Quote:
The eye does nothing of the sort. It has 4 receptors, 'y' and RGB. These do not have a high frequency response, nor do they have any substantial frequency selectivity, rather the rhopsodins in the eye have wide spectral sensitivity. All in all, the eye can detect 3 (or 4 in some few people)(not counting rods, or 'y' which is common to most any sighted person) different sets of wavelengths, ranging over an octave. From this, via secondary methods, the eye can resolve color as we know it.

Only one correction. Rhodopsin is unique to rods. The general term is photopigment as rods and cones each have a different opsin component.

Otherwise, I applaud your efforts here but I doubt your success.

Kal

Oh boy! Maybe one should not compliment the discussion culture in forums and then see it go belly up.

I am very much aware that there are differnt approaches on how to do an ABX-Test but that is not the point of this little program. The point is that in this kind of test which is in many ways very similar to what private individuals in internet forums claim to be a "good" test procedure it is rather likely that you cannot identify a real difference. Thus all it shows is that this approach to ABX-Testing is likely to get no results. Even though seeing and hearing do certainly differ in many ways I believe this can work as an easy example of why listening for differences in this approach will get no sensible results.

There are certainyl other ways to do an ABX-Test but it seems in Audio they continously fail to show differences that are perceived in A/B comparison and this may show one of multiple reasons why this could be the case.

Jan Sieveking

Quote:
Even though seeing and hearing do certainly differ in many ways I believe this can work as an easy example of why listening for differences in this approach will get no sensible results.

Except that all you've shown is that a not-very-good test followed by an analysis that is mostly incorrect means little, one way or another.

Anyone can do a bad test. It's easy. I'm so, so sure of that.

Quote:
The general term is photopigment as rods and cones each have a different opsin component.

***smack***

Opsins. Doh.

Quote:

Quote:
Even though seeing and hearing do certainly differ in many ways I believe this can work as an easy example of why listening for differences in this approach will get no sensible results.

Except that all you've shown is that a not-very-good test followed by an analysis that is mostly incorrect means little, one way or another.

Anyone can do a bad test. It's easy. I'm so, so sure of that.

But I think that is kind of the point. In audio we have hobbyists shouting down other hobbyists for not proving their perceptions via DBTs as if such tests executed by hobbyists would actually be anything other than more anecdotal evidence. Personally I do single blind tests as a *part* of my audition process. But I have no dellusions of being a scientist. I know my expereinces are all anecdotal in nature. Even when I do comparisons blind.

Quote:
In audio we have hobbyists shouting down other hobbyists for not proving their perceptions via DBTs as if such tests executed by hobbyists would actually be anything other than more anecdotal evidence.

FYI, not all of us are hobbyists.

Quote:

Quote:
In audio we have hobbyists shouting down other hobbyists for not proving their perceptions via DBTs as if such tests executed by hobbyists would actually be anything other than more anecdotal evidence.

FYI, not all of us are hobbyists.

Well, you and who else? Seriously, who else do we have besides you that is an avid audiophile and an actual research scientist in the field of auditory perception? And let's not ignore the problem we have with you. You can't tell us many things without having to kill us.

Quote:

Well, you and who else? Seriously, who else do we have besides you that is an avid audiophile and an actual research scientist in the field of auditory perception? And let's not ignore the problem we have with you. You can't tell us many things without having to kill us.

True Scott, as other's anger is actually the result of the inabililty to defend their position. I must hasten to add for the general public, that there are variables and with the lack of communications in other fields, dbt test after test can conclude the same outcome (repeatability), have high mathematical confidence, and yet come to the wrong conclusion. Some imply simply reading other's dbt tests qualifies one as an expert, without actually doing any research. One cannot take a short cut and bypass hardwork.

When one listens to Dr. Timothy Johnson's conclusions of dbt medical subjective tests on Good Morning America, I have never heard him conclude with the word "fact". Usually he states it seems to indicate, seems to conclude, more research is needed, it appears to indicate etc.
Real experts have decades of actual research and know enough not to over extend themselves by forcing their own personal conclusions as fact on the general public.

Quote:
FYI, not all of us are hobbyists.

jj, have we seen your professional affiliations?

This argument that "professionals" cannot be wrong or cannot be biased has been made endlessly and been proven to be so much BS in every case. Even the claim indicates a biased opinion.

To avoid the repitition of yet another silly comment from you, rather than asking for proof, jj, go back and read any of the objectivist/subjectivist threads on this forum to find the truth in what I have stated.

IMO one thing the "test" clearly proves is without properly calibrated and aligned equipment placed in a properly configured and controlled environment, the results always will be skewed. However, in audio "calibration" can mean many things where in color rendition there are fewer variables - if the test is to be perfromed with a RGB calibrated monitor, we can adjust to RGB standards. While "accuracy" in audio does not have such standards and does not ensure good results on a test where the listener's subjective response is the end result.

Someone who sees no correlation between this test and DBT/ABX's is arguing for the sake of argument alone. This test is more useful for what it dispells about the usefullness of DBT/ABX's than for what it ignores.

Quote:

jj, have we seen your professional affiliations?

Don't know about you. I have. Not that hard to go to JJ's webpage.

Quote:
This argument that "professionals" cannot be wrong or cannot be biased has been made endlessly and been proven to be so much BS in every case.

"This argument?" Where can we find "this argument?" I don't see it on "this thread."

Quote:
Even the claim indicates a biased opinion.

OK so we have some indication of your bias given it is your straw man.....

Quote:
To avoid the repitition of yet another silly comment from you, rather than asking for proof, jj, go back and read any of the objectivist/subjectivist threads on this forum to find the truth in what I have stated.

Why on earth would anyone go on such an Easter egg hunt in response to a straw man argument?

Quote:
IMO one thing the "test" clearly proves is without properly calibrated and aligned equipment placed in a properly configured and controlled environment, the results always will be skewed. However, in audio "calibration" can mean many things where in color rendition there are fewer variables - if the test is to be perfromed with a RGB calibrated monitor, we can adjust to RGB standards. While "accuracy" in audio does not have such standards and does not ensure good results on a test where the listener's subjective response is the end result.

Oh boy, what next? Maybe you should lecture Bob Dylan on the principles of song writing.

Quote:
Someone who sees no correlation between this test and DBT/ABX's is arguing for the sake of argument alone. This test is more useful for what it dispells about the usefullness of DBT/ABX's than for what it ignores.

I take it you understood nothing of what JJ explained about the specific differences among the different senses and tests for the different senses.

This discussion is about a higher order system as being under analysis.

Lets go to the basics to put things into perspective:

In all, water exhibits 66 known anomalies...

http://www.physorg.com/news169314724.html

They are saying that there are 66 different things about water that cannot be understood or explained by current science, as we know it. Cutting edge research, whatever, no explanation for sixty-six different things concerning observations about water. You know, H2O, water.

In the semi-final analysis (as one can see, that even water is a complete unknown and well off being settled in any real shape or form) it can be seen that what we like to think we know --really isn't. At all.

Which is why I spend an inordinate amount of time hitting people hard as I can over the head with the 'we really don't know shit about anything' line, for it is very important to remember such in every attempt to move forward.

And then someone comes along and tells me they know the absolute truth about molecular function concerning electricity. Then someone came along (heh heh) and purposely threw a wrench into the works and put the fluidic considerations surrounding those 66 known anomalies in water and added electricity and electromagnetic function in all of it's many-faceted multidimensional glory.

While we are searching for absolutes ....that we don't even know where we are coming from in the first place....hell, we don't even know where or what zero (resting) is.

We posses the odd 'model' for theoretical exploration and then extrapolate for experimental reductionism for simplicity's sake, but that's about it.

The thing that pundits don't ever understand is that the moment you think you know something is the moment you shut yourself off....and have turned your brain into a turnip.

A while back, at an audio meet..I ran into an engineer who thought that fluid metal audio cables were a joke. Then I spoke with him for few seconds and introduced him to the incredible complexity of electrical function on the molecular level, where the real action takes place, not the gross Newtonian (as in: the monkey eats a banana-the peel hits the ground) and relativistic aspect(s) (relativity is definitely 'gross mass aggregate' Newtonian in consideration) type thinking that persists today, but something that is incredibly anomalous in near a hundred ways and is freakishly different than the working models.

So his eyes got big like saucers and his brain started to churn. Questions, questions, questions!! He had a puzzle to chew on, something new. He was a happy man. Score one for those who attempt to get others to think.

Quote:

Which is why I spend an inordinate amount of time hitting people hard as I can over the head with the 'we really don't know shit about anything' line, for it is very important to remember such in every attempt to move forward.

Sorry but it is a dumb ass line. All it shows is a failure on your part to distinguish between not knowing everything and not knowing anything.

Quote:

Quote:

Which is why I spend an inordinate amount of time hitting people hard as I can over the head with the 'we really don't know shit about anything' line, for it is very important to remember such in every attempt to move forward.

Sorry but it is a dumb ass line. All it shows is a failure on your part to distinguish between not knowing everything and not knowing anything.

Scott, you are too linear in your thinking. Stop being such a picky eater and you'll get much further in life, with regard to cracking your bean open.

I'd cut you some slack on such, but no-one ever seems to get any slack or understanding from you that no-one is perfect. All you seem to do is head for some place to find some scabs (real or imaginary)..and pick at them. Intelligence, by definition, requires self analysis.

Quote:

jj, have we seen your professional affiliations?

Don't know about you. I have. Not that hard to go to JJ's webpage.

>>Means very little Scott. What exactly did he do at Bell labs? As in any company he could have simply been a notetaker, computer programmer, paper pusher, or programmer for all we know. At Neural Audio, chief scientist means little when there are only 10-15 total employees on board. Probably the biggest indicators of his lack of expertise are:

1) He simply reads others work so he does not have first hand knowledge. Short cuts simply don't work.

2) Look at the times we caught him changing positions, deception by leaving out critical information to arrive at his conclusions, unable to respond to evidence presented to him, general vague generic comments that mean little, comments meant to change the subject, etc.

3) His lack of ethics which has been demonstrated many times in other strings.

Quote:

Quote:
To avoid the repitition of yet another silly comment from you, rather than asking for proof, jj, go back and read any of the objectivist/subjectivist threads on this forum to find the truth in what I have stated.

Why on earth would anyone go on such an Easter egg hunt in response to a straw man argument?

>>See above Scott. Also, since you are a costume designer for Mad TV, how could you know if someone were telling the scientific truth or pushing his own opinion/adgenda??

Quote:

Quote:
IMO one thing the "test" clearly proves is without properly calibrated and aligned equipment placed in a properly configured and controlled environment, the results always will be skewed. However, in audio "calibration" can mean many things where in color rendition there are fewer variables - if the test is to be perfromed with a RGB calibrated monitor, we can adjust to RGB standards. While "accuracy" in audio does not have such standards and does not ensure good results on a test where the listener's subjective response is the end result.

Oh boy, what next? Maybe you should lecture Bob Dylan on the principles of song writing.

>>I think you just provided more evidence of your lack of understanding. A test can easily be skewed without any trouble. And the skewing nearly always results in the conclusion "no sonic difference" or visually "no sighted difference".

Quote:

Quote:
Someone who sees no correlation between this test and DBT/ABX's is arguing for the sake of argument alone. This test is more useful for what it dispells about the usefullness of DBT/ABX's than for what it ignores.

I take it you understood nothing of what JJ explained about the specific differences among the different senses and tests for the different senses.

>>On the contrary, Jan makes a valid honest point Scott. It seems you have been duped. But then how could you know since you are not a scientist. As a suggestion you might try studying in the medical field so as to grasp a true understanding that subjective testing in either video or audio might be useful, but not much more. In fact it can be worse as it gives a false standard to some as a result of erroneous conclusions.

Hope this helps.

Quote:

Which is why I spend an inordinate amount of time hitting people hard as I can over the head with the 'we really don't know shit about anything' line, for it is very important to remember such in every attempt to move forward.

This is the rhetorical fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

You are, in fact, arguing for the nonexistance of knowlege. That is, obviously, an absurd argument, one contradicted by the fact you can read the words I write, and attach some kind of meaning to them. (Note, I didn't even say the "same" meaning for a reason.)

There are some things that are easily shown. One such thing is the complete failure of isolating stimulii from surroundings in any non-blind test. Another such thing is the success of subjects, under proper conditions, to detect signals, using ABX, ABC/hr and signal detection protocols, all of them DBT's or cognates, at levels very near what is possible according to the physics of the situation.

So we can quantify what we might possibly be missing, and the answer is 'not much at all'.

This shows that even when you do not know WHAT you might be missing, you know how much of whatever it is there can be.

I notice that some of the more extreme noise sources here are again making unethical, negligent, and/or fraudulent statements about my qualifications, or so I infer by the quotes I see of their "work".

For the record, I started in Acoustics Research in 1975 (summer) and 1976 to retirement at Bell labs. In Acoustics Research, not in the stockroom, or emptying wastebaskets, etc. This can be seen by my publication list, which all of you know is publically available, that stretches back then, and which consists of something over 50 papers, conference papers, etc, documenting irrevocably over 30 years of basic research into audio, acoustics, hearing and signal processing. These are matters of public record, easily accessed at many places from citations at the Bell Labs site (or it may still be there, they've gone through a hideous churn in the last 5 years), on IEEE sites, the AES site, etc. In addition to the papers, I've done many (no, I don't count any more) tutorials and educational talks to professional organizations, companies, colleges, etc, ON THIS VERY SUBJECT, and I'm consistantly invited to do more of these than I have time for. This is also a mostly a matter of public record, as most of these people put up a web advertisement of the talk in advance.

In any case, any claim that I'm not qualified to speak on this subject comes either from a profoundly negligent level of ignorance or from intentional deceit. So don't let the white noise from the gallery fool you.

Edited for spelling and taggage.

Quote:
"This argument?" Where can we find "this argument?" I don't see it on "this thread."

No, no, you wouldn't, Scott, because if you had you wouldn't have silly thoughts to post about every single sentence in a post.

Quote:
OK so we have some indication of your bias given it is your straw man.....

I see, in your judgment saying someone is biased is biased.

Scott, no one who has been paying attention on this forum would even suggest let alone believe I am not biased or KBK is not biased or jj is not biased or - God Forbid! - you are not biased. Saying I am proves nothing other than it provides you more silly thoughts to put forth about one single sentence in an entire post. How proud you must be of your accomplishment!

Quote:
Why on earth would anyone go on such an Easter egg hunt in response to a straw man argument?

My! Scott is on a silly streak! I didn't ask you to go on any such hunt, Scotty, why would you think I did? Why would you not find it impossible to make silly comments about each sentence? You tell me because I have no idea why you do what you do. You have no point, you just prattle on about every sentence made by anyone on any side of any argument.

Quote:
Oh boy, what next? Maybe you should lecture Bob Dylan on the principles of song writing.

There you go! You even post silly thoughts when you have nothing to say about anything.

Quote:
I take it you understood nothing of what JJ explained about the specific differences among the different senses and tests for the different senses.

I take it you understood nothing of what I posted and continue to make silly comments about every sentence just because you're afraid of being left alone in the dark. You remind me of the strange guy you meet in the bookstore who keeps talking to you about stuff that makes no sense to anyone just so you won't walk off and leave him alone in the great big outside world.

Quote:
This shows that even when you do not know WHAT you might be missing, you know how much of whatever it is there can be.

Therefore, being a "professional" means you have no real advantage over anyone other than you might be able to put a label on what you've missed - if you were being completely honest about what you've missed.

Quote:

>>Means very little Scott. What exactly did he do at Bell labs? As in any company he could have simply been a notetaker, computer programmer, paper pusher, or programmer for all we know. At Neural Audio, chief scientist means little when there are only 10-15 total employees on board. Probably the biggest indicators of his lack of expertise are:

I am sorry but all you are doing here is making an ass of yourself.

Quote:
Also, since you are a costume designer for Mad TV, how could you know if someone were telling the scientific truth or pushing his own opinion/adgenda??

where did you get the idea that I am a costume designer at Mad TV? And what would my career have to do with anything? Perhaps you should base such an opinion on my education. Then maybe you should do a little home work on how the lay person can descriminate to a reasonable degree between legitimate science and quackery. It really isn't that difficult a task.

Quote:
>>I think you just provided more evidence of your lack of understanding. A test can easily be skewed without any trouble. And the skewing nearly always results in the conclusion "no sonic difference" or visually "no sighted difference".

I think perhaps you have demonstrated your lack of reading comprehension. I made no comments on testing protocols. But I would like to see you support your assertion "the skewing nearly always results in the conclusion "no sonic difference" or visually "no sighted difference"." How on earth would you no the ratio of so called "skewing" and false negatives? What data do you base this assertion on?

Quote:
>>On the contrary, Jan makes a valid honest point Scott.

No he doesn't. He burns straw men.

Quote:
It seems you have been duped. But then how could you know since you are not a scientist.

Are you a scientist? kinda ridiculous assertion from some one who I assume thinks he has not been duped.

Quote:
As a suggestion you might try studying in the medical field so as to grasp a true understanding that subjective testing in either video or audio might be useful, but not much more. In fact it can be worse as it gives a false standard to some as a result of erroneous conclusions.

Hope this helps.

Helps what? Clarify your misunderstandings on the subject?

Quote:

Therefore, being a "professional" means you have no real advantage over anyone other than you might be able to put a label on what you've missed - if you were being completely honest about what you've missed.

What part of "not much" is hard to understand. As in a "not much" that, for instance, we can understand is under the well-established masking thresholds of human hearing when there is actually signal present, etc.

Your argument is yet another luddite attempt to argue that if we don't know everything, we don't know anything. Even your own attempt at disguised circularity is internally contradictory.

You're smarter than that. This makes it very clear to me that what you have is an 'agenda', and your agenda is to prevent actual scientific discussions, or alternatively, to allow them only when they suit your religion.

Your behavior is the audio version of creationism. It's not testable, it's not verifiable, it's put forth aggressively and without ethics or logic, and you seek to suppress all opposing views one way or another.

Back on ignore you go.

Quote:

No, no, you wouldn't, Scott, because if you had you wouldn't have silly thoughts to post about every single sentence in a post.

Now you're just babbling. That is kind of sad really.

Quote:
I see, in your judgment saying someone is biased is biased.

Clearly you don't see since you build your assertion on a plainly false premise. Do you even know what that means? I fear I may speaking way over your head here.

Quote:
Scott, no one who has been paying attention on this forum would even suggest let alone believe I am not biased or KBK is not biased or jj is not biased or - God Forbid! - you are not biased. Saying I am proves nothing other than it provides you more silly thoughts to put forth about one single sentence in an entire post. How proud you must be of your accomplishment!

More pointless babble.

Quote:
My! Scott is on a silly streak! I didn't ask you to go on any such hunt, Scotty, why would you think I did?

Where did I say you asked *me* to go on an Easter egg hunt? You seem to be imagining things.

Quote:
Why would you not find it impossible to make silly comments about each sentence? You tell me because I have no idea why you do what you do. You have no point, you just prattle on about every sentence made by anyone on any side of any argument.

More pointless babble.

Quote:
There you go! You even post silly thoughts when you have nothing to say about anything.

Sorry that the comment went over your head.

Quote:
I take it you understood nothing of what I posted and continue to make silly comments about every sentence just because you're afraid of being left alone in the dark. You remind me of the strange guy you meet in the bookstore who keeps talking to you about stuff that makes no sense to anyone just so you won't walk off and leave him alone in the great big outside world.

Do you ever have anything to say that isn't just plain stupid? Really? I hate to take it there but you really are coming off as a moron at this point. What point do you think you actually made in your post? You didn't have anything to say about audio in any way. All you got is moronic ad hominem. Do you actually put on a clown suit befoire you post? It seems like you ought to.

Quote:
Do you ever have anything to say that isn't just plain stupid? Really? I hate to take it there but you really are coming off as a moron at this point. What point do you think you actually made in your post? You didn't have anything to say about audio in any way. All you got is moronic ad hominem. Do you actually put on a clown suit befoire you post? It seems like you ought to.

Scott, there's a way to improve the SNR on this board. You go to somebody's profile, and click on the "ignore" button conveniently so located.

Does wonders for the SNR.

I don't think you can actually argue constructively with either janv or sasaudio. Both respond relentlessly with false accusations, ad-hominems, straw men, and more ad-hominems.

You notice their fraudulent claims regarding what I've done in my career? They do this intentionally, despite the fact that it's all in the public record, accessable over the internet, with supporting documents, circles, arrows, and a paragraph on the back of each one, to be used in evidence against them....

Quote:
You notice their fraudulent claims regarding what I've done in my career?

Not true as we don't know what you have done at Bell. We question simply because you continually refuse to reply to this question on other strings. Now suddenly this comment. Have you added information since those previous requests?

Surprise surprise.

Quote:

Quote:
Do you ever have anything to say that isn't just plain stupid? Really? I hate to take it there but you really are coming off as a moron at this point. What point do you think you actually made in your post? You didn't have anything to say about audio in any way. All you got is moronic ad hominem. Do you actually put on a clown suit befoire you post? It seems like you ought to.

Scott, there's a way to improve the SNR on this board. You go to somebody's profile, and click on the "ignore" button conveniently so located.

Does wonders for the SNR.

I don't think you can actually argue constructively with either janv or sasaudio. Both respond relentlessly with false accusations, ad-hominems, straw men, and more ad-hominems.

You notice their fraudulent claims regarding what I've done in my career? They do this intentionally, despite the fact that it's all in the public record, accessable over the internet, with supporting documents, circles, arrows, and a paragraph on the back of each one, to be used in evidence against them....

I think the attacks on your career are nothing less than shameful. It is ironic that you were attacked on Hydrogen audio for talking about actual research that explored the mechanisms behind some peoples' preference for vinyl. How does the song go? "Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right"

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Do you ever have anything to say that isn't just plain stupid? Really? I hate to take it there but you really are coming off as a moron at this point. What point do you think you actually made in your post? You didn't have anything to say about audio in any way. All you got is moronic ad hominem. Do you actually put on a clown suit befoire you post? It seems like you ought to.

Scott, there's a way to improve the SNR on this board. You go to somebody's profile, and click on the "ignore" button conveniently so located.

Does wonders for the SNR.

I don't think you can actually argue constructively with either janv or sasaudio. Both respond relentlessly with false accusations, ad-hominems, straw men, and more ad-hominems.

You notice their fraudulent claims regarding what I've done in my career? They do this intentionally, despite the fact that it's all in the public record, accessable over the internet, with supporting documents, circles, arrows, and a paragraph on the back of each one, to be used in evidence against them....

I think the attacks on your career are nothing less than shameful. It is ironic that you were attacked on Hydrogen audio for talking about actual research that explored the mechanisms behind some peoples' preference for vinyl. How does the song go? "Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right"

Stealer's Wheel, one of my favorite bands.

It's a familiar position. As anyone who has read the titles of the various papers I've published can tell, or as anyone who has followed the various MP3 patent trials can tell, it's exactly how the world works.

Quote:

>>Means very little Scott. What exactly did he do at Bell labs? As in any company he could have simply been a notetaker, computer programmer, paper pusher, or programmer for all we know. At Neural Audio, chief scientist means little when there are only 10-15 total employees on board. Probably the biggest indicators of his lack of expertise are:

I am sorry but all you are doing here is making an ass of yourself.

An emotional irrational comment that has no factual value.

Quote:
Also, since you are a costume designer for Mad TV, how could you know if someone were telling the scientific truth or pushing his own opinion/adgenda??

where did you get the idea that I am a costume designer at Mad TV? And what would my career have to do with anything?

Your home page and the fact you failed to respond negatively to a similar post/comment I presented earlier.

Quote:
Perhaps you should base such an opinion on my education. Then maybe you should do a little home work on how the lay person can descriminate to a reasonable degree between legitimate science and quackery. It really isn't that difficult a task.

Unfortunately your replies demonstrate otherwise. When valuable information is denied by you, that indicates a lack of understanding. I.E. your reply to Jan's post(s).

Quote:

Quote:
>>I think you just provided more evidence of your lack of understanding. A test can easily be skewed without any trouble. And the skewing nearly always results in the conclusion "no sonic difference" or visually "no sighted difference".

I think perhaps you have demonstrated your lack of reading comprehension. I made no comments on testing protocols. But I would like to see you support your assertion "the skewing nearly always results in the conclusion "no sonic difference" or visually "no sighted difference"." How on earth would you no the ratio of so called "skewing" and false negatives? What data do you base this assertion on?

Actually you did in your reply to Jan's post. As just one general example of skewing, anything that causes one to lose track of which is A and which is B during a dbt test will lead to guessing, thus a 50/50 chance of being right. Inaccurate input data, corrupted input data. Such a scenario will inevertably lead to little confidence and thus conclude "no sonic change".

Quote:
>>On the contrary, Jan makes a valid honest point Scott.

No he doesn't. He burns straw men.

Again an emotional response.

Quote:
It seems you have been duped. But then how could you know since you are not a scientist.

Are you a scientist? kinda ridiculous assertion from some one who I assume thinks he has not been duped.

Working in the field since I was a kid. Attended 3 universities etc, with major in Electronics Engineering, professionally for some 35 years. Plus "major" classes in 2 other areas and "minor" additional classes in 4 other areas.

Quote:
As a suggestion you might try studying in the medical field so as to grasp a true understanding that subjective testing in either video or audio might be useful, but not much more. In fact it can be worse as it gives a false standard to some as a result of erroneous conclusions.

Hope this helps.

Helps what? Clarify your misunderstandings on the subject?

I list multiple points here to consider. Don't consider this an exhaustive list. I would suggest studying such mainstream organizations as the National Institutes of Health etc.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...=14&fpart=1

Patents for MP3, an inferior format indeed. Wow we are impressed.

Quote:

Quote:
You notice their fraudulent claims regarding what I've done in my career?

Not true as we don't know what you have done at Bell. In fact we have requested information in the Interesting Papers string concerning your backround, external peer reviews (besides AES), and you have continually refused to even reply, let alone address the subject. Now suddenly this comment. Have you added information since those previous requests?

Surprise surprise.

Bibliography
Johnston, James D and Smirnov, Serge;

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
You notice their fraudulent claims regarding what I've done in my career?

Not true as we don't know what you have done at Bell. In fact we have requested information in the Interesting Papers string concerning your backround, external peer reviews (besides AES), and you have continually refused to even reply, let alone address the subject. Now suddenly this comment. Have you added information since those previous requests?

Surprise surprise.

Bibliography
Johnston, James D and Smirnov, Serge;

Quote:

>>> Also, since you are a costume designer for Mad TV, how could you know if someone were telling the scientific truth or pushing his own opinion/adgenda?? >>>

>> where did you get the idea that I am a costume designer at Mad TV? And what would my career have to do with anything?>>

Your home page and the fact you failed to respond negatively to a similar post/comment I presented earlier.

My home page? Could you provide a link? I was unaware of having a homepage. I'd love to see it and the alleged references to being a costume designer for Mad TV. Somehow, I think Wendy
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0070323/ might take issue with you on this subject.

Quote:
>>Perhaps you should base such an opinion on my education. Then maybe you should do a little home work on how the lay person can descriminate to a reasonable degree between legitimate science and quackery. It really isn't that difficult a task.>>

Unfortunately your replies demonstrate otherwise. When valuable information is denied by you, that indicates a lack of understanding. I.E. your reply to Jan's post(s)

You are simply holding your opinions up as some sort of objective reference. Anyone can assert that information is "valuable." what is the value of Jan's straw men arguments? how can there be any value in a straw man argument? If you wish to assert that I have missed something of value then at least tell us what exactly it is I missed and what it's value is.

Quote:
>>>I think you just provided more evidence of your lack of understanding. A test can easily be skewed without any trouble. And the skewing nearly always results in the conclusion "no sonic difference" or visually "no sighted difference". >>>

>> I think perhaps you have demonstrated your lack of reading comprehension. I made no comments on testing protocols. But I would like to see you support your assertion "the skewing nearly always results in the conclusion "no sonic difference" or visually "no sighted difference"." How on earth would you no the ratio of so called "skewing" and false negatives? What data do you base this assertion on?>>

Actually you did in your reply to Jan's post.

really? Then surely you can quote the specific assertion I made in that response that addresses testing protocols. Seems to me I only made a colorful comment on his choice to lecture an actual research scientist in the field of sensary perception on test protocols of sensary perception. But please feel free to prove me wrong with a quote in which I specifically talk about test protocols in my response to Jan.

Quote:
As just one general example of skewing, anything that causes one to lose track of which is A and which is B during a dbt test will lead to guessing, thus a 50/50 chance of being right. Inaccurate input data, corrupted input data. Such a scenario will inevertably lead to little confidence and thus conclude "no sonic change".

Your claim was in regards to a ratio of "skewing" to false negatives. the above does not address *that* assertion. I didn't challenge the assertion that false negatives *can* happen. But you asserted an extreme ratio. What do you base that ratio on? What data?

Quote:
>>> On the contrary, Jan makes a valid honest point Scott.>>>

No he doesn't. He burns straw men.

Again an emotional response.

No just calling it as I see it. But feel free to show I am wrong. Feel free to cite the alleged "valid, honest point" and the context in which it was said. You seem to be confusing your opinions again with objective facts.

Quote:
>>> It seems you have been duped. But then how could you know since you are not a scientist.>>>

>> Are you a scientist? kinda ridiculous assertion from some one who I assume thinks he has not been duped.>>

Working in the field since I was a kid. Attended 3 universities etc, with major in Electronics Engineering, professionally for some 35 years. Plus "major" additional classes in 2 other areas and "minor" additional classes in 4 other areas.

"Working in the field"? Rather vague given the criticism leveled towards JJ. Could you be more specific? For all we know you could a janitor at some high school with a science lab.

Quote:

Your claim was in regards to a ratio of "skewing" to false negatives.

Perhaps your correspondent needs to understand what negative and positive controls are.

Since he's taken on the mantle of expert, and presumes to have the formal professional authority to judge others extensively to the point of accusing them of faking credentials, let's let him explain what positive and negative controls are, and why they would quickly detect a "skew" of any sorts.

Surely, since he's making like he's an expert, he could write that in a few sentences.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
You notice their fraudulent claims regarding what I've done in my career?

Not true as we don't know what you have done at Bell. In fact we have requested information in the Interesting Papers string concerning your backround, external peer reviews (besides AES), and you have continually refused to even reply, let alone address the subject. Now suddenly this comment. Have you added information since those previous requests?

Surprise surprise.

Bibliography
Johnston, James D and Smirnov, Serge;

Quote:

Unfortunately there are several trouble some issues with your list.

1) How many are AES presented (manufacturer backed)....

You are simply asking a question. A question is not evidence of a problem. So your first point is lacking in any support. IOW no actual troublesome issue cited. OTOH we do have the fact that these are papers published in peer reviewed journals. If you think that any of these papers lack credibility perhaps you should take that up with the journals that rteviewed and published them.

Quote:
What about third party national organizations such as Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and American Physical Society (APS), National Institutes of Health.

What about them? What point are you trying to make?

Quote:
2) Vast majority are either coding or designing circuits, filters etc.

You asserted that JJ has not made available any meaningful information on his work at Bell Labs. The list was a response to that allegation. clearly there are references to his actual work at Bell Labs included in that list. what difference does it make that some of the work was in regards to coding and circut design? Again, what is your point? The list not only provides a great deal of information about his work at Bell labs it shows that your assertion that such information was some how missing was an eroneous assertion that is completely inexusable given your access and awareness of this information.

Quote:
3) Many if not most were speech oriented, not musical, and nothing mentioned indicating the quality of the sound. In the discussion string concerning 16/44, no reply ever came addressing the quality of sound when presented mulitple times.

Again what is your point?

Quote:
4) Not one subject in the list concerning DBT testing and/or the quality thereof.

Of course not. DBTs are just a tool.

Quote:
Although J_J may have expertise in computer programming, coding ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programming )
and designing filters, I would not put too much stock in other areas, as already been demonstrated in various strings on Stereophile forums.

That is your choice.

Quote:
(Check "My Home", "Makeup artist". Quick change it. Then check google.

Searched "My Home"

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?&qu...tb-tbsbox-en-us

nothing about me being a costume designer for Mad TV. no home page in sight.

searched "makeup artist"

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=topsearchbox.search&q=makeup+artist

again nothing about me being a costume designer for Mad TV or any mention of a home page.

searched "My home makeup artist"

again nothing about me being a costume designer for Mad TV. No home page either.

If I had a home page it certainly would have a web address. I asked you to provide a link and you failed to do so. I wonder why? Just provide the link so I can see what it is you are talking about.

Quote:

Quote:

Unfortunately there are several trouble some issues with your list.

1) How many are AES presented (manufacturer backed)....

And now the lies. The AES is not "manufacturer backed".

And notice how he avoids the whole IEEE set of pubs, awards, etc, completely.

Quote:

You are simply asking a question. A question is not evidence of a problem. So your first point is lacking in any support. IOW no actual troublesome issue cited. OTOH we do have the fact that these are papers published in peer reviewed journals. If you think that any of these papers lack credibility perhaps you should take that up with the journals that rteviewed and published them.

Heh, including the ones that have won awards, for instance. But again, he ignores the IEEE pubs and honors completely.

Quote:

Quote:
What about third party national organizations such as Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and American Physical Society (APS), National Institutes of Health.

What about them? What point are you trying to make?

He's desperately trying, again, to avoid the whole IEEE thing. What's more, he appears to be citing ENT's as expert in signal processing, which would surprise them as much as it would us.

Quote:
The list not only provides a great deal of information about his work at Bell labs it shows that your assertion that such information was some how missing was an eroneous assertion that is completely inexusable given your access and awareness of this information.

What this shows it that when sasaudio is refuted on one point, he very transparently tries to change the subject and attack something else. This is just the same dance he tried in defending Dr. K. Of course, that time, he went further, and after he changed the subject multiple times, had the gross, utterly unethical effrontry to accuse ME of changing my opinion, after HE changed the question.

Perhaps he thinks all questions have the same answer, but '42' only works for Douglas Adams.

Quote:

Quote:
3) Many if not most were speech oriented, not musical, and nothing mentioned indicating the quality of the sound.

That's amusing. Speech, audio coding, multichannel production, room corrected, the lot include the real issue, which is that of audio quality. Apparently he thinks that real researchers don't listen to what they do, or something. I could, you know, believe he actually thinks that, given the other "strange" beliefs he seems to hold close. (for instance his tinfoil-hattery about the AES)

Quote:

Quote:

In the discussion string concerning 16/44, no reply ever came addressing the quality of sound when presented mulitple times.

Not my fault you don't understand the answers and the implications to the answers.

Quote:

Again what is your point?

Support for his creation-science view of audio and disparagement of his betters, as far as I can tell.

Quote:

Quote:
4) Not one subject in the list concerning DBT testing and/or the quality thereof.

Of course not. DBTs are just a tool.

I suppose we should have expected that one. I would be hard pressed to count the number of DBT's involved in the whole body of work, but when working on either speech or audio, one a week would be a safe lower bound, once we get past the time of about 1985 or so when the computers could keep up.

As you say, they are a tool. We used them constantly. We had a whole array of sound booths, testing hardware, testing equipment, lights and switches in booths to do DBT's, custom hardware, whatever-you-want in order to be able to do all sorts of listening tests, DBT's, signal detection, you-name-it.

It's a tool. One does not put the name of every TOOL in a paper title. Of course, if he bothered to read the papers, he might find a reference here and there to various testing methods, from A/B, to ABX, to ABC/hr to MOS, JND ... you name it.

Quote:

Quote:
Although J_J may have expertise in computer programming, coding ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programming )
and designing filters, I would not put too much stock in other areas, as already been demonstrated in various strings on Stereophile forums.

That is your choice.

It is telling how much sasaudio depends on his own proven-faulty understanding of sampling, etc, in disparaging experts in the field. If he actually has such authority, how come I don't see any of HIS papers.

Oh, and if he doesn't think, oh, say, QMF's involve sampling theory, well that's just rich... And fragrant.

It's time for him to acknowlege that the AES is not "beholden to manufacturers" (and that it is forbidden to be that by its constitution, unsurprisingly), that the IEEE does in fact exist, that DBT's and cognates are a common, ordinary tool in the art, used by the enormous majority of experts in the field as a matter of course, that non-blind tests are known to be completely disfunctional, etc.

But you can't argue with these guys, Steve, it's all religion. If you contradict their creationist view of audio, then you must be a makeup artist and I must be a janitor.

I wonder why SASaudio hasn't addressed the fact that I founded the Audio Coding TC in the AES, co-founded the Signal Processing TC in the AES, Chair the Multichannel TC in the AES, am a member of the Audio and Electroacoustics TC in the IEEE (having ducked when the chairmanship came flying by), a reviewer for the JAES, ICASSP, Journal of Audio and Electroacoustics, AES conventions...

All of this is in plain sight, and he can find it any time he wants.

What he does instead is try to shift the bar, deny what is on the public record, attempt to argue that Otolarygolists (sp) should be consulted about signal processing, etc.

And why, when he goes on about third-party organizations, has he repeatedly ignored the facts regarding the IEEE? I doubt there is a more reputable third-party organization on this planet.

Quote:
Even your own attempt at disguised circularity is internally contradictory.

Quote:
Back on ignore you go.

Ya just gotta love all you guys with the conviction to put someone on ignore and then you keep peeping at what they post.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Quote:
All you got is moronic ad hominem. Do you actually put on a clown suit befoire you post? It seems like you ought to.

Geeeeeeez, Scott! Do you even engage your brain before your fingers move?

Nice discussion of audio by the way.

So what changed that now you are finally willing to list your professional affiliations? You could have done this five months ago when you were first asked to 'splain yourself. Or four months ago when you were asked. Or three months ago when you were asked. Or ... oh, well, no sense repeating what you are going to call stalking.

It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble if you had.

Now don't tell me you peeked at this post.

Quote:
So what changed that now you are finally willing to list your professional affiliations? You could have done this five months ago when you were first asked to 'splain yourself. Or four months ago when you were asked. Or three months ago when you were asked. Or ... oh, well, no sense repeating what you are going to call stalking.

It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble if you had.

Now don't tell me you peeked at this post.

You must have refused to look for j-j's professional qualifications. They can be reached with a click of your mouse from his profile, something which has been pointed out many times.

Quote:
So what changed that now you are finally willing to list your professional affiliations? You could have done this five months ago when you were first asked to 'splain yourself. Or four months ago when you were asked. Or three months ago when you were asked. Or ... oh, well, no sense repeating what you are going to call stalking.

It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble if you had.

Now don't tell me you peeked at this post.

Jan, pretty amazing isn't it. They come on this forum and attack everyone but when the spotlight is placed on them, it is person attack and "ignore". When they do post, stonewall, leave out critical information, change positions, add confusion if possible. Scott and J_J appear to be pros at these tatics.

Notice how Scott conveniently refuses to comment when I post what real scientists state concerning subjective dbt testing. I quote:

Quote:
When one listens to Dr. Timothy Johnson's conclusions of dbt medical subjective tests on Good Morning America, I have never heard him conclude with the word "fact". Usually he states it seems to indicate, seems to conclude, more research is needed, it appears to indicate etc.

I ask what J_J has done at Bell labs (he has never explained his involvement) and stated fact that Neural Audio had 10-15 total employees, so Chief scientist doesn't exactly mean a whole lot. I stated such to put into context all of Scott's puffing up of J_J.

As J_J states right after my question:

Quote:
You notice their fraudulent claims regarding what I've done in my career?

Now here is what I actually stated.

Quote:
What exactly did he do at Bell labs? As in any company he could have simply been a notetaker, computer programmer, paper pusher, or programmer for all we know.

J_J has never explained his involvement before, but asking this question gets a response that I am making "fraudulent claims". J_J has an interesting twist of logic I would say. Of course this is not the first time J_J has attempted this sort of action.

What was Scott's response?

Quote:
I am sorry but all you are doing here is making an ass of yourself.

Next, Scott misdirects and clouds the issue by claiming he is not a costume designer for Madtv(?), and does a weird search but not on google and not with his name. Well...
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0923958/

Nominated for Emmy.

Quote:
Outstanding Prosthetic Makeup for a Series, Miniseries, Movie or a Special
for: "MADtv" (1995)
Shared with:
Jennifer Aspinall (department head makeup artist & special)
Heather Mages (makeup artist)
James Rohland (makeup artist)
Randy Westgate (makeup artist)
For episode #1203.

Enough nonsense. I provided several points (from medical field) from my link
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...=14&fpart=1

and Scott couldn't make a simple informed comment on the medical evidence I presented. Just kinda sidestepped and ignored the evidence. Not surprising is it.

Quicky here. Scott:
(My home page? Could you provide a link? I was unaware of having a homepage.) Scott, check top of this page where it says "Home Page."

Next Scott posts J_Js Bibliography. Mostly computer arena. J_J complains he presented at IEEE. Check to see what he discusses at IEEE. Mainly computer arena, filters.

Next Scott again ignorantly complains about my comments on dbts. Simply put, a dbt produces wrong conclusions, lack of confidence, because of problems obtaining uncorrupted input data. The corrupted input data skews the conclusion and to conclude "no sonic difference". Scott doesn't seem to understand this basic information. You feed in corrupted data, you get corrupted output.

Next I present 4 points which Scott butchers with astounding efficiency, J_J as well.

1)

Quote:
You are simply asking a question. A question is not evidence of a problem. So your first point is lacking in any support.

Do you see a question mark at the end of point 1? Nope, I was making a somewhat tongue in cheek statement that there are many manufacturers who financially sponsor AES.
J_J complained about conflicts of interest, but J_J is a fellow in AES (which is financially backed by manufacturers), and your employer (company) financially sponsors AES.
Look up the definition of conflict of interest and J_J is the definition. And he presents most of his papers to AES.
And Scott does not understand what the point is of having third party "blessing"?

2)Scott makes general comments that he knows nothing about. For instance:

Quote:
what difference does it make that some of the work was in regards to coding and circut design?

How would Scott know what J_J actually did, what percentage J_J worked on coding and design or solely on coding and design. We don't know. We do know the vast majority of J_Js list is coding and filters, design, little if anything other.

3) Is quite clear and concise, yet all Scott can manage is "what is your point". If you don't understand basics, why are you here argueing what you don't understand?

4) His response is

Quote:
Of course not. DBTs are just a tool.

All it takes is one problem to corrupt dbt conclusions. I have already mentioned more than one that constantly occur (my link) in subjective testing. Of course, the implications concerning the accuracy of subjective comments, papers, presentations based on dbts that he has presented is huge. No wonder his fights tooth and toe nail.

J_J states this:

Quote:
And now the lies. The AES is not "manufacturer backed".

Well manufacturers do financially sponsor AES, period. and your employer sponsors AES as well. You can play word games all you want J_J.

And how many IEEEs have you spoken at? And covering what?
And your 16/44 fiasco in which Dr. Kunchur and others have corrected your mistakes. You just got caught on the last page of ask Dr. Kunchur your questions. Pretty embarrassing to say the least. But then you are slick, vague, and always changing. Trying to pin J_J down is like catching an octopus.

Oh Jan, notice after 4 months of silence, after being asked several time concerning his own dbt testing, J_J suddenly comes forth and does massive dbt testing.

Quote:
I suppose we should have expected that one. I would be hard pressed to count the number of DBT's involved in the whole body of work, but when working on either speech or audio, one a week would be a safe lower bound, once we get past the time of about 1985 or so when the computers could keep up.

As you say, they are a tool. We used them constantly. We had a whole array of sound booths, testing hardware, testing equipment, lights and switches in booths to do DBT's, custom hardware, whatever-you-want in order to be able to do all sorts of listening tests, DBT's, signal detection, you-name-it.

It's a tool. One does not put the name of every TOOL in a paper title. Of course, if he bothered to read the papers, he might find a reference here and there to various testing methods, from A/B, to ABX, to ABC/hr to MOS, JND ... you name it.

But not so much as a peep when previously asked about his own actual dbt testing. Of course he could not reply to the medical evidence I presented, so..... And where does he get all those participants to do all these tests?

Quote:
It's time for him to acknowlege that the AES is not "beholden to manufacturers" (and that it is forbidden to be that by its constitution, unsurprisingly), that the IEEE does in fact exist, that DBT's and cognates are a common, ordinary tool in the art, used by the enormous majority of experts in the field as a matter of course, that non-blind tests are known to be completely disfunctional, etc.

Interesting.
1) Notice he could not include more than "non-blind tests are known to be completely disfunctional" as an explanation. Why, because he really doesn't understand anything more. Notice he continues to completely ignore the major problems of any subjective testing, dbts, abxs included. If he does know more, he is keeping secret to mislead the public.

I would suggest sticking to your filters, coding, mp3.

It is funny Jan, that they keep peeping. Everytime they get caught in a lie, leaving out critical information etc, they get mad and personally attack; then state they are putting X on ignore. But they keep peeping.

Xenophanes, J_J mainly, vast majority of time, presents to AES of which he is not only a "fellow", but his own employer financially sponsors AES. Seems he cannot go anywhere else to present, except a very few times to IEEE. Too bad he cannot present to national mainstream science at large.

Notice Jan, how J_J always gets religion into his posts. He is one weird person with his fabrications.

The rest is their simply damage contro/pr.

Quote:
Notice how Scott conveniently refuses to comment when I post what real scientists state concerning subjective dbt testing. I quote:

"When one listens to Dr. Timothy Johnson's conclusions of dbt medical subjective tests on Good Morning America, I have never heard him conclude with the word "fact". Usually he states it seems to indicate, seems to conclude, more research is needed, it appears to indicate etc."

What is there to comment on? He states the obvious. So what? You need me to cheer lead anytime you stumble upon one of the basics in science? OK..... Bravo!!! You actually quoted something that was correct. Atta boy!!!

Quote:
I ask what J_J has done at Bell labs (he has never explained his involvement) and stated fact that Neural Audio had 10-15 total employees, so Chief scientist doesn't exactly mean a whole lot. I stated such to put into context all of Scott's puffing up of J_J.

So what was it you failed to understand about his published work at Bell Labs?

Quote:
As J_J states right after my question:
"You notice their fraudulent claims regarding what I've done in my career?"

Now here is what I actually stated.
"What exactly did he do at Bell labs? As in any company he could have simply been a notetaker, computer programmer, paper pusher, or programmer for all we know."

Are you so ****ing stupid that you can't tell by his published work that is been put right in front of you that he clearly is not just a ****ing note taker? Are you so dense that you can't see the plain misrepresentation implied in your willfully ignorant comments?

Quote:
J_J has never explained his involvement before, but asking this question gets a response that I am making "fraudulent claims". J_J has an interesting twist of logic I would say. Of course this is not the first time J_J has attempted this sort of action.

Maybe he figured anyone interested would actually be smart enough to figure out by his body of published work at Bell Labs what his job was at Bell Labs. Clearly he over estimated.

Quote:
What was Scott's response?
"I am sorry but all you are doing here is making an ass of yourself."

And you still are.

Quote:
Next, Scott misdirects and clouds the issue by claiming he is not a costume designer for Madtv(?),

Really? That was some out of the blue thing that I said for no particular reason? Wasn't it you trying to cloud the issue by bringing my career into the argument and then being too stupid to actually get it right?

Quote:
and does a weird search but not on google and not with his name. Well...

A weird search? You means the search you asked me to do?

Quote:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0923958/

Nominated for Emmy.
"Outstanding Prosthetic Makeup for a Series, Miniseries, Movie or a Special
for: "MADtv" (1995)
Shared with:
Jennifer Aspinall (department head makeup artist & special)
Heather Mages (makeup artist)
James Rohland (makeup artist)
Randy Westgate (makeup artist)
For episode #1203."

Well this does explain a few things. Of course if one is soooo stupid that they would read that and then think I was a costume designer it is no wonder you can't figure out what it was JJ did at Bell Labs by reading his list of published papers while working there. this really is a clear case of Forrest Gump idiocy. glad we got that cleared up.

Quote:
Enough nonsense.

Indeed. Get your shit together. Pull your head out of your ass and get a clue. Then get back to us.

Quote:
Quicky here. Scott:
(My home page? Could you provide a link? I was unaware of having a homepage.) Scott, check top of this page where it says "Home Page."

Dude, seriously get a clue. IMDb is not my homepage. It is a film and television data base. Here is another clue. Makeup and costumes are different things.

Quote:
Next Scott again ignorantly complains about my comments on dbts. Simply put, a dbt produces wrong conclusions, lack of confidence, because of problems obtaining uncorrupted input data. The corrupted input data skews the conclusion and to conclude "no sonic difference". Scott doesn't seem to understand this basic information. You feed in corrupted data, you get corrupted output.

Dude, seriously. don't even try to represent my position on anything until you can understand it. I clearly stated that a bad test can give a false negative. You made a wild claim about the ratio of false negatives and I challenged you to support that claim using actual data. Clearly such a challenge would go over the head of someone who can't even tell the difference between a homepage and an online data base such as IMDb or someone who can't tell the difference between a makeup artist and a costume designer. The problem clearly is this stuff is way way over your head. I can't help that. Do you even understand what I am asking you to support when I challenge your assertions on the ratios of false negatives in DBTs? it seems you think that such a challenge to your assertion is the same as claiming false negatives never happen in badly designed or executed DBTs. even though I explicitly said that they indeed do happen. why am I asking? obviously you have no clue what I am challenging you on. you probably don't even understand your own assertion on the ratios of false negatives in DBTs.
And here I will stop. Life is too short to wade through so much ignorant bullshit and refute it.

Out of all your funny and deranged comments, this is the best.

Quote:
Dude, seriously get a clue. IMDb is not my homepage. It is a film and television data base. Here is another clue. Makeup and costumes are different things.

Re-read my comment again. I stated "Scott, check top of this page where it says "Home Page." You have a "home page" on stereophile.

Check in Google search, Scott Wheeler makeup artist. Here is just one link of many.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0923958/resume

Films, Tvs, Awards. Under Category TV it says Madtv.

I did not see you complaining earlier in another string about this.

This just shows the typical crap we get from Scott and J_J. It is obvious by you and J_Js lack of even basic understanding of dbts and their consistent sidestepping of the medical evidence provided demonstrates that you do not wish, nor do you wish the public to understanding how flawed dbt testing actually is.

Now attempting to make this discussion a he said he said affair just doesn't work for you nor J_J. You gents have been caught too many times by those here, mainstream science, Dr. Kunchur, National Institutes of Health etc etc. You guys don't have much room to run anymore.

You know Jan, Scott sounds alot like ex-stereophile DUP, except Scott spells better.

Quote:
Out of all your funny and deranged comments, this is the best.

Quote:
Dude, seriously get a clue. IMDb is not my homepage. It is a film and television data base. Here is another clue. Makeup and costumes are different things.

Re-read my comment again. I stated "Scott, check top of this page where it says "Home Page." You have a "home page" on stereophile.

Check in Google search, Scott Wheeler makeup artist. Here is just one link. The other results show Scott Wheeler making the same movies.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0923958/resume

Films, Tvs, Awards. Under Category TV it says Madtv.

I did not see you complaining in another string. Interesting.

This just shows the typical crap we get from Scott and J_J. It is obvious by you and J_Js lack of even basic understanding of dbts and their consistent sidestepping of the medical evidence provided demonstrates that you do not wish, nor do you wish the public to understanding how flawed dbt testing actually is.

Now attempting to make this discussion a he said he said affair just doesn't work for you nor J_J. You gents have been caught too many times by those here, mainstream science, Dr. Kunchur, National Institutes of Health etc etc. You guys don't have much room to run anymore.

You know Jan, Scott sounds alot like ex-stereophile DUP, except Scott spells better.

It seems you don't really understand one of the common meanings of homepage, that being a personal webpage. But then again you are the guy who reads the words "Prosthetic makeup" and comes away thinking I'm a costume designer.

"I did not see you complaining in another string. Interesting."

Did someone else confuse prosthetic makeup with costume design? If so I must have missed it.

Get_a_clue

Quote:
It seems you don't really understand one of the common meanings of homepage, that being a personal webpage. But then again you are the guy who reads the words "Prosthetic makeup" and comes away thinking I'm a costume designer.

For the record your own "home page" on this forum says.

Quote:
Name: Scott Wheeler

Occupation: Makeup artist
Location: Los Angeles CA USA

Now google search results.

Quote:
Makeup Department Head

Quote:
Outstanding Makeup for a Series (Non-Prosthetic)

Quote:
12. "MADtv" (makeup artist)

Quote:
makeup artist

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Scott_Wheeler

Quote:
Scott Wheeler is a makeup artist.

How many more quotes do you need Scott?

Now about the medical evidence you keep sidestepping... demonstrating dbts are no where near as accurate as you and J_J tout and push on the public.

Quote:

Quote:
It seems you don't really understand one of the common meanings of homepage, that being a personal webpage. But then again you are the guy who reads the words "Prosthetic makeup" and comes away thinking I'm a costume designer.

For the record your own "home page" on this forum says.

Quote:
Name: Scott Wheeler

Occupation: Makeup artist
Location: Los Angeles CA USA

Now google search results.

Quote:
Makeup Department Head

Quote:
Outstanding Makeup for a Series (Non-Prosthetic)

Quote:
makeup artist

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Scott_Wheeler

Quote:
Scott Wheeler is a makeup artist.

How many more quotes do you need Scott?

I think you have given us all ample evidence that you can't tell the difference between a makeup artist and a costume designer. I don't think anyone needs any more quotes to get that.

Quote:
Now about the medical evidence you keep sidestepping... demonstrating dbts are no where near as accurate as you and J_J tout and push on the public.

well first you have to establish the levels of "accuracy" that JJ and I are "pushing" on the public. You will need to use our actual claims rather than your bizarre interpretations. Then you will have to establish the levels of "accuracy" established by the "medical evidence" you are alluding to (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). Then you can compare and contrast the figures. Good luck with that. I suspect you are confusing confidence levels with accuracy levels. But I suspect you have no idea what I am talking about at this point.

Have you figured out that I am not and never was a costume designer for Mad TV?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It seems you don't really understand one of the common meanings of homepage, that being a personal webpage. But then again you are the guy who reads the words "Prosthetic makeup" and comes away thinking I'm a costume designer.

For the record your own "home page" on this forum says.

Quote:
Name: Scott Wheeler

Occupation: Makeup artist
Location: Los Angeles CA USA

Now google search results.

Quote:
Makeup Department Head

Quote:
Outstanding Makeup for a Series (Non-Prosthetic)

Quote:
makeup artist

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Scott_Wheeler

Quote:
Scott Wheeler is a makeup artist.

How many more quotes do you need Scott?

I think you have given us all ample evidence that you can't tell the difference between a makeup artist and a costume designer. I don't think anyone needs any more quotes to get that.

I take it you are then conceding since I have provided quotes actually stating you are a makeup artist and have worked for MADtv as well as movies.

Of course you could be simply attempting to bury the embarrassing posts against you and J_J. It is clear you and J_J have little understanding of dbts and the flaws, and have consistently sidestepped information from the National Institutes of Health.

Quote:

I take it you are then conceding since I have provided quotes actually stating you are a makeup artist and have worked for MADtv as well as movies.

Conceding what? Where have I ever denied being a makeup artist? Dude you might want to go back and review this thread. Pay specific attention to this quote and who said it.

"Also, since you are a costume designer for Mad TV, how could you know if someone were telling the scientific truth or pushing his own opinion/adgenda??"

I'll give you a hint. It was you. (I hope that is a good enough *hint*)
You said that. You. So have you now figured out the difference between a makeup artist and a costume designer? I really can't tell if you have.

Quote:
Of course you could be simply attempting to bury the embarrassing posts against you and J_J.

Quite the contrary. I've been having a bit of a field day with it. I think you still haven't figured out how dumb it makes you look.

Quote:
It is clear you and J_J have little understanding of dbts and the flaws, and have consistently sidestepped information from the National Institutes of Health.

Clear as the difference between makeup artistry and costume design?

Quote:

Quote:
Now about the medical evidence you keep sidestepping... demonstrating dbts are no where near as accurate as you and J_J tout and push on the public.

well first you have to establish the levels of "accuracy" that JJ and I are "pushing" on the public. You will need to use our actual claims rather than your bizarre interpretations. Then you will have to establish the levels of "accuracy" established by the "medical evidence" you are alluding to (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). Then you can compare and contrast the figures. Good luck with that. I suspect you are confusing confidence levels with accuracy levels. But I suspect you have no idea what I am talking about at this point.

Have you figured out that I am not and never was a costume designer for Mad TV?

Pretty easy to establish a bar. It is J_J who claimed polypropylene caps (same values) sound the same. Same dielectric, different conductor material and thickness though similar esr. For J_J to conclude there are no sonic differences via dbt testing shows an extremely high regard/accuracy for dbt testing. That and he never mentions any negatives of dbt testing that I have seen so far. So a bar is easily established although we both know you will attempt to discredit it.

I suggest you do some studying in the medical field, particularly Otology and Laryngology arenas, National Institutes of Health etc, for further explanation and understanding of how flawed dbt testing is. In fact if you had read and understood my previous link with multiple points based on medical evidence, you would have found a problem that occurs at any spl level of a dbt test and corrupts the input data, thus skewing the conclusion. And it is powerful and affects every day of our lives.

As mentioned earlier, the real experts, Dr. Timothy Johnson use words like "suggests", "indicates", "more research is needed" etc. Those are hardly words of extreme high accuracy or even high accuracy. And that involves hearing as well. For you and/or J_J to suggest that subjective dbts are highly accurate borders incompentency. To suggest that polypropylene capacitors sound the same demonstrates the lack of understanding of the forces that affect subjective dbts. Again, I suggest you do an in depth study in mainstream science if you are really interested in learning, cause you are not going to learn it in a paragraph. By the way, you or J_J should easily provide evidence of how accurate a subjective dbt test is, right!
Afterall you two have all the facts, right.

By the way, I have clearly provided links, quotes from pages, quotes from the results page itself, that you are a makeup artist and have worked for MADtv. So if you wish to continue to mislead, go right ahead. That seems to be the nature of the "objectivists/scientists" here.

Quote:
Clear as the difference between makeup artistry and costume design?

Continue on Scott, as the evidence I quoted presents you as a makeup artist and working for MADtv. If you wish to state the links are mistaken, that is your right. It must be ebarrassing to you.

Let's see it again and more.

Name: Scott Wheeler

Occupation: Makeup artist
Location: Los Angeles CA USA

Wow. Makeup Department Head

How about this. 12. "MADtv" (makeup artist)

Look at this.

"MADtv" (makeup artist) (5 episodes, 2001-2005) (prosthetics designer) (1 episode, 2006)
- Episode #12.3 (2006) TV episode (prosthetics designer)
- Episode #10.13 (2005) TV episode (makeup artist)
- Episode #10.4 (2004) TV episode (makeup artist)
- Episode #8.6 (2002) TV episode (makeup artist)
- Episode #8.1 (2002) TV episode (makeup artist)

How about that, Scott Wheeler makeup artist for MADtv. And he did do prosthetics.

By the way:

Quote:
I suspect you are confusing confidence levels with accuracy levels. But I suspect you have no idea what I am talking about at this point.

is quite interesting since if you had actually read my previous posts, especially page 6 you would have seen my point was that confidence levels could be extremely high yet accuracy very low/wrong conclusions.

Quote:
I must hasten to add for the general public, that there are variables and with the lack of communications in other fields, dbt test after test can conclude the same outcome (repeatability), have high mathematical confidence, and yet come to the wrong conclusion.

It is obvious that you are arguing simply for the sake of arguing as you now need to misrepresent me and my comments.

Anyway, it is fun posting with you Scott. Good luck and continued success in your occupation.

Quote:
Pretty easy to establish a bar. It is J_J who claimed polypropylene caps (same values) sound the same. Same dielectric, different conductor material and thickness though similar esr. For J_J to conclude there are no sonic differences via dbt testing shows an extremely high regard/accuracy for dbt testing.

What didn't you understand about "You will need to use our actual claims rather than your bizarre interpretations."???? you offer no direct quotes from JJ in which he talks about the "accuracy" of DBTs or more to the point the confidence levels of DBTs not to mention the requisit review of protocols and how they affect the reliability of any DBT. IOW you completely missed the mark.

Quote:
That and he never mentions any negatives of dbt testing that I have seen so far.

You are no reference for what JJ has and has not mentioned. In fact he has more than mentioned many of the potential pitfalls of DBTs and how they can be done very badly. That you would miss this is no surprise. You have already established your inability to read and understand these things. that is not JJ's fault.

Quote:
So a bar is easily established although we both know you will attempt to discredit it.

I believe it is actually easily eastablished. athough you have completely missed the mark. I'll fill you in on where I think JJ sets the bar. 95% confidence level for DBTs that are done to the known and estblished rigors of the sensary perception field of science and is published in a peer reviewed journal of science and or engineering. JJ can step in and correct me if I am wrong about where he sets the bar.

Quote:
I suggest you do some studying in the medical field, particularly Otology and Laryngology arenas, National Institutes of Health etc, for further explanation and understanding of how flawed dbt testing is.

Tell you what. why don't you just cite the specific references and the actual criticisms you are alluding to.

Quote:
In fact if you had read and understood my previous link with multiple points based on medical evidence, you would have found a problem that occurs at any spl level of a dbt test and corrupts the input data, thus skewing the conclusion. And it is powerful and affects every day of our lives.

again why don't you just quote the passage you believe is actually saying what you think it is saying.

Quote:
As mentioned earlier, the real experts, Dr. Timothy Johnson use words like "suggests", "indicates", "more research is needed" etc. Those are hardly words of extreme high accuracy or even high accuracy.

Of course they do. That is because this is the correct interpretation of these kinds of studies. DUH.

Quote:
And that involves hearing as well. For you and/or J_J to suggest that subjective dbts are highly accurate borders incompentency.

Again you are operating without a clue. Maybe you ought to read some of JJ's papers! I'll bet you that he uses the same sort of language in his conclusions. Seriously, get a clue!

Quote:
To suggest that polypropylene capacitors sound the same demonstrates the lack of understanding of the forces that affect subjective dbts. Again, I suggest you do an in depth study in mainstream science if you are really interested in learning, cause you are not going to learn it in a paragraph.

again I suggest you actually provide JJ's actual words so we can see what he is actually saying. Somehow i doubt that JJ has ever said he just did a few DBTs on capacitors and based on that and that alone drew such a strong broad conclusion. If he drew such a strong conclusion i will bet it is based on more than just one or even a few DBTs. I will bet it is based on far more data than just that. *If* he drew such a hard line conclusion at all.

Quote:
By the way, you or J_J should easily provide evidence of how accurate a subjective dbt test is, right!
Afterall you two have all the facts, right.

"How accurate a subjective DBT is?" c'mon! That statement shows how out of your league you are on the subject. Seriously. WTF is "a subjective DBT?" It's like saying a farmer should know "how big a corn crop is." It depends on the ****ing test you moron!

Quote:
By the way, I have clearly provided links, quotes from pages, quotes from the results page itself, that you are a makeup artist and have worked for MADtv. So if you wish to continue to mislead, go right ahead. That seems to be the nature of the "objectivists/scientists" here.

seriously, are you so brain dead that you can't figure out that you claimed I was a costume designer for Mad TV and that all the links in the world showing I am a makeup artist will not make your claim that I am a costume designer correct?

At this point I really wonder if you are another Geoff Kait and are just punking me. No one can really be this stupid in real life. But then we have the May Belts of this world and the line between parody and reality become invisible.

"At this point I really wonder if you are another Geoff Kait and are just punking me. No one can really be this stupid in real life. But then we have the May Belts of this world and the line between parody and reality become invisible. "

Said the unemployed Hollywood makeup artist who has some weird obsession with j_j and DBTs. That's a fine how do you do.

Quote:
At this point I really wonder if you are another Geoff Kait and are just punking me. No one can really be this stupid in real life. But then we have the May Belts of this world and the line between parody and reality become invisible.

Geeeeeeez, Scott! Do you even engage your brain before your fingers move?