|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: Excuse me posted by John Atkinson on October 21, 2007 at 15:52:16:
>>Would the linked statements you have made in your Sphile "As We See It"
>>column regarding work by Lipshitz qualify as errors of fact?>Of course. I will indeed correct the level of significance if necessary.
Thanks for the reassurance. If this is so I will then look forward to seeing Stereophile publish a correction to the effect that:
1. "Work by Stanley Lipshitz in the late '70s, using carefully organized double-blind testing, did not confirm that a reversal of absolute signal polarity will be subtly audible on music to a 99% confidence limit, as I claimed earlier. Instead, their result was 60 / 113 = 53% correct responses, which then confirms nothing at all if not inaudibility." [Some error by the way.]
2. "Indeed, it (audibility of absolute signal polarity reversal on music) is not one of the few things that can be reliably detected with double-blind testing, as I claimed earlier; in fact there seem to be no known DBTs detecting this at all."
Of course the choice of wording remains entirely yours.
By the way, everyone who reads knows it's been fairly easy to detect that same using artificial test signals. But of course, very few even of the audiophile equipment lovers listen to test tones at home.
Regarding that business competitor of yours, I will simply note that you seem to have no trouble at all making comments (even harmful ones) on third parties, then, at least on these pages, even when you follow up on these "comments" with odd retractions à la "I know it looks as if I am guilty of doing something I have been complaining about others doing, but I am afraid I cannot say more. I probably shouldn't have said this much, as I acquired this information in confidence during a legal matter. Forget I said it." You can understand that to the reader this will look much more like rumourmongering than anything else.
But I do not mean to revisit those exchanges you were actively involved in through 2004 and 2005 last I looked.
Re "well-meaning but naive people such as [myself]", I'm left wondering what the point of your patronizing remark is. Am I supposed to stop reading around and start blindly believing in what's printed/posted on the Stereophile pages instead, in order to somehow be less naive (and less well-meaning)?
TL
Edits: 10/22/07 10/22/07 10/22/07 10/22/07 10/22/07
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Excuse me - tlyyra 04:21:18 10/22/07 (2)
- RE: Excuse me - John Atkinson 07:11:25 10/22/07 (1)
- RE: Excuse me - tlyyra 08:48:51 10/22/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
