Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

More mindreading, it appears

Posted by John Atkinson on December 27, 2007 at 13:51:11:
>>>>>John Atkinson in Stereophile: "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 [and definitely audible on test signals]
>>>>>to a 99% confidence limit! (Indeed, it is one of the few things that
>>>>>can be reliably detected with double-blind testing.)"
>>>>
>>>>John Atkinson above: "This statement of mine is absolutely correct."
>>>
>>>So: Two references please to show that audibility of polarity
>>>reversal can be reliably detected with DBTs? Even one?? Otherwise
>>>the conclusion will be evident even to the casual readers here
>>>that you are lying, since this has been pointed out to you already
>>>many times before, and so it is not like you are unaware of the
>>>facts by now and are simply making one more "innocuous error" as
>>>your apologists would have it.
>>
>>Sigh. I really think that your anger arises from your apparent
>>inability either to quote people correctly and from your
>>willingness to make an assumption about what was _really_ meant
>>by the words on the page, tlyyra, rather than their literal
>>meaning. Why you are so ready to dismiss the first-order meaning
>>of what someone has written, I have no idea.
>>
>>For example, please note that my saying earlier in the thread
>>that "This statement of mine is absolutely correct" was clearly
>>referring to my parenthetical sentence on my 1988 essay that
>>"Indeed, it is one of the few things that can be reliably
>>detected with double-blind testing," _not_ the entire quoted
>>passage as you misleadingly present above. As I was introducing
>>the subject of absolute polarity, the antecedent for the word
>>"it" was just plain "absolute polarity." And yes, absolute
>>polarity _is_ conclusively audible in DBTs. You yourself,
>>tlyrra, have given references to such tests where the listeners
>>scored 24 correct identifications out of 24 trials, and in a
>>report I published in HFN in the mid-1980s, I write about a test
>>I took in Boston in 1984 where, using an ABX comparator, I
>>scored 19 correct identifications out of 20.
>>
>>Now, it is fair to clarify that such success was with
>>asymmetrical test tones. But if you read my parenthetical
>>sentence carefully, you will note that I did not qualify it
>>in any way, by saying "on test tones only" or "not on music."
>>This is because I was using this literally correct statement
>>to poke fun at the whole concept of double-blind testing. I
>>had thought the humor self-evident; obviously I was wrong to
>>have thought that, given that I have had to explain the joke
>>to you. :-(
>
>So you are unable to provide any references to support your claim
>that reversal of absolute polarity will be audible on music, and
>that this audibility "indeed can be reliably detected with DBTs"?

I have inserted the full text of mine to which you were responding,
tlyyra, so others can clearly see how you twist my words in order
to score debating points. I don't see the point of continuing a
discussion with someone like yourself who misquotes, misinterprets,
and misrepresents what others write, then claims he knows what others
_really_ meant to have written, even though they didn't actually write
the words he "quotes."

>I will abstain from saying that you are lying again since pointing
>that out that seems to be punishable by banishment from this forum.

Thank you, tlyrra. That is very gracious of you. In return, I will
refrain from asking whether English is your first language, given
how difficult you find it to comprehend what others write.

>In one of the sources you yourself cite, the following words
>by Lipshitz appear on the very first page:"On normal music or
>speech signals phase distortion appears not to be generally audible."
>(Lipshitz & Vanderkooy, "On the Audibility of Midrange Phase
>Distortion in Audio Systems," JAES Vol.30 No.9, September 1982.)

"Not generally audible" does not mean the same as inaudible under all
circumstances, so I fail to see this as the "gotcha" you believe it
to be, tlyrra.

>Your take on the "first-order meaning" of what Lipshitz just stated,
>as presented in your Stereophile column: "Work by Stanley Lipshitz
>in the late '70s (footnote 9 [above article])...

No, the complete footnote 9 in my 1988 essay referred to _two_
articles, vide: 'A little understood factor in A/B testing,'
The BAS Speaker, March 1979, followed by 'On the Audibility of
Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems' (with John Vanderkooy
and Mark Pocock), JAES, Vol.30 No.9, September 1982."

>...confirmed that a reversal of absolute signal polarity will be
>subtly audible on music..."
>(http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/988awsi/index1.html)
>Talk about "inability to quote people correctly"... :-(

Forgive me, but I fail to see how how does your quoting from
the 1982 AES paper proves that my 1988 paraphrase was incorrect.
"Not generally audible" allows for audibility under some
circumstances; Stanley had earlier used the phrase "subtly audible"
on music. None of this equates to "inaudible under all circumstances,"
as you appear to believe.
>>"Falsehoods? I correctly reported back in 1988 what Stanley
>>Lipshitz had written, that with a mixture of music and test tones,
>>absolute polarity was detectable under blind conditions with a
>>confidence limit of 99%.":
>
>No.

No? That is what Stanley wrote. I know that in your opinion he was
wrong to state the combined results, but your opinions are not my
concern.

>You state "audible on music."

When did I write that it was "audible on music" without qualification?
Again, tlyrra, your willingness to misrepresent what others write makes
discussion fruitless.

>>please note that, despite your mindreading claims earlier in this
>>thread, I don't believe absolute polarity to be very important.
>
>No? Another interesting twist in the plot then?

When have I said the opposite, that absolute polarity _is_ very
important? More mind-reading on your part, tlyyra?

>In that same Stereophile column you go as far as giving people the
>mailing address where to send in their checks to get a copy of Clark
>Johnsen's self-published pamphlet promoting the subject...

Yes. It's an excellent read, passionately written. I still recommend it.

>>While I do preserve it in my own recordings, almost all commercial
>>recordings are compromised in this respect, as I pointed out in that
>>1988 essay. But if there is a recording that I feel might benefit, I
>>flip the preamp polarity with my remote control. Most often it makes no
>>difference; very occasionally it does. It's "no biggie," to use your
>>own phrase, and certainly not worth the thousands of words you have
>>now posted on this subject.
>
>The rest of your post doesn't deserve a word in reply.

Sorry. I thought you would interested in my opinion. Oh well,
have a nice day, tlyrra.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edited to correct a typo