|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Since it seems you still require spoon feeding... posted by John Atkinson on October 3, 2007 at 09:44:23:
>>In what way?I was simply interested in your notion of this facet of professional standards, but, reading your other posts here, it seems your position is basically centered on the diligence involved in "reporting it (as true) on the basis of one's (immediate and unreflected) experience of it."
Usually, we of course refer by this term ("honesty in reporting") to qualities like fairness and accuracy. I would take this to cover not only what's there on the printed pages of the final product on the shelf, but also how one comports oneself in one's actions in public as a high-profile media personage (as an opinion leader and at least informal authority, in other words); at least when signing off statements in one's professional capacity.
As you yourself note, activities that imply publicizing hearsay or insubstantiated claims defamatory of competitors (even when such statements are qualified, regretfully backtracked on, or recanted on procedural grounds after a time interval has elapsed), at least if repeated, would be problematic in this view. A case in point from our own AA community would be some of the postings you've made concerning The Audio Critic and/or its editor.
As for accuracy, an example of the importance of this issue could be for instance the test scores you have repeatedly brought up in support of some false (based on all evidence) claims concerning the audibility of polarity differences. I mean for example the statement you have made in the Sphile "As We See It" column that:
"Work by Stanley Lipshitz in the late '70s (footnote 9), using carefully organized double-blind testing, confirmed that a reversal of absolute signal polarity will be subtly audible on music to a 99% confidence limit! (Indeed, it is one of the few things that can be reliably detected with double-blind testing.)" (Your emphasis.)
It is not clear (at least not to those without access to the BAS Speaker issue you cite) how you have arrived at these figures, and so quite on the contrary it seems like this claim is totally false, given that the only test results that I've been able to attribute to Lipshitz involving music gave a 60/113=53% result: see link. Am I incorrect in connecting your claim to this particular study or are you incorrect in making your claim?
And how could you in any case make that second claim at the end of this passage? It does not seem like there are any DBTs that would have detected that even once (to say nothing of "reliably").
(Have you by the way conducted your own expriments? The poster clarkjohnsen claims that, regarding that audibility-of-polarity issue, "My own tests established a 99% confidence on musical examples alone, and John Atkinson's got IIRC 95%; both were published.")
That's as far as trying to concretize my thoughts in response to your question. To return to the original point, I think a person appropriating the role of a professional expert or a critic (and not merely an entertainer) has a responsibility that goes beyond merely articulating his or her feelings or subjective experience with veracity: such a person needs to be more reflective and also know better than to just hop on and go blindly with the expectation bias, for example, or to simply build on a popular myth.
TL
Edits: 10/05/07 10/05/07 10/05/07 10/05/07 10/05/07 10/05/07 10/05/07
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: "Honesty in reporting" - tlyyra 06:32:31 10/05/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
