Home Propeller Head Plaza

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

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

'Interpretation' and 'reinterpretation'

>>"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.



Edits: 12/21/07 12/21/07 12/21/07
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Signature Sound   [ Signature Sound Lounge ]

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]