 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.209.33.106
In Reply to: Some quotes from a 2005 review posted by KlausR. on April 7, 2006 at 09:34:39:
.
Follow Ups:
This reviewer is recording engineer, remember, technical hearing skills, timbre solfeggio, listening for his daily bread and so forth. Not like some other clowns who don't notice when the bottom octave is missing.Olive : "Differences in performance and preference of trained vs untrained listeners in loudspeaker tests: a case study", AES preprint 5728
Got the picture?
Yes, with guys like this one I believe what he perceives. If there were more of his kind, the audio press would have a better image.
Klaus
...was this review you tout as being so definitive done *blind* - or was it sighted - *biased* I believe you called it?
But what does that change? He was presenting his observations, using CDs where has had made the recording himself, done the master tape himself, done the digital master himself. Which means that he used his system for recording and mastering and he used that very same system for playback during the review. What better circumstances do you want for judging audio components? This + 35 years of recording practice have some weight, don't you think?The review listening was done in his acoustically treated recording studio at 2m listening distance (direct sound field), gear was from EMT, Nagra, Revox, speakers from Geithain.
He may be biased, after all, that's human, but at least he is a trained listener in the literal sense of that term. Indeed, I have more confidence in perception and judgements of people like him than I have in perception and judgements of the average reviewer.
If you doubt his judgement, maybe you should give the Funk a try.
Btw., are you still interested in getting that test CD, my mails are bouncing back.
Klaus
> He was presenting his observations, using CDs where has had made the recording himself, done the master tape himself, done the digital master himself. Which means that he used his system for recording and mastering and he used that very same system for playback during the review. What better circumstances do you want for judging audio components? This + 35 years of recording practice have some weight, don't you think? <Yes, he was presenting his observations and the circumstances were ideal for his observations. Bingo! Blind testing is not necessary if one is a careful and experienced listener.
Yes, he was presenting his observations and the circumstances were ideal for his observations. Bingo! Blind testing is not necessary if one is a careful and experienced listener.The key to blind listening is not its necessity but it's increased reliability.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
From what I gathered from papers describing blind tests, the test subjects are screened for consistency. Only those who are capable of providing consistent results (under blind conditions) are kept for the real test.Klaus
That's goes even further to attest for the reliability of properly conducted blind tests :-)
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
If double blind testing is dependent on careful selection of a group of individuals capable of successfully "passing" the tests, then, in reality, this proves that DBTs are not reliable for the general population. Maybe there should be a new job description for professional DBT participant.The reliance on superior listeners for DBTs, if true, also tends to support the thesis that many people cannot hear the differences in sound quality during DBTs (when real differences are present) since - according to the ones that are able "pass" - there actually are differences.
Furthermore, the strong possibility exists that those who are successful in DBTs, due to their superior hearing ability, would also be successful in sighted tests - perhaps even moreso.
If DBT participants yielded results that resemble random guessing, what's the use of DBT?Training helps to increase listeners' acuity and consistency.
In psychoacoustic research the test subjects are trained before the real tests for perceptional thresholds begin. These test subjects are also examined for e.g. amplitude hearing thresholds, simply because you don't want to use half deaf for establishing reliable data.These subjects will have superior hearing w.r.t. the parameter under investigation but the results will apply to the general population (e.g. hearing aids, telecom technology, audio codecs). You wouldn't refuse the hearing aid simply because it's based on findings obtained from "superior listeners", now would you?
When untrained listeners do not consistently (or not at all) detect an audible difference during DBT, this merely means that these people need (more) training, nothing more and nothing less. For instance, group delay thresholds are known (10 ms for bass, 2 ms for mids), but perhaps your personal threshold is twice these values, so without training you would fail the test (DBT or not). Does this lack of training mean that the test is flawed?
Klaus
> When untrained listeners do not consistently (or not at all) detect an audible difference during DBT, this merely means that these people need (more) training, nothing more and nothing less...Does this lack of training mean that the test is flawed?>So does your DBT actually test for audible differences between components - or the amount of training your subjects have?
How can you call a test *consistent* if the results change with additional subject training?
As a matter of fact, trained listeners hear better than untrained ones:AES preprint 5728: Olive, Differences in performance and preference of trained vs untrained listeners in loudspeaker tests: a case study
You cannot take half deaf test subjects (or subjects with high thresholds) and then say that there's no difference.
The test is consistent by its nature, it's the test subject that aren't. If training helps to increase consistency, that merely increases the quality of the results.
I'm no expert in DBT related issues, so you'd better start a new thread in order to have the experts answer those questions.
Klaus
btw. my test is DBT with hidden reference, exactly the way audio codecs are tested.
> The test is consistent by its nature, it's the test subject that aren't. If training helps to increase consistency, that merely increases the quality of the results.>If the test results are dependent on the experience, training and innate ability of the test subjects, and results change as they do, how can you claim the test is consistent?
You can't separate one from the other - unless you can have a test with NO subjects.
But I will agree with you about one thing - amateur audio DBT results with music are surprisingly consisent - producing mostly null results regardless of the actual audible differences between the audio components (except speakers).
Consistent? In this case very. Just not accurate.
See my reply to audiohobby.When are you going to step up to the plate and do all of your fancy DBTs on Intelligent Chip?
I will not test your chip simply because there's no need to test it. Why is there no need? Very simple, it does not work. Period."Significantly, the existence of the new machine is powerful evidence..."
Powerful evidence. LOL.Klaus
Klaus, you can be such a silly goose.GK
The Intelligent Chip doesn't work--that's the null hypothesis.After all, you sell the silly things, not KlausR. If you think the Intelligent Chip works, then it is up to you to prove it. You haven't done so and seem to have no desire to do so.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Tis hardly just me that thinks the Intelligent Chip works, but hundreds of satisified audiophiles all over the world. Those who smirk and opine (so vehemently) that the chip can't work either haven't tried it or won't try it. Isn't the name for that closed mindedness?
Having an open mind does not mean dismissing all objective criteria, as one currently must when accepting the claims for the so-called 'Intelligent Chip' without not only any independently verifiable demonstration of its claimed efficacy, but without any attempt by its proponents to provide a credible demonstration whatsoever!
Another fish joins the discussion, and has nothing to say of consequence.The chip has been demonstrated many times, in many systems, most recently by senior reviewer who took it upon himself to demo the chip to audiences as large as 50 at the HI FI News Show, England. Noone complained as I hear tell.
Those who haven't heard it are the only ones bleating, as per usual. And using very big words too. LoL
That's what I'm talking about.
Why me? If you're so high on verification do it yourself, or hire an independent outfit to do it for you, like the Gov'ment does. Besides, I suspect you wouldn't exactly embrace my results if I did publish them. In fact, I'm absolutely positive I'd hear the same bleating from the same sheep. LOL
GMAB Sorry old boy, it doesn't work that way.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
You don't read too well as I didn't say that, you did. Far as I can tell, nobody but diehard DBTers are worried about proving anything.Besides, you DBTers are supposed to have the secret formula for proving if a thing works. Guess that's just talk. LOL
"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance." - William Burroughs
Your remarks are totally irrelevant, simply manipulative sales tricks. If the word "prove" bothers you, we can use "try" as you did--it doesn't change the point and you know it. You sell it, so it's up to you to prove it works. You haven't and apparently have no interest in doing so (you just admitted that!), so it's not worth my money or my time to try it out.
I'm not interested in buying your beliefs about it. Why should I? Your Intelligent Chip is one of many, many products that, prima facie, don't work. There are so many things that do work that I'd rather spend my time and money trying some of them out. Show that it works, then I might be interested in trying it.Now, how does calling me close minded prove that the Intelligent Chip works? Whether I am close minded or not is irrelevant to that question.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Actually, the word "prove" doesn't bother me at all, but it sure seems to bother you. Your claim that it's my responsibility to "prove" the chip works is just so much hooey; where did you ever get that idea? You're all hung up on words, words like "belief" and "prove" and "prima facie" (did you spend time in Latin America?).How many times do I have to repeat: I have no interest whatsoever in testing the chip or proving that it works? How can I can be any clearer. LoL
Your arguments are flacid and unoriginal, simply more of the same old tired straw dog nonsense from the DBTers.
Suggest you get out of the apt. more, maybe take some courses in logic and semantics.
That's how things are.Actually, I haven't brought up DBTs here, you did.
Showing products work is honest business. Let's see now: Our dishwasher washes dishes; our refrigerator refrigerates; my CDP plays CDs; my amplifier amplifies the line level signal to drive the speakers. I would certainly have complaints if they didn't.
Now, we get a simple question like: What does the Intelligent Chip do? And you don't want to answer--you want ME to try it out to see what it does. I'm not stupid or gullible enough to go along with that. As far as I can tell, it's about as effective as pet rocks and for much the same reasons, but if you have any evidence to show differently, produce it. Otherwise, sorry, no sale.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
got that bed wetting under control yet? If so, what proof can you offer?Just curious.
You're so funny! All this has been beaten to death. It has become droll and boring. Just more of the same tired naysayer/DBT crew circular logic and strawman arguments, none original or pertinent. You can go back to sleep now.
Yeah, that remains the same.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
The evidence is in the observation, lad. You babble on and on without observation. The only thing that remains the same is your kneejerk reaction. Typical.
Those "observations" you talk about might well be the same whether the Intelligent Chips worked or not. In view of the facts that they seem to have no detectible function as far as the data on the CD or any effect on the playback sounds, let alone an effect anyone can hear, they probably are a placebo. Human beings tend to overdetect difference and will report them even when there is no change.When you come up with any good evidence that they work, get back to me.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
You are just guessing, not very good at it either, if you don't mind my saying so. You are the proverbial fish in a fishbowl, unable to see what's outside the bowl.
Oh yes, I'm guessing to an extent(but it's an educated guess),, as one cannot absolutely prove the null hypothesis. But so are you: that's the point. You have no credible data and your observations are just as unreliable as anyone else's. I'm a consumer and I don't want to have to just guess whether a product works. So, no sale.However, those who have looked into the construction and audibility of the Intelligent Chip have not found anything to indicate it does anything to the sound of CD playback, much less anything that has an audible effect. So my guess isn't totally uneducated.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
You both get muddy, but the pig loves it..John
You'll have to put you High Horse out to pasture now, you can't mount up anymore.
You seem to be the only one who feels the need to comment.If you paid attention, you would notice that geoffkait responded to my post in a fashion in keeping with it's intent.
If your only goal in life is to see "commies" behind every tree, then you will indeed see them. Lighten up.
He knows exactly how I feel about his product, his explanations, and I know that he is aware of that. I also am aware of his.
So....what? Do you think it's productive for me to rehash that?
I guess, not having kids, you've never seen the move Babe?
Cheers, John
I know how you feel about his products, but even by the low standards of this place the particular choice you made in your personal attack was rather extreme ... ironically the effect was to suggest it is you who is the ...
Is that you choose to fan the flames for no apparent reason.Geoff had no problem with it, so why you??
Get over it.
Cheers, John
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
is your unique ability to tirelessly support your arguments with nothing more than mellow bleating tones. LOL"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance." - William Burroughs
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
could you please try to be more entertaining, as my interest is fading in and out...
Ah, but which side of reality will you be on when the tholians finish??
Ah, what a tangled web..never enough triox around when ya need it.John
remain orthogonal to yours, with any luck :-)
Orthogonality provides another degree of freedom. Without it, there can be no advances.Advances require differences of opinion.
Missed the tholian reference, eh Loskeemos?
Cheers, John
nope
is that bjh guy sprayin his water pistol all over the place??He seems to believe that referring to an exchange of opinions as "wrestling with a pig" means that I'm actually calling you a pig..
sheesh..
I just can't believe you came up with that verbage from Babe..
Cheers, John
nt
Yeah, right.Your facts are whacko, by the way. I know of only one person (perhaps there are others, tho' I doubt it) who have opened the chip up to inspect (microscopically) what's inside. Unfortunately, that person had no idea what he was looking for and failed to properly ID the contents. (This is where an education comes in handy. LOL) But this is old news.
Of those who've actually listened to the chip, that I know of, the vast majority (more than 90%) were happy with the (sonic) results.
You can whine about DBTs, you can whine about tests of your product that have been done all you want.But that's all irrelevant to you showing it works.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
No matter which way you cut it, properly conducted blind tests are always more reliable than sighted tests. A test subject who fails DBT screen test is as unreliable in a sighted test, but in a sighted test, he/she can depend on their preconceptions to wing it, a crutch not available in blind testing. Screening test subjects is easier in blind testing and further attests to the unsuitability of sighted tests as a means of reliable product evaluation.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Failing a test is not necessarily a reflection on the test subject. Or, are suggesting boom boxes are suitable systems for performing listening tests?Besides, noone agrees on what exactly a "proper" test consists of.
I assume you consider yourself qualified to "screen" test subjects?
One problem is that he and bjh want to use "black and white" thinking and impose it on you. They will admit nothing in between.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
You are someone who seems to put his own spin on everything.Sorry, it is you who have come up with the "definitive" label, not KlausR.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
we're not just talking about just another reivew here.No, no, no, NO!
We're talking about a RAVE, a RAVE to end all RAVES! We're talking about stuff that make the Stereophile and TAS guys look like Striped Suits in comparison! Let's review, shall we Pat?
"no sound of its own whatsoever"
"wire with gain"
"Perfect. Period."Perfect period! OMG! Perfect period! Pat my boy it just don't get any better than that, Jesus!, that's even past, WAAAAAAY past, Harry Pearson territory!
I mean have you ever, EVER, seen such unqualified praise? Perfect period!
And Pat, I gotta tell ya' I'm more that a little confused. It's just seems so out of character that you're letting this simply FANTASTIC event pass you by.
Hell I have thought this would have been an occasion for you to literally dig up old Newton himself to enlist him in a defence of *science*, to help get to the bottom of this unspeakable hyperbole.
And what do we see instead? ... you berating a guy for asking if the test was sighted!!!!!!!!!!!!
---
HFH!, when you stone cold objectivists have a bad week you really take it over the top, UN-F'IN-BELIEVABLE!
Jesus! What a pile of Drama Queens.
Perfect. Period! Fuckin' "A".
You and mkuller shouldn’t pretend like you care if the listening test was blind. You both have made it clear that audiophiles are a level above any modern perception verification methods.But sadly this is your usual reply. If someone posts an opinion you don’t like, then simply insult and try to humiliate the poster.
Perhaps this is just another case of you having the perceptual fortitude of .... what?, hmmmm ....?, how about a culinary analogy? ... of an over-cooked strand of spaghetti that prevents you from seeing the obvious.Still don't get? I'm sure you don't!, so let me elaborate. You see Klaus has a reputation for being very critical (to say the very least) of the finding of the audio press, especially with respect to subjective reviews.
One of the major theme of said nonsense (sorry, I mean criticism) is the question of the usefulness of finding from sighted testing. If fact, based upon seeing multiple examples of his squawking, I think it fair to say that what he has said above regarding cables fits the general case as well (and BTW, the scarcity of controlled tests is by no means limited to cables only!):
"The available evidence FOR cable sonics amounts to sighted (read biased) testing and some blind tests, which latter did not use the required strict DBT protocols and must therefore be considered as methodologically flawed, hence worthless.
(my emphasis)
And now we have Klaus promoting the Review To End All Reviews , a review with the fantastic "Perfect. Period." finding, and you think it hypocritical that an inquire is made as to the methodologically employed in said review!
Is it getting clear now?
You simply want to impose black and white categories on KlausR. Since he has been explaining something else, you don't understand it.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
I think bjh is just trying to pin down some contradictory statements made by Klaus over the last few months (years?). He has as much as admitted that DBT's are pointless, or at least not useful to him which would seem to be contradictory to the objectivist cause, if not with Klaus earlier statements. I don't know his posts well enough so I'll just stay tuned and see how it works out. But as for black and white, it seems the objectivists are the ones that don't allow any gray area!
> He has as much as admitted that DBT's are pointless... <The "He" in this case is Klaus.
Sorry, I reread and saw that I wasn't clear.
For heavens's sake, there is a spectrum between casual listening and fully scientifically controlled DBTs! KlausR described this perfectly, but you and bjh are stuck with a black and white either/or and so you missed it. So there is nothing contradictory in KlausR's statements--at least none that you have identified.I don't read German all that well, but I expect the thing measures well enough to be audibly transparent.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
of a recording engineer? Aren't recording engineers responsible for the 100s of CDs you ditched because of inferior sound?You're a mess of contradictions!, and that's being about as generous as I'm capable of. Got the picture?
LOL
Show me where I said that (hint, you won't be able because I didn't).
And please don't confuse me with the other Klauses participating here on AA!!!Klaus
I'm afraid I do have trouble telling you stone cold objectivists apart.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
