 
|
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 |
71.188.240.155
Howdy
I've taken the machete to some recent threads here and I think you may have noticed some passes from other moderators.
I'm not promising to read every post here like I do on my regular boards so please use the "Alert Moderator" or "Comment" links if you see personal attacks, etc. It does help us out a lot.
By the nature of this board there will be contentious threads. Keep on topic, talk about the content of the posts not the posters.
A warning, I've been quite free about deleting petty reposts of the same taunts over and over. I'm not going to try to figure out who started what, I'm just going to delete entire subthreads with out reading them if they start with personal attacks, petty taunts, etc. If you take a lot of time to thoughtfully post something make sure that the thread context is "clean" or perhaps consider posting your treatise in a different or new thread. We'd hate to have more people like Clark get caught with dangling links to good stuff that got deleted in the crossfire :)
-Ted
Follow Ups:
The problem with "personal attacks" is that everybody has a different interpretation regarding what constitutes one. Not to mention some here having no problem dealing with such episodes. (I've never "alerted the moderator" for such event, if you'd believe.) I'm generally more comfortable where such worry over crossing the line wasn't there.
I've been accused of a lot of things here, but I think it's a perfectly normal thing on forum boards. I may not like it on occasion, but I think the readers generally have the wherewithal to check posting history and content, in case of doubt. This is why I think the moderators here have been a little "trigger-happy" and "heavy-handed" with the deletions and banishments. (In the six years I've been here, the few posts that I wish would be deleted from the records have been written by nobody else other than me.) I think most personal attacks are self-incriminating more than anything else. The big mistake is when the "attacked" shout back.
I still think the "Hall of Flame" board is the ultimate solution. People can shout at each other all day long, yet such distraction would be removed from the "normal" boards.
My dilemma here is dealing with those who dish it out, but cannot take a tenth of it. I figure just letting them scream is often the best solution. People have asked me why I don't "defend myself" more here, and I tell them, it's just an audio board. Things are what they are. And investigation always trumps verbal claims.
If you think what was going on here has been bad, I was once likened to that moustached German leader on another board. This sort of thing happens from time to time. I never had a problem (beyond disagreement) with anyone (including SoundMind, TruthSeeker, Romy, JJ, etc.), to where I thought moderator intervention was necessary.
Howdy
We understand that on some fora people like to duke it out more than on some other fora.
We are getting more and more comments telling us that we aren't doing enough.
Also there are more and more personal attacks (e.g. calling people homo..., repeating the same taunt to every recent post of another member, etc.) that (sometimes) get deleted before most people see them.
Frankly if you saw many of the posts we delete you wouldn't say what you say about deleting posts. I also know I'd rather not read most of the acromony here in order to tell whether it should be deleted or not.
The rules are clear: talk about the content of the post, not the poster. I'm not going to try to figure out who started what: I'm going to delete posts that talk about the poster rather than the content of posts...
I just wanted people to take some responsibility in that if they respond to posts that are out of bounds that their posts will likely go away too.
We can't make everyone happy, but to tell the truth the most moving pleas we've had are asking for a little more enforcement.
(And believe it or not the whole TSP thing was completely coincidental to my posting these notices here and over on Iso: i.e. two moderators doing different things at about the same time, I was more concerned with the whole Wellfed boondoggle on Iso...)
-Ted
For every person who complains about overbearing actions, there's another who complains about not doing enough..... I have to realize I'm just one person, whose comfort zone is not necessarily the same as the next person.....
I guess the best approach is to strike a happy medium amongst the thin and thick skinned here.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you wish to continue to post here, restate, for the record, the comments you made re John Atkinson.
Then, retract them. Do it here, publicly. Alternatively, provide sufficient evidence of their accuracy. Or, just go away.
That's the way it's going to be." - Ted Smith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm just curious - when certain manufacturer called another manufacturer "lying sack of shit" (along with some accusations), what were the consequences? He certainly didn't go away - so, did he retract them, publicly or privately? Or provided sufficient evidence of their accuracy?
Could anyone enlighten me on the subject?
HowdyStrangely (tho he used stronger words that I would have) truth is a defence and no one chose to make an issue of it.
-Ted
P.S.
You misattributed the quote to me.
If you'd check it was a quote from "The Bored", not that it really matters that much (since I agree wholeheartedly with it), but some people seem care about accuracy and others here apparently don't take very seriously how they quote.
In fact, I get it.
As was explained multiple times here, mostly not by moderators but by voluntary watchdogs, this is privately owned and run web site, and that pretty much covers everything that's going on here.
You're British?
cheers,
AJ
This post will last approximately 2 minutes. 120,119,118,117...
As a reluctant mod elsewhere, I don't envy your volunteer effort here. Nicely handled baiting, though. :)
rw
So now truthseekerprime is now gone. If only the moderators were less wishy-washy, so suddenly personal attacks, petty taunts are out of hand and yet again another individual who holds a technical viewpoint, the supposed raison etre of the board, get knocked off the wall.There were ten green bottles hanging on the wall
One green bottle should accidently fall....Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
But his implication that people cannot hear what they claim to: as if he was at that particular event. And, the further emotionally charged implication, and the drawing of conclusions that were well beyond the evidence presented.
Thin man, in a powder blue suit, with eyes that slice you right through. The cut of his clothes are strange indeed, a hundred years too soon.
Even though I was not at those particular events.
cheers,
AJ
This post will last approximately 2 minutes. 120,119,118,117...
.
Thin man, in a powder blue suit, with eyes that slice you right through. The cut of his clothes are strange indeed, a hundred years too soon.
--
This post will last approximately 2 minutes. 120,119,118,117...
I totally agree with you on this one.....
I've been baited personally. And I sometimes take the bait. And I admittedly bait others, mainly to expose an agenda. I think people should be man enough to handle such exchange.
FWIW, TruthSeeker never got personal with me. I think because I chose not to get personal with him. I think I challenged his claims, but the focus was solely the subject matter.
Howdy
We can't allow outright defamation. We offered him a chance to publicly retract but instead he chose to leave: his choice, not ours.
-Ted
Having been out of circulation for a while, I'm not sure what the point of contention was, but having also followed the frequency with which JA makes shall we say factually challenged claims in Sphile for a while now, along with (unkept) promises to issue corrections of the totally false claims he's made in that mag, I would almost automatically assume that TSP must have been correct.You can only search this same forum (or the Critics) for "Atkinson Lipshitz audibility of polarity" and you'll find some of such outright falsifications I'm referring to (or check the link for one instance).
Which falsifications have been pointed to him several times, by several people, including at least three times during a personal exchange by yours truly. So those haven't been missed.
Oh well, I guess that it doesn't count if one lies with money in his pockets.
Nice job you guys are doing, moderating the debates here. Such a coincidence that you chose (yes, your deliberate choice, don't give me BS please) to delete just TSP's user account, given that this is one of the few guys who works from facts and not faith and can successfully stand up against false claims so frequently forwarded on also this forum. For me, that speaks volumes, and I have a funny feeling I'm not alone in this. So congratulations, it's one less thing to worry about for the hi-end audio industry.
Less than two minutes left for this post to stay on: 59, 58, 57, 56...
TL
> having also followed the frequency with which JA makes shall we say
> factually challenged claims in Sphile for a while now, along with
> (unkept) promises to issue corrections of the totally false claims he's
> made in that mag, I would almost automatically assume that TSP must have
> been correct.
Funny how one instance of my possibly having made an error gets
multiplied each time the issue is raised on the Asylum. :-)
But please note that I made no complaints to the moderator about TSP's
nasty little jabs, nor would I.
And thanks, bjh, for digging up my references. Somewhere in a box in
storage I have all my archived BAS Speakers and I will look the reference
up. As I said, if I did make an error, I will correct it. But really, if
that is the only factual error I have made in what next year will be 32
years of working on audio magazines and 26 years of magazine editing, I
don't thnk that's too awful a record, tlyyra. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Indeed, if it's the only one, that's one fine record. But I think that's a question at least I would want to pose. And with all those added emphases and notes stressing the importance of your claim, I would say it doesn't look as much like an innocuous "error" as it does a misrepresentation. Moreover, this "error" has been the foundation on which you have been systematically building your case about the assumed significance of polarity reversal ever since, including your promotion of clarkjohnsen's pamphlet on the subject. So I wonder how innocent an error can it be.You've kept promising to check your sources on this point (and publish a correction if indeed in error with these) for so long already I'm not exactly holding my breath, but perhaps it's good to have you state so for the record one more time.
Funny how factual and principal objections and demonstrations to the contrary get reduced into "nasty little jabs" as soon as the interlocutor is gone on the Asylum. :-)
TL
> Funny how factual and principal objections and demonstrations to the
> contrary get reduced into "nasty little jabs" as soon as the interlocutor
> is gone on the Asylum.
I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The "jabs" were TPS's and
others' reference to me being a "frequent liar," to me putting the
interests of advertisers ahead of those my readers, etc etc. None of these
statements were factual, but were instead personal, unsupported opinions
that I certainly don't feel I mischaracterized. And please note that TPS
was not driven from this forum, either by me or others. Asked to
substantiate his "jabs" by the moderator, he decided instead to cease
posting. His decision.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"TPS was not driven from this forum..."
See link. The moderators seem to have understood it differently.
The full quote is:
"Your transgression was explained to you, you are banned till you acknowledge and recant"
Consequently your partial quote should have been something like, "... you are banned ..."
In any case it is clear the member was given a choice, and from linked thread (in your post) the post from Ted Smith explains that after receiving instructions from The Bored the member deleted his account.
This is all quite clear, yet you seem incapable of accepting the facts.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Only it is not clear why.
Saying that any claims about the audibility of polarity reversal on music to a 99% confidence limit are misrepresentations and/or errors of fact?
Given the readily available published evidence showing that this is indeed so, I'm left wondering what's the beef. Is there a taboo issue hidden somewhere in all this, or what?
He was asked to recant his slanderous and unsubstantiated statements. He chose not to recant, nor to back up his accusations. The choice was his. End of story.
Are you saying that the claims JA made in the Sphile column regarding the audibility of polarity reversal on music in general and in the Lipshitz-Vanderkooy experiments in particular are true and accurate?If so, I'd like to see you show that, because no one else has been able to.
You would make audio history!
Failing that, you are just making yet another totally false assertion lacking all foundation in reality, taking adavantage of the liberty to do so given that TSP is not allowed to speak back.
A thousand pardons. Sorry to interrupt you, but - well your entire Lipshitz tirade just got blown away above.
rw
I'm generally against corporal punishment but in this case I'd say... Slap that child!
:(
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
As I understand you have taken Atkinson to task for the following statement that appeared in Stereophile, As We See It, Absolute Issues, September, 1988 :
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.)
source (see page two)
You have provided as reference information published at the web page ABX Double Blind Test Results: Polarity as evidence that the above statement is in error.
Specifically the tests by Van der Kooy/Lipshitz did not demonstrate the audibility of absolute signal polarity on music but rather with Training Signals .
Now the footnote Atkinson provided as reference cited the following:
"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.
These sources are different that the one you cited and hence raise the question of what is contained in the references Atkinson used? Specifically is it possible that the sources Atkinson use contained the on music vs. Training Signals error? Have you examined the materials and confirmed that this was not the case, have you produced this evidence in posts here (or for that matter elsewhere)?
As you have used this incident, what was contained in the 1988 article, to question SF's/Atkinson's "honesty in reporting"... you wtote Usually, we of course refer by this term ("honesty in reporting") to qualities like fairness and accuracy ... I should think you did indeed do your homework to, as the saying goes, cross your t's and dot your i's.
If you would be so kind to point out your investigations into Atkinson's sources, or at least comment on this interesting question I would appreciate it.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Trying to follow this is getting confusing. I'll try to shed some light on it, but I'm still not able to completely unravel the situation. Here's what I have so far.
I was able to dig up one of the references cited in the Stereophile article mentioned by bjh above. That reference is:
"On the Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems" (with John Vanderkooy and Mark Pocock), JAES, Vol.30 No.9, September 1982
I don't have access to the BAS publication referenced in the Stereophile article, only AES articles.
Part of the confusion is that the Lipshitz AES article is concerned with the audibility of the nonlinear phase response caused by all-pass filters such as what result when the high-pass and low-pass outputs of a Linkwitz-Riley loudspeaker crossover are summed. Absolute polarity is not the subject at all, but it is mentioned briefly in passing. Here is what I believe to be the relevant quote from the Lipshitz paper:
"The authors have demonstrated the two-tone experiment described above to numerous people on different systems. No one has ever failed to hear the timbral change with phase, and discern the polarity reversal on this signal with unvarying accuracy. Indeed, in a double-blind demonstration to eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group [13], the accuracy score was 100% on the summed 200-Hz and 400-Hz tones over loudspeakers, and overall, including musical excerpts, the results on the audibility of the polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels were 84 correct responses out of 137, this representing confidence of more than 99% in the thesis that acoustic polarity reversal is audible."
So it can be seen that this test was apparently a mixture of musical excerpts and the test signal, not just music alone. The reference [13] is as follows:
B. F. Muller, "Third World: The Scientific Subjectivists," Audio Amateur, vol. 11, p. 64 (1980 Jan.).
I'd love to get this article if anyone has it. It's not at all clear to me whether Lipshitz had anything at all to do with the tests in that article, or if he's just referencing somebody else's results. Some other questions arise from this also, namely, "What fraction of the tested samples were 'musical excerpts'?", and "How did the individual scores on music and test tones break down?".
It looks like those questions can be answered by the info on the ABX site . These are broken down as follows:
Test signal: 24 / 24 = 100%
Music: 60 / 113 = 53%
These numbers match up with Lipshitz's reference of 137 total trials.
So this brings us to the statement made by John Atkinson in the referenced article, which I quote below.
"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!" (Italics by JA).
Footnote 9 is as follows:
Footnote 9: "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
The second reference in Footnote 9 is the Lipshitz article I quoted above. What's missing here is the BAS Speaker and Audio Amateur articles.
Even though I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle, I do have enough information to conclude that the statement in the Stereophile article referenced above is a misrepresentation. That was what TSP's point was in a post that has unfortunately been deleted.
Hi Andy. Does the paper elaborate on the bolded part below?
"Indeed, in a double-blind demonstration to eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group [13], the accuracy score was 100% on the summed 200-Hz and 400-Hz tones over loudspeakers, and overall, including musical excerpts , the results on the audibility of the polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels were 84 correct responses out of 137..."
This wouldn't normally be read as 'as mix of tones and music' but as 'audible on tones and audible on music'. Does the paper specify? Regarding Akinson, even if in error from that excerpt his is a perfectly reasonable read.
Does the paper elaborate on the bolded part below?
No, that's all the info presented. The results he's quoting are from an Audio Amateur article authored by Muller, not by Lipshitz. As I mentioned, I don't even know whether Lipshitz had anything at all to do with those tests. Having the Audio Amateur article would clear this up.
The Audio Amateur article simply refers to the same breakdown of the test scores as that given on the ABX comparator website.
In other words, that the score was not "99% on music" as claimed in that JA piece but 53%.
TL
So, are you saying the Audio Amateur article was not a first hand report of the tests that were performed, but yet another reference to somebody else's results? IOW, were these the guys that actually did the tests? Does anyone have info to indicate that Lipshitz ran these tests?
This is getting confusing :-).
Regarding the relationship of Krueger (the ABX site guy) to Muller (author of the Audio Amateur article referenced in my earlier post and by Lipshitz in the AES article), it looks like they have written one article together .
Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D., "Lipshitz/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979)
The test authors were Lipshitz (in the entirety) and Vanderkooy (in part IIRC) as also noted by Atkinson and as indicated by the two articles he cites (the BASS and the JAES pieces). The results are given in detail on the ABX site which also gives other pertinent details (see bottom of the page where the scores are given, IIRC).
The results are referred to not in broken-down fashion (test tones vs. musical excerpts) in a number of articles, including those by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy themselves (see above) but also others. As I understand it the AAmateur article simply discusses these same results in greater detail than other published pieces tend to do (it gives the breakdown between music and test tones). It was discussed extensively between KlausR and clarkjohnsen on the Critics forum some half+ a year ago.
Hope this clears it up a bit. The problem seems to be that Lipshitz himself didn't really give all the pertinent details of this test in any of his published pieces, it seems. So you have to go to the ABX comparator site (where the results are also stored) or the AAmateur piece (as I understand it) to get the complete breakdown.
TL
I saw TSP's post on this matter before it was deleted. I don't recall the exact wording but clearly he had called Atkinson a liar related to this matter.
Given the evidence you have brought to bear such a charge was clearly outlandish to say the very least!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
We've gotten nothing.
And what's "outlandish" about it? To claim 99% instead of the correct 53% (rather outlandishly, wouldn't you say?) leaves us with three likely conclusions:
- The person reporting 99% is an analphabet;
- The person reporting 99% didn't check his sources but relied on someone who was either an analphabet or was lying to him;
- The person reporting 99% is himself lying.
You of course choose what you want to believe in.
against the source material he used, at least the one that has been brought to light here, then I'd say he'd find very little to set straight.
You don't see it that way, that much is clear, by why you keep trying to convince me to see it your way is a great mystery to me. You should have examined the *his* source material before making the "totally false" charge.
That's all.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Yours is a nice example of the extent to which faith can insulate one's belief system against things such as facts of life.
Good luck. Maybe you'll end up in some audiophile heaven one day as a reward and I won't.
Alternatively I could also quote one of your own favorite responses: Wiggle, wiggle...
;-)
"The authors have demonstrated the two-tone experiment described above to numerous people on different systems. No one has ever failed to hear the timbral change with phase, and discern the polarity reversal on this signal with unvarying accuracy. Indeed, in a double-blind demonstration to eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group [13], the accuracy score was 100% on the summed 200-Hz and 400-Hz tones over loudspeakers, and overall, including musical excerpts (emphasis added - bjh), the results on the audibility of the polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels were 84 correct responses out of 137, this representing confidence of more than 99% in the thesis that acoustic polarity reversal is audible."The quote does mention usage of music signals ("musical excerpts").
Consequenly on the question of what he wrote in the 1988 article being factual or in error I conclude that it was indeed factual.
I believe a retraction is called for!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Yes, we know, you want to believe. And faith is not always amenable to reason.Yet the facts beg to differ, I'm afraid. Please do feel free to cite any research by anyone, particularly Lipshitz, in which a 99% result was obtained "on music" (as claimed by Atkinson).
Lipshitz himself reports having gotten 53%.
We have now seem the relevant quote from one of Atkinson's sources and it clearly makes mention on the usage of music in the test. Now bearing that in mind let's examine some of what you said to Atkinson on this matter in posts here (in all cases emphasis added by me):
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?
this post
Again the relevant quote from Atkinson's source:
"The authors have demonstrated the two-tone experiment described above to numerous people on different systems. No one has ever failed to hear the timbral change with phase, and discern the polarity reversal on this signal with unvarying accuracy. Indeed, in a double-blind demonstration to eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group [13], the accuracy score was 100% on the summed 200-Hz and 400-Hz tones over loudspeakers, and overall, including musical excerpts, the results on the audibility of the polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels were 84 correct responses out of 137, this representing confidence of more than 99% in the thesis that acoustic polarity reversal is audible."
So while Atkinson wrote "on music to a 99% confidence limit" when to be entirely correct he might have written "on music and special signals to a 99% confidence limit" to say what he wrote was totally false is manifest hyperbole.
Morevoer of the test mentioned in the relevant quote we have, "84 correct responses out of 137, this representing confidence of more than 99% , which clearly is different than the test you mentioned, i.e. "given that the only test results that I've been able to attribute to Lipshitz involving music gave a 60/113 .
Finally I would like to finish by examining what you suggested to Atkinson as corrective for the totally false content in the 1988 article:
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.
source
Given what we have learned from Atkinson's source I imagine you now rather regret those suggestions?
In any case it seems clear that you should retract your "totally false" charge related to this matter. I won't be so bold as to suggest the wording, the choice should be "entirely yours".
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
> Again the relevant quote from Atkinson's source:
"The authors have demonstrated the two-tone experiment described above to
numerous people on different systems. No one has ever failed to hear the
timbral change with phase, and discern the polarity reversal on this
signal with unvarying accuracy. Indeed, in a double-blind demonstration
to eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group [13], the accuracy score was
100% on the summed 200-Hz and 400-Hz tones over loudspeakers, and
overall, including musical excerpts, the results on the audibility of the
polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels were 84 correct responses
out of 137, this representing confidence of more than 99% in the thesis
that acoustic polarity reversal is audible."
Thank you for researching the original, bjh.
> So while Atkinson wrote "on music to a 99% confidence limit" when to be
> entirely correct he might have written "on music and special signals to
> a 99% confidence limit" to say what he wrote was totally false is
> manifest hyperbole.
Quite. It also appears to be based on people confusing the actual score
in the testing with the statistical confidence limit in that score, as
both you and I have now pointed out.
John Atkinson,
Editor, Stereophile
...the research in which Lipshitz has "confirmed that a reversal of absolute signal polarity will be subtly audible on music to a 99% confidence limit! "?
The one whose results I've linked -- yes or no?
In other words, your claim above is in error -- yes or no?
I note that, quite as expected, you prefer to be evasive and say nothing of either of these in your reply.
- Or do you know of another, secret study by Lipshitz hitherto unknown to the rest of us? (Open in New Window)
> Would you now also care to point out ...the research in which Lipshitz
> has "confirmed that a reversal of absolute signal polarity will be
> subtly audible on music to a 99% confidence limit!"?
I suspect that I misread the original article's conclusions as referring
to the results on music _and_ test tones combined as referring to music
only. As I said, the BAS Speaker article is in storage and I haven't yet
checked their website to see if it has bene reprinted yet. So while my
original statement read "on music to a 99% confidence limit," you are
welcome to read it as saying "on music and special signals to a 99%
confidence limit."
Ansd you still appear to be confusing the actual score in a blind test
with the statistical confidence in that score. The two are not the same,
as a little thought on your part will show.
Let's say I take part in a blind test and score 6 identifications out of
10 correct. The 60% score is not statistically significant, as the chance
of my achieving that score by chance is high. Now, say, I repeat the test
with 1000 individual trials and score the same 60% identification, ie, I
get 600 correct. Statistically, this is now highly significant
identification, even though the score in percentage terms is the same. I
don't have time to calculate it right now, but the chance of my achieving
a score of 600 out of 1000 are way less than 1%, I would say.
So, same score but different statistical significance. Do you see? (And
why am I, the subjectivist writer "in hock to the snake-oil salesmen,"
according to a deleted post, having to point this basic math out to you
the believer in science?)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I take this as a Yes, indeed your description of Lipshitz's results was factually incorrect and erroneously characterized. And that therefore, as you have stated in the past, you will publish a correction in your magazine's online edition, as you have claimed here on AA that willingness to do this is what distinguishes Stereophile from many of its competitors.Now, just one curious point: Are you seriously in claiming that, in the case of Lipshitz, results indicating audibility on music and results indicating audibility on sound material consisting of a mix of both music and special signals are basically interchangeable and the same thing?
I tell you what (why am I, a casual reader of your texts, having to point the significance of this difference to you, an industry pro who frequently does and uses this kind of research): On music, Lipshitz' score was 60/113; on test tones, it was 24/24.
That's a big difference: 53% correct vs. 100% correct.
May I point out that it seems to mean two things, each with a very different meaning for us as music listeners: Polarity reversal is audible if you listen to test tones. Polarity reversal is not audible if you listen to music.
You will therefore immediately understand that this makes the two cases anything but equivalent. Or can you not understand why this is so? Let me put it differently, just to be sure: 60/113 or 53% correct responses (on music alone) is different from 84/137 or 61% correct responses (on a music and test tones combined) and both are very far from "confirming the audibility" of polarity reversal in any case.
You see how suspicions of intentional misleading of readership can creep to mind?
I am well aware of what "confidence level" is about and so you don't need to keep diverting more attention to my unfortunate conflation of the two different figures above as already explained. Thank you. I simply remain wondering why would you include a mention of a confidence level but not of the actual test score, as this can be very confusing (given it's not always about probability)? You see, again...
> I am well aware of what "confidence level" is about...
My apologies. Given that you had made the same error of confusing actual
test scores with statistical probability in several postings, it was a
reasonable conclusion for me to reach, that you didn't understand the difference.
> I simply remain wondering why would you include a mention of a confidence
> level but not of the actual test score, as this can be very confusing
> (given it's not always about probability)?
In my own work, I always give both actual scores and the confidence level.
Given that the citation I made of Stanley's work was in a footnote, I
thought it sufficennt to give the reliability, as that is by far the more
important result of any blind test. And it's _always_ about probability.
> On music, Lipshitz' score was 60/113; on test tones, it was 24/24.
> That's a big difference: 53% correct vs. 100% correct.
Correct. What it means is a) that the effect of inverting absolute
polarity with test tones is detectable under blind conditions to a
highly significant degree (24/24), and b) that if it is audible with
typical music, the effect is subtle, as both Dan Shanefield and I have
stated (me in the footnote to which you object) and that with a score of
60/113, this test does not provide evidence that the effect is audible
with a statistical degree of confidence greater than [x]%. (Again, I
don't have time to calculate the signficance right now, but maybe someone
else will.)
> Polarity reversal is audible if you listen to test tones. Polarity
> reversal is not audible if you listen to music.
No, that is incorrect. You cannot derive an absolute negative result
from the results of a test such as this. You really do need to read a
textbook on the statistical design of experiments. I use a well-thumbed
copy of Neville and Kennedy's "Basic Statistical Methods for Engineers
and Scentists" (InterText) that I bought when I was doing my bachelor's
degree nearly 40 years ago. Which statistics textbook do you use?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Re: confidence levels: It's OK, not a biggie.Re: the actual score of the Lipshitz-Vanderkooy test:
(1) Why on earth would you omit the actual test score and only mention the confidence level, if your purpose was not to mislead the reader? Especially as you were making the big claim that what was established was audibility quite specifically " on music " (and not on test tones)? Besides, this claim of yours that polarity is "audible...on music" was not in a footnote but in the body text of your "As We See It" column in which you developed your whole claim about the importance of the polarity issue.
(2) Yes, thanks for admitting Lipshitz was correct in his test results that polarity reversal, if at all, is at most subtly audible with music. But you didn't state this in your Stereophile column we are talking about; quite the contrary, you state that it is "audible...on music."
(3) Yes, my statement was truly simplistic to make the above point clear, which I am happy to see you now in agreement with. Everyone understands that here we are only talking about the Lipshitz-Vanderkooy experiments and not of a definite proof positive of anything other than what was specifically shown for this particular set of questions & with this particular test setup. No need to belittle, hence; I think anyone who bothers to read exchanges like ours knows well enough what experiments can and what they can't do with hypotheses and what the status of the latter is. So no problem, we can easily restate if you wish: "In this experiment polarity reversal was shown to be audible when the specific test tone designed for the purpose was used but not shown to be audible when musical excerpts were used." Better now?
Lastly, I don't think I have objected to any footnotes. What I have objected to, again, is:
- Your claim in the Sphile "As We See It" column that polarity reversal is audible on music (it is not, you now admit); and
- you claim in the same text that Lipshitz and Vanderkooy have demonstrated this audibility on music (they have not, you now admit); and
- your claim still in the same text that such audibility on music is indeed basically the one thing that has been reliably detected in DBTs (this has not been detected in DBTs, you now admit).
Since you have now, de facto if not de jure, retracted all three of these false claims, I will feel satisfied to see your correction also printed in Stereophile as you have promised to do by now several times already.
I for my part will qualify my earlier claim that you were intentionally misleading the reader from the start, with an addendum that it may all have been due in part to your being confused about terminology and interpretation of the test results, as it now seems to me. But it would much help make a more generous assessment of the facts possible if there was a readier acknowledgment of errors (and willingness to set the record straight) in evidence in lieu of what we now see above in the tortured twists and turns of this thread that can only make it all seem like so politically motivated instead.
TL
1) Do you agree that the following is taken from the referenced material that Atkinson cited in the 1988 article?
"The authors have demonstrated the two-tone experiment described above to numerous people on different systems. No one has ever failed to hear the timbral change with phase, and discern the polarity reversal on this signal with unvarying accuracy. Indeed, in a double-blind demonstration to eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group [13], the accuracy score was 100% on the summed 200-Hz and 400-Hz tones over loudspeakers, and overall, including musical excerpts, the results on the audibility of the polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels were 84 correct responses out of 137, this representing confidence of more than 99% in the thesis that acoustic polarity reversal is audible."
...........YES or NO?
2) Do you see any mention in that text of a score of 60/113 on music?
...........YES or NO?
3) Do you see any mention in that text of a score of 24/24 on test tones?
...........YES or NO?
The answers to those question should indicate whether you're playing with a full deck. Frankly I don't hold out much hope at this point that you are... But hey!, surpirse me!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
1) YES.2) NO. (Guess why this was omitted by JA?)
3) NO. (Guess why this was omitted by JA?)
I suppose in your eagerness you are not realizing that this was my whole point: misleading by omitting the key information.
To begin with, you may note that "overall, including musical excerpts" (i.e., the 24/24 test-tone score and 60/113 music score summed up) is not at all equivalent to (same as) Atkinson's claim that these results were obtained "on music." If you didn't get it yet, this is the whole crux of the matter (the very thing that makes it a distortion or misrepresentation of facts on the part of JA/Stereophile).
So thanks for your help, but I'm afraid JA may not be patting you on your back any more at this point.
By the way, also this very text was discussed heatedly for about two months without a break already last spring (over at Critics), with also your participation IIRC, so all those following the discussions on this subject will find little use for your constant reiterations of the same.
- In other words, he decided to omit all the critical details (see the same scores in this breakdown). (Open in New Window)
"I suppose in your eagerness you are not realizing that this was my whole point: misleading by omitting the key information."
I can only conclude that you're implying that back in 1988 John Atkinson chose source materials that he knowingly knew to be "misleading". Surely you have something to substantiate such a seemingly fantastic notion?... I mean WOW!
.....
"To begin with, you may note that "overall, including musical excerpts" (i.e., the 24/24 test-tone score and 60/113 music score summed up) is not at all equivalent to (same as) Atkinson's claim that these results were obtained "on music." If you didn't get it yet, this is the whole crux of the matter (the very thing that makes it a distortion or misrepresentation of facts on the part of JA/Stereophile)."
Oh I "get it", no question about that, but your case depends upon the proposition that back in 1988 Atkinson was in possession of the knowledge (results on music vs. on test tones) and moreover was "misleading by omitting the key information".
I again invite you to provide something that would substiantiate such a claim, please do!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
...one shouldn't try to use for one's own ends research that one is not familiar with.
This guy was really into statistical process control.
In his cubicle, he had a poster with a picture of a drunk leaning against a street light. The caption of the poster was something like this:
"Statistics are often used as a drunk uses a lamppost - for support, rather than illumination".
I always liked that one :-).
Though in my profession they are mostly used for the formulation of new hypotheses and development of fresh platforms for further action, not so much for validation of existing positions.
TL
"one shouldn't try to use for one's own ends research that one is not familiar with" appears a step down from "misleading by omitting the key information".
That being the case allow me to ask are you formally retracting the "misleading by omitting the key information" statement, or do you stand by it?
If you stand by it then I repeat I would be interested in seeing your evidence to justify the claim.
Thank you.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
(1.) Key information : Audibility of polarity reversal on music has never been demonstrated in any DBTs in general and in the Lipshitz-Vanderkooy experiments in particular.(2.) John Atkinson in Stereophile : "Work by Stanley Lipshitz...confirmed that a reversal of absolute signal polarity will be subtly audible on music to a 99% confidence limit!" (Boldface mine.)
(3.) John Atkinson in Stereophile : "Indeed, it [audibility of polarity reversal on music] is one of the few things that can be reliably detected with double-blind testing ." (Boldface mine.)
(4.) Discussion : The key information given in (1.) is omitted from statements by JA in both (2.) and (3.) (and elsewhere in the Stereophile article in question); in fact, what JA states in (2.) and (3.) is something diametrically opposed to known facts ("key information").
(5.) Conclusions : Draw your own.
For evidence, try for a change to ACTUALLY TAKE A LOOK at any of the articles and reports discussing the Lipshitz-Vanderkooy experiments and review any and all reports on DBTs related to polarity audibility on music. If interested in further detail on the Lipshitz-Vanderkooy test, see link (first two rows of the table give the score first for test tones and then for music). You should also re-read the passage from the Lipshitz JAES piece abstract that you've quoted yourself above in this thread.
...I haven't yet checked their [BAS] website to see if it has bene reprinted yet.
I checked, and unfortunately it's not there.
True, but a letter to the editor from Dr Shanefield discussing the results in The BAS Speaker, Volume 17 number 3 contains the following interesting note. Bolding mine.
"The first has to do with a detailed study of the audi-bility of various phase effects as reported by Stan Lip-shitz and co-workers in theJournal of the Audio Engi-neering Society(vol. 30 no. 9). Johnsen cites a statementon page 583 of this report as evidence for the audibilityof absolute polarity. He certainly is correct that absolutepolarity has sometimes been (barely) audible in double-blind tests.
But Johnson failed to mention another critical point. The Summary section of the Lipshitz et al report (onpage 593) says that the audibility of polarity changes inmusic played over loudspeakers is only "extremely subtle." This evaluation is confirmed in an exchange ofcomments between me and Lipshitz et al published intheJ.A.E.S. vol.31 no. 6, in which we all agreed that formusic on loudspeakers absolute polarity is (1) notstrongly audible to most people, (2) not usually audibleabove 500Hz (more so below), (3) possibly not as audibleover loudspeakers which are comparatively free ofasymmetry effects (such as second harmonic distortion).In these letters I said that all kinds of phase effects were"of negligible importance," and Lipshitz et al said at thevery end, "We are basically in agreement with Dr.Shanefield."
The mystery deepens.
That's an interesting article. Thanks for posting it. I've been hoping to find an article that goes into detail about the actual data and procedures of the tests that Lipshitz referred to in his phase distortion article. So far, I've only found the cryptic info at the ABX site. The connection between the ABX site data and the BAS test unfortunately seems to be circumstantial - though the chances of the numbers matching up exactly with Lipshitz's by chance seem pretty remote. Also, Krueger has written Audio Amateur articles with Muller, so it's not unreasonable to assume he had access to the data.
As far as Lipshitz's subjective comments, I have tremendous respect for the guy, but his subjective opinions on audibility don't really mean any more or less to me than those of any other sane audiophile :-).
I have no beef with the absolute polarity crowd either. As I see it, audibility of absolute polarity has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt on test signals. Audibility is audibility. I suspect that somewhere, someone can find a recording of an instrument that produces a very asymmetrical waveform, and for which care has been taken in the recording process, and that such a recording could be used to establish audibility with music. Hey, after all a synthesizer is nothing but a signal generator anyway. I see this situation as being similar to the tests used to determine people's ability to detect changes in level. People don't do well on this test with music at all, but do much better with pink noise. It's the most sensitive tests that determine the facts of the matter IMO. If those tests don't use music, then so be it. That said, I find some of the claims of certain absolute polarity fanatics overstated.
I agree with most of that, save that raw voice has plenty of asymmetry. By the time producers or broadcasters are done with it little remains though. We should remember the ABX site is mostly irrelevant to the question of honesty in Atkinson's article, written years before the WWW was public. The BAS article is what counts.
...that polarity reversal is audible ON MUSIC (to a 99% confidence limit or whatever)?IT DOESN'T.
Lipshitz et al. couldn't show that at all.
Yet that is what JA claims, and that is where he is misleading and in error. And to try and claim like him that "on music" and "on material combining test tones and musical excerpts" are one and the same thing is obviously nothing but an attempt at plain old BS as I am sure you will agree. I'll post a separate note somewhere here describing exactly why this is so, maybe in reply to JA or bjh who seem most ignorant of the (statistical) meaning of the difference.
"...the ABX site is mostly irrelevant to the question of honesty in Atkinson's article, written years before the WWW was public..."
I'm not sure if you are saying that JA probably didn't have the data on the experiments that he was trying to publicly draw upon to bolster his own claims about the audibility of polarity? That would be either extremely sloppy or extremely cynical of him. The ABX site has no monopoly on this test data; it's just one of the many sources out there that have bothered to record the results for posterity. The details were obviously available from multiple sources, including the authors of whom JA writes most warmly, i.e., he could have always checked with them, too, if he felt unsure for some reason even after perusing all the written reports.
TL
Sit down. Breath through your nose. The question was simple, does the BAS article - or for that matter the Lipshitz paper - Atkinson references clearly break down the tone and music results and make the difference explicit, or do they report the confusing combined confidence level? If the latter, by what right do you accuse Atkinson of the things you have? By your response though you appear to have the BAS article and can settle this quickly with quotes.
On the larger question of audibility of polarity, you contradict what the BAS letter to the editor says of Lipshitz's thinking, substituting 'not aubible' for 'subtle'.
I wasn't shouting, I just didn't have time for html codes.Your simple question has a simple answer: Lipshitz [OK, I'll go for the codes :-)] clearly states that overall , including the scores for both the test tone and the musical excerpts (this is all directly lifted from the Lipshitz JAES piece that JA himself cited -- see Andy_C or bjh above for the exact quote), the results were 84 out of 137 correct responses (representing 99% confidence level, but see meaning of this term; and which 84/137 result could already be questioned as to its significance).
But the question here is: How did JA turn all this into a simple, unqualified statement proclaiming that audibility to be there "on music" (with even an exclamation mark to heigthen the significance of his assertion!)??? There was certainly enough information there in his own references to know better.
Even if we assume your mildest-case scenario as the most accurate one (JA simply was unable to understand statistics and/or terminology here, and so erred without aiming to mislead, which we of course do not know as he refuses to clarify the issue), what he could and should do is to correct the misinformation/error after it has been brought to his attention.
This has not been done, even though in public (also here on AA) he has presented Stereophile proudly as one of the few accurate & reliable publications out there that actually issues corrections of factual erros. Only this isn't happening, at least not with this particular issue. What are we going to make out of that, then?
I may have the BASS issue but will have to look it up in storage and I can't do that now. If I find it, I'll let you know, but what do you expect to find in it? If you cite a test in support of your position, you better ensure that this test indeed supports your position. It's no one else's responsibility but your own. And it's too bad if you aren't capable of deciphering research reports or did a sloppy job reading them, but then you shouldn't have tried and used them in the first place. It's that simple really.
I don't care about what Stereophile or John Atkinson does, but I don't like hypocrisy and arrogance especially when they combine, and I don't like it when people keep denying undisputed facts for ideological reasons, and I don't like pointless objections for objections' sake when I point to the existence of such facts. Hence my posts here, if you want to know. Nothing personal. I hope with you, too.
TL
I'm not sure what counts at this point - LOL!
At the bottom of the ABX page with the absolute polarity data, it says:
The tests of absolute polarity were done on the original Quad electrostatic speakers. They were used in hope of minimizing the known potential problem of speaker distortion revealing polarity. The audibility of the Stan Lipshitz / John Van der Kooy polarity training signal was confirmed on those speakers. However the audibility of polarity on music was not confirmed whether the sound source was vinyl or a 1/4" 2-track master tape I recorded of a soprano recital with piano accompaniment. Stan and John came to Detriot for the first pair of tests. The system included a Hartley 24" subwoofer, Leach amplfiers, an ARC SP3-1, and a Kilmanas modified Rabco turntable.
The information above, and the total trial and success numbers matching Lipshitz's numbers exactly seem like too much of a coincidence. Also, this text appears on the ABX page:
May 7, 1977 SMWTMS did the first ever audio double blind subjective listening tests. An argument over the audibility of differences between amplifiers at a club meeting in November 1976 resulted in an agreement that a double blind test could settle the question. Just six months later, Arny Krueger gave a lecture on his design of a double blind comparator and the first three double blind tests were done. The results include the first three listed in the Power Amplifier Comparison Table in the data. Thus we credit Arny Krueger and his opponent in the argument, Bern Muller, as the inventors of the ABX Comparator. The agreement to create a company to manufacture comparators was informally made the following summer.
Same SMWTMS that Lipshitz mentions. Also, Bern Muller was the author of the Audio Amateur article that Lipshitz references. I don't think this had anything to do with the BAS at all.
When Lipshitz in his AES article is writing that:"The authors have demonstrated the two-tone experiment described above to numerous people on different systems. No one has ever failed to hear the timbral change with phase [TL: the 24/24 score with test tones], and discern the polarity reversal on this signal with unvarying accuracy. Indeed, in a double-blind demonstration to eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group, the accuracy score was 100% on the summed 200-Hz and 400-Hz tones over loudspeakers [TL: again, that 24/24 test-tone score], and overall, including musical excerpts, the results on the audibility of the polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels were 84 correct responses out of 137, this representing confidence of more than 99% in the thesis that acoustic polarity reversal is audible."
...he is indeed describing the very same test whose results are given in greater detail on the ABX comparator site. Compare the numbers; on the other hand, the 11 test participants are described more in the Audio Amateur article (though are of course also noted on the ABX comparator site). Lipshitz isn't famous for clarity and he is clearly struggling to avoid direct confrontation with the fact that with musical material the score was no better than 60/113.
The prob with the "cryptic" way of presenting the info on the ABX comparator site is that their system for doing so is actually a bit too basic. The line "Van der Kooy / Lipshitz Training Signal" gives the score obtained with the test tone (it was specifically designed for this purpose by the test authors); the line "Sheffield & Other Phonograph Records" gives the score obtained when music, not the test tone, was used ("phonograph records" were utilized as this was after all still the pre-digital era...). The last two lines report on further tests for which neither Lipshitz nor Vanderkooy were in attendance (not addressed by any of the articles discussing their "own" test, then). The columns giving the p value and the number of participants in each test round are self-evident.
In a word, all of these sources that have been mentioned talk about the the same test results (the ones whose closer numerical breakdown is given on the ABX comparator site but only more generally described in the papers referred to).
TL
I just wish the ABX site would have put some footnote on the data, saying, "This test was performed by XYZ and is further documented in the article ABC". That would take care of my "cryptic" and "circumstantial" concerns.
I just realized that Krueger posts to usenet regularly, so I'll bet it would be possible to get some clarification from him, to verify that these are indeed the data in question. I have very little doubt, but it might convince (ha ha :-)) some of the doubters.
Instad, they just put the numbers up, possibly including some circumstantial-looking sentence or two about who came from where, a line header obvious to those only who were present during the experiments, and that's it. They could really function as a highly useful data bank if they did something along the lines of what you suggest.
I'd be curious to hear if you get any comments out of Krueger, so I'll keep my ears wide open, just in case!
Cheers,
TL
I just sent an email to the webmaster, David Carlstrom. I asked about the origin of the data, and whether I could have his permission to post his reply. We'll see what happens.
No. of trials, no. of test runs with test tones, no. of test runs with musical excerpts, no. of participants, the description and history of the specifically devised test tone, the test dates, the p values, and the names of the test authors are all identical. The chances that at some point the two authors replicated this experiment in a totally identical format with regard to every single one of its above parameters (incl. date...backdate!!) is: zero.TL
I'm completely convinced at this point, but I get the impression that there's still some diehards holding out.
My email to David Carlstrom bounced, so I'll post a message to usenet. I'm sure Arny Krueger won't be able to resist responding :-).
See link: "An experiment involving polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels resulted in an audibility confidence rating in excess of 99% with the two-component tone, although the effect was very subtle on music and speech."
I'm not sure where the mystery resides. It's not that this research by Lipshitz & Vanderkooy isn't known; it's simply that the papers discussing it only very seldom give the detailed breakdown of the results (score with music vs. score with the specifical test tone designed by Lipshitz to maximally reveal polarity shift). Usually the results are only verbally characterized -- except in the ABX comparator website which collects all DBT results done using an ABX comparator. So the mystery results are there in their full glory and in plain olde English.
TL
You do understand the difference between "not audible" (your description) and "very subtle," don't you?
> You do understand the difference between "not audible" (your description)
> and "very subtle," don't you?
I don't think tlyyra does grasp that "subtle" distinction, any more
than he does the concept of statistical confidence limits. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
But would you care sharing your view of exactly what that 99 % confidence limit has to do with the audibility of polarity reversal on music and where you obtained this figure?
.
.
.
I think not.
.
.
.
But it would be actually interesting to hear you answer some of these questions, instead of trying to sidetrack the issues with efforts to undermine the credibility of the questioner's character.;-)
- I actually agree with your own conclusions. Or do you mean to say you are now backtracking from your admission of error? (Open in New Window)
> would you care sharing your view of exactly what that 99% confidence
> limit has to do with the audibility of polarity reversal on music and
> where you obtained this figure?
From the reference cited, and confirmed in a link you yourself gave,
tlyyra: "An experiment involving polarity inversion of both loudspeaker
channels resulted in an audibility confidence rating in excess of 99%
with the two-component tone, although the effect was very subtle on music
and speech."
Seems clear enough. And I will ask again about your own familiarity with
the statistical analysis of experimental results, as you really don't
seem familiar with the concept of applying a confidence limit. The 99%
limit you asked me to explain in another posting means that there was 1%
or less probablility that the identification in the test results was the
result of chance.
By contrast, you seem to want to deal with a black and white world,
where an effect is either audible or not. That is not how the results of
tests like these can be discussed; what is important is the _probability_
of the test results being due to a real effect rather than to chance.
With something like absolute polarity, the effect is possibly audible
only some of the time and not to all listeners with all kinds of music
program (particularly as with multimiked programs, you can have random
mixings of inverted and correct absolute polarity). As both Stanley said,
and I said back in 1988, the effect is subtle. You need, therefore, to
design both the experiment and the statistical analysis of the results
with those facts in mind.
Look, rather than you keep dredging around the facts of what happened
and what was written two decades ago, test the matter for yourself.
Stereophile's first Test CD, which I produced, includes an absolute
polarity test track (#8) with which you can test yourself blind.
The track, which is purist miked, is decribed at the link below. (The key
can be found at www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/176/index14.html.)
Email me your street address and I'll send a copy of the CD.
> it would be actually interesting to hear you answer some of these
> questions, instead of trying to sidetrack the issues with efforts to
> undermine the credibility of the questioner's character.
What efforts? I haven't made any mention of my opinions of other
posters' characters.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
OK. Let's go into this a little deeper, then, as you still seem to prefer to avoid addressing the points raised.(1.) Where did you get the result that polarity reversal is audibile on music to a 99% confidence limit?
The latter applies to the overall results only: test tones and musical excerpts combined -- not music alone as you claim.
The quotation you refer to above is by a grad student at U Miami. Why don't you cite Lipshitz himself? Or any of the two sources you cited in your original Sphile article?
But let's stay with this "99% confidence limit" a little that you misattributed to the results on music (and that gives a misleading impression that polarity reversal is somehow audible on music):
The results obtained by Lipshitz & Vanderkooy were: 24/24 correct responses on test tones, and 60/113 correct responses on music. So we get the following as regards:
(i) Audibility on Test Tones :
24/24 has a 2*2^(-24) = 2^(-23) chance of occurring randomly (we should include 0/24, since that would be considered equally significant, which is why it's multiplied by 2) -- which is less than 1/1,000,000. So this result is highly significant, which no one denies: "Audible on test tones."
(ii) Audibility on Music :
On the other hand, the 60/113 score (or more) on music has about a 29% chance of occurring randomly, and if we use the two-tailed significance we must again multiply it by 2 -- so it has a greater than 50% chance of happening by guessing. In other words, no significance: "Not audible on music."
(iii) Audibility Overall :
Combining both data sets gives the score of 84/137, with a two-tailed significance of almost exactly 99%. Obviously, all the significance here comes from the test-tones results, as anyone can immediately see from the above.
(iv) Therefore it is indeed possible to say that overall , polarity reversal is audible with 99% confidence; and that it's audible on test tones with better than .000001 confidence; BUT it is NOT possible to say (like you do) that it is audible on music with any confidence at all .
So we can only conclude that your claim is totally false (either a misrepresentation or simply erroneous, I'm not sure as you have preferred not to clarify this).
In other words, the effect, as has been summarized by many already, if audible at all, is certainly "very subtle," given that no one thus far has been able to detect it in double blind tests on music (contrary to what you claim; but please feel free to cite evidence showing otherwise). Including Stan Lipshitz.
To repeat : You claim that polarity reversal is audible on music to a 99% confidence limit ! (Exlamation mark and italics yours.) And that Stan Lipshitz has demonstrated this in his experiments discussed above. And that the audibility of polarity reversal on music is indeed one of the few things that can be reliably detected with double-blind testing (Italics yours).
None of these three claims are true, as we can all clearly see: There are no DBTs that show this audibility on music. The confidence level you cite was obtained by Lipshitz not for music but for overall score combining also test tones. Lipshitz himself couldn't establish any audibility on music, either. And if no one has shown it with DBTs, it obviously cannot be detected with them with any kind of reliability, no matter how flexibly you yourself might prefer to use the concept.
Seems clear enough? Or still uncomfortably black-and-white for your taste?
(2.) If it seems people like I keep "dredging around the facts" for too long (we actually like facts), why not put the matter to rest? You know what to do, since you've proposed it yourself: Edit that Sphile article to reflect the actual facts of that Lipshitz experiment, and issue a correction of this erroneous claim in Sphile as you've already said at least two or three times that you will. End of story.
(3.) As for the Sphile test CD, I have it and have run a few series of little experiments precisely with that polarity track. I am afraid my result may disappoint you (and I can assure you it's not because of my audio system is inadequate).
(4.) And as for those "efforts to undermine the questioner's character" that you deny, I obviously referred to your post in response to Robert Young in which, instead of addressing any matters of substance, you instead decided to try and raise doubts about my general competence and credibility in precisely those areas in which you now seem to be somewhat lacking yourself, if I may say so, judging from the above.
TL
You don't need any help from me, or from JA, as you seem to be doing a smashing job of this all by yourself. It is your insistance that JA has willfully distorted the facts for some nefarious purpose that constitutes the significant character-questioning in this thread.
I have asked if he would like to explain or correct a factual error, which very much seems like a misrepresentation of facts and in any case amounts to a false claim, whether accidental or intentional.
You did indeed say some of that!
You specifically charged Atkinson with being "misleading by omitting the key information" and those two "Guess why this was omitted by JA?" s (same post) leave very little doubt.
I'll remind you I asked asked you to provide evidence to back such a claim, and that you have not produced any such! So where's the beef?
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
"Misleading by omitting information" is something completely different than what Robert Young is asserting.Then again maybe not in your book. It seems a bit different as a stylistic guide anyway.
The evidence? That he has mislead by omitting information? And even made claims that contradict the facts in his own sources as well? Is reading comprehension the area where you feel challenged, or the numbers part? I just yesterday put it in a grammar-school type of a nutshell for you. That's as pared-down as I can get.
I suggest a more thorough investigation into the meaning of "misleading by omitting information." You seem to be alone in not understanding it.
Here's a hint: "misleading" is not accidental.
I think by now we are all similarly prepared to draw our own.
However, on the point of grammar, if I may: The verb "to mislead" in itself does not necessarily imply the presence of conscious intention. Think, say, of a "misleading sentence": sentences do not possess either consciousness or intentionality (the latter in particular is a fundamentally human* quality, as we have known since the early phenomenologists at the very latest). But it is true that often this expression connotes deliberateness on the part of the one that misleads.
In the absence of any clarification from JA on this particular point, we simply do not know with certainty to which extent his actions may or may not have been intentional and deliberate, so usage of a term that leaves the question at least little bit open seems appropriate.
*Today we might want to say "humanoid" or something even less restrictive.
Your example - the "misleading sentence" - is not a strong one (as there is still an active subject that creates the condition of being "misleading" - someone had to write your "misleading sentence"), but your point that the word "misleading" is not specific regarding intent is true. However, put in the context of your posts, it is clear that "misleading" is used as a synonym for "delusive."
Regarding the lack of clarification from JA, given the absence of any proof of deception, we must presume innocence before guilt.
That all you got left?
My how the mighty have fallen.
Language is at the base of understanding and communication. That you continually abuse it means that any substantive additional effort spent with you is wasted time.
This is why I prefer to post plain facts such as numbers:
60 / 113 = 53%
I'm still waiting Atkinson to do the same.
'nuff said.
Can you describe for me the difference between "confidence level" and "percentage correct?"
Thank you.
It's beside the point.But feel free to re-read my reply to JA on this. You seem to have posted a reply to it so I would have assumed you read it already. Maybe JA could help with the unpacking of the stats content? ;-)
- Discussed already, so what is your aim if not just arguing for the sake of arguing? (Open in New Window)
You have been obsessively focussed on claiming a consciously deceptive math error, but you can't acknowledge that you have substituted terms. Your position is so ludicrous that you can't even maintian a consistency of attack.
You really should have given up ages ago. Now you'll have to go much further, just to get the moderators to ban you. That way you will have constructed your own vindication.
Robert Young said to tlyyra:
> You have been obsessively focussed on claiming a consciously deceptive
> math error, but you can't acknowledge that you have substituted terms.
> Your position is so ludicrous that you can't even maintian a consistency
> of attack.
I am not sure what else I can do, Robert? I have acknowledged that I may
have made an error -- this was 20 years ago, for goodness sake -- and I
have amended the text in the offending article in Stereophile's Web
archive so that it is now literally correct. Yet the man is still
demanding I answer his questions! :-(
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
wasn't that it?
LOL
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
But I don't mind you keeping the thread alive.
That's for you, bjh."I have amended the text...so that it is now literally correct" :
Are you kidding? Your text reads:
"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.)"
I am not sure if you can understand this, but you have done nothing to correct the three patently false claims you make. It's literally incorrect on the same three points as before:
- Stan Lipshitz never confirmed audibility of polarity inversion on music with his DBTs.
- Stan Lipshitz never confirmed audibility of polarity inversion on music to a 99% confidence limit.
- None of this has ever been confirmed in any other DBTs, either.It's not even very good cosmetics. I'm sure your personal audience will buy it, but do you think anyone else will?
"I am not sure what else I can do, Robert?...the man is still
demanding I answer his questions!" :Poor you, people pestering you with requests that you kindly not misrepresent someone else's research results. Maybe you should avoid appearances in public, then, if that's too inconvenient.
Are you trying to make it look like you are a victim of a witch hunt by these terrible AA fact dredgers or something?
I'm reminded of the old proverb, "Don't wrestle with pigs: you're both going to get drty, but the pig likes it."
> Regarding the lack of clarification from JA, given the absence of any
> proof of deception, we must presume innocence before guilt.
I think that you forget, Robert, that as a member of the Evil High-End
Audio Establishment, my guilt is to be assumed until I am proved
innocent. :-)
To be honest, I don't have a sufficently good memory to be able to
perfectly recall what I was thinking on the day I wrote that essay 20
years ago. But it is possible that I conflated the 1978 Lipshitz test
results on music and test tones. When I can retrieve the specific issue
of The BAS speaker from storage, I will check out the Lipshitz article.
In the meantime, perhaps I should be gratified that people are studying
things I wrote decades ago with such intensity. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
We are and have been talking about publishing misleading information on a topic of vital interest (in the audio world)......a false statement
....an error of fact
...an extremely serious "error" in that, it seems, as it got another poster already banned and deleted from AA for bringing it up.
To be honest, you and I both know that this error is easily detected at the first reading of your essay, if one is familiar with Lipshitz' experiments (as you claim to be yourself, citing it a number of times in your essay).
No need to go back to scratching memory or digging archives (a well-known wait-it-out manoeuvre). Just read what you yourself wrote. So plain even I can see it... ;-)
But what you probably should do is consult someone reliable on statistical analysis. See for instance KlausR's remarks above, if our mutual exchanges so far have failed to convince you.
TL
TSP didn't get banned for "bringing it up." He got banned for making slanderous remarks without backing them up. Actually, if not for your cute little backtracking on the meaning of the word "misrepresent," you wouldn't be far off from him either. But your agenda, and your meaning of what you think JA did is extremely obvious to everyone who reads this Forum. "An extremely serious "error..."" is how you put it, and that's coming from someone who stil doesn't understand (or just refuses to) understand the difference between "confidence level" and percentage correct.
Now think just a bit harder: if TSP had been banned for "bringing it up," then you would have been banned as well.
Did Atkinson's Stereophile column misrepresent Lipshitz' research or not?That's a rhetorical question since I know you won't be answering it. Doing so would confirm what we all know by now: that TSP got banned & deleted for pointing out that which seems obvious.
What did you say about "abuse of language" just a minute ago?
As for why I'm still allowed to post, since you ask, my best guesses for now are:
1) Deleting my account would make things a bit too obvious, since TSP just got silenced for the very same reason of pointing false claims advanced by Atkinson. The whole forum would appear as nothing more than a tool of audiophile industry, in open contradiction with what it claims itself to be (an open forum for debate). So it would be better to at least let things to quiet down first.
2) But I think it's perhaps more likely that the moderators themselves understand how they screwed things up and, even when reluctant to admit it and reverse their actions, are unwilling to repeat their mistakes, at least at this point and in public.
3) We're probably not done yet.
(see link below)
Tlyyra: I don't wish to alarm you, but I fear that as we speak, agents from the high end audio establishment are plotting against you to do unspeakable things. Perhaps you ought not to say anymore about "The Lipshitz Fiasco". I mean only if you value your life and freedom, of course. I know people who have disappeared in seconds, as if they never existed. And for a lot less. In fact, I've already said too much....
Pande
I only ventured an answer to a specific question put to me by that poster.
Besides, I spoke only of this site, not the entire industry... ;-)
Tlyyra, I wasn't being "dramatic", I was just being humorous. I'm sorry that that also wasn't obvious to you, but I can't say I'm surprised. Anyway, the point I'd like to make is, there really aren't agents of the high end audio establishment that have been provoked by your prime truthseeking mission and which are on high alert and intensely monitoring your activities right now. So rest assured, you are free to speak your mind against the powerful forces of HE audio, to expose the gritty secrets of "The Lipshitz Affair" as you have been making so many efforts to do, and are under no danger at any present time.
p.s. If you ever had any goals in life that you hoped to achieve before you shuffle off the old mortal coil, I would strongly suggest you do so within the next 48 -- no, make that 24 hrs. Give or take. Good luck! (thumbs up) :-)
Pande
in case you missed the smiley face.
That's what I said in my earlier reply to you, too, which curiuosly enough seems to have been deleted in the meantime.
TL
Hi,
I think it's great that you're still alive and posting (against all odds). Especially since you just made me $50 bucks on that fact. If you can keep this up, I figure that by the time you get to the end of the downward spiral in your "vindicating TSP campaign", I'll have won enough to buy 10 Brilliant Pebbles, 9 Clever Clocks, 8 Tru-Tone Covers, 7 Shakti On-Lines, 6 Hallographs, 5 tuning dots, 4 Silver Foils, 3 Myrtle Wood Blocks 2 Bybee Filters and a Partridge Family greatest hits album.
"That's what I said in my earlier reply to you, too, which curiuosly enough seems to have been deleted in the meantime."
Well, be thankful it was the only thing that got rubbed out. Thus far.
Pande
"Well, be thankful it was the only thing that got rubbed out. Thus far. "It wasn't, at all. Hope I didn't make you lose that $50 by telling this.
Talk about trolls.
completely delusional.
TSP didn't get banned for the reasons you claim, and you know it. At this point, you continue to make a sham out of intelligent debate.
You are totally wrong but I am not going to say why and on what point! You just are! And you know it! I know it for sure! Totally delusional! But of course no evidence is necessary! As with everything else! That's what I say! Now go away and leave us intelligently debating!
There you go with your "royal 'we'" again. I see no one coming to your assistance on this one.
Your agenda has been laid bare.
Of the approach practiced by you.And your kind.
It's alarming that you don't see the irrationality in it.
But not surprising.
What earned the response, Tlyyra DEAR is the breadth of your delusion.
one "dumb----" on that other (now departed) dumb----! You only get one you know, at least that was my understanding the last time I examined the Privileges Section of the Member Rights document distributed to contributors to the Influence Peddling Slush Fund for AA Moderators .
Shucks!
ps.
Please don't remind me it should be "dumb ----" or "dumb-----", I've put up with about as much annoyance as I can bear over the past few days. Thanks for your cooperation.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
> [Your] Assumed Guilt"? Are you trying to become an Audio Asylum martyr?
No, I was trying to inject some humor into the thread. My apologies if
you were confused.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Gotcha, sorry.
Perhaps that's the best way to proceed for you at this point. :-)
TL
It would also be interesting to see what's in the Audio Amateur article that was the primary reference for these tests that Lipshitz quoted in his paper - if you have it. Bern Muller was apparently a guy from SMWTMS that was in on the tests. Here's the Lipshitz quote again for reference:
"The authors have demonstrated the two-tone experiment described above to numerous people on different systems. No one has ever failed to hear the timbral change with phase, and discern the polarity reversal on this signal with unvarying accuracy. Indeed, in a double-blind demonstration to eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group [13], the accuracy score was 100% on the summed 200-Hz and 400-Hz tones over loudspeakers, and overall, including musical excerpts, the results on the audibility of the polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels were 84 correct responses out of 137, this representing confidence of more than 99% in the thesis that acoustic polarity reversal is audible."
And reference 13 is this:
[13] B. F. Muller, "Third World: The Scientific Subjectivists," Audio Amateur, vol. 11, p. 64 (1980 Jan.).
> reference 13 is this: [13] B. F. Muller, "Third World: The Scientific
> Subjectivists," Audio Amateur, vol. 11, p. 64 (1980 Jan.).
Like the BAS Speakers, my AAs are all in storage. But Old Colony has
published a complete AA archive on CD-ROM. I'll get hold of a copy.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
...over this formulation of a grad student the way John Atkinson now agrees to put it, closely following the conclusions by the test author Lipshitz himself:" If it [reversal of absolute polarity] is audible with typical music, the effect is subtle...and this test does not provide evidence that the effect is audible with a statistical degree of confidence greater than [x]%." (My emphasis.)
If I may fill in that x for JA in his last sentence, the chances that a 60/113 result is obtained by just guessing are greater than 50% (about 58%), meaning that the score has no significance at all. His own point proven: not shown to be audible.
In other words, if audible at all, the effect is so subtle it cannot even be heard (in the tests conducted so far, in case JA disagrees with this formulation...).
TL
"In other words, if audible at all, the effect is so subtle it cannot even be heard (in the tests conducted so far, in case JA disagrees with this formulation...).
"
Well according to this thesis it IS audible (if subtly) on music.
Not per Lipshitz, no longer per Atkinson either, not per any of the tests/research I've seen.
Perhaps per clarkjohnsen but that's another story...
TL
"See link: "An experiment involving polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels resulted in an audibility confidence rating in excess of 99% with the two-component tone, although the effect was very subtle on music and speech.""
That's in your post, T. And you link to the text from which it is drawn at the bottom of your post.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Seems to me he can, and does, again, and again, and....
Perhaps he was spoiled as a child?
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
That's a grad student summing up the Lipshitz experiments. Did you not manage to read it?
I myself, like I said, prefer the way both Atkinson now and Lipshitz always have put it: if it's there at all, the effect is so subtle it cannot even be claimed to be audible. That's a bit more precise way of saying it than "very subtle."
TL
"That's a grad student summing up the Lipshitz experiments. Did you not manage to read it?"
That is not what that thesis is about...otherwise its not really a thesis now is it? What is it with you and Lipshitz? Read this quote from the introduction:
"This thesis research is not meant to be exhaustive by any means, but to ascertain some permissible levels based on careful experimental design and analysis. The Kwalwasser-Dykema Music Tests format will be used in the implementation of the thesis research with other considerations. These permissible levels may be beneficial in the design and application of audio equipment, especially in the area of transducer and loudspeaker system engineering.
"
Where did you get that this thesis is all about Lipshitz?? It is research in the same area but it is not regurgitation of his work.
From the conclusion:
"A psychoacoustic experiment and analysis, proposed to ascertain permissible levels of phase distortion in various audio signals, addressed the significance of the audibility of phase distortion."
further;
"These permissible levels may be beneficial in the design and application of audio equipment. It is concluded that phase distortion is an extremely subtle effect, complicated by reverberant listening or original recording conditions"
"The audibility of phase distortion in audio signals seems to be highly dependent upon individual ability"
Gee, where have we heard that before? You guys are simply not willing to accept that people have significantly different hearing abilities, some hear these anamolies better than others.
"The selection of the all-pass center frequency of 3.5 kHz where the Robinson-Dadson curve displays the lowest threshold of audibility may suggest that for broad-band signals (such as the impulse), mid-range phase distortion is most audible."
"Improved irradiation methods, such as the use of phase-equalized loudspeakers in an anechoic environment, may also aid in ascertaining more accurate permissible levels."
So it was audible in many cases even with phase incoherent loudspeakers? Well then possibly the effect could go from "very subtle" to "rather obvious"...or not but it is a rather important variable I think.
"the effect is so subtle it cannot even be claimed to be audible. That's a bit more precise way of saying it than "very subtle."
"
Its only a more precise way of saying it that is what is really implied by it, which in this case I am quite sure it is not.
Your reading comprehension simply sucks! "Very subtle" still connotates audible. Lipshitz is being rather cute with his twist of it but "very subtle" still implies audible, perhaps "unimportant" depending on the listener (as we have established that it affects people differently) but audible.
Sorry the misunderstanding. No one said this thesis is about Lipshitz & audibility of polarity or anything like that. I brought it up since it contains a reference to the very same experiments we have been discussing, in the hopes that it helps people to understand that there is only one (as far as I have been able to establish) such research reported by Lipshitz, and that there are no other, secret and hitherto unknown research results hidden somewhere that only Atkinson has access to (and that would help explain his very different characterization of these test, compared to Lipshitz's own).
That was all. And if you think this grad students personal characterization of Lipshitz's results ("subtly audible") should somehow take precendence over the actual test results Lipshitz got and reported, go ahead. This is a make-believe world anyway as it seems.
TL
You said:
"That's a grad student summing up the Lipshitz experiments. Did you not manage to read it?
"
and now you are backtracking, saying:
"Sorry the misunderstanding. No one said this thesis is about Lipshitz & audibility of polarity or anything like that"
Excuse me but the quote above clearly points out that you WERE saying that the thesis is about Lipshitz and the Thesis IS about audibility of phase inversion. Why lie now? Just admit you were wrong. I seriously think you didn't bother to read what was in fact a very interesting thesis.
Is this a simple misquote, like JA made 20 years ago, or are you deliberately trying to deceive me??
"that it helps people to understand that there is only one (as far as I have been able to establish) such research reported by Lipshitz"
I think everyone got that...a long time ago. Who gives a Lipshitz?
Look, it is all very transparent what you are attempting to do. You are not the noble policeman trying to protect us from misinformation. You have a clear agenda to embarrass a man for a misquote in an article from nearly 20 years ago. Your agenda is to try to "expose" his supposed agenda and it is malicious and grasping at little fine details in an attempt to say "gotcha". Pathetic.
Everyone can do the simplistic math and yes you are correct that with music only 53% were correct but that is not the way the data was presented and give the TOTAL of test signal and music the audibility fit a 99% confidence limit. All this proves is the fallability of reporting statistics without taking everything into account. So you are the big genius who figured that little clever bit out? Good for you. I don't have access to this report so I had to assume that 84/137 was for music and tones but not how it broke down.
"This is a make-believe world anyway as it seems"
No, this is where you are wrong and it is fundamental to the problem here. You sneer at people who claim to hear differences when they change things in their systems. The reality is that often time there IS a difference in the sound and yes it is usually "very subtle". But you know the human brain has a funny way of "locking onto" signals that while subtle become MUCH more obvious once consciously noticed. To some people these things become very pleasant or actively annoying. To others less sensitized they are irrelevant. I will assume you fall into the latter category but you should accpet the fact that there are those whose hearing is attuned better to noticing and finding importance in subtle effects.
The thesis you posted states very clearly that they found the results HIGHLY listener dependent.
"The audibility of phase distortion in audio signals was also highly dependent upon individual ability, although for statistical analysis individual data was not considered. For example, while most test subjects were very good at recognizing what was in general perceivable as phase distortion such as the impulse and the 70 Hz sawtooth wave, a few others had greater difficulty. Specifically, a few subjects seemed to hear clearly the presence of phase distortion in the jazz-vocal test signal for the headphone listening test, while a few test subjects seemed to perceive phase distortion better than others during the loudspeaker listening test."
Now maybe you are one of the ones that would have trouble with the sawtooth pattern but that doesn't mean its not audible, just to you.
It brings up many questions though about the statistical results reported in this thesis (if we really want to break it down like you have the Lipshitz results). If it is highly listener dependent then it suggests that SOME of the listeners were able to reliably detect phase distortion with TONES AND MUSIC. This means for these listeners the effect was not "Very subtle" but rather "readily audible". For those stone ears who couldn't even tell the sawtooth, well I am sure they drag the whole data down into statistical irrelevancy resulting in the authors to confirm "very subtle" when in fact it is very subtle for some, impossible for others and readily audible for a few. Did Lipshitz break it down for individual listeners, looking for individual outliers?
You know how you treat statistical data from listening is not how you treat data for weighing things or measuring voltages etc. The individual response is relevant. Maybe you will learn this and maybe not.
I'll try to be more brief than you:1. "The quote above clearly points out" ONLY what it states, i.e., that in the cited paper the grad student sums up Lipshitz's experiments (even if in passing). As I said that's precisely why I included a reference to it.
What is it that you would rather have me say instead? You claim that I have an agenda but the only agenda I can see signs of seems to be there in your posts such as this.
2. Good if everyone understood what Lipshitz has done and what he hasn't done. Only it doesn't appear that way to me, judging from the replies I keep getting that aim at continuously contradicting the facts or trying to brush them under the carpet.
3. "Playing a policeman": One poster got already banned and had his account deleted a few days ago for pointing out this very same "error" of Atkinson's. Who are the policement? Those who post the facts for everyone to see, or those who go about deleting them where they become inconvenient and eliminate those who post them? Keep watching what happens to people like him. My own posts below and above are selectively deleted as well, even though they are nothing but polite and factual as anyone can see, removing facts given in answer to questions addressed to points I've made, and then archiving (closing) the thread so I can't repost my clarification or answer. Anyone venture a guess why this happens to the extent it does?
Talking about "policing"...
4. Atkinson himself has suggested that any errors of fact in Stereophile be forwarded to his attention so he can issue a public correction of them. I have done this as suggested. Look at the reactions, including your own. The public may draw its own conclusions.
As I've said the issue is easily settled: rewrite the column to correspond to facts, issue a correction of the error, and it's all yesterday's news by then already. This is normally not a big deal for anyone; it's done as a matter of course on a daily basis in the day press. So what's the big deal here for everyone? A taboo topic or or a taboo personage or why is the boat rocking so heavily?
5. "Sneering at people who claim to hear differences": I'm not going to be baited and move the discussion into something vague and inflammatory like this. Note that nothing even remotely related to your claim has been broached in the course of the current thread.
6. If you want to discuss that paper I referred to, start another thread and I'll say what I think of it. This thread is about something else.
Your agenda is clear, to debunk anyone who thinks phase audibility with music is real and to defame JA for making an erroneous statement.
One question for you though since I don't have the Lipshitz paper: Does Lipshitz in his paper actually break down the results and separate test tones from music? Or does he lump all the results together to get the 99% confidence limit? Are his conclusions separated between tones and music or is that your own doing? In other words, are you putting forward their conclusions of the work or your own interpretation of the results??
I have plenty of my own experiments with phase effects while designing speakers to prove that it is real. Using a digital xover with readily adjustable phase allows for some interesting and highly audible results. You should try these things yourself and find out what is audible and what is not. I recommend a Behringer DCX 2496, its cheap and very flexible because you can also do long time delays as well.
"Playing a policeman": One poster got already banned and had his account deleted a few days ago for pointing out this very same "error" of Atkinson's."
Look, its not the pointing out of the error, its the insistence that it was a malicious error intended to mislead readers. You are being intentionally obtuse and trying obfuscate the situation by claiming otherwise. This tells me you are not playing "on the level" and have an agenda to promote.
I don't think it was intentional and most others don't either. It is slanderous to accuse someone of something like that without at least some proof of how it was intentional. That is why TSP was asked to recant or be banned not for pointing out an error. Your way of twisting the reality reminds me of few other chumps here.
"Who are the policement? Those who post the facts for everyone to see, or those who go about deleting them where they become inconvenient and eliminate those who post them? Keep watching what happens to people like him"
Should I just call you Teflon man? Rather than addressing the issue headon you deflect it to the moderators who, BTW could care less about whether JA made a mistake or not but they care very much about slanderous remarks...and rightly so. TSP got what was coming to him for making comments without substantiation and you do too.
" Atkinson himself has suggested that any errors of fact in Stereophile be forwarded to his attention so he can issue a public correction of them. I have done this as suggested. Look at the reactions, including your own. The public may draw its own conclusions.
"
Did you issue them in private first? Give him a chance to address you personally and make the correction? If not then you were just baiting him in a public forum...not cool.
"If you want to discuss that paper I referred to, start another thread and I'll say what I think of it. This thread is about something else.
"
What a copout!! YOU posted that link in THIS thread! So why should I have to start an new thread for you to address it? If you introduced it you should be prepared to discuss it.
1. "...to debunk anyone who thinks phase audibility with music is real and to defame JA for making an erroneous statement."You are misunderstanding. I am not debunking anyone; Lipshitz is. Or, to be precise, he debunked that myth almost thirty years ago already.
Defame JA? Exactly how have I "defamed" him? By pointing out an error of fact that gives rise to a false claim? Here on AA he has invited people to point out errors of fact so that he can correct them on Sphile. So here's one. But instead, Atkinson has resorted to attacking my person (not the content of my post) in an effort to cast doubt on my credentials, hence also the credibility of the numbers by Lipshitz that I've posted.
Sorry if you for some reason take it personally, but I think it has more to do with your worldview than any of the numbers I've posted. As with all religions, when an article of faith is contradicted by facts, these facts will be first relativized and then suppressed or swept under the carpet. Look what's going on in this thread and above in the "Wits and Wisdom of Lipshitz" thread... It's even more obvious than one would expect, and even sanctioned by you know whom, which probably means that the article of faith now questioned is even more central in the belief system than what we'd have thought.
2. The Lipshitz papers: Read the reply to you by Andy_C below.
3. Audibility of polarity: I am simply pasting here what Lipshitz has found: his numbers. Argue with him if you think his results lie. I don't really care enough about this subject.
4. "...don't think it was intentional" :
Fine, then he can correct this error if it was merely accidental.
Has he done so? No.
Has he even admitted his error: Not really. In effect he has, but look at the extent of the evasions.
Has he been informed of this error in the past, and by others as well? Yes on both accounts (search the Critics forum -- this has been pointed out to him by at least 2 other posters early last spring).
Has he been offered opportunities to correct this error in the past: Several times.
If this wasn't Atkinson we are talking about, would you then say the error was more likely intentional than not?
And if he wasn't truthful in his claims (remember there is a number of such statements), and if he keeps insisting that there is nothing wrong with such statements, what will you say about the moderators' actions in promptly banning the poster Truthseekerprime and deleting his AA account for pointing this out?
5. "Did you issue them in private first? Give him a chance to address you personally and make the correction?"
When you detect a factual error in statements posted here on AA, do you notify the poster in private or do you note the error in one of your own posts made in reply? (This is how it happened with Atkinson's error -- search for "The Atkinson Diet" over at Critics.) You certainly haven't done so with me, not once, when believing I have committed an error. And once more, JA has publicly invited people to bring up factual errors published in Sphile so he can publish a correction regarding them (he has proudly claimed here on AA that this -- publicly correcting errors -- is what separates Sphile from its competitors).
Also to repeat once more, Atkinson has been offered numerous chances to make this correction, and what has done? Nothing.
So... merely an accidental error? What is it doing, still up there? ;-)
6. "YOU posted that link in THIS thread!" Yes and for the very specific reason related to this thread topic that I already mentioned. If you want to change the topic, start another thread. I'll be glad to participate.
Howdy
You have been posting phrases like "... the moderators' actions in promptly banning the poster Truthseekerprime and deleting his AA account for pointing this out?"
As has been explained before to you ( http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/4/41389.html ) Truthseekerprime deleted his own account, by his words, in protest of having his posts deleted. I for one believe him that that was his reason for doing so. I don't think he saw "The Bored"'s post explaining what was going on before he deleted his account. That's why I posted http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/whine/messages/1/11884.html , just in case.
-Ted
See link: I have been assuming that your proclaiming to TSP that "you are banned till you acknowledge and recant" and The Bored's proclaiming immediately afterwards that "User 43577: account closed" meant what the posters stated.
If by this something else was meant than what those words seem to mean, I stand corrected (if rather perplexed).
- "Your transgression was explained to you, you are banned till you acknowledge and recant" (Open in New Window)
Howdy
It's not too complicated:
"The Bored" was noting for others that TSP's apparent response to being asked to support his allegations or to retract them was to close his own account.
I thought that there was a chance that there was a misunderstanding and hence my post just above the one you cite http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/whine/messages/1/11884.html
Note also that as I said this was explained directly to you (if tersely) in http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/4/41389.html
I expect no more comments about this.
-Ted
This message has been moved to a more appropriate venue .
> Atkinson has resorted to attacking my person...
No. I pointed out 1) that the mistake you made in repeated postings
(confusing confidence level with the actual score) demonstrated an
unfamiliarity with statistical analysis of experimental results, and 2)
that you had incorrectly stated that the phrase "subtly audible" meant
the same as "inaudible." I made no other comments about you personally.
> Atkinson has been offered numerous chances to make this correction, and
> what has done? Nothing.
Really? That's terrible. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"...an unfamiliarity with statistical analysis of experimental results..."
What are we to think about your ability to judge statistics skills when you read Lipshitz' results to mean that polarity reversal is audible "on music to a 99% confidence limit!"? ;-)
"...you had incorrectly stated that the phrase "subtly audible" meant
the same as "inaudible."
Indeed, so "subtly audible" on music that it couldn't be detected at all. (It could of course be measurable, but the effect seems to be below the hearing level of humans.) Or so says Lipshitz based on his own research on the subject. ;-)
Could you please finally point out the locus in Lipshitz where he claims differently?
TIA! :-)
> > ...an unfamiliarity with statistical analysis of experimental > > results..."
>
> What are we to think about your ability to judge statistics skills when
> you read Lipshitz' results to mean that polarity reversal is sudible
> "on music to a 99% confidence limit!"? ;-)
I believe this is know as an IKIABWAY or somesuch. That the poster
excuses his own error on the grounds that others have also made errors.
You admitted making the error multiple times but declared it "no biggie."
I thought it was a "biggie" as you had made your misunderstanding the
basis of many postings criticizing me. I politely pointed out your
misunderstanding without making it personal, but without any
acknowledgment on our part (unless it was buried somewhere in the
voluminous postings) that you were wrong to make that specific
criticism.> > ...you had incorrectly stated that the phrase "subtly audible" meant
> > the same as "inaudible.
>
> Indeed, so "subtly audible" on music that it couldn't be detected at
> all.
That is your intepretation, but I and others disagree based on Stanley's
own comments. You may feel that your opinions should have the status of
fact but I don't. And I certainly dont see the point of see arguing with
your opinion.
Look. You have posted a large number of messages saying that I was
wrong to write what I wrote 20 years ago. I told you that it was
possible that I had made an error and that that I would look up the
original article in the BAS Speaker when I could. In the meantime,
I amended the text that had you so angry so that it was literally
correct. Yet here you are, still going on and on and on. Does your
behavior not strike you as being just a tiny bit obsessive? Not totally
rational? Possibly an over-reaction? Perhaps due to an underlying
agenda on your part, given that you have now raised the matter in
another thread just a couple of hours back?
I have said all that I intend to. I doubt that that will be so in your case, however. :-(
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
(Edited to correct a couple of typos)
"I believe this is know as an IKIABWAY or somesuch. That the poster excuses his own error on the grounds that others have also made errors."
Oh, like the thing that you are now doing right now? I understand.
I admitted my own error and as you know it anyway has nothing to do with the issue on hand. If you disagree, show me the locus in Lipshitz where he supports your claims, please. (But you will wisely avoid doing so because you know that there is none.)
What I don't understand is why you want to keep posting such a large number of messages trying to deny it all. Errors (of facts, even of judgements) are normal and usually no one things too much of them. Moreover this is the kind of a factual error that you have requested be forwarded to your attention if detected in Stereophile. I have done just that, and I have done that most politely. But by now your avoidance behavior has made it clear that there must be more at stake than an innocuous error or a defective statistical analysis of test scores. Instead of being a man about it, you keep trying to somehow deflect attention away from your misrepresentation by proposing that I have an "agenda" because I pointed it out. Yet the only agenda in evidence seems to be that of yours; otherwise why not acknowledge the thing and get it over and done with? Is the polarity issue really that crucial for your purposes? If audio journalism is to be about investigation of facts, not imposition of fiction, it needs to be based on the best available information, not driven by ideologies and interests other than those in truth alone.
"That is your intepretation, but I and others disagree based on Stanley's own comments. You may feel that your opinions should have the status of fact but I don't."
You are falsifying my point. Where is the "interpretation"? I posted the score from Lipshitz' own research results. Numbers are not an opinion, numbers are facts. If you think they lie, you may wish to address Lipshitz directly to correct his scores for him so they better suit your purposes.
"...obsessive...not rational...over-reaction...underlying agenda", etc. :
Once again, you try to avoid dealing with the message by attacking the messenger.
That message, as shown by Lipshitz' own test scores, was:
- Stan Lipshitz never confirmed audibility of polarity inversion on music with his DBTs.
- Stan Lipshitz never confirmed audibility of polarity inversion on music to a 99% confidence limit.
- None of this has ever been done in any other DBTs, either.
Contrary to what you claim in each case.
TL
This classic needs to stay in the record (particularly the part about acting "most politely," then telling JA to be "a man about it..."
ILSHIFMCB!
(I'm Laughing So Hard I've Filled My Colostomy Bag)
One question for you though since I don't have the Lipshitz paper: Does Lipshitz in his paper actually break down the results and separate test tones from music? Or does he lump all the results together to get the 99% confidence limit?
You might want to try actually reading the thread.
Here is a quote you posted:
"The authors have demonstrated the two-tone experiment described above to numerous people on different systems. No one has ever failed to hear the timbral change with phase, and discern the polarity reversal on this signal with unvarying accuracy. Indeed, in a double-blind demonstration to eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group [13], the accuracy score was 100% on the summed 200-Hz and 400-Hz tones over loudspeakers, and overall, including musical excerpts, the results on the audibility of the polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels were 84 correct responses out of 137, this representing confidence of more than 99% in the thesis that acoustic polarity reversal is audible."
And reference 13 is this:
[13] B. F. Muller, "Third World: The Scientific Subjectivists," Audio Amateur, vol. 11, p. 64 (1980 Jan.).
So apparently then Lipshitz did NOT separate the results between test tones and music, lumping them together and drawing his conclusion for both tones AND music. Or am I missing something? If that is the case, then Tlyyra's objections don't even agree with Lipshitz's own words and JA, while perhaps not strictly accurate comments were also not grossly off target with regard to these remarks.
Quite a bit, in fact.
Read the sources cited.
And then read also what you yourself post. "In a double-blind demonstration to eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group...":
- What does it say the 99% confidence level applies to? The overall score (combining both test tones and music).
(This besides the point that the figure here is completely meaningless anyway.)
- What does it say about audibility on music? Nothing.
- How does Atkinson interpret this information? "Work by Stanley Lipshitz in the late '70s [footnote to the above citation], 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.)
Key claims misrepresenting the Lipshitz quote you yourself cited are underlined, to assist your reading.
Pay attention also to the false claim in the last sentence: there are zero DBTs showing this at all, and zero showing that this can be reliably detected. Trust you will let me know if I'm wrong...
If you are really interested in this test with the eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group, I am attaching the scores from it once more (maybe the 10th time now?). The row heading "Van der Kooy / Lipshitz Training Signal" means "the test tone designed by Lipshitz & Vanderkooy" and the row heading "Sheffield & Other Phonograph Records" means "music." Ask me if you can't figure it out.
"What does it say about audibility on music? Nothing"
Not true or they wouldn't have grouped the data together. Did you ask yourself why they did that? Was it Lipshitz then who had the agenda to show polarity was audible? One might wonder that now or is there something YOU are missing?
"How does Atkinson interpret this information? "Work by Stanley Lipshitz in the late '70s [footnote to the above citation], 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.)
"
Once again, your implication that he made a misinterpretation on purpose or with malicious intent is clearly your attempt to defame his character. However; your own "interpretations" of Lipshitz's results are no more factual as you are separating data that they in fact used together. Perhaps there are things in the test about which you have no idea and they therefore had a good reason to lump them together. Lipshitz was no dummy and if he lumped the data together there must have been a good reason (unless you think he was misleading people, in which case JA is only guilty of being misled by Lipshitz).
"Key claims misrepresenting the Lipshitz quote you yourself cited are underlined, to assist your reading"
No assistence necessary because the conclusion from Lipshitz himself was not so different.
""The authors have demonstrated the two-tone experiment described above to numerous people on different systems. No one has ever failed to hear the timbral change with phase, and discern the polarity reversal on this signal with unvarying accuracy. Indeed, in a double-blind demonstration to eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group [13], the accuracy score was 100% on the summed 200-Hz and 400-Hz tones over loudspeakers, and overall, including musical excerpts, the results on the audibility of the polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels were 84 correct responses out of 137, this representing confidence of more than 99% in the thesis that acoustic polarity reversal is audible.""
Now, do you see a breakdown in their conclusions such as you have done? No. Why is that do you think?? Is it a conspiracy?? Doubtful. One thing is clear they are equating audibility with both tones AND music. Now you can take issue with Lipshitz for lumping the data together if you like but you cannot say that JA's interpretation of their conclusion is false. They DO mention polarity reversal being audible with music.
It is YOU who is reinterpreting their results to declare JA to be a maliciously misrepresenting the results. JA, 20 years ago, was just paraphrasing their conclusions, which do include polarity reversal as being audible on music. Maybe JA's paraphrasing was a bit selective but you are completely rewriting their conclusions!!
> > "why they did that [grouped data together in narrative reports]" :Not true. Even in the quote you have given they give the score for test tones. But in this instance, not for music; probably because the results went against the expectations and Lipshitz wasn't too comfortable spelling out the results loud and clear. (A little bit like with the totally unanticipated results from the recent test MikeL, Ted & co. did with the Transparent Opus MM $30K+ cable vs. off-the-shelf Monsters, which are not exactly trumpeted around here...) Why else try and brush aside the score on music but not with the test tones? Yet music was kind of the key, don't you think? We're not interested in playing test tones in our systems.
> > "your implication..." :
Let's stick with what I am actually saying for a change, not what in your opinion I must be implying, OK?
> > "[Atkinson] made a misinterpretation on purpose or with malicious intent" :
As you like to phrase it.
> > "[my] own "interpretations" of Lipshitz's results" :
Score on music: 60 / 113 = 53%, p less than .7
[Conclusion:] "The audibility of polarity on music was not confirmed whether the sound source was vinyl or a 1/4" 2-track master tape I recorded of a soprano recital with piano accompaniment."
[source: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm]
What's the part with the "interpretation"? 60? 113? 53%? p less than .7?
> > "you are separating data that they in fact used together" ":
First of all, they didn't do that. They tested music and test tones separately and kept scores separately, too. Why are you claiming something like this?
Secondly, even you will understand that had they actually not distinguished between music & test tones, the whole experiment would have been meaningless to everyone who's not spending time listening to test tones. And John Atkinson's claim that it's "audible on music to a 99% confidence limit!" would be just as false as before.
If they articulated the results only reluctantly or imperfectly, without separately listing the score on music in each of their reports (I've referenced for you at least two where this is listed separately -- they were not tested as "lumped together" but separately), that's another matter which has everything to do with reporting style but nothing to do with the test results themselves.
> > "do you see a breakdown in their conclusions such as you have done?"
The passage quoted doesn't give the score on music, but it does give the score on test tones, and it does give the overall score combining the results on both test tones and music. What is it that you cannot see? Have you checked any of their actual discussions included in those sources, or you think this is the only existing reference in the world to this experiment by Lipshitz? Actually it's quite well known and widely discussed, even included in curricular materials in schools, theses works, etc., etc., so your strange attitude about it is a bit misguided I'd say. As I've said before: check the references. I too have provided you with some and there are more. Run a google search at the least. I don't personally own a monopoly to the information on their research.
> > "One thing is clear they are equating audibility with both tones AND music" :
That's pretty evident wouldn't you say? But the point is that audibility could only be statistically observed *if* the 24/24 score on test tones was included as part of the *overall* score. On music, audibility could *not* be established *with any confidence at all.* Go back and review their results once again (or see link for a more detailed analysis of them if that helps).
> > "you cannot say that JA's interpretation of their conclusion is false" "
Again -- John Atkinson: "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.)"
Now tell me: This statement by Atkinson, true or false?
> > "It is YOU who is reinterpreting their results" :
Would you care to point out where and how I'm doing this? 60 / 113 = 53%. In the "60" or in the "113" or in the "53%"?
> > "JA...was just paraphrasing their conclusions" :
Some paraphrasing: "not audible" is now "is audible"; "never been detected" is now "can be reliably detected," etc. etc.
> > "you are completely rewriting their conclusions" :
60 / 113 = 53%. Would you care to point out where I'm doing the rewriting: In the "60" or in the "113" or in the "53%"?
> > "Is it a conspiracy?"
Too strong an expression most likely, but what anyone can see is a sustained effort in this thread by especially those with an industry affiliation affixed to their name to camouflage, deny, or suppress through other means the fact that JA has misrepresented important research results in his Stereophile column.
You quoted me as writing back in 1988: John Atkinson: "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!"
Please note that I did amend the text of this article a while back to
more accurately reflect the Lipshitz findings. That you continue to
quote the original text is somewhat dishonest on your part, I feel.
I also wrote in that 1988 article "(Indeed, it [ie, absolute polarity] is
one of the few things that can be reliably detected with double-blind
testing.)"
This statement of mine is absolutely correct. So why do you keep
quoting it as a "gotcha."
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
1. "Please note that I did amend the text of this article a while back to more accurately reflect the Lipshitz findings."See link. Are you trying to become a public jester or something?
2. "That you continue to quote the original text is somewhat dishonest on your part, I feel."
Sorry if you feel wounded about it, but, first of all, the point is and has been about the truthfulness of what was said in that column that you originally published.
Secondly, the point that you have now added -- "[and definitely audible on test signals]" -- is a masterly example of your evasiveness, though, I have to add, quite clever in its own way: it seems like it's a modification of some sort but in the reader it only reinforces the false understanding of what Lipshitz did (your misrepresentation of his research results). Bingo! You think you now got it all -- is that it? No need to own up to what you've falsely claimed, and still keep your fans happy?
It's no problem for me to include those 6 new words in my quotations from now on.
On a more serious note, please explain how you think that totally tangential note corrects anything about the false statements about Lipshitz' results that are still there, unmodified? Yes, the ones we have been talking about... If you are forgetting you can consult the link.
3. "I also wrote in that 1988 article '(Indeed, it [ie, absolute polarity] is one of the few things that can be reliably detected with double-blind testing.)'
This statement of mine is absolutely correct. So why do you keep quoting it as a 'gotcha'."Sorry, what??? Well, if this is "absolutely correct" it should be very quick and easy for you to provide a couple of references to such DBTs with which audibility of absolute polarity signal reversal has been detected on music (this is what you claim, not your newest little white "misquotation" above, and you claim it still today: See last 2 sentences at the end of 3rd paragraph in "Absolute Polarity" ). If it has been "reliably" detected in DBTs, surely there must be at least two DBTs with which it has been detected, since otherwise you couldn't even vaguely suggest "reliability," which by any acccount should indicate greater than 50% success rate in a series (plurality of tests).
Right, the point about statistics and you :-)
So looking forward to learning about those DBTs! Thanks in advance!
But since we both know there are in fact zero such DBTs, you better start thinking of some new evasion for your reply.
You think someone still believes you are simply making innocent errors upon innocent errors? What a careless editor-in-chief they have in that case picked for the most prestigious audio journal in the country... ;-)
Can you help thinking that if only you had acknowledged and corrected these "errors" already, say, last winter, there'd be no need for you to push further and further forward on this increasingly tortuous path of more and more complicated evasions and more and more obvious denials that indeed are busy becoming most unflattering to you and your case?
> It's no problem for me to include those 6 new words in my quotations
> from now on.
Thank you. If you are to continue criticizing others for their supposed
lack of honesty, it behoves you to behave honestly yourself.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
No prob. You know yourself what a joke that "amendment" is. Do you expect even your staunchest supporters to take you seriously after that? Even if you yourself can't, I'm sure many among them can read plain numbers. Do remember that more people read these discussions than participate in them, and that's worldwide.I can see that instead of opting to provide supporting material for your absurd claims, you keep jumping at the messenger to avoid attention to the message.
We still remain waiting for the two references that could minimally support your following claim and show that you are not simply a cynical lier in advancing that false claim over and over again (your latest falsehood in boldface):
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.
When will you realize that more falsehoods will not get you out of the previous falsehoods?
I feel almost sorry for you. You have to spin such a web of falsehoods in support of your previous falsehoods that you are busy becoming something like a caricature of your own self.
> > Please note that I did amend the text of this article a while
> > back to more accurately reflect the Lipshitz findings. That you
> > continue to quote the original text is somewhat dishonest on
> > your part, I feel.
>
> No prob. You know yourself what a joke that "amendment" is.
I am sorry that I cannot claim the same mindreading powers that you
possess, tlyyra. No, I don't know that it was a "joke." I amended the
text in the usual way to indicate an editorial change (brackets +
italics). And regardless of your opinion of the amendation, I thought it
apparent that my having done so gives the lie to the claims you and
TruthSeekerPrime have made on this newsgroup that I took _no_ action
after the issue had been raised.
> Do you expect even your staunchest supporters to take you
> seriously after that? Even if you yourself can't...
More mindreading claims!
> I can see that instead of opting to provide supporting material
> for your absurd claims, you keep jumping at the messenger to
> avoid attention to the message.
Let's see. I have not called you a liar (or "lier"), I have not
cast doubt on your honesty, not have I gratuitously called you
names, tlyyra. What I have done is respond to you what you have
incorrectly written (ie, your erroneous statement that "subtly
audible" means the same as "inaudible") and your own
misunderstanding of statistical analysis, where you repeatedly
declared that a 99% confidence limit means the same as the
listeners getting 99% of identifications correct.
> We still remain waiting for the two references that could
> minimally support your following claim and show that you are not
> simply a cynical lier in advancing that false claim over and over
> again.
"We"? Who else are you speaking for, tlyyra? Or do you have a mouse in
your pocket? :-)
> > > 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. :-(
Earlier in this thread, you repeatedly stated that what I actually meant
with this parenthetical sentence was that "it" (ie, absolute
polarity) "could be reliably detected _with music_." That is _not_ what
I actually wrote back in 1988, and I don't see the point in arguing with
your incorrect interpolation of what you think I _should_ have written
instead of what I actually wrote. You are welcome to wander alone in
_that_ semantic forest, tlyyra. :-)
> When will you realize that more falsehoods will not get you out
> of the previous falsehoods? I feel almost sorry for you. You have
> to spin such a web of falsehoods in support of your previous
> falsehoods that you are busy becoming something like a caricature
> of your own self.
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%.
Subsequent breakdown of the test results _after_ my 1988 essay had been
published showed total identification with test tones but not with music
to an acceptable degree of statistical confidence. But as Stanley did
say back in the 1970s, this is something that is "subtly audible" on
music and may not even be detectable by all listeners. These factors, as
has been pointed by others, make experimental design and statistical
analysis more difficult than had been appreciated back in the 1970s.
And please note that, despite your mindreading claims earlier in this
thread, I don't believe absolute polarity to be very important. 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.
Happy Holidays.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
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"?Not even one.
What are we supposed to think of your sincerety here?
What's a bit more of a surprise, however, is the degree of your arrogance, which seems to lead you to thinking that you can get away with anything with those audiophiles reading your obfuscations.
Hmmm.
Let's see:
> "...the claims you and TruthSeekerPrime have made on this newsgroup that I took _no_ action after the issue had been raised..." "
Sorry, where have I made such claims? What I've pointed out is that you have not corrected your misrepresentation of Lipshitz' claims, something which holds still at the time of writing this post.
But I will abstain from saying that you are lying again since pointing that out that seems to be punishable by banishment from this forum.
> "Who else are you speaking for, tlyyra?" :
Do you think Robert Young, bjh, and Morricab are the only ones following this discussion?
> "...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...rather than their literal meaning. Why you are so ready to dismiss the first-order meaning of what someone has written?" :
Hmmm. Let's see: 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.)
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])...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"... :-(
Tell me, are you really this cynical, or just not bothering to pay any attention?
> "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. You state "audible on music." So here we have yet another...well, I'm not going to say lie , since for some reason that seems to get people banned if it's about these test results; instead, let's just say "absolutely correct statement" of what Lipshitz "really meant"... How's that? ;-)
> "...to poke fun at the whole concept of double-blind testing." :
Oh. So you've turned your coat since that article, since in it you still praise Lipshitz, his "formidable mind" and "carefully organized" DBTs, so highly? Poke fun about them now just because it turned out those pesky DBTs in the end actually didn't provide any support for your agenda?
> "I don't believe absolute polarity to be very important." :
No? Another interesting twist in the plot then? 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...
The rest of your post doesn't deserve a word in reply. If I may paraphrase your own words, it's just an attempt to create a semantic swamp.
> > > > > 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, StereophileEdited to correct a typo
"But in this instance, not for music; probably because the results went against the expectations and Lipshitz wasn't too comfortable spelling out the results loud and clear."
Reading Lipshitz mind now are we? You know, of course that mind reading has never been satisfactorily proven with a DBT; therefore I don't believe you are capable of doing so and THEREFORE your WAG (wild assed guess) is duly noted.
You have serious diarrhoea of the keyboard. Can't you simply say the same things over and over in a more compact form? Sheesh!
"> > "[my] own "interpretations" of Lipshitz's results":
Score on music: 60 / 113 = 53%, p less than .7
[Conclusion:] "The audibility of polarity on music was not confirmed whether the sound source was vinyl or a 1/4" 2-track master tape I recorded of a soprano recital with piano accompaniment."
[source: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm]
What's the part with the "interpretation"? 60? 113? 53%? p less than .7?
"
None of this was from the Lipshitz paper. NONE! JA was taking his paraphrase from that paper and not from the ABX website that DID NOT EXIST in 1988 when JA made the reference!! DUH! So while you MAY be right about the conclusions (thus making Lipshitz look a little bit stupid) JA was paraphrasing conclusions from the paper. If you should be mad at anybody it should be Lipshitz!!
I honestly don't care if Lipshitz was right or wrong, I care about your attack on JA's character without a shred of evidence of wrong doing. A misquote is not evidence of wrong doing!!
The sad truth is that you can't even make sense out of the Lipshitz quote, which doesn't distinguish in the final analysis between tones and music. That was done later on the ABX website. I see now that it is not even your own work you are flashing around.
"First of all, they didn't do that. They tested music and test tones separately and kept scores separately, too. Why are you claiming something like this?
"
Because in the quote the clearly lump them together (84/137), so yes they DID do that!
"The passage quoted doesn't give the score on music, but it does give the score on test tones, and it does give the overall score combining the results on both test tones and music"
Exactly they didn't do that and they gave a quote about achieving a 99% confidence level for the COMBINED data. No mention was made about music alone, saying to the effect that polarity reversal was inaudible on the music. Nowhere is that said!! Lipshitz own conclusions don't support your accusations, unless you want to accuse Lipshitz of wrongdoing now.
"the whole experiment would have been meaningless to everyone who's not spending time listening to test tones."
That is YOUR conclusion and not the one coming from the Lipshitz quote. Again, JA was merely paraphrasing that quote from that paper, he did not have the benefit of the ABX websites breakdown on things and the message implied by Lipshitz's quote is certainly not the one you are trying to make.
"That's pretty evident wouldn't you say? But the point is that audibility could only be statistically observed *if* the 24/24 score on test tones was included as part of the *overall* score. On music, audibility could *not* be established *with any confidence at all.* Go back and review their results once again (or see link for a more detailed analysis of them if that helps).
"
I said its evident from their quote not necessarily in reality. As I was not there for the tests, nor have I talked with Lipshitz personally on the results I cannot comment too much on what they really mean. Apparently the quotes from CJ show that Lipshitz continued to believe in the audibility of these things with music.
The study you posted also be interpreted in different ways. From the pure lumping together of statistics one can conclude that with music polarity reversal is in audible; however, they note that it is VERY listener dependent, in other words there were SOME individuals who COULD readily identify phase distortion on music while most could not. The fact that some individuals could means that the sampling of individuals for testing is CRITICAL to get a meaningful test. Either you have to select very carefully (thus probably not a random sample) or you have to have a LARGE number of samples. The conclusion might very well be that normal descriptive statistics are NOT suitable for listening tests because they cover over significant differences in individuals.
In analytical sciences they teach that sampling is just as important as the measurements themselves for having an accurate and precise result.
For example, if 100 people are tested on 10 trials and 90% can't hear a difference on Jazz and end up guessing randomly we get 50%. So that's 450 right and 450 wrong. However; 10% get 90% right (so 90 out of the remaining 100 trials). Now we get 540/1000 = 54%, which you would claim is not statistically significant and therefore inaudible, right?
But these 10 out 100 people can reliably hear the difference so at least with some people it IS audible and the statistics fail to show this.
This is what the authors in the paper you posted meant by "highly listener dependent". I am sure the same kind of misrepresentation is in the data by Lipshitz and all the other blind tests where normal statistics were implemented.
However; you may not know this but one of the main criteria of conventional statistics is that the data adheres to a Gaussian or "normal" distribution. If it does not, ie. the data is bimodal or even multimodal, has excessive skewing or non-gaussian fit then conventional statistics are not a good choice for meaningful results. Non-parametric statistics must then be used. For example, during my Ph.D. we studied atmospheric aerosols, looking at both the size and chemical composition. The resulting size distributions were Log-normal in shape and bi or even trimodal. It was meaningless to calculate a "mean" aerodynamic diameter and we relied mostly on counting and histograms.
Listening results can be compiled the same way. You make a histogram of the number of listeners who got 1 right the number who got 2 right etc. Then you make a histogram and look at the distribution of correct responses. If this result is not gaussian then I would argue that calculating meaningful statistics (mean, std. deviation, confidence limits etc.) with conventional statistics is pointless. A histogram will tell you if you have a small but significant number of people getting more than a random number of responses correct. Retesting will tell you if it was that 1 in 100 random result of if they can do it reliably. If yes, then at that point you can no longer say it is inaudible but only audible to very good listeners or "special" listeners. Listeners who get 0 right can also imply statistical significance because the chance to get 0 right from guessing is as low as getting 10 right from guessing.
"60 / 113 = 53%. Would you care to point out where I'm doing the rewriting: In the "60" or in the "113" or in the "53%"?
"
Lipshitz never wrote this they wrote 84/137 did he not? Anyway that number, as I have pointed out above is meaningless unless we see how the responses break down by individuals. If the resulting histogram is not gaussian then it is meaningless because it covers over individuals with highly correlated responses with those who really don't hear it and guess randomly. This simple calculation of correct to total responses is a simpleminded treatment of the data and most likely not where the relevant information lies.
"Some paraphrasing: "not audible" is now "is audible"; "never been detected" is now "can be reliably detected," etc. etc."
No that is not what he did. AGAIN the quote from Lipshitz:
"The authors have demonstrated the two-tone experiment described above to numerous people on different systems. No one has ever failed to hear the timbral change with phase, and discern the polarity reversal on this signal with unvarying accuracy. Indeed, in a double-blind demonstration to eleven members of the SMWTMS audio group [13], the accuracy score was 100% on the summed 200-Hz and 400-Hz tones over loudspeakers, and overall, including musical excerpts, the results on the audibility of the polarity inversion of both loudspeaker channels were 84 correct responses out of 137, this representing confidence of more than 99% in the thesis that acoustic polarity reversal is audible.""
They never say its inaudible on music now do they? No, in fact the imply that it is audible on music, having satisfied a 99% confidence limit. If you want to question anything then question this conclusion not JA referral to it.
"Therefore it is indeed possible to say that overall, polarity reversal is audible with 99% confidence; and that it's audible on test tones with better than .000001 confidence; BUT it is NOT possible to say (like you do) that it is audible on music with any confidence at all.
"
No see they say overall and that implies music as well. So, JA's quote is not inaccurate. The conclusion from Lipshitz is suspect; however, plus the simplistic statistical treatment is rather sad given the nature of the tests and a counting statistics would likely yield much more information (particularly of a few individuals who likely scored quite well on tones and music like in this other study you posted the link to, strangely, they also don't look at the individual responses, which makes their (subtle) audibility conclusion suspect as well).
"but what anyone can see is a sustained effort in this thread by especially those with an industry affiliation affixed to their name to camouflage, deny, or suppress through other means the fact that JA has misrepresented important research results in his Stereophile column.
"
Complete BS.
"intentionally obtuse"?
I think at this point we can safely drop the "intentionally"!
ROTFL
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
...so bring in the tauts and the jeers!
Good point!
it was he, not I, that provided the quote from the reference (see link).
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
First the basic math:Check the test results (e.g. from the ABX comparator site) and sum up the two partial results (using music vs. using test signals) as already shown by Andy_C:
24 / 24 correct with test tones.
60 / 113 correct with music excerpts.
TOTAL: 84 / 137 with music & test tones.
OK?
Then the friendly suggestion: Why don't you ask John Atkinson to kindly clear this up? He can tell us right here and now whether or not it was misleading or erroneous to claim for Lipshitz a 99% result "on music." This should be easy for him and takes no more than 30 seconds.
He will further be able to state for the record whether or not it's misleading and erroneous to claim, in that same passage that you too quoted, that "Indeed, it [audibility of polarity reversal on music] is one of the few things that can be reliably detected with double-blind testing " (my emphasis). Or perhaps you can yourself give references to any such DBTs that show this reliably, in case JA can't?
I don't want to spend any more time arguing things that are published, widely known, and evident for all to see.
TL
what Atkinson wrote is not supportable in light of what has been revealed from *his* source material.
Perhaps you should chase down the authors of the source material and try charging *them* with something or other, but as for Atkinson your charge against him should be retracted IMHO.
Best,
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Have you heard of such things as 'intellectual honesty' and 'accuracy in reporting'? They are kind of pertinent here.
- If you stop wriggling for a sec, you'll see three alternative interpretations to "accurate reporting" here. (Open in New Window)
> 99 instead of 53% is not totally false?
With respect, you (and others) have not comprehended what I wrote. I did
_not_ say that the listeners got 99% correct. What I wrote was "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!"
A 99% confidence limit does not mean that the listeners got 99
identifications out of 100 correct. It means that there was only a 1%
chance that the proportion of identifications was due to chance.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
do you also have that Joni Mitchell tune playing in your head?
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
Were captive on the carousel of time
We cant return, we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game
GAWD!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
"99% instead of 53% is not totally false?"
You're obviously are confusing confidence level with simple percentage . They're not the same thing you know. For example consider the following from Atkinson's source material:
"84 correct responses out of 137, this representing confidence of more than 99%"
Now 84 / 137 --> approx. 61%, yet such a result does indeed represent a confidence of more than 99%.
You're welcome in advance.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Thanks for putting this all in one post.clarkjohnsen has the Audio Amateur article is you're interested in it, but he doesn't seem willing to either cite the relevant piece or part with the issue.
The ABX comparator site lists the actual same test score all these articles and other sources separately talk about. But it's given there in greater detail as you note (broken down b/w results with music vs. test tone).
You can also search online for BASS discussions (there are several) on this very topic & study. Or for references to it in The Audio Critic. Both have been readily availble. There are also thesis works relying on or referring to these same results (I recall at least one from Berkeley) and the results have even made it to the curricula at some places (UCLA IIRC what I've seen).
I have not been able to locate information on any other possible research by Lipshitz related to this same problem.
That then gave rise to my question to Atkinson: Is there another, hitherto secret experiment that Lipshitz conducted that we don't know of but he does, or is he (Atkinson) misrepresenting the results of this known and well-published study?
As you are able to tell I've now concluded the latter is the case. I guess that is what Truthseekerprime also expressed as his opinion before getting banned from AA for "defamation" as it seems.
TL
First piece of advise:If you want to get lucky attacking another poster, don't go with your gut reaction and try just quick conjecture; most people here can see through standard insinuation. Instead, check your facts first.
At least take even a superficial glance at what your citations are about before trying to raise objections based on them. In science it is normal that test results are discussed and reported in several different connections. (The point is to promote open discusssion, a concept which admittedly may be alien to many here.) I was trying to make the job a bit easier for people like you who may normally not enjoy reading research reports by referencing the actual numbers separately. The work based on the specific results can be published in various contexts such as in this case JAES, BASS, and even in an additional article in The Audio Amateur (possibly others). Anyone who has read any of these pieces would not claim, as Atkinson does, that "reversal of absolute signal polarity will be subtly audible on music to a 99% confidence limit! " (his emphasis) which is
not music , and the fact is of course made very clear in the articles also he himself cited. Hence, distortion, not error (quite an "error" by the way: with music the result was 53%, not 99% ). So check your sources, add up the numbers, and review the record for any other research on this topic done by Lipshitz that could match those numbers. Jump only after that, if you please.
Alternatively I can give you another standard AA answer which may be easier for the likes of you: search and ye shall find. All this has been discussed, referenced, and cited in the AA Critics and Prop Head fora before, so you really don't need to go on reiterating the same thing over and over again.
How's that for being kind?
Second piece of advise:
If you guys have any objections as to the validity of this research done by Lipshitz et al., I suggest you forward your comments directly to JA who was the one to endorse it in no unambiguous terms on the pages of Stereophile (finding reason to draw attention to this particular test series designed by Lipshitz's "formidable mind" apparently as something particularly "carefully organized"). That is all there in the quotation you too copied into your post above if only you wanted to see it. I was merely commenting on the way this work is (mis)represented.
"quite an "error" by the way: with music the result was 53%, not 99%)."
Quite an error I would say on your part not knowing what a 99% confidence limit is vs. a simple raw data score. You are a joke.
As said n amount of times already, indeed.
BUT beside the point altogether.
Try something else next time.
JA's claims are still up there, you know.
"You have provided as reference information published at the web page ABX Double Blind Test Results: Polarity...."
That's it? Not exactly what I would consider definitive scientific research. From the sparse details (yes, sparse) it was no better than an informal demo.
Atkinson seems to regard it much more highly than you. See my reply to bjh below.If you read this kind of stuff a bit more frequently than just once, you will quickly realize these (the scores listed on the ABX comparator site) are simply the collected quantitative results related to research discussed and reported elsewhere. The actual articles reporting on and discussing the experiments in which they were obtained is published in what are typically called academic or trade periodicals (such as the JAES and BASS mentioned earlier).
So the information in the cited source is but a shorthand, given that the results themselves have already been widely discussed in the articles already multiply cited.
I don't see anywhere in the specified article where Atkinson references the ABX site. He does reference:
"Footnote 9: "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."
What are you talking about?
These (JAES, BASS, Audio Amateur, ABX comparator site) all report on the same experiments. The ABX comparator site simply gives more details (a breakdown between results with test tones vs. results with music; the results from additional test runs).You can see this for example by summing up the separate scores.
We are talking about what the test score was, not which one of the many possible citations Atkinson decided to include in his discussion of this test. They all give the same basic info of the same test.
TL
Please see my response to you below.
However it is worth noting that if in fact what you say of Atkinson is true then surely you can point to instances where he has referenced the ABX Web site material. Please do.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
What we are talking about here is the Lipshitz et al. score, not some URL address. That score as said many times by now is reported in many places, one of them is the ABX comparator site; others include the sources you have cited, Atkinson has cited, and I have cited, and in Atkinson's own magazine (though incorrectly so as mentioned). These are all about the same experiments if the fact escapes you.Research results can be freely referred to and cited in separate contexts. It is a normal practice in any professional and scholarly discourse.
Again (and again and again): I referred you (and others) to the ABX comparator site because (1) being an online resource it is more readily available than any of the journal issues referenced (have you actually seen any of them?), and (2) it gives the breakdown of the test score between results with music and results with test tones, which the other published reports don't seem to do with comparable detail. In other words, from it you can see more clearly what the results were, without having to infer and make enlightened guesses.
Feel free to do it the hard way if you like. I'm trying to be nice here and make it easier for you.
Or are you just very confused about something I don't get? Let me know, I'll help if I have time. Or maybe you just want to read my messages to you again before going on about this.
Were these breakdowns available in the references Atkinson cited in his original article?
same in this post .
Take a look at his response... very enlightening
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
it is true that for tests mentioned on the page in question little information is provided.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Enough for the masters of the mag itself, it seems. They've felt inclined to (mis)quote the score numerous times in (assumed) support of their own positions.Much information is also provided in the sources you yourself have seen reason to cite and which I therefore presumed you had read, given you based your line of questioning on their existence. Those articles contain more detailed discussion of the particular research to which these numbers relate, you know.
Please do feel free to demonstrate where the "masters of the mag" have cited the ABX web page material as source and also where they "(mis)quote the score numerous times". It seems this is precisely what you claim, after all it is entirely clear that the ABX web page material is what member rdf and I were discussing, so I imagine you'd have no problem backing up the claim.
Thanks in advance.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
I can see you still didn't read the references you yourself put forth:
To begin with in the Atkinson quote you included in your own post just a minute ago.
And if you go to any editorials before or after that address the audibility-of-polarity issue, you are likely to run into that "99% with music!" (false) claim about Lipshitz. Enough said.
They (mis)quote the score, not the ABX home page URL of course. The point is the actual results, not the various places they were published in, if you didn't realize. I will repeat once more: the ABX pages are simply a data storage house; they simply collect and compile quantitative results (the data obtained) from research published elsewhere, for example in the references that you cite, John Atkinson cites, and I cite. These all talk about the same thing even if misstating the results as in the Sphile "As We See It" column.
So again: Review your sources. Check your facts. Do your math. Don't waste my time on the obvious. Don't just keep repeating the same. You have all the materials on hand, you seem to be saying. To make things easier the score is nicely broken down on the ABX comparator site between music and test tones, which is why I referred people to it in the first place (not in equal detail in the published articles I've seen).
What's preventing you?
Sorry to have to shout but you seem to have missed that important point, the ABX Web Page is a source *you* cited, Atkinson *didn't*.
I trust you're gotten the point now and hence I would no suggest you revisit my post, Question RE: Atkinson - DBT/Absolute Signal Polarity , and address the question... or not!, suit yourself of course.
Thanks
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Yes, Atkinson quotes two sources that report on THE SAME RESEARCH AND THE SAME SCORE AS THAT IS RECORDED ALSO IN THE ABX COMPARATOR DATA STORAGE HOUSE (without discussion).
Those results are referred to accurately in the sources Atkinson cites, but seem to be misstated by himself for some reason (again: he says "99%" instead of the correct 53%). But he is talking about the very same Lipshitz et al. research you don't seem to understand has also been referenced by several additional people in the world, not just Atkinson. There are then also several sources to cite if you want to talk about these results, and Atkinson chose two of them out of I don't know how many available in total. I gave one additional source already.
Is this so difficult to comprehend? We are talking about research results here. Read you sources once again and you will actually see for yourself and will save us from useless posts.
"Atkinson cites, but seem to be misstated by himself for some reason (again: he says "99%" instead of the correct 53%). "
Again with your stupidity in not understanding what a confidence limit is! PLEASE go read and learn some basic statistics...PLEASE stop torturing us with your ignorance.
You are getting very desperate.Yes I am aware of this, thanks for pointing it out once again; I regretted this confusion committed in haste already long ago, and if you would know anything about stats analysis you'd not even bother bringing the point up. It's meaningless, thank you very much.
Instead, the point was:
* Where does Lipshitz show (not believe) that polarity reversal is audible on music? Nowhere.
* Did he show such audibility to a 99% confidence limit? No, never.
* Are there any DBTs at all with which this audibility has been detected? No, none.
* "Reliably" detected? Are you kidding?All in direct contradiction with JA's claims.
"You are getting very desperate.
Yes I am aware of this, thanks for pointing it out once again; I regretted this confusion committed in haste already long ago, and if you would know anything about stats analysis you'd not even bother bringing the point up. It's meaningless, thank you very much.
"
I don't think so, it is you trying to cover up your own "misrepresentations" of the facts. How can we trust anything you write when your basic understanding is so poor? Your explanation doesn't wash with me. It is the same lack of leniency for mistakes you have granted to JA and now I don't cut you any slack for your stupidity. You don't like the taste of it then I suggest you back off yourself.
"Did he show such audibility to a 99% confidence limit? No, never"
Sure he did, its right there in the statistics 84/137! Shows you how much you should trust statistics. LOL! Besides I already explained in detail why the the other stat you like to throw around 60/113 is meaningless as well for this kind of test. Doesn't stop you from toting your ignorance around this forum.
So I'll correct my "erroneous" statement: 55% correct is not the same as 99% confidence.Is that difficult for anyone to see?
But perhaps Atkinson will now correct his "erroneous" statements! Would you say?
To return to the subject of this thread now:
On music, there was no significance at all (see the score above), so could you please spell us whether there was any meaningful confidence for the results on music?
Thanks! :-)
"Sure he did, its right there in the statistics 84/137!"
You are reproducing Atkinson's false claim identically and hence trying to lie or misrepresent the facts. As you know that was the overall score (combining test tones and music), not the score on music.
Why do you want to repeat your master's "errors" -- you think two wrongs makes a right?
"So I'll correct my "erroneous" statement: 55% correct is not the same as 99% confidence."
Why put "erroneous" in quotes? It was an error!
"But perhaps Atkinson will now correct his "erroneous" statements! Would you say?
"
I believe he already addressed that.
"You are reproducing Atkinson's false claim identically and hence trying to lie or misrepresent the facts"
Actually Lipshitz published those facts originally, not JA. So if you have a beef take it up with Lipshitz. You do know what the word combined means don't you? See my post above I gave you a handy definition that will explain it for you as your English skills seem to need sharpening.
"As you know that was the overall score (combining test tones and music), not the score on music.
"
Again that pesky word "combining". Look it up and you will see your mistake in all of this. You blame JA but it is Lipshitz you should be angry with.
"Why do you want to repeat your master's "errors" -- you think two wrongs makes a right?"
My master? Umm sorry I don't write for Stereophile so JA is not MY master.
Read those sources and stop bullshitting.
read JA's post above. It is entirely consistent with what I have written and he has read the whole thing numerous times. It doesn't even matter to me what Lipshitz's conclusions were, tlyyra, it matters that you were unfair to JA and it is clear now after all this twisting to make a case that you were.
Howdy
I don't read everything here and have no desire to, especially the acrimonious.
If JA defamed you please write a concise explanation with cites to the evidence clear enough that a third party (who never reads the Asylum) could understand your case.
Then we'll contact JA and ask the same.
Then we'd do the obvious, give the other parties a chance to rebut the evidence from the other side and then make a decision. We usually allow the "winner" to choose if the other posts remain up or are taken down.
We have a lawyer on staff for just such issues.
But none of this is required at all, we can just delete what ever the heck we want, but we try to be more fair. Personally IMO if people abuse the process I'd just ban them for being jerks.
-Ted
Are you saying JA did write precisely such a concise explanation regarding the way he saw TSP's posts?
That would be quite funny indeed. On the other hand, I would understand if he felt himself or his position threatened somehow.
On the other hand still, I wouldn't expect him to engage in a very risky behavior himself; he, too, has staff lawyers on hand and he's learned a lesson or two along the way already. So what you get is something quite unambiguously slanderous even but never anything actionable.
TL
> Are you saying JA did write precisely such a concise explanation
> regarding the way he saw TSP's posts? That would be quite funny indeed.
> On the other hand, I would understand if he felt himself or his
> position threatened somehow.
I have not communicated in any way whatsoever with Ted Smith or with
anyone else on the Asylum Bored about the Prop Head postings. Nor have
I defamed anyone. Nor did I feel threatened by TSP's postings nor even by
yours, tyyra. All good clean fun, as far as I can see, only tenuously
connected with the real world.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This message has been moved to a more appropriate venue .
HowdyI said nothing about what JA did or didn't do.
You implied that we weren't treating you fairly and that your situation was analogous to truthseekerprime's which involved defamation. If so you must feel you've been defamed. If so I let you know one of your options.
-Ted
> > Such a coincidence that you chose (yes, your deliberate choice, don't give me BS please) to delete just TSP's user account
We don't close inmates' accounts; only they do. Even once we ban someone, their account remains active, for the record, unless they choose to close it, for whatever reason. BTW, TSP had not been banned.
Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...
Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white,
clear as crystal! Blah, blah, and so on and so forth ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Thanks for the technical clarification. Your actions, however, amount to the same: moving threads to the Whiners and selectively deleting them are effective tools in the hands of those willing to use them.
TL
> > > Such a coincidence that you chose (yes, your deliberate choice, don't give me BS please) to delete just TSP's user account
> > We don't close inmates' accounts; only they do. Even once we ban someone, their account remains active, for the record, unless they choose to close it, for whatever reason. BTW, TSP had not been banned.
> Thanks for the technical clarification.
---------------
Thanks for the technical clarification???? You just accused them of deleting the user's account, "yes, your deliberate choice, don't give me BS please", and when corrected you say, "Thanks for the technical clarification."
You certainly are quite forgiving of you own strongly worded errors it seems... very generous of you!
LOL
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
What kind of public retraction was required? Bart Locanthi was the head of an ad-hoc AES commitee charged with studying compression algos and perform listening tests on the selfsame algos. So what did he say? The official report reads very differently from JA accounts, importantly it states that
the impairments are to be regarded as small, Nevertheless, SR came to the conclusion that none of the codecs could be generally accepted for use as distribution codecs by the broadcasters
in direct contrast to JA's account.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
HowdyFeel free to state whatever facts you feel are relevant and discus the issue politely.
truthseekerprime could have made his case to the Bored and backed up his accusations with evidence or he could have stated publicly that he was mistaken, but you see the path he chose instead.
-Ted
Sigh...should have seen that one coming.
Have a nice day!
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Howdy
There's a big difference between friendly jabbing back and forth (or even, at times, heated discussions) and outright defamation.
When things escalate we have to take it off line, let the parties state their cases and sometimes we get caught in the middle. But you know what? Almost all of the time when we ask people to present the facts to us rather than argue them online one party or the other does what truthseekerprime did and saves us the trouble of being the judge. (My favorite is the people that threaten to sue me personally for leaving what they said up. It's happened to me twice.)
-Ted
The paper covered two tests, on conducted in 1990, the other in 1991. The quote he produced was from the conclusion section pertaining to the 1990 test. From the conclusion section pertaining to the 1991 test we find:
Both codecs have now reached a level of performance where they fulfill the EBU requirements for a distribution codec.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
bjh,
What say you? I am asking for page reference for your citation and I am not getting response?
What's happening?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Could you post a link to the abstract and preferably a pg ref of your quote.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
I have the full report (pdf) courtesy of a member here (see link)
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Thank you, seen it.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
I hope you appreciate that the reported article that artefacts can be heard, and it grades the quality of each code according to the audibility of artifacts. Therefore good enough for broadcast does not translate to "no artefacts are audible" as implied by JA column.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
This message has been moved to a more appropriate venue .
I'm not sure how his attack on JA's personal integrity was a technical view point.
This message has been moved to a more appropriate venue .
I hope the stricter moderation will not destroy the identity and entertainment value of this place, but at the same time I suspect that's not possible.
Being a technical guy, I was annoyed at first that a forum whose nominal purpose is "Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics" would be basically hijacked and become instead a place for discussing the so-called "Great Debate". I also perceived at the time a bias in the moderation whose end effect was to encourage this hijacking.
But over time, I simply accepted that the de facto purpose of the forum is "The Great Debate". During this time, the moderation became more lax, which caused me to perceive it to be more even-handed than it had been in the past. Strangely enough, these two occurrences, combined with some pretty lively discussion turned this forum into a great source of entertainment for me. I get more laughs out of it than all the other forums combined.
Sure, there is the risk that the whole thing could get completely out of hand. I've seen this place compared to the newsgroup rec.audio.opinion for example. But if you were to read that newsgroup without knowing what its nominal topic was, it would be difficult to even figure out that it was about audio at all. By contrast, despite all the personal bickering that goes back and forth here, the topics really are about "The Great Debate". So I don't think the comparison with rec.audio.opinion is valid in the present state of this forum.
What worries me about stricter moderation is that people will start using the "alert moderator" button as a tool in an attempt to silence people with opposing views. Another thing that happens in environments of strict moderation of contentious subjects is that some people get into this game of seeing how creative they can be at insulting people while still having the moderator leave their posts intact. I'd hate to see it get to that level of pettiness. I'm tempted to insert a sexist comment here, but I suspect you could guess what it would have been had I written it :-).
I don't think there's any ideal solution, but I do think that having a forum in which the discussion is nearly uncensored provides an outlet for people and helps the discussions in other forums to be more restrained.
Why don't they just change the description for this forum from "Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics" to "The Great Debate" or "Subjectivist vs Objectivist."
At least the forum description would then have some actual relation to the messages being posted.
Just a thought.
I agree. I mean, come on! Technical discussions of cables and amps??? Would that be an in-depth study in why they all sound the same? If people can't hear the differences, what in the world would they have to discuss? "Gosh Milton, this ABC amp measures exactly like the XYZ amp! That means they sound exactly alike, too!"
Earth-shattering.
Without intelligent debate, this place goes the way of the dodo bird. But come to think of it, it's survived quite awhile without much in the way of intelligent debate....
> > Without intelligent debate, this place goes the way of the dodo bird.
I know what you mean. Ever since I switched my freezer's thermometer to display in centigrade instead of fahrenheit, the frozen photos just don't do as good a job as before... ;-)
> Ever since I switched my freezer's thermometer to display in centigrade instead of fahrenheit, the frozen photos just don't do as good a job as before... ;-) <
...technically refute that statement (assuming you didn't mean it) so that someone that believes it will change their beliefs.
Then try the same thing with "All Amps Sound The Same".
Viva La Great Debate! Might as well endorse it since it will never be resolved.
The Voodoo Place
rw
..."two men enter - one man leaves".
Howdy
But there are posters who take advantage of whatever leeway is allowed: I recently deleted about ten taunts all identical that were posted to every recent post of another member, this is the kind of petty crap we don't need.
-Ted
Perspective is an interesting thing.
If you going to drive away the serial taunters they'll likely start visiting other forumns... which rather defeats the true purpose of Prop Head!
:)
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
...only to bully and sneer.
My continuing policy has been: never read, never reply.
Were that approach more often followed, there'd scarce be need for moderation.
clark
... bullying and sneering
at anyone who even slightly disagrees
with your 100% certain opinions.
Following your "never read, never reply" rule,
it seems that you should not read
many of your own posts!
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
"I know what I hear" is often an audio fantasyland
Sick people can always use it as an excuse for bad behavior at their convenience yet when someone else want's to use it to ward of an attack by a mental case they get beaten down for doing it.
Go figure? An mental health defense is the best defense.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
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 ]
