Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Re: Did I say that you said that or did I ask you a question?

>You have posed the question in a very ambiguous way.

No it was a very direct question that could easily be answered with a yes or a no. so why not answer it? Do you or do you not take Stan Ricker's claims about sound at face value? You took this one at face value without varification of DBTs. So do you do the same with his other assertions?

>It all depends what you mean by face value.

I mean what I said. Do you not understand what is meant by face value?


> Here again is the quotation from Stan Ricker from the record jacket:

"Well, let's put it this way. The signal from the digital sounds exactly the same as what we heard coming from those transformerless Schoepps [sic] microphones. What more can you say?"

----from the record jacket of Frederic Fennell, The Cleveland Symphonic Winds, Holst: Suite No. 1 in E-flat; Suite No. 2 in F/Handel: Music for the Royal Fireworks/Bach: Fantasia in G. Telarc Digital 5038

I take it that he and some others did not notice any difference between the mic feed and the output of the Soundstream recorder. He said so and I have no reason to doubt it. If they had done DBTs, they *might* have gotten positive results as a DBT could have been more sensitive.

That makes no sense. You say you have no reason to doubt him then you go on a nd offer a reason to doubt him. Which is it? Is there no reason to doubt him or is the lack of DBTs to varify his assertion a reason to doubt him? Cant be both.


>However, Mr. Ricker asserted there was no audible difference between the mic feed and the output of the recorder, thus he seemingly accepted the null hypothesis, in effect.


No. His claim was a positive assertion. It has nothing to do with "the null hypothesis."


> The null hypothesis may or may not be true, but Mr. Ricker hadn't proved it and it cannot be proven with statistics, either.


Actually it can to a given point of certanty. And the accepted level of certanty by science is 95%. Good enough for science, good enough for me.


>But really, we do not know what Mr. Ricker would have said had someone asked about issues of proof. Perhaps he did not mean to be taken as technically as all that.

If you take the trouble to follow the discussion further down the thread, you will find that I also said that DBTs would have been better.

So why accept his claims? Why not declare them meaningless in the absence of DBTs?



This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Sonic Craft  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]