| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Saying you know it existed in John's example means you're claiming to be a mind reader, and maybe a spiritualist too. As usual Kruger, you're hip deep in a river of BS. Given the conditions stated, Occam's Razor says that the difference John heard was more likely real than your argumentative nonsense.
It is equally quite clear that from the standpoint of many interested and uninterested parties, that you may be getting too old for this, Arnold. Which brings up another thing I've been meaning to ask you: does the job of "troll" include a retirement pension?
Nice self disclosure for the objectivists.
Arny noted a difference and 'proved' it.
Ethan said he heard no differences, but did not report his listening trial results or how he performed them. Stephen was quite clear about his experience.
Arny even 'measured' differences, and Ethan can't hear those differences, either.
Ethan won't say what threshold a measured difference has to cross before it is allowed to be audible.
-3 dB at 10 and with the difference expanding as frequency rises.
So, we have measured results, we have Arny saying he heard differences, and we are faced with Ethan and Arny decrying subjective reports in the face of the data they have provided to the contrary.
Quite a trick providing data for who they consider to be 'the opposition' and then denying it.
Arny heard it, Ethan didn't. Ethan won't describe how his trials were done.
I've explained it several times, frog. Being a frog, you are apparently incapable of understanding that bias is part of the human condition.
Amphibian brains are so much simpler than human brains that it is arguable that they are incapable of bias. So, your inability to get *it* is completely understandable.
That's my point, Mr. Krueger. If you claim that my perceptions were based on my expectations, it is fair to ask you what you think those expectations were. Which, of course, reveals your claim to be meaningless as you can't read minds.
As I said, as I had no knowledge of what was happening in the listening room, I had _no_ expectations. Michael was playing Stephen music while I prepared to measure the Wilson speakers' in-room response by seeing up my laptop, mike preamp etc, in the vestibule outside the listening room. I couldn't see Michael from where I was. When Michael played back what I thought must have been 2 different pressings of a Diana Krall album, the second one had more bass energy apparent. It was only later that I was informed that no, it was the same LP before and after "demagnetization."
As I don't see how "demagnetizing" LPs can have an effect and have said so, surely my "expectation bias" would have worked in the opposite direction, would have _prevented_ me hearing a difference, had I known what was being "tested"?
No-one has said that anyone was unbiased, Mr. Krueger, so your appeal to scientific authority is a red herring. All I am asking you is that if my supposedly hearing a difference between the 2 presentations was due to "expectation bias," as you are claiming, how would that have worked given my lack of knowledge about what was being "tested"?
It is not bogus at all, Mr. Krueger, and there is no "as usual" about it. You made the claim - surely it behooves you either to support that claim or admit that you can't do so? In which Occam's Razor suggests that my reaction was to the so-called "demagnetization" of the Diana Krall LP.
As you yourself both measured and heard a difference between the "before" and "after" files Michael had prepared, I don't comprehend why you are flailing around for another explanation.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
It's not fair at all to expect me to be able to read the details of your mind, John.
I can and have documented the fact that human, non-reptilian brains perceive based on the combination of memories and sensation.
I can't document exactly what your memories and/or sensations are or were any any particular point in time, even if I were in the room with you, and not 100's of miles away and maybe a month or two later.
As usual John, you are flogging a really transparent excluded-middle argument. It may work with people of the mentality that find Stereophile compelling, but its not going to work with people who have intellectually risen above all that.
You really need to set your intellectual heights higher, John. You're not even that much fun any more. Keep degrading like this and I might refuse your next invitation to debate you on the grounds of anticipated boredom.
Obviously, you haven't been watching Forbidden Science on Cinemax.
What would it take to get you to accept an invitation to leave?
Gotta admit, arnie, you make Ethan look logical. You got nothin', arnie, nothin' except CYA and keep this dumbass thread going for your own entertainment. "Momma arnie" would be proud.
oh, and,
The system we listened to at Michael's place was made of Wilson MAXX 3 loudspeakers, Musical Fidelity Titan amplifiers (1kW into 8 ohms), and the Continuum Caliburn turntable. (I'm not sure about the preamps and cables.) No problems with bass extension.
I don't know. I'll ask Michael.
For the record, I never said it was an experiment, or a test, or anything like that. Mikey and I were just having a good time, listening to music on the hi-fi, while John Atkinson prepared to run some measurements.
I wrote about the experience here.
Ethan's excellent reputation speaks for itself. Flattery will get you nowhere!
Your lack of self-awareness is noted, Jan. You can't see your own significant contributions to keeping this thread going?
Figures!
You originally claimed JA's perceptions at MFs were influenced by expectation bias. Now you're saying that his perceptions were skewed by what I'll refer to as perceptual bias ("brains perceive based on the combination of memories and sensation").
Are you saying that perceptual bias and expectation bias are one and the same? That seems to leave an awful lot of bias out of this perceptual picture...
arrrrrnie - you responded to me.
What's that say?!
... just how many people are actually participating in this forum since arrrrnie and the measurement trolls arrived? We're pulling in new people about as fast as the GOP and loosing about as many too.
YEA! arrrrrnie!!!
It says that you are incapble of answering a simple question, Jan.
Just to show you how to answer a simple question, let me say that I am fully aware of my efforts to keep this thread alive, and also my sucess at doing the same.
Remember Jan, you were the one who was whining about how this thread keeps going on and on...
You are correct, I have not taken his test. The reason is simple, If the process involves more than putting a CD in a tray and pushing play, I do not do it. No downloads, no computer gbberish, not for me. I simply do not have a setup that involves a computer in my audio system and intend to keep it that way.
As I posted, I do not have the slightest idea how to use the files in question BUT, based on your arguments, it does sound like you do..
I am sorry, but until you give it a go, I will be forced to consider your argument very weak indeed. Note, I suspect you are right about an effect. I simply speak to your argument.
Obvioiusly Jan, you are incapable of seeing how your response to the presence of new blood may be alienating people. Taking responsibility for your own actions seems to be not a great strength of yours.
The objectivists seem to be in a bind here.
Arny heard the differences and measured them, yet he now berates JA and Stephen for saying they heard differences, too.
However, Arny seems to have decided not to hear the differences, after-all, and now says he can't hear the differences, even though his findings include a significant drip in frequency response above 10K.
Yet he feels the needs to lecture JA about bias.
Ethan vanishes when asked what his listening trial protocol was, merely stating he heard no difference.
He also wishes to pontificate on expectation bias, but won't describe his DBT methodology.
The cool part about the measurements is that they were large, yet inaudible to objectivists. Well, inaudible after they were audible. Very John Kerry!
Arny, you should mellow out. You've argued both sides of the argument on this thread, and now seem to be trying to cover up the fact that you now can't hear what you measured!
Again, that's my point, Mr. Krueger. You made the claim that my perception of the difference made by "demagnetizing" the LP were the result of expectation bias on my part. As you first raised this subject, it is fair to ask you what that expectation bias was.
Good for you, Mr. Krueger? But for there to be an "expectation bias," the subject must have foreknowledge of what is going to take place. That's what the word "expectation" implies. But I had no such foreknowledge. As I wrote in the text you snipped and presumably ignored:
Yet _you_ raised the claim that my perception was the result of my "expectation bias," Mr. Krueger.
Again, there is no "as usual" about this, Mr. Krueger.
I think you don't really know what that phrase means, Mr. Krueger. There is no "excluded middle" here. I am drawing a direct inference from your own statements about the listening experience I described and asking you to offer the necessary support. Without that support, your dismissal of my experience is groundless.
I definitely agree that the intellectual achievement of the people who read Stereophile is on a different plane from your own, Mr. Krueger.
:-)
I gave you your 15 minutes of fame, Mr. Krueger. No need to repeat that generosity, I feel.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Jan, you're the guy whining about being in a bind. You've been ticketed for your oft-demonstrated inability to take responsibility for your own actions. How do we know that you are not again trapped in your web of self-deceit and self-pity?
So Jan, your percpetual process has such low resolution that you can't distinguish between one or two trials of sighted evaluation as compared to 30 trials of time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled listening? Pretty strange.
Half of this paragraph is made up, half has been dealt with by means of a public correction. Again, Jan can't which is which or what is what. Very sad!
I wouldn't call it a lecture because my lectures are generally effective, but I have no hopes of JA ever admitting that he ever performs like a biased listener.
So there we have it - Jan can't take responsiblity for his own actions, and JA can't see how his actions could possibly be other than what he simplistically asserts that they are.
It is almost like everything that has been written about human bias over the past 50 years simply never made it into the world of high end audio. Makes one wonder why JA wastes money on the SPLC, since he won't even admit that bias exists!
I can accept that. Not many of us know exactly how we are flawed. Take you for example, what keeps you here, arnie? Surely not me? Frog perhaps? Grudges to settle from 1971? I hear you've been at this for decades and still haven't convinced anybody of anything.
Or to tell John he has biases you can't predict but you know affect his perception? Send him the book, arnie! Stop being a tightwad and break loose for $20 - you have no excuse not to.
What does this BS with me have to do with demagnetizing discs? You can't take a little ribbing from anyone, can you, arnie? Seems you get distracted more easily than a caged gerbil. And this is what you do for a living? There must be a troll union that protects your job.
I gotta compliment you though. All this time I thought you were just another dup in a change of pajamas. But you've run off more folk than dup could ever have hoped to - and made less sense. THAT! is an accomplishment!
I thought you weren't ever going to read my posts. Geeez, arnie, you're just like all the rest, all hat and no cattle.
So, you were saying about demagnetization ...
Boy, the objectivists are really losing it now.
I ain't Jan.
I can see how an objectivist would just call everyone who disagrees with his BS the same name, but your name identification skills are about as acute as your ability to tell channel to channel differences apart from track to track differences.
So, Arny, you nicely 'proved' your skills for us, then you start taking pot shots at JA for hearing what you heard, yet you completely ignore Ethan's report because he seems to agree with you own, revised opinion.
Why aren't you challenging Ethan to come forth with his listening trial data?
So, arrrrrnie, your percpetual process has such low resolution that you can't distinguish between one or two posters!
DAMN! I wish I knew how to post those little emoticons with the character rollin' on the floor rollin' and rollin' and laughin' and laughin' his ass off. 'Cause that one deserves it, arrrrnie!
Did you measure that one, arnie? Is that how you came up with, "There's no difference between people who think I'm a troll"? Hey, that sorta tells us how good you are at all of this, doesn't it?
God!, arnie! You are a trolling doooooofus!
Great stuff there, arrrrrnie! Great stuff!
Yup!
ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!!
You keep this up and John's gonna start charging for the entertainment.
Seems like you revel in it, Jan.
Excluded middle argument noted. Its not necessary to know exactly how we are flawed to take postive steps related to our failings.
Many things Jan, including a number of your personality flaws.
But of course!
I'm not so much into taunting those who are mentally dead.
Grudges to settle from 1971?
Unh, what happened in 1971 that I should remember?
Not convinced anybody of anything seems like a very broad statement. What qualifies you for such levels of omniscience, Jan?
I don't know that John reads and understands much that is
written about science any more.
Well Jan, sometimes I harass dogs just a litle to see how they respond. Nothing really mean, just a little testing to see if they are still alive. ;-)
I tap you and frog on the knees and I see evidence that at least your reptilian brain is alive, other appearances notwithstanding...
You can't take a little ribbing from anyone, can you, arnie?
Well there goes your self-awareness thing, Jan. I haven't seen so many meltdowns as I have from you lately since the days of Allen/Ellen/Alan Derrida on RAO.
Seems you get distracted more easily than a caged gerbil.
no, its just that I indulge myself with a little multitasking.
There goes your self-awareness thing again, Jan.
OK, arrrrnie, that is the dumbest damn dumbass post in this entire damn dumbass'd thread. By golly, you are entertaining to say the least and the least is about all I can muster for you, arrrrnie.
Somebody who likes to torment dogs. Figures.
C'mon over, guy, I have a pup I'd like you to meet.
So, you were saying about demagnetization ...
Oh, that's right, you weren't saying anything about it, you were busy being a troll.
It comes from responding to dumass posts like yours, Jan.
Why don't you try to up your game and start posting like a really smart middle school student?
Arny, you heard the difference.
And you being a troll, you are apparently incapable of understanding that susceptibility to the malaria disease is also a human weakness, part of the "human condition". Does not mean everyone is going to be infected and die of malaria. Any of this starting to sink in yet?
Thank you for confirming that I heard major differences in testing the Furutech demo. Make sure you pass the word on to your Whiney friend: no further testing necessary.
Frog, I'll bet you thought very long and deeply to come up with that statement, our slimey little amphibian.
It obviously never crossed your little amphibian mind that it takes more than just a susceptibility to Malaria, it also takes exposure to an source that is infectious with Malaria.
About 100 years ago some smart people figured out: No Mosquitos that are themselves infected with Malaria, no problem with Malaria. I guess they never taught you this in Frog school.
In the case of listening tests, the role of the infectious source for bias is the listening test itself.
So, if you can figure out how to do a listening test without doing a listening test, then you can eliminate the problem of bias.
In fact many have accomplished this, since most of your so-called listening tests aren't really tests at all. I mean, is it even a listening test at all when you make the identity of the item being listened to at that instant visible for all of the listeners to clearly see?
Seems more like maybe you should call it a vision test?
BTW Frog, when I lived in Homestead Fla and worked in the Everglades, the lower front of my car was often bloodied by the remains of the mangled bodies of frogs that dashed their brains out on my car's bumper while I was driving out to work.
Somehow the beating you're taking around here reminded me of that. ;-)
Why should I? The more I post as is, the more you seem to be bothered by me. I'm irrelevant here, arrnie. I told you that in the post way back when. You did see it didn't you? I figured SM would delete that one so I sent it to you in a PM. Go check, we'll wait.
Ladedah ladedah .....
There! Better?
The only thing you've convinced me of is the fact you are a hopeless, old, over the hill troll who has nothing better to do with his time than respond to irrelevant middle school taunts. That must make you feel very special.
Stephen, is this going anywhere?
Not since you decided to fire bomb the thread, Jan.
As long as Arny Krueger is willing to generate page views, hence advertising revenue, for www.stereophile.com, I'd be inclined to let him continue shooting off at the mouth, arguing both sides of the debate as the fancy takes him :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I don't have a problem with it. Actually I have found it quite entertaining. I suspect the page views are up lately.
RG
Michigan, no worries. Arny heard the difference, too!
I don't know why he's upset that you did, as well.
Maybe you heard the difference, but you didn't do it right.
Still waiting for Ethan to describe his listening trials and results. That part doesn't bother Arny because Ethan drinks the same flavor Kool Aid, so it must have been done right.
A link to Adblock Plus is probably obligatory. Sorry if my lack of ad views means your kids can't buy new shoes or something.
I've stopped reading about 80% of the posts, btw.
And I daresay it is not reassuring to see one of the smears I've heard (about Stereophile caring more about ad revenue than rational discourse) be vindicated.
I only have your word for that...prove it.
One thing that I find very similar to political forums is that posters here also seem to think all they have to do is type something and it is so (fact, truth, divine utterance) forever more...Again, prove it.
Again, so you say, but a host of others say the exact opposite and I have no way to prove or disprove either.
Maybe the problem Jan is having with your "new blood" is better described by these recent quotes of yours in a single message to JA:
"I can and have documented the fact that human, non-reptilian brains perceive..."
"As usual John, you are flogging a really transparent excluded-middle argument. It may work with people of the mentality that find Stereophile compelling, but its not going to work with people who have intellectually risen above all that."
"You really need to set your intellectual heights higher, John. You're not even that much fun any more. Keep degrading like this and I might refuse your next invitation to debate you on the grounds of anticipated boredom."
...Where not only do you have the gall to come trolling here with your DBT cross in tow and insult the editor of Stereophile on the Stereophile forum, but then in the same breath, you insult all Stereophile readers, and claim yourself to be "intellectually above" everyone else here (which after all your ideas are refuted, always ends up as your closing argument in all of your debates on all the internet forums you troll).
And then to top it all off like a Krueger Kreme donut, you go out of your way to write an indirect insult about me, in a message to someone else that I have nothing to do with.
Krueger, I don't think you're long for this world. And I mean that in all possible ways.
That's my "guess."
Perhaps you missed the smiley icon at the end of my post? No, there it is.
I just wanted to point out the irony inherent in Mr. Krueger taking mighty swipes at me and my readers on this forum and by doing so, increasing our total number of page views, hence income. YMMV, of course, and appears to do so.
BTW, on the subject of Stereophile valuing ad revenue above all, see www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/54/544304.html .
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This is why I'm mostly ignoring you these days. I have stated many times the complexity of what is audible. It's due to absolute SPL level, and also level relative to what else is going on and conflicting frequencies. This is call the masking effect. I wrote an entire article about this which I often link to in threads like this:
Artifact Audibility Report
I also answered that many pages back when I said I listened loudly through my big JBL speakers and also through headphones.
And here you are yet again making the same stoopid accusations.
--Ethan
Ethan, do us the honor of posting your listening scores like Arny did.
What was your protocol for the trials and how many did you do, etc?
Arny was 20/30 before deciding he better not hear that. I think he measured it, thought that should be audible, reported the results, was informed of the measurement error, then decided he wouldn't hear it any more and reconstructed his report.
Okay, let me get this straight. You are in a small vestibule where the bass response can change over literally one or two inches as you move around, and you'd rather believe that the change in bass level was due to demagnetizing a piece of plastic rather than your positional change in the vestibule?
I can't imagine Arny is influenced one way or the other by that. Hell, I'm glad to see you make money off the forum. If you didn't the forum would cease to exist to the detriment of everyone. And reasonable people who are science-based would have one less platform to educate those willing to read and learn from both sides.
--Ethan
I didn't bother with any of that. I loaded both files into Sound Forge, then played them one after the other quickly starting at the same places each time. I heard no difference between the files, which is what I expected, so I concluded there is no meaningful difference. That's when I tried to null the files in SONAR, which of course was impossible due to the large - though inaudible!
Dude, if you want to get my attention you need to talk to the topic at hand, and stop picking at every stoopid unrelated thing you can find. Arny already admitted his mistake confusing channel versus file HF response differences, which is more than I've ever seen from the other side. You're coming off like a Republican who criticizes Bill Clinton for getting a BJ ten years after the fact, while ignoring $10 Billion per month spent in Iraq while our economy goes down the toilet.
--Ethan
Yet here we are, hundreds of posts later, and still neither you nor the others have the cajones to state publicly which of my short excerpt files is which. Frog, you are a liar and a fraud. The only way you'll ever prove otherwise is to man up and admit you can't tell which file is which, or by giving us the correct answer.
--Ethan
No. Please note that I did not use the word "small." That is your inference, Ethan, and is incorrect. It is a large space.
Indeed. You mustn't confuse acoustic objects, which are mental constructs based on the pressure waves reaching the ears with the pressure waves themselves. The two are not equivalent. For example, you can measure enormous changes in frequency response when, say, your wife is talking first in one position in the room than in another position, but it has no influence on your ability to recognize the sound as being her voice.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
So, no expectation bias for you!
No too hard, you already knew what the result would be.
Ethan, the topic at hand was whether or not the before and after differences were audible.
You also could not hear the rather large channel to channel difference in the HF, hence my query as to just how large a difference had to exist before you'd hear it. You reply that the issue is complex. I would reply that since you were doing the test with the same gear and in the exact same way each time, the question should be answerable.
I wonder what the heck it would take for you to be able to hear it.
You also criticize the subjectivists, but state merely that you clicked back and forth a few times, already expecting no difference, and were rewarded with your expected result. Did you dunk witches in a previous life?
Well, unless this "vestibule" was 20 by 30 feet or lager, it is subject to large changes in frequency response over very small distances.
Not true. If you move a few inches such that 100 Hz goes down 4 dB and 457 Hz goes up 2 dB, the sound at your ears is the same as staying in the same place and applying an equalizer. All else being equal of course.
That is logically incorrect because your placement in the vestibule did not prevent you from recognizing the singer or music. I believe that logic flaw is called a red herring.
John, like Buddha and some others here, you are dancing all around the core issue. Plastic cannot be demagnetized, and anybody with even the most rudimentary understanding of science knows this. Indeed, if you really believe the difference was obvious from the vestibule, all you have to do is tell us which of my excerpts is Before and After. If you can't or won't do that, your position is unsupportable.
--Ethan
Pages