge of it.
Yes, I am playing with you. I'm sorry you don't seem to like it. If you had been nicer, I might have taken pity on you. But then, maybe you'll learn something.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
The wrong date and the lack of title and authors made it more difficult for me to find, but I located it last night.
Bruce Coppola would count as a (minor) objectivist who relies on that article and the conclusions drawn from it.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
since upon return I can always count on finding you up to your usual pedantic posturing and boorish behavior.
Thanks for the good chuckle at your expense.
Hint: there is no article such as he identified it.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
by being the guy who rests his arguments on technicalities.
Don't pretend you don't know what he's talking about regarding the Stereophile amp tests...
Thank you for your kind remark. You may well be correct. For example:RY
"Don't pretend you don't know what he's talking about regarding the Stereophile amp tests..."Who is talking about Stereophile blind amp tests? Not me or AS.
Well, maybe you just didn't follow the . . . uhhh . . . discussion. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: perhaps you really meant to type Stereo Review.
See the importance of clearly identifying something, including an article, that one wants to talk about? It's pretty basic. I might help AS out if he asked nicely.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Edits: 07/24/10
you are up to 22 now and have hit some pretty amazing highs in obfuscation including the deliberate attempt to derail things over a misremembered date. BRAVO!!! you exceded my expectations. I'm done toying with you now that you passed my prediction. The rest is just icing.
You know, the ones mentioned in the OP and which you later said exceeded known audible thresholds shown on the ABX site? The information I asked you for?
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/5/58746.html
Since you did not know who wrote the article, nor the title, and got the date wrong, that made it somewhat more difficult for me to find it. Once I did find it, it was clear that you did not have the article in front of you since you had the date wrong, and also did not have the contents right. Since you did not know who wrote the article or what the title was, it is no wonder you have never seen it criticized, so your attempted meta-analysis in your OP was so much hooey.
If you want a link the 1987 article in SR by Clark and Masters, I have found one and it is below. Read away to your heart's content. As I surmised, the program material was not as good for the purpose as it might have been--even Stereophile later discovered thick stuff like choral music made for a more sensitive test. I am surprised they did not use pink noise, too.
Oh, BTW, this means I have actually found an objectivist who relied too much on a superseded test, but so far, you have not, though you maintained you knew this. But really, you and JA should get over an old test done 23 years ago.
I cited a later article in SR by E. Brad Meyer in which he showed an audible differences between a tube amp and a SS amp driving two different speakers, though with one of the speakers, the difference was only shown to be audible on pink noise. You and JA really should get over that old superseded test.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
that there have not been any sonic improvements with amplification stages in the past twenty-five years. Do you ever get out and sample what is available?
rw
Totally unrelated to the discussion.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Nothing changes at all in a quarter of a century with respect to electronics.
rw
I am not sure where you get that--certainly not from me. There are a number of amps nowadays with very low S/N rations, very low distortion, and also a number that can drive very low impedance loads. I dare say there are many more available now than there were 25 years ago. Under what conditions these make an audible difference is another question.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Amplification stages have come a long way in the past twenty five years since Stereo Review tested the question of audibility. An SP-11 was a good preamp, but no match for a REF5. The same can be said for amplifiers.
Under what conditions these make an audible difference is another question.
That would be playing music. Without any of the built in crutches required by Clark's ABX testing.
rw
A back a few posts, you break in with some really off the wall statement about something you attribute to me with no justification.
"I am truly very sorry if you believe that there have not been any sonic improvements with amplification stages in the past twenty-five years."
Where on earth did you get that?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Did you actually read the test to which you linked? Do you really think there have been no sonic improvements at the high end over the past quarter century? If so, then I'm really sorry to hear that your exposure is limited. If not, then you will understand how stupid referring to such a dated test is.
rw
I caught Analog Scott out on two things.
One is an blind amplifier test published in Stereo Review which he kept saying was published in 1985. I quickly found out that it was published in 1987, which meant that he was discussing an article which he did not have in front of him. We both managed to find the text on line and he then admitted the point. I did not defend the results in any way, shape or form.
You are correct that the article in question has been superseded, but not for the reasons you suggest. In Stereo Review for June 1991, there is an article by E. Brad Meyer, "The Amp/Speaker Interface: Are your loudspeakers turning your amplifier into a tone control?" In this article, an unspecified solid state amp and an unspecified tube amp were tested driving two unspecified speakers, one with a difficult load an the other with an easier one. Some FR measurements were shown. The blind tests revealed that the differences between both amps was audible on pink noise with both speakers. With two music selections, however, the differences were shown to be audible with the amps driving the difficult speaker load, but with the easier load, they failed to prove the difference between the two speakers was audible. Obviously, the program material used can affect the outcome of such tests, and it is possible that with other music, maybe the differences between the two amps would show positive results when the amps drove the easier load. In any case, the pink noise test was sufficient to show there were audible differences between those two amps when driving those two speakers.
Since I have seen the results of E. Brad Meyer's test and other tests, I do not ordinarily question whether a tube amp sounds different from a solid state amp since it is reasonably probable they do. I think E. Brad Meyer deserves credit for publishing why many tube amplifiers do not sound the same as many SS amplifiers. It is simply their high output impedances. Audio magazine began showing the responses of tested amplifiers into a dummy or simulated speaker load, and Stereophile started to do so a few years later.
To get to the second thing. In his OP, AS mentioned a couple of threads on other sites which he thought illustrated his view that at least some of those he calls "objectivists" make a biased selection of published test results and don't criticize the ones that achieve null results. He may or may not have a minor point, but the threads for which he provided URLs contained quite rational criticisms of a positive DBT and a systematic survey of the literature was not needed. When I pointed this out, AS decided the threads he used to try to illustrate his thesis were irrelevant!
I remarked in a post that if the differences in the frequency responses of two products differed by more than the limits shown in the ABX Matching Criteria on the ABX site were exceeded, a blind test would not be needed to convince me the differences were audible under some conditions because a threshold has been previously established. However, AS jumped in and asserted that he had already shown two examples of this in his OP, so I simply asked him what those differences were. He has not replied. So I caught him out again.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
> > One is an blind amplifier test published in Stereo Review which he kept saying was published in 1985. I quickly found out that it was published in 1987, which meant that he was discussing an article which he did not have in front of him.> >
When did I ever say I had it in front of me?
> > We both managed to find the text on line and he then admitted the point.> >
"admitted the point?" What point? There is no point there Pat. The article is real, It clearly describes highly flawed methodologies and clearly published very unlikely results. And we have no evidence of any objectivists scrutinizing this very high profile test and dismissing it.
> > I did not defend the results in any way, shape or form.> >
Who said you did? I suggest you reread my OP and see if you can figure out the problem here as it relates to meta-analysis commonly applied by so many objectivists when it comes to DBTs. With the 1985 Stereo Review article we have one of the highest profile examples of ABX DBTs in the history of the great debate. We also have a null which is a a dubious result given the presence of a 50 watt OTL.
The problem I am pointing to in the meta-analysis of so many objectivists is that I can find a multitude of examples of objectivists scrutinizing and then dismissing DBTs that wrought a positive result. One can not find the same criticism of said tests that wrought a null from objectivists. This pattern clearly fits the description i provided of poor meta-analysis. I simply cited the Stereo review article because it was so high profile that it should have had a slew of objectivists scrutinizing it and dismissing it had the objectivists been doing propper meta-analysis.
Where is the scrutiny of this test by the same objectivists who are scrutinizing DBTs that wrought positive results? Cherry picking......
OK now what was the other thing you "caught me out on?"
I'll just sit back and watch you obfuscate again.
Well, when you want to discuss an article, it behooves you to know who wrote it, what the title is, and what it said. You showed no sign of knowing anything of the sort. As for the flawed methodology and unlikely result, you haven't shown either one, though I happen to agree it could have been more sensitive. But since you did not know the particulars of the article, you could not possibly show that the 1987 SR amp test is high profile, and that it has not been criticized.
I cited a 1991 article in Stereo Review by E. Brad Meyer which showed audible differences existed between a SS amp and a tube amp, how audible depending on the speaker loads. Moreover, he showed why they sounded different.
The second thing? It is as I stated: You tried to illustrate that some objectivists, unnamed and unquantified, questioned the results of a positive DBT for no good reasons. However, your illustration fell flat because they did in fact come up with rational reasons why the test results should be questioned--in other words, it seems likely that the positive results simply reflected the test set up.
"To get to the second thing. In his OP, AS mentioned a couple of threads on other sites which he thought illustrated his view that at least some of those he calls "objectivists" make a biased selection of published test results and don't criticize the ones that achieve null results. He may or may not have a minor point, but the threads for which he provided URLs contained quite rational criticisms of a positive DBT and a systematic survey of the literature was not needed. When I pointed this out, AS decided the threads he used to try to illustrate his thesis were irrelevant!"
This reduces your allegation about cherry picking to mere assertion without evidence.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
"Well, when you want to discuss an article, it behooves you to know who wrote it, what the title is, and what it said."
Really one has to know the title? No Pat, all one needs to know in this case were the relevant facts. I'll list them for you.
1. It was ABX DBTs
2. The results as reported were a null
3. Given the presence of a 50 watt OTL amp with the load presented by the speakers used this is a very unlikely result.
4. The methodologies were a mess.
5. One can not find any scrutiny of this test anywhere online by any objectivists despite being one of the highest profile tests of it's kind.
I knew those 5 points from memory and rereading the article confirms those points were accurately remembered. And that is all I needed to make my point in the OP.
"You showed no sign of knowing anything of the sort."
Then you can't read the signs Pat.
" As for the flawed methodology and unlikely result, you haven't shown either one,"
Really? What aren't you getting about the problem with a 50 watt OTL not giving a positive result with the speakers used?
> > though I happen to agree it could have been more sensitive.> >
Clearly if it missed the obvious differences one would hear with a 50 watt Futterman and a cheap SS amp from the 80s.
" But since you did not know the particulars of the article, you could not possibly show that the 1987 SR amp test is high profile, and that it has not been criticized."
That is some pretty piss poor logic there Pat. again I would point you to the five key point above. they are all that matter in this case.
"I cited a 1991 article in Stereo Review by E. Brad Meyer which showed audible differences existed between a SS amp and a tube amp, how audible depending on the speaker loads. Moreover, he showed why they sounded different."
And this does what other than support my assertion that the results of the 1987 ABX DBTs wrought unlikely results?
> > The second thing? It is as I stated: You tried to illustrate that some objectivists, unnamed and unquantified, questioned the results of a positive DBT for no good reasons.> >
No I did not try to do that Pat. Again I suggest you read the article I cited on meta-analysis since this explains my actual point rather than the one you seem to be imagining here. I never commented on *the content* of these two threads that scrutinized the ABX DBTs that wrought positive results.
You maintain a number of things about the 1987 test but have not established any of them. You haven't shown why we would expect the Futterman amp to sound different--though from what I have seen somewhere, it should sound different under some common circumtstances.
Also, we have only your word that is a high profile article.
META-ANALYSIS?
Since I have shown that Stereo Review published an article in 1991 by E. Brad Meyer showing that a tube and a SS amplifier were audibly different with a speaker load. I should also point out that Stereophile did a very poorly set up mass blind test between a tube and a SS amplifier with barely positive results which readers showed were somewhat ambiguous, but Banks and Krajicek ran a smaller but much better set up blind test using the same two amplifiers and achieved a much less ambiguous positive result. Since the results reported in the 1987 SR article have been superseded, one wonders why you think it is so important. You give no reason whatever why subsequent testers would want to reexamine that old article except for historical purposes.
METHODOLOGY
You complain that:
"4. The methodologies were a mess."
But you do nothing to establish that. The results could have simply statistical fluke for all you have told us.
Since you maintain that "the methodologies were a mess," you should be able to tell us what they should have done better, but you aren't saying. Until you do, your complaints about the methodologies are simply your unsupported opinion.
-Why do you think the result of part of the test comparing the tube amp to the SS amps achieved a null result?
-What should the testers have done to make the test more sensitive?
I'm only trying to teach you something about how to support your positions.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
When you have a counter argument to any of my points let me know.
And that's what I have shown. If you want to make your points, it's up to you to argue for them.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
and that is what I have shown. And these personal attacks prove you have no argument that i have no argument.
Score one for the argument that "This Will Never Be Resolved". ;)
i just wonder if he got the jokes.
Is there some form of measurement for the jokes? Has it been determined that the jokes are "get-able"? Evidence required. ;)
That made me laugh at 5 in the morning. But it was under sighted conditions so I don't know if I really laughed or imagined it
I keep wondering if people in South Central L.A take the time to DBT gunfire or if they just take cover.
There is an end. One can invoke the Kleene Star operator.
For more on this subject read the following:
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
...wishing for 10 beers and then all non-biased thought went straight out the window. :)
Thanks - this was quite good. lol
Godel Escher Bach is one of my favorite books, but it requires a lot of determination to make it all the way through, especially if you follow all of the serious parts in detail and work out the puzzles.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
...which he kept saying was published in 1985. I quickly found out that it was published in 1987
You really got him there.
...a blind test would not be needed to convince me the differences were audible under some conditions because a threshold has been previously established.
Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot.
rw
and he STILL doesn't get it.
Pat has brought the joy back to Propheads for me.
I am glad that you enjoy the simple pleasures. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
since having to put the system into storage while my wife and I look for a home in DC, I've had to learn to enjoy the absurdities of the asylum just a little bit more...
you rely on typos to make a point??
You have fallen so far, in such a short time. I hope you don't even try to communicate with friends. Part of the social contract that underlies general social conventions is an ability to look past minor and/or irrelevant failings in order to participate.
Please Pat, I followed the conversation all along (yes, I can read, even when you can't see or know that I am following along. Cool thing about the 'net, eh?). What I have noticed (and I notice this a lot with you) is that you have managed to push the conversation so far away from its intended point(s) that it is just another episode of The Pat Show: Teflon Debater.
And I blame you for causing me to blow coffee out of my nose this morning.
The intended point? GMAB.
1. In the OP, AS asserted that some objectivists relied on articles without seeing if they could be criticized. He asserted some did but AS offered no evidence. He gave a couple of examples, which I showed did not establish his point, since the threads included quite rational criticisms of a DBT run at McGill U.
2. AS showed the URL of an article on meta-analysis, one that is a sort of a good beginning but which has some severe limitations as pointed out by Tony Lauck. AS tried to deny he had any other purpose, in effect denying no. 1 and most of his OP. But it is clear a main purpose was to attack (some) objectivists.
Of course, AS also kept talking about "undesired" results of DBTs, which is the fallacy of poisoning the well, rather than unexpected results. Meanwhile, he persisted in making unjustified and irrelevant personal attacks on me.
So, in fact, I systematically analyzed his OP. Moreover, I did, in fact, find an objectivist who did rely on the superseded article. AS did not, I did.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
especially about this one:
"Meanwhile, he persisted in making unjustified and irrelevant personal attacks on me."
It's you against the world Pat. Don't you ever forget it.
"It's you against the world Pat. Don't you ever forget it. "
You, AS, E-stat, and carcass93 are hardly "the world!" GMAB
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
It's a world of people discussing differences in sound of the preamps and amplifiers on Amp and Pre asylum. Take a note - differences, not whether differences exist.
It's a world of people discussing differences in sound of transports and DACs in Digital, cables in Cables, computer settings in PC Audio - and so on, and so forth. In general, it's a world of audiophiles, who strive for best sound possible, discussing audiophile matters, and chuckling at few lost anti-audiophiles preaching stagnant mediocrity.
In a forum that's supposed to be audiophile, no less.
It's also nice to be able to recognize them.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
> It's also nice to be able to recognize them. <
Definitely! But what's preferable to illusions is reality, particularly the reality that I'm told has to be illusion. It's a good way to confirm that we don't already know everything there is to know.
kind of pathetic.
Have you ever heard the expression (and its many variations) "its us against the world?" Because once again you missed the point of the barb.
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
:)
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
