|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Thank you. posted by John Atkinson on December 17, 2007 at 16:26:12:
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
Edits: 12/17/07 12/17/07
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Thank you. - tlyyra 17:07:52 12/17/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
