Quote:
Jan said some didn't work, but he won't say which.

And this surprises you why?

Imagine, Jan Vigne ducking a question. Really?! Amazing!

Quote:

Quote:
Now, here's your chance to show you didn't just make up more crap ...

So please, tell us where May has denounced blind tests. And, as the old school saying goes, be a specific as possible.

I said, "Beltians. Got any reviews where Belt tweaks are listened to in blind trials? May can't even do it with her own 'products.' Let's bring her to a show. Let's let her send her product to those hearing aid manufacturers she claims to work with for a trial. She mentions Lister, so she shouldn't have a problem with that. What do you think will happen?"
Did I say she denounced them?
No.

Not even a good try, dude. That quote has nothing to do with why I asked the question and you know it.

This does ...

Quote:
Why would May use an example of someone who measured outcomes and did blind testing when she herself doesn't believe in them?
page 14, #58867 - 01/26/09 12:54 PM

Go check it out of you don't remember. You don't remember this and you don't rememebr that. ncdrawl doesn't remember posts he made just a few days ago. Winer claims to be certain a unit is defective when he has never even seen that unit much less measured it. You can't read what's in front of you and you make up crap just to satisfy yourself even when it's obviously false.

How is it that you guys think you can just continue to make up crap and not be called liars?

"Denounced" them or "doesn't believe in them", don't play word games.

When did May ever post that she does not believe in blind tets?

You made it up!

You've been making up crap as you go along for 18 months.

>>> "and did blind testing when she herself doesn't believe in them?" <<<

I have never said that I do not believe in blind testing. I would not be so stupid. I have said that so many people naively believe that EVERYTHING can be controlled in blind trials so that only the thing under test can be changed (or not) - when everything CANNOT be controlled. The more one experiments to conduct meaningful blind trials, the more one comes to the conclusion that EVERYTHING cannot be under ones control - which then negates the results. It is lovely, yes, when a good, conclusive listening result might emerge ONCE OR TWICE but, as so often happens, when the same test is repeated by others, in a different situation but shows nothing conclusive, then what ? Does the second result negate the first results - does one say "Oh, there is proof that the first tests were wrong, or does one say that there must be other factors at play which were not known about and which could distort the results."

Let me list some of the things - the ones WE know of - there could, of course be many others we are still ignorant of.
1) If anyone in the room where the DB listening tests are being conducted tells a lie, then the sound will be perceived as worse by EVERYONE in the room - not just by the person telling the lie.
2) If anyone in the room where the DB tests are being conducted THINKS a lie, then the sound will be perceived as worse by EVERYONE in the room - not just by the person THINKING the lie.
3) In telling or thinking a lie, the body pattern of the person so doing will change (go under tension) and that (stress) change can be detected by others present in the same room and they can react accordingly.
4) When the sound has been perceived as worse, the sound will not come good again until that person tells the truth or thinks the truth !!!
5) Even IF the people conducting the DB trials KNOW this fact and give instructions to the people taking part NOT to tell a lie or even think a lie, the mere fact of giving people such instructions can put them under tension - so contributing to the sound being made worse again.
6) If a group of people are taking part in the DB trials, they will take time to get into a state of what I call equilibrium - a state of ease !! To do this, they will adjust their body posture - crossing or uncrossing their ankles, crossing or uncrossing their knees, left over right or right over left. Folding or unfolding their arms, left over right, or right over left. When the state of equilibrium is finally reached, then the sound in the room will be at it's best. If ANY ONE person fidgets, changes their body posture, the sound will be perceived as having deteriorated until there are adjustments again made in the group and a state of equilibrium is reached.
7) Even giving that group instructions NOT to fidget during the DB trials would create a state of tension.

The DB trial area is a minefield and anyone who does not realise that is being extremely naive !!

If you want cause mischief to the sound in demonstration rooms at a Hi Fi show, just sit in the room and 'think a lie' !!!!!!! The sound will be perceived as 'much harsher'. Then watch people begin to fidget, begin to talk amongst themselves instead of listening, and eventually leave in the middle of the music. The sound would not stop being worse until you thought the truth.

You could even make the sound worse in a demonstration room at a Hi Fi Show which had been fully treated with Ethan's room acoustic treatments - whilst any acoustic measurements would remain exactly the same !!!. Now, THAT would be some SUBJECTIVE demonstration, wouldn't it ??

Regards,
May Belt.

>>> "Let's let her send her product to those hearing aid manufacturers she claims to work with for a trial." <<<

I DID not say that I worked with hearing aid manufacturers. I said that I worked with the ENT consultant and his chief audiology technician at a leading UK teaching hospital doing trials on improving the sound of hearing aids. Yes, Blind Trials - when you have finished with your mockery !!!! Again, the story is well known.

Regards,
May Belt.

Buddha, I'm not going to discuss something I did not say.

I'm not going to discuss crap you make up.

Move on.

It's possible I might have made the comment somewhere along the line that the demand for DBTs is silly as it's almost always a ploy by dyed in the wool trolls and naysayers.

GK

"Really, I like the idea of blind listening as something to explore, not as in ironclad requirement."

That's nice. I like the idea of blind lemon chittlins.

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance."

The kinds of specifications and measurements you refer to, necessary for manufacturing consistency, are not the in same field as those Winer uses to argue the superiority of one product (usually his) over another. It is true that, once the building and the subjective listening is finished, measurements have to be recorded in order for the prototype to model all the iterations of it. But the best designers still want a final listen.

Perhaps the calculator cannot be subjective. But the pseudo-scientist who uses it to prove false premises can and often is subjective, while still wearing the (in this case) uniform of the hypocrite -- the lab coat. How many actors have put on lab coats and falsified the numbers, just to sell you a car, toothbrush, or dick-hardener? If this isn't the oldest advertising ploy, it must be damned close.

If it can be heard, it can be measured. Perhaps someday, but certainly not now. If it can be heard, it can be measured. That depends on who is doing the hearing, who is doing the measuring, and which is the bigger liar. The fact is, many product specifications generate identical sets of specifications, to the limits of human perception, yet sound remarkably different. Two speaker systems advertise "down 5 db at 30 Hz." Yet the bass response sounds different, when responding to music. Okay. Maybe it is the crossover, or the placement, or some other measurable component of the final set-up. By the time all the different variables are explored, the point of the measuring has been lost -- that is, the enjoyment of the music. And no abstract set of measurements and numbers can account for the differences between how system A plays a piece of software and how system B plays it.

Then, of course, one has to question not only the evaluator doing the measurements, but the testing procedures AND instruments that generate the measured data.

Kaplan's piece (see the home page) about 2 different recordings of "Moanin'," reissues of Blakey's original analogue recording, is interesting in this context. One sounds flat, to his ears, while the other sounds more alive. Hypothetically, this can be measured. But, in reality, in our present time, it can't.

I am sure a few of Winer's magic half- menorahs would obliterate any of the differences Kaplan's ears and brain have detected. There you go, Winer. Go out and buy the AP and the Blue-Note, listen away, and measure the whys and wherefores. We wait with breathlessly for the "scientific" final answer.

Whether an audio component "complies" with the specs generated by its siblings or not, it is the subjective judgment of the human listener that gives the final verdict. Again. If "anything that can be heard can be measured," then all audio components WOULD sound exactly the same. And they would be perfect. The don't and they aren't. The scientific argument always breaks down in the arena of human perception.

Quote:
I've used a few of Belt's and Frog's freebies and most of those have made improvements, a few rather obvious effects

Your having a difficult time understanding that if I am not listening for a particluar quality any improvement in that quality isn't an improvement to me. That does not mean the change did not occur, the change just was not one I considered an improvement in my system sound.

Once more for those will interpretation challenges ...

Quote:
One thing I think you are trying to do is take your experience with clinical trials where you are deciding "either A or B" (either the patient reacted to the introduction of a drug/placebo or they didn't) and transfer that to a blind test where the system is an intermediary for the music. I find this similar to the argument often given for disliking "PRaT". Those who distain the presence of pacing, timing and and rhythmic momentum are in the habit of disavowing the capacity for any audio product to "have PRaT".

Well, of course, no component has these qualities. The qualities exist in the music and the issue is whether the audio component correctly portrays their expressive nature or whether it diminishes those qualities and therefore diminishes the emotional appeal and connection to the music. In that context, an audio component does not "have PRAT" but it can definfitely get in the way of the listener feeling an emotional connection with the musical performance.

However, if a test subject has no feeling for emotional connection and listens only for frequency response or "clarity" or some other priority uniquely their own (as we all do), they will take a pass on a difference between two components, one which displays excellent "PRaT" qualities and another that obscures those very elements of the performance. In such an instance for a DBT to be effective, you would need to weed out those listeners who are not listening for "PRaT" or risk a distorted outcome to the test.

That group of listeners might then miss any changes in timbre or tone, spacial improvements or dynamic contrasts, musicality or detail retrieval that are not within their priorities. That each listener brings their own set of priorities to the test makes DBT's most difficult to use when assessing how well an audio component does its most basic job - playing the music. This becomes not an "either/or" situation but a "what if?" situation.

Since this has nothing to do with this thread, I hope this is now the end of the topic.

Now, maybe you'll answer where you saw May indicate she did not believe in blind tests?

Quote:
How many actors have put on lab coats and falsified the numbers, just to sell you a car, toothbrush, or dick-hardener? If this isn't the oldest advertising ploy, it must be damned close.

And it has happened on Stereophile's forum several times as well. Amazing how the Nigerian con artists are hated, yet some here are caught red handed manipulating the numbers/data and are applauded by their supporters with never any condemnation. I guess it depends upon who is getting the moooola. They obviously are not thinking of the public's welfare.

In a lighter vein (since you mention data manipulation and "convenient" inferences), I have a joke for you all about scientific inference from raw data.

A Minnesota farmer finds out on the internet that a South Dakota dairy farmer is selling some of his best stock. "Hmmm," says Lars, "I could use a good dairy cow -- I think I'll hitch up the trailer and drive over."

Upon arrival, the dairy farmer shows Lars the cow. Bending over to test the cow's capabilities, Lars pulls on one of the teats and the cow farts. "That's strange," says Lars, "does she give good milk?" The dairy farmer gives Lars a pail. Lars draws out a couple glasses of milk, as the cow continues to fart whenever he pulls on any of her teats. "The milk is good -- I'll take her."

When Lars gets back home, he calls his neighbor, Sven, over to see his new purchase. Sven checks her out, but doesn't seem surprised at the dual results of each pull. "Lars," says Sven, "it looks like that drive over to South Dakota was worth it -- this is a fine cow and you got a good deal."

"Wait a minute," says Lars. "I didn't tell you I got this cow in South Dakota -- how did you know?"

"My wife is from South Dakota."

Quote:
Interestingly, May is now a proponent of blind testing!

You really have a comprehension problem, don't you? Or is it that you just like making up crap?

there you go with Mr. Winer again.

Lame. You are a crybaby.
You arent going to convince anyone (other than your fringe dwellers/snake oil addicts who are in the minority) that Mr. Winer is a "con artist".. the idea is laughable, actually. Anyone with a modicum of intellect knows that..

Quote:
How many actors have put on lab coats and falsified the numbers, just to sell you a car, toothbrush, or dick-hardener? If this isn't the oldest advertising ploy, it must be damned close.

And it has happened on Stereophile's forum several times as well. Amazing how the Nigerian con artists are hated, yet some here are caught red handed manipulating the numbers/data and are applauded by their supporters with never any condemnation. I guess it depends upon who is getting the moooola. They obviously are not thinking of the public's welfare.

Ncdrawl, from the southeast region, where (we should assume) everyone has a "modicum of intelligence..."

Well, now, since we are talkin' some serious scientific and measuring issues, here, just how much is "a modicum"?

What is your point, here? You box Sasaudio's quote of my quote, and his commentary on it, then you comment "Lame." And, "You are a crybaby."

Let me see. "Modicum." "Lame," and "crybaby."

How scientific. How measurable.

"Fringe dwellers." Let's see, no real scientist could EVER be a "fringe dweller," right? I mean, the history of all the great scientific discoverers since the beginnings of their reported findings wouldn't include any "fringe dwellers," right? They MUST have all been conformists, breaking new ground with their abilities to imagine different perspectives and inferences from their data, right?

Great scientists would NEVER be in the "minority," right? They are always, by the very definitions of terms such as "great" and "exceptional," firmly entrenched in the normal, the status quo, the conforming majority, right?

Well, ncdrawl, I am happy to see the scientific community represented by such a precise thinker.

You are a credit to your calling."Science," today, has surely benefited from your precision, logic, data research, and proofs.

I think you deserve a prize for such a noble and logical defense of the gray muse.

Somebody send ncdrawl a golden diode.

Happy tunes. You sure did convince me of your superior status...

Quote:

Happy tunes. You sure did convince me of your superior status...

re "superiority"...
how about referencing your system cost(or some other reference to how much you make..apparently you have confidence issues) every other week? Or as scientific as your assertion that "best"(what the hell is that any way?) sound only comes through spending X dollars.? Going to get that one published in Discover or Popular Science? Maybe WSJ?

The whole "insult an entire region" tactic was a nice touch. Classy!

Quote:
The kinds of specifications and measurements you refer to, necessary for manufacturing consistency, are not the in same field as those Winer uses to argue the superiority of one product (usually his) over another. It is true that, once the building and the subjective listening is finished, measurements have to be recorded in order for the prototype to model all the iterations of it. But the best designers still want a final listen.

The designers may want a final listen, that's all well and good, but they have to measure the final result of the product in order to make it repeatable. Therefore, they have to know what they're measuring. Otherwise, no two batches would be the same.

If Ethan is quoting wrong measurements or if he's misrepresenting his products with false numbers, then what should he be measuring and how? He's been very clear with his methodology and what he thinks are relevant measurements. If you disagree, please share with us what parameters you think should be measured.

Quote:
Perhaps the calculator cannot be subjective. But the pseudo-scientist who uses it to prove false premises can and often is subjective, while still wearing the (in this case) uniform of the hypocrite -- the lab coat. How many actors have put on lab coats and falsified the numbers, just to sell you a car, toothbrush, or dick-hardener? If this isn't the oldest advertising ploy, it must be damned close.

I would like to know how you think Ethan has falsified the numbers, which numbers he falsified and where there are faults with his methodology? If Ethan is a crook, please expose him with conclusive proof (which by the way can only be made with numbers)

Quote:

If it can be heard, it can be measured. Perhaps someday, but certainly not now. If it can be heard, it can be measured. That depends on who is doing the hearing, who is doing the measuring, and which is the bigger liar. The fact is, many product specifications generate identical sets of specifications, to the limits of human perception, yet sound remarkably different. Two speaker systems advertise "down 5 db at 30 Hz." Yet the bass response sounds different, when responding to music.

The specifications certainly don't tell the whole story. The reason they don't is that manufacturers aren't required to report specifications in consistent manner. That's not to say that they don't know how to measure or what to measure, but that some manufacturers will report a speaker down to 20 HZ where they consider 20hz at -10db to be a relevant metric, whereas others will report 20hz measured at -3DB. This of course will make bass sound a lot different. So, the problem is not with measurement, it's with reporting. I disagree that we don't know what to measure. We can measure whether that same spec of 20hz has a flat frequency response or whether it exhibits peaks and valleys. Those things will certainly affect the way a component sounds. Once again, it's not that we don't know what to measure, it's in the reporting of those measurements.

Quote:
Okay. Maybe it is the crossover, or the placement, or some other measurable component of the final set-up. By the time all the different variables are explored, the point of the measuring has been lost -- that is, the enjoyment of the music. And no abstract set of measurements and numbers can account for the differences between how system A plays a piece of software and how system B plays it.

Enjoyment of music is purely subjective and this is one instance where there can be no argument. You may say you like certain type of music and I may say that I don't. There is no objective argument to be made. It's a matter of taste.

Audio component performance is not a matter of taste. Types and quantity of distortion as it pertains to musical reproduction may be a matter of taste, but not the components ability to render an electrical signal, which carries musical content.

You may argue a certain component, with less than stellar measurements because you just happen to like a particular type and quantity of distortion that it produces. I happen to think that's completely legitimate since ultimately, we're after a subjectively enjoyable musical experience. However, being after an enjoyable experience is different than being after a true reproduction with a master tape being the ultimate source.

Quote:
Then, of course, one has to question not only the evaluator doing the measurements, but the testing procedures AND instruments that generate the measured data.

Absolutely. However, there are impartial testing facilities and there are accepted instruments and methodologies to address these issues, so I don't see this being a big thing for all practical purposes.

Quote:
Kaplan's piece (see the home page) about 2 different recordings of "Moanin'," reissues of Blakey's original analogue recording, is interesting in this context. One sounds flat, to his ears, while the other sounds more alive. Hypothetically, this can be measured. But, in reality, in our present time, it can't.

If it can be heard, it can be measured. If the differences are a figment of one's imagination, then measurements will uncover this as well.

Quote:

Whether an audio component "complies" with the specs generated by its siblings or not, it is the subjective judgment of the human listener that gives the final verdict. Again. If "anything that can be heard can be measured," then all audio components WOULD sound exactly the same. And they would be perfect. The don't and they aren't. The scientific argument always breaks down in the arena of human perception.

I don't agree with that premise. Once again, if a component can't be measured, then it cannot be consistently reproduced. I asked this before, measurements are made, products are tested and product improvements are made based on scientific principles for every product and every industry. Why do you feel the hi end audio industry is somehow different from every other industry and thus not subject to the same laws of physics and science?

Hey! You're the one who put up the location, not I. I figured that, if all the good folks at Lake Woebegone are slightly better than average, and proud of it, that your representation of your "sector" must be at least as good as that.

The "best," to me, as I have written too many times to measure, is simply what can re-create the memory of last night's live concert (or last week's -- I can't remember the last time I went more than a week without some live tunes...) in my own listening room, with my own mix of good, indifferent, bad, and superb software.

I, like you, make economic choices at the margin. I would rather drive a $10,000 car for 10 years, and spend the saved money on home music than the other way around. And, yes (unfortunately, given the fact of economic life that the best designers design the best equipment, as a result of tenacity, dedication, innate genius, and countless hours of time on the job, and demand to be paid for it), the best I have heard does not come on the cheap. Sorry.

Of course, if all you wish to listen to is test tones, and your idea of an aesthetic experience is an evening watching oscilloscope waves and blips, then you can probably get by for a lot less. And you get the added assurance that you can prove that you own the best, by the numbers.

Talk about "confidence issues"...

You don't even have the confidence to trust your own ears.

If your scientific paragons are Discover or Popular Science, you do, indeed, inhabit an isolated "sector." If your economic paragon is the Wall Street Journal, then I would suggest you get a subscription, and trade their advice. You'd be broke in a few months.

If you can make it as far as Los Angeles, I'll buy you drinks, a fancy meal, and a bus ticket back to the "southeast sector." Wherever that is....

You're obviously being primed for a little of the ol' bright lights and sodium pentathol routine. Ve haff vays of making you talk. Cackle, cackle....LOL

Yes, and the person who routinely enters the front end of a sentence and comes out the other end driving a different vehicle and wearing different socks is being a PITA. I have made it clear I wasn't going to co-operate in his dishonety but he couldn't read that sentence properly either. So I'm not sure my credibility hangs in the balance with anyone, not when everyone on "their side" has proven they are not to be trusted with facts. That leaves no incentive for answering any questions from "their side". Maybe he'll get stuck on this and not post anything else. That would be a good thing.

Buddha, tell us where May said she didn't believe in blind tests. Let's get some honestly in this forum again. Give us the post where she made that clear or you made that up. Otherwise, realize why no one would answer a question from a bullshitter like you.

Now, back to the topic of the thread ...

Quote:
Observational trials can be quite objective.

Quote:
In our cable trials, we didn't directly measure anything other than outcome - sound, and did not directly measure the cause.
Indirect measures are quite applicable when looking at outcomes.
Heck, Lister couldn't measure bacterial counts, white blood cell counts, how his measures worked (how they inhibited bacterial growth,) yet he managed to be very objective.

What do you suppose he based his findings on?

Does anyone disagree Buddha just proved what "our side" has been saying all along? How about you, guy, care to twist your own words into something they are not? You've done such a good job at that for the past 1 1/2 years, this should be a snap!

I am usually quite careful in the words I use.

The BEST you can get from DB trials (particularly listening trials) is guidance.

If 75 % DO hear an improvement in the sound, one still has to ask "What more do I have to do so that more of the other 25% can hear what the other 75% have heard.?"

If 50% DO hear an improvement in the sound (no better than chance), one still has to ask, "What more do I have to do so that more of the other 50% can hear what the other 50% have heard ?"

If 25 % DO hear an improvement in the sound, one still has to ask exactly the same question, "What more do I have to do so that more of the other 75% can hear what the other 25% have heard ?"

As I say. Guidance only. Not the absolute proof which so many people seem to be demanding (and believing in).

If a person is a 'professional in audio', then they SHOULD know that already. If they DO know all that and STILL continue to demand DB listening test proof before being prepared to investigate, then I suggest that they are using that demand of DBT proof for other purposes - quite possibly as a deflection technique. I.e Keep demanding proof from others and they don't have to do any investigations themselves !!! OR, keep demanding proof from others and they appear to be on the side of scientific vigour !!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
Observational trials can be quite objective.

What's your take on this, May?

Quote:
If a person is a 'professional in audio', then they SHOULD know that already. If they DO know all that and STILL continue to demand DB listening test proof before being prepared to investigate, then I suggest that they are using that demand of DBT proof for other purposes - quite possibly as a deflection technique. I.e Keep demanding proof from others and they don't have to do any investigations themselves !!! OR, keep demanding proof from others and they appear to be on the side of scientific vigour !!!

Well, at least the uber-cynic has stopped making his $100 challenge to a DBT. That's a step forward IMO.

Quote:
No, he will answer, I'm sure.

Told ya so! Dood, you owe me $100.

Quote:
If Ethan is quoting wrong measurements or if he's misrepresenting his products with false numbers, then what should he be measuring and how? He's been very clear with his methodology and what he thinks are relevant measurements. If you disagree, please share with us what parameters you think should be measured.

Thanks Alex, someone had to say it. I wait with baited breath for Clifton's technically detailed expose.

Quote:
some manufacturers will report a speaker down to 20 HZ where they consider 20hz at -10db to be a relevant metric, whereas others will report 20hz measured at -3DB. This of course will make bass sound a lot different.

There are even more variables than that. Forget that fully half of what a speaker in a room sounds like is directly related to the room and speaker placement. Speaker makers like to use averaging, which hides much of the detail. The lower the resolution - 1/2 octave versus 1/24th octave - the more these details are hidden. Then there's ringing. And off-axis response and beaming. And both THD and IM distortion, and how they vary with SPL. And how the response is affected as frequencies near the crossover point come from two drivers and combine in the air in front of the cabinet. It goes on and on.

Quote:
Why do you feel the hi end audio industry is somehow different from every other industry and thus not subject to the same laws of physics and science?

That sums it up perfectly. Same goes for colon cleansers.

I read those kinds of arguments as basically arrogant. These guys never understand the science, and usually they even admit it. Yet they are absolutely certain they can hear things that "science" doesn't yet know about. Amazing. And did I mention arrogant?

--Ethan

Quote:
Has Jan ever held elected office?

As I recall he had a short stint as the governor of Illinois.

--Ethan

Quote:
How about personal experiences over decades ?

I had a few more thoughts on this.

I've had the same JBL 4430 speakers, bi-amped with just over 1 KW of Crown amplification since 1992. These speakers let me hear exactly what I'm doing when making mixing decisions. Let's call them brutally honest. Or highly accurate. Your choice. If I change EQ or volume or panning or reverb etc, what I hear exactly corresponds to the settings. If something in my system were to change even half a dB I'd know immediately, whether I could see what changed or not (ie: blind).

Can you say the same May?

--Ethan

Quote:
I think they are aware of the laws of science and physics, but feel that there is something more to audio than the current measuring models provide.

I don't know where you'd distinguish "better" subjectivists from merely "average" subjectivists. I see all of them diss science in one way or another. DBT is the golden standard for all of science, except audio of course. And anyone with an ounce of understanding realizes that five magic bowls the size of a saki cup cannot change the acoustics in a room. Ad nauseum.

In my experience, the more someone knows about the science of audio, the less likely they are to believe in magic tweaks. I know of only one "real" engineer who claims competent cables can sound different, and that person has a financial interest in furthering audio bullshit. I have a lot of EE friends, and every one of them agrees with all of my views 100 percent. Versus the typical subjectivists you see who disagree with all of my views! It's not a matter of opinion. One side is right and the other is wrong. One group understands how stuff works and the other side does not. It really is black and white.

--Ethan

Quote:
I think they are aware of the laws of science and physics, but feel that there is something more to audio than the current measuring models provide.

Yes there is, and that is the difference between the so called objectivists and real scientists. The so called objectivists only know the very basics, something any high schooler knows. That is why one only hears the term "science" or "real science" from them but never any deeper explanation.

However, when one goes deeper and learn from NASA engineers, physicists, chemists and other PHDs, there is alot more involved. However, the so called objectivists dismiss anything more complicated than basic high school classes because it interferes with their goals, as Clifton explained quite well a few pages back. Clifton was right on concerning their marketing strategy and the absolute necessity to dismiss anything that might increase sales elsewhere and decrease their sales.

Unfortunately, the public gets ripped off from both the "left" and "right" extremists who are out for a buck.

"Science" (nobody has really defined this term, with in the limits of the various arguments that have burned this monstrous thread...) makes a wonderful handmaiden for the Arts. And vice-versa. The subjective and the objective lie at hypothetical poles of human experience, as Yeats so wonderfully imaged this opposition in his poetry and prose, but can never be explored as exclusively isolated from one another. They are different perspectives on the same mysterious reality, not truth, on the one hand, and error on the other. One extreme is always muddling up the other, and separating them absolutely is a fool's errand.

Science gave us Disney Hall, but Art had to tune it, as per the requirements of Salonen's subjective ear (he didn't use an oscilloscope or a sound pressure meter) -- a trial and error process that took years, according to the Maestro. I didn't hear the flaws that he did. So far, Dudamel (his successor) hasn't complained. Of course, "objective" Science would never stoop so low as to use trial and error, right? I mean, you can get lost in there.

If Winer thinks his JBL/Crown combination is "brutally accurate," he would have to define his own subjective criteria for "accuracy" in order to be convincing, and that might take a few volumes. My systems aren't brutally anything -- they are simply the best I could do with my own memories of my own concert hall experiences.

My only problem with the DBT debate is that those who see the method as a be-all-end-all for eliminating error and exposing supposed frauds refuse to recognize the limitations in their own arguments. You can't eliminate the subjective element from any aspect of human experience.

My only problem with Winer is the arrogance with which he puts forth circular arguments, declaring them to be absolutely true, when, in reality, they are marketing ploys for selling his room tuners.

And that's all for me, folks.

Happy tunes.

Quote:
why does it have to be double blind? Single blind listening should be fine.

Fair enough, that is usually adequate. I've done plenty of SBT tests here and my setup has me face away from the other person.

Quote:
That's what the phrenologists used to say about head bumps and racial inferiority.

Could be, but clearly they were on the wrong side. That doesn't mean both sides might be right!

Quote:
Next, would you agree that even the best Pioneer receivers and JBL speakers, connected by the finest zip wire, still far well short of the ideal of recreating the sensation of being in the presence of live music?

Sure, but that's totally unrelated to the issue at hand!

Quote:
What if a tube aficonado thinks that in return for the downside of tubes, he gains a pleasant 'artifact' that gives him valued live cues better than a Pioneer receiver?

I have no problem with that. As long as they don't claim their tube gear is more accurate. And adding distortion or rolling off highs and lows can never improve "live cues." All it can do is degrade the sound in a way that some inexperienced (IMO) listeners prefer.

Quote:
there are listeners who may be willing to give up one thing (like electrical linearity or low distorion)in exchange for another that makes their pursuit of musical reproduction more pleasing to them.

Sure. I can make any recording sound more airy by boosting 10 KHz with an EQ. Want more fullness? Easy, just boost 100 Hz. Too boomy? Then cut instead.

Quote:
I like Van Gogh more than I like photographs, but photographs are more accurate, and photos would measure more accurately, too.

Again, you are combining two unrelated issues. You are including microphones and the acoustics of the recording space into the playback equation where it does not belong.

--Ethan

Quote:
I disagree with you strongly about DBT - why does it have to be double blind?

I think for most audiophile investigations, single blind is fine. But there's a very interesting history of this, and its story to me was extremely funny because it reminded me so much of audiophiles. It relates to a phenomenon called the Clever Hans Effect. I had a lot of fun reading that story and some of its links.

A little OT, I find it pretty funny that this thread is titled "Well, this should be non-controversial..." and it is now up to thirty pages or so of flame wars! Gave me a chuckle.

Quote:
Do you think physicists set up a run at CERN and then make placebo readouts to see if they can tell which is the real readout?

Blind tests are not always needed! They're needed only when something is controversial or not obvious. We don't need a blind test to know that eyeglasses work. But when Joe Schmoe says he can hear one capacitor versus another, and prevailing science says that's not likely, then we demand a blind test. You have pointed this out yourself many times, so I don't understand what you're arguing about!

--Ethan

Quote:
it is now up to thirty pages or so of flame wars!

You'll notice all the flames come from one side only.

Look at the extreme hate from some people. You'd think I was convicted of child molesting. Sadly, this is not uncommon. When people are unable to discuss something rationally because their position is weak, all they have left are insults and attacks.

--Ethan