|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Argumentum ad exhaustion is hardly convincing posted by Jitter_by_Coffee on December 04, 2002 at 06:25:59:
But you won't provide evidence.You have come up with "problems" in the "normal" way that people run things but you won't provide evidence for that, either.
What's more, you seem unable to understand how one can evaluate the performance of a subject relative to known thresholds.
Why don't you submit a paper to the next US AES convention?
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
Follow Ups:
Ya know, you're beginning to sound like some of the others around here with all the guessing you're doing.Starting with "my methods" - never, ever said that, made it clear numerous times. Start over.
You're putting forth the test, and without providing a single detail, dismissing everything everyone says to you. So you've taken on responsiblity personally for these ideas, and you can live with it.Now, you have yet to offer any evidence about subjects having trouble with familiar material. On the converse, there are reams of data showing than unfamiliarity with the entire setup, music, etc, desensitize test.
You claim that there is no problem with running multiple subjects. On the converse, there are reams of data showing:
1) That multiple subjects affect each others' scoring.
2) That an inability to do a clean, fast, listener-controlled switch desensitizes a test.
3) That primary auditory memory starts to fade inside of 200 milliseconds.How, then, can you run fixed-switched tests that do not allow time-proximate comparison (where "proximate" means 200 milliseconds) and have sensitivity.
You have made some very strong claims, and you won't provide any evidence, yet you whine incessantly when others point this out.
If you want to convince anyone that this test you talk about does anything beyond run a desensitized test that will not get to already-measured JND's you have to do better.
Lots better.
Like I said, submit a paper to the 115th AES on this.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
" and you can live with it."I'm not the one with the problem, so it's just fine by me. And furthermore, my employment is worth far more than a speaker cable test.
"You have made some very strong claims, and you won't provide any evidence, yet you whine incessantly when others point this out."
Oh bullshit. You likewise have made some strong claims and haven't backed up anything you propose either. You haven't even answered the one question of bias I asked.
"If you want to convince anyone that this test you talk about does anything beyond run a desensitized test that will not get to already-measured JND's you have to do better."
So far, you have no hard evidence either, the published cable listening tests have all been criticized in one way or another, inculuding not having enough statistical evidence. (Even if I don't agree with their arguments against the results) Yet you have just persisted on touting that we do the same thing. Some say that's the definition of insanity. Repeating the same thing and expecting different results.
Been nice jerking your chain jj. Throughout this, you've shown to be stuck in the same dogmatic rut that the "Annoyer of Bullies" likes to poke at.
Maybe now I know where those stereotypical "ABX'er" comments originated.I've stated the common understanding. The evidence is visible in the AES, ASA, various psychology journals and texts, psychometry journals, and the like. It's all over the place.
Your claim about statistical size in cable tests begs the actual hypothesis entirely. It only takes one repeat performer to push that performer's p1 and p2 so far down as to be sure they detected something.
I haven't CLAIMED that the tests represent the entire population, and neither have many other people, so making that criticism is a waste of time.
The evidence is clear: Untrained listeners don't hear as much.
The evidence is clear: Tests that are not time-proxmiate are not as sensitive.
The evidence is clear: Multiple subjects cross-influence and add noise to the test.
Those are well-demonstrated in the literature. You must show that the test you espouse can do as well, despite the long list of demonstrations otherwise, before you have any credibility.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
Still won't admit that no current test is perfect, will you?
As you and everyone else knows, you have materially and unquestionably misrepresented my position.Your statement constitues a full and explicit accusation of professional misconduct on my part.
I require a full and complete retraction of the false position you have laid at my door.
Your trolling is starting look quite familiar, and your willingness to create false positions speaks ill of you.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
Oh bullshit. Like you haven't done the same to me. Get over yourself.
Your claims go very strongly against many people's experience.In particular the length of auditory memory simply destroys any chance of having a good result without proximate switching that is listener controlled.
And, of course, the "mob aspect" will rule as well.
If you want credibility, put up a paper for review.
You're starting to look like a straw man working for the anti-DBT camp in my mind.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
"Your claims go very strongly against many people's experience."Sorry, it's fact. Probably been done other places too, but again, because it is proprietary you will find no publically available documentation.
"And, of course, the "mob aspect" will rule as well."
Mob? Whose mob? Yours for not wanting to explore the possibility that in order to satisfy all the DBT critics, you'll have to better than what you are proposing now? The fact that there may be labs which HAVE overcome the difficulties with the published data? The only fact here is that your mind is closed to the possibility that some of the published difficulties have been overcome and you have no interest in persuing it.
"In particular the length of auditory memory simply destroys any chance of having a good result without proximate switching that is listener controlled."
Okay, so you can EXACTLY remember a complex auditory input for 10 minutes or more?
"If you want credibility, put up a paper for review."
Are you really that dense? One, I have made it abundantly clear multiple time that this is NOT my doing. Two, it is PROPRIETARY, I have also made this abundantly clear multiple times. Does someone need to knock it into your head with a hammer and chisel?
"You're starting to look like a straw man working for the anti-DBT camp in my mind."
-Mob? Whose mob? Yours for not wanting to explore the possibility
that in order to satisfy all the DBT critics, you'll have to better than what you are proposing now? The fact that there may be labs which HAVE overcome the difficulties with the published data? The only fact here is that your mind is closed to the possibility that some of the published difficulties have been overcome and you have no interest in persuing it.-Persuing what? That's a lie. You haven't offered anything TO persue, only a bunch of unsubstantiated, extremely extraordinary claims. You have contradicted some of the most strongly demonstrated principles of auditory testing, but you won't even offer anecdotal evidence, let alone any extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claims.
First, it's you who claims that the test you report on, but won't
take responsibility for (even here) is perfect. I'm not making novel claims, you are. You claim an advance, but you won't provide any evidence to evaluate.Second, the mob aspect of multiple subjects is not a conjecture, it's
a known, done deal. If you're going to use multiple subjects you're
going to have to show some major evidence that you've come up with a way to completely avoid that.Then you deceptively state - Okay, so you can EXACTLY remember a
complex auditory input for 10 minutes or more? -As you are well and truly aware, unless you don't even read what I
write, I am the one asserting that 200 milliseconds is the far limit
for comparisons of small acoustic differences. I have no idea where your "10 minutes" comes from, nor why you have deceptively implied that I claim any such thing.No, you can't recall that long. That's why any test that does not
allow each and every listener to switch AT WILL is extremely suspect.
You've indicted your own test. It's your test that has a delay between the similar parts of the same presentation, not mine. Couldn't you at least get your story straight?Finally, you ARE making claims here, and extraordinary ones. Claiming
that it's not your test, that it's proprietary, and the like, are
lame, weak excuses. You've described the test, so it's not proprietary OR a trade secret. You've made claims about its sensitivity, so you've obligated yourself to support those claims,
so:Submit a paper, and we'll see what comes of it.
You made the claims, now deliver the evidence.
You've made extraordinary claims, and used multiple instances of
extremely deceptive "logic" in your defenses. To wit: You imply,
completely without justification, that somehow 10 minutes of detailed
partial loudness memory are required for time proximate testing, when
that is just the opposite of the truth. You state baldly that I am
claiming that "tests are perfect" when in fact you are the only one
here implying that, and for your test. You won't say when or where these tests happen, so we can't confirm your claims that way. You won't even use your real name, and deny yourself even that bit of credibility.You may know something, but your presentation suggests only that
you're talking (if your own description is correct) about a seriously
insensitive test. You will put up no evidence, but you repeat the same empty claims over and over again.You appear to have nothing to offer. Write the paper, and get it peer-reviewed. Until you do, I'm afraid that I'll have to regard your claims as specious.
Frankly, you read like a straw-man instantiation of the subjectivist's claims about people who do DBT's.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
Maybe you should just go revisit some recent history:http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?141
And then maybe you'll come to realize that the same old same old ain't gonna cut it. That's all I've been trying to do JJ, is get you to realize this, but you are so damned entrenched you can't see it.
Put up or ...
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: