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. "

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

Hi Geoff,

Can you believe this guy. He is pretty funny.
He says

Quote:
the links in the world showing I am a makeup artist will not make your claim that I am a costume designer correct?

Right after I posted this quote from a website.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0923958/

Quote:
Scott Wheeler
Make-Up Department:

12. 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)

As one can clearly see Scott is a makeup artist and "(prosthetics designer)" for MADtv. So much for Scott being honest with us, even after I wished him well.

Next I gave a clear reference J_J, polypropylene capacitors sounding the same, but he does not accept it. Yet we never see Scott or J_J providing evidence. Again a double standard. And Scott wants me to come up with figures demonstrating the accuracy of dbt tests.

Well, get this, Scott then posts this:

Quote:
"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!

I at least attempted to by capacitors, hmmm, now J_J's comments below.

Next how many have seen the claims J_J has made concerning how accurate dbts are. Here is a quote from J_J on page 5.

Quote:
it is clear, for instance, that DBT's will detect sounds right down into the actual limits of physics.

So, there is verification that ABX and DBT's in general work very, very well on auditory stimulii.

He has a problem unless it is a very specific, initial response type of thing because medical fact states there are both cochlea fatigue and habituation to stimuli which contradicts dbt J_Js above statements. I guess J_J can magically break the laws of Physics in subjective dbt tests because he says so.

Quote:

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?

It gets pretty funny Jan, probably from MADtv. No wonder He and J_J are together. Have you seen page 10, whole posts personally attacking someone, even cursing them. Wow. Then he sidesteps medical evidence but supports misleading information. Go figure this guy.

Quote:

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.

This, of course, is pure fabrication on the part of whoever you're replying to, Scott. Anyone can go to a profile and click, and if you see some of the first attacks that these tinfoil-hatters came up with, it's obvious that they know exactly who and what they are talking about, and to, and they choose to PRETEND that they don't know when it's finally shoved down their throat.

We're not dealing with "the reasonable man" here.

These guys remind of the kind of people who think the moon landing was a hoax, etc, frankly. Despite the evidence, overwhelming evidence, they just believe.

I have no idea if he's still doing it, but sasaudio has engaged in this whole paranoid fantasy about how the AES is controlled by manufacturers, etc, rather showing that he hasn't a hint about how the organization is funded, how it works, or what its charter is.

It all comes down to one thing, I point out that their belief system is broken, and they can't accept reality. Kinda like the birfers who think Obama isn't a native-born citizen, really.

Quote:

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.

Well, it's typical of these guys to take a specifically limited position and extrapolate it to something else, and then lie by claiming that I said what they want you to believe I said.

There's no reasoning with these people. I simply have to conclude that they are unable to accept the simple evidence regarding either DBT's or their own "sighted" tests. In that, again they are comparable to creationists, 9-11 truthers, moon landing deniers, and birfers.

Fortunately, they don't have as much of a political following.

Stephen. After you closed the thread "A Visit to Mikey's" I 'posted' the comment that such discussions DO NOT actually end by merely closing a thread.
You then closed the thread "Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists" with the following comment :-

>>> "Because this thread has gone on for so long, and because the September issue which includes Michael Lavorgna's edited essay will soon be available, I'm closing this thread. New discussion of ML's essay can continue in the September issue forum once I've opened it." <<<

When you said that you were going to close that 'thread' I was going to ask you if you could leave that thread "Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists" on the front page, in the same way that you had left the "A Visit to Mikey's & the Furutech deMag" on the front page of the General section so that people can easily read the previous discussions and not 'cover' the same ground again and again.

However, because I know that MY own responses (purely because of the need to avoid such things as ambiguities, misunderstandings, misinterpretations etc) can be long and that THIS can lengthen 'threads' I decided that this time I would stay out of the "A New Angle to an Old Discussion." Thread.

But, again, I feel that I have to respond and not leave the latest comment by Scott of :-

>>> "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." <<<

Just in the air' as a 'throwaway and completely unnecessary and facetious comment'.

There is NO ONE who lives in the world of reality more than Peter and I. We are sane, sensible, down to earth, both feet on the ground, honest Yorkshire folk !!!!!!!!

I completely understand about the freedom of speech and that people are entitled to their opinions but with the luxury of 'freedom of speech' also comes responsibility !!! And I, personally, use that responsibility with extreme care. I have zero tolerance for abuse, aggression, attack or bullying so I will not respond with like for like, but I will respond when I feel necessary with a reasoned argument.

I had entered the Stereophile Forum a few years back after reading what I had decided was the 'last straw', after Buddha's 'posting' of :-

>>> "The Peter Belts of this world are sly, like the serpent. They are driven off, but then always find ways to slither back into to hobby to suck the green life blood from the uninitiated

I also have seen the hypocrisy by these so called "scientists" and their supporters but from another vantage point. As one will see, they seem to pick and choose what to believe and want us to believe.

Consider the Interesting Papers and Ask Dr. Kunchur threads. The "scientific" supporters claim that peer reviews, speaking at conventions, three mainstream third party national organization's blessing, and anonymous refereeing mean nothing in Dr. Kunchur's case. Yet these same "scientific" minds list and exalt J_J for attending a very few IEEE conventions and addressing many times at AES, which is financially supported by manufacturers, J_J's employer included, and of which J_J is a "fellow". I find the double standard interesting.

Next J_J again states this about me:

Quote:
I have no idea if he's still doing it, but sasaudio has engaged in this whole paranoid fantasy about how the AES is controlled by manufacturers, etc, rather showing that he hasn't a hint about how the organization is funded, how it works, or what its charter is.

Here is a list of AES financial supporters.
http://www.aes.org/sustaining_members/

Quote:
Sustaining Members
The Audio Engineering Society recognizes with gratitude the financial support given by its Sustaining Members.

A
A&R Cambridge Limited
ACO Pacific, Inc.
Acustica Beyma S.A.
Air Studios Ltd.
AKG Acoustics GmbH, a Harman International Company
AKM Semiconductor, Inc.
Amber Technology Limited
Anchor Audio, Inc.
Apogee Electronics Corporation
ATC Loudspeaker Technology Ltd.
Audio Limited
Audio Media/IMAS Publishing Ltd.
Audio Partnership PLC
Audio Precision, Inc.
Audio Pro International
Audiomatica S.r.l.
AudioScience, Inc.
Autograph Sound Recording Ltd.

B
B & W Group Ltd.
Banff Centre
British Broadcasting Corporation

C
Cadac Electronics Plc
Calrec Audio Ltd.
Cambridge Silicon Radio

Quote:

But, again, I feel that I have to respond and not leave the latest comment by Scott of :-

>>> "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." <<<

Just in the air' as a 'throwaway and completely unnecessary and facetious comment'.

There is NO ONE who lives in the world of reality more than Peter and I. We are sane, sensible, down to earth, both feet on the ground, honest Yorkshire folk !!!!!!!!

relax May. Geoff is the parody not you and Peter. I believe that the two of you are quite "real." But it seems that even you don't see the line between yourselves and Geoff. Hence the invisibility of that line.

Quote:
I completely understand about the freedom of speech and that people are entitled to their opinions but with the luxury of 'freedom of speech' also comes responsibility !!! And I, personally, use that responsibility with extreme care. I have zero tolerance for abuse, aggression, attack or bullying so I will not respond with like for like, but I will respond when I feel necessary with a reasoned argument.

Scott is known to also have an agenda. An anti-Belt - agenda.

That is rich May. You tell us how you are so careful with your freedom of speech and how you have zero tolorance for abuse, aggression, attacking or bullying and then the very next thing you do is go on the attack with yet another misrepresentation of my views. It would seem your tolorance is dependent on how you feel about the person attacking and the person being attacked.

Quote:
As displayed on Audio Asylum:-

>>> "I cant leave it at that because the Belts cant leave it at that. They claim to have significant technicale knowledge. They talk about having been in the business for 40 years and they claim to have done extensive research. Yet after forty years of research they seem to have ignored the scientific research on psychoacoustics. When presented with the mere possibility that the results of their tweeks are caused by bias effects they attack science and scientists. Here is a quote from May Belt about that."The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound." <<<

OK. So he has an agenda !! So have others. That is life !!! The problem here is that the 'threads' will be long whilstever he chooses to keep to that agenda !!!!!

It seems you have an agenda to misrepresent others who simply call you on your bullshit. Is it just a coincidence that you would not include the context of that particular quote? I doubt it. What a surprise. I suppose that has to be the policy of a company like yours. If you have no substance to back your assertions all you have is ad hominem, misrepresentation and obfuscation.

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." <<<

If someone ??? Does not have an "agenda" ?????

Gosh May, maybe if you had read the continued misrepresntation of my career which was used as a lame ad hominem attempt to question my ability to discern between real science and bullshit you would have your answer as to how the thread got where it did. But of course it is completely OK with you for some posters to engage in that kind of nonsense since they are "on your side." May, the innocent victim act is pretty transparent. the fact that you can't see that Geoff is a parody of you and Peter is pretty funny though. I don't agree with what Geoff does. I think it is pretty malicious. But after being in threads like this I do understand it. Again I don't agree with it but I_do_understand_it.

Just one question for you Steve. Do you feel compelled to buy a copy of Catcher in the Rye every time you enter a book store? OK another question. Is Art Bell one of your heroes?

Quote:
You tell us how you are so careful with your freedom of speech and how you have zero tolorance for abuse, aggression, attacking or bullying ... It would seem your tolorance is dependent on how you feel about the person attacking ...

Well, I suppose it's a step in the right direction that you admit your tactics should be considered "abuse, aggression, attacking or bullying".

Geeez, Scott, don't you ever engage your brain before your fingers?

Quote:
Is Art Bell one of your heroes?

Art Bell was/is great radio and on occasion thought provoking in his own way - a counterpoint to the 24/7 talking heads. I don't remember Bell ever attacking his opposition. For the most part Bell presented an idea and allowed his audience the priviledge to make up their own mind. I can't help but think Bell was wise to those who believed they (and those who thought exactly as they did) possessed the only truth.

Can't say the same for you, Scotty. Your "attacking" is very much like a Rushbo/Hannity/Savage "thought provoking" comment. With your constant "abuse, aggression, attacking or bullying" and your unique self described ability to discern fact from fiction I would have to assume those are a few of your heroes. If not, you should stop acting as they do.

Engage your brain before your fingers.

"Gosh May, maybe if you had read the continued misrepresntation of my career which was used as a lame ad hominem attempt to question my ability to discern between real science and bullshit you would have your answer as to how the thread got where it did. But of course it is completely OK with you for some posters to engage in that kind of nonsense since they are "on your side." May, the innocent victim act is pretty transparent. the fact that you can't see that Geoff is a parody of you and Peter is pretty funny though. I don't agree with what Geoff does. I think it is pretty malicious. But after being in threads like this I do understand it. Again I don't agree with it but I_do_understand_it."

Scott, you definitely have a flair for playing the victimized buffoon who's rehabilited himself as a audio insider, and a science savant of sorts. You get the joke now, but you're feeling stung that you got punked. Like the reformed prostitute. The truly entertaining part of your act these days is that you punked yourself, I didn't have much to do with it. You just don't know which way to turn. Presenting yourself as a science hound, able to differentiate real science from make-believe, is a nice twist, but not terribly original -- that's what Skeptics *do.* Who knew makeup artists were so well rounded? Oh, wait, aren't you the one who asserted, "I'm no scientist?" Guess you were just messin' with our heads...

Quote:
The truly entertaining part of your act these days is that you punked yourself, I didn't have much to do with it. You just don't know which way to turn.

A "science savant"!

Great stuff!

ROTFLMAO!

Quote:

Great stuff!

ROTFLMAO!

So you prefer Geoff's approach?

Quote:
"Scott, you definitely have a flair for playing the victimized buffoon who's rehabilited himself as a audio insider, and a science savant of sorts. You get the joke now, but you're feeling stung that you got punked.

No Geoff. I don't feel stung or punked. And, while I think you are just an opportunistic dick for doing what you do, the folks that you parody do make it hard for me to feel sorry for them. At first I thought you might be a comic genius. But it has become clear that you just found an easy target. It's not so much that your parody is brilliant. It's just that the material writes itself. Please excuse my shock at the true believers, your writers. I just don't normally hang out in such circles. What is the old saying? Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the public? Something like that.

It is funny though that these folks still think you are their friend and fellow warrior in their holy war. I would find that hard to live with. There does come a point where a practical joke just becomes purely mean spirited.

"No Geoff. I don't feel stung or punked. And, while I think you are just an opportunistic dick for doing what you do, the folks that you parody do make it hard for me to feel sorry for them. At first I thought you might be a comic genius. But it has become clear that you just found an easy target. It's not so much that your parody is brilliant. It's just that the material writes itself. Please excuse my shock at the true believers, your writers. I just don't normally hang out in such circles. What is the old saying? Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the public? Something like that.

It is funny though that these folks still think you are their friend and fellow warrior in their holy war. I would find that hard to live with. There does come a point where a practical joke just becomes purely mean spirited."

Geez, lighten up, Scott, you're creeping me out. I'm just a song and dance man. Notice you're the only one saying this is some sort of practical joke. I realize you're saying that because it's the only recourse you have. But it's no practical joke. It's as serious as a colonoscopy. It only appears to be one to certain people. People like you. Now do you get it?

"But it has become clear that you just found an easy target."

Yes, it has.

Quote:
Geez, lighten up, Scott, you're creeping me out. I'm just a song and dance man.

Interesting admission.

Quote:
So you prefer Geoff's approach?

Geoff's "approach"?!

What is Geoff's "approach"?

To allow you to punk yourself?

How about we leave that I enjoy a good laugh and you've provided one. One of the few you'll provide but for now it will have to do.

Quote:

Quote:
Geez, lighten up, Scott, you're creeping me out. I'm just a song and dance man.

Interesting admission.

Geoff is great audio and on occasion thought provoking in his own way - a counterpoint to the 24/7 truth-talking heads on this forum. I don't remember Geoff ever attacking his opposition - he is after all only a song and dance man. For the most part Geoff presents an idea and allows his audience the priviledge to make up their own mind - if you get punked by Geoff, you've done it to yourself (just ask Scotty). I can't help but think Geoff is wise to those who believe they (and those who think exactly as they do) possess the only truth.

OTOH, jj, you might think you look like Garcia but you sound more like Mark Levin, http://marklevinshow.com/home.asp.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geez, lighten up, Scott, you're creeping me out. I'm just a song and dance man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Interesting admission."

You have a keen eye, sir.

>>> "Geoff is the parody not you and Peter. I believe that the two of you are quite "real." But it seems that even you don't see the line between yourselves and Geoff. Hence the invisibility of that line." <<<

There IS no line, Scott, invisible or not !!! THAT is the bit you are not understanding. THAT is why you are getting into such a 'tizzy'. I am going to exaggerate here (slightly). I don't think that Geoff has done AS MANY listening experiments as Peter and I (probably because WE are a bit older) but has certainly done a lot and maybe done quite different ones to ours but come to similar conclusions !!

>>> "It would seem your tolorance is dependent on how you feel about the person attacking and the person being attacked." <<<

I feel that about ANYONE being attacked, especially if it is an 'uncalled for/unwarranted' attack.

>>> "It seems you have an agenda to misrepresent others who simply call you on your bullshit." <<<

SEE what I mean. What is the expression "call you on your bullshit" if not an attack ????????

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:

>>> "Geoff is the parody not you and Peter. I believe that the two of you are quite "real." But it seems that even you don't see the line between yourselves and Geoff. Hence the invisibility of that line." <<<

There IS no line, Scott, invisible or not !!! THAT is the bit you are not understanding. THAT is why you are getting into such a 'tizzy'. I am going to exaggerate here (slightly). I don't think that Geoff has done AS MANY listening experiments as Peter and I (probably because WE are a bit older) but has certainly done a lot and maybe done quite different ones to ours but come to similar conclusions !!

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...art=43&vc=1
#72088
>> It would wreck things if any of his stuff did actually work>>

"No shit."

What do you think Geoff was trying to say there May?

Quote:
>>> "It would seem your tolorance is dependent on how you feel about the person attacking and the person being attacked." <<<

I feel that about ANYONE being attacked, especially if it is an 'uncalled for/unwarranted' attack.

as opposed to a "warrented" attack?

Quote:
>>> "It seems you have an agenda to misrepresent others who simply call you on your bullshit." <<<

SEE what I mean. What is the expression "call you on your bullshit" if not an attack ????????

Perhaps a "warrented" criticism. Do you think bullshit should go unchallenged?

That :-
was a Quote by Buddha (commenting on Geoff's products) in response to krabapple. I.e
>>> "It would wreck things if any of his stuff did actually work! This way, it does whatever you want it to." <<<

I would presume (although obviously I do not know for certain) that Geoff's reply of "No Shit" was a facetious reply to Buddha !!!! Probably out of sheer frustration !! I know the feeling !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...art=43&vc=1
#72088

>>It would wreck things if any of his stuff did actually work>>

"No shit."

What do you think Geoff was trying to say there May?

Actually, while Buddha can be a little frustrating at times (see, I can do understatement), what I meant by that retort was that if the Clever Little Clock actually does work and if the Teleportation Tweak actually does work, well, that would be a big loogie hanging out there, don't you think? Things could get real snide in a hurry.

Quote:
That :-
was a Quote by Buddha (commenting on Geoff's products) in response to krabapple. I.e
>>> "It would wreck things if any of his stuff did actually work! This way, it does whatever you want it to." <<<

I would presume (although obviously I do not know for certain) that Geoff's reply of "No Shit" was a facetious reply to Buddha !!!! Probably out of sheer frustration !! I know the feeling !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Now why would you presume that? Consider what else was said in that post

>> Were in the realm of "prove it works," "well, prove it doesn't," here">>

"That ship sailed a long time ago. new fangled speaker cable hit 30 years ago. Digital vs. analog, silver vs. copper, tubes vs. solid state, SACD vs. Redbook, mpingo discs,demagnetizers, shall I go on."

Geoff all but confessed in that post that machina dynamica was a hoax played at the expense of "audiophools." If he was so frustrated why was he posting as Zorak with the image of Space ghost? How much more do you need to see the obviousness of his act. Clearly he was letting everyone in on the joke. Seriously May, have you looked at his website?
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
It's a joke May. It's Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin. Geoff has simply taken advantage of the fact that the writing has already been done for him. May, "he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy." But his followers "should know, they followed enough of them."

Quote:
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...art=43&vc=1
#72088

>>It would wreck things if any of his stuff did actually work>>

"No shit."

What do you think Geoff was trying to say there May?

Actually, while Buddha can be a little frustrating at times (see, I can do understatement), what I meant by that retort was that if the Clever Little Clock actually does work and if the Teleportation Tweak actually does work, well, that would be a big loogie hanging out there, don't you think? Things could get real snide in a hurry.

Don't worry Geoff. you don't have to back track. i am pretty sure you could make a public anouncement that Machina Dynamica was a hoax and your followers would find some reason not to believe it. maybe the government through the AES forced you to discredit yourself. Maybe it was said in frustration and not meant. Maybe it is not meant literally but is just build up for a super brilliant boulder teleprotation tweak of all tweaks. Maybe Geoff was kidnapped by the amazing randi and hypnotized. the possibilities are endless. Except the possibility that it is all a hoax.

"Geoff all but confessed in that post that machina dynamica was a hoax played at the expense of "audiophools." If he was so frustrated why was he posting as Zorak with the image of Space ghost? How much more do you need to see the obviousness of his act. Clearly he was letting everyone in on the joke. Seriously May, have you looked at his website?
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
It's a joke May. It's Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin. Geoff has simply taken advantage of the fact that the writing has already been done for him. May, "he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy." But his followers "should know, they followed enough of them.""

I think I finally figured this thing out!! Scott has a more severe learning disability than merely dyslexia. Either that or he has suffered a stroke recently. Nobody, but nobody, could possibly be so reading comprehesion challenged as to misinterpret almost everything in such a manner. Scott, I apologize. If you've had a stroke, I apologize for saying all those "horrible" things. If you haven't had a stroke, or don't have a brain aneurism and are doing this deliberately, then you have been a very very bad boy.

"Don't worry Geoff. you don't have to back track. i am pretty sure you could make a public anouncement that Machina Dynamica was a hoax and your followers would find some reason not to believe it. maybe the government through the AES forced you to discredit yourself. Maybe it was said in frustration and not meant. Maybe it is not meant literally but is just build up for a super brilliant boulder teleprotation tweak of all tweaks. Maybe Geoff was kidnapped by the amazing randi and hypnotized. the possibilities are endless. Except the possibility that it is all a hoax."

Poor Scott. Looks like the ant lion got him. Scott, come back! Scott, come back! This looks pretty serious.

Quote:
"Don't worry Geoff. you don't have to back track. i am pretty sure you could make a public anouncement that Machina Dynamica was a hoax and your followers would find some reason not to believe it. maybe the government through the AES forced you to discredit yourself. Maybe it was said in frustration and not meant. Maybe it is not meant literally but is just build up for a super brilliant boulder teleprotation tweak of all tweaks. Maybe Geoff was kidnapped by the amazing randi and hypnotized. the possibilities are endless. Except the possibility that it is all a hoax."

Poor Scott. Looks like the ant lion got him. Scott, come back! Scott, come back! This looks pretty serious.

OK. from here on you shall be known to me as the ant lion. Heck Lord Ant Lion. May as well make it a title. Nice choice.

Quote:
Actually, while Buddha can be a little frustrating at times (see, I can do understatement) ...

Quote:

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?

What "information" have we "sidestepped" here, pray tell?

There are some things that are obvious here.

ABX testing does not have to be "short term", yet we have claims to the contrary.

ABX testing does not have involve "a memory test" any worse than any other auditory test, and in fact reduces the contribution from memory loss better than other tests.

ABX testing, properly done, with controls, will detect desensitization, false positives, and the like, just like any other kind of subjective test.

Badly designed visual tests have nothing whatsoever to do with responses to auditory testing, other than to show (and which there was never any doubt about) that one can do a bad test and get bad results. This is true of any test in existance. One can do anything wrong. Based on the various papers I've rejected in the past few yeras, not only CAN people do tests wrong, they WILL do tests wrong, despite extensive literature to the contrary.

ABX testing is no more fatiguing than any other listening test. Arguing for "fatigue" as an excuse is an equal bar for all listening tests.

ABX testing can show reveal differences very, very close to the limits that physics permits when testing low-amplitude hearing response in a room sufficient to support the testing. Therefore, it is clear that ABX testing isn't missing much under well-executed circumstances, and "much" is little enough that detection theory suggests that it's missing nothing at all, but of course that's always probabilistic.

And that's just the most reviled kind of DBT around here.

In short, there is no, repeat NO evidence that properly done DBT's have any problems.

And, of course, there's a reason that I have repeatedly said "properly done". As anyone with a brain knows, someone can always do anything wrong.

One of the many things I find so ironic about this whole thing is that I have no issue with people who freeze things, bring clocks into the room (clever or not) wear tinfoil hats or put tin foil all over their components or use any other tweek and claim that their system sounds better to them. I have no problem with that. That is a personal perception and if wearing a tinfoil hat makes your system sound better to you so be it. I'm certainly not against enhanced enjoyment of one's hobby. I don't ask people to ever prove their perceptions with blind tests double, single or triple. It's silly. It's about enjoyment of casual listening is it not? Fact is when we listen to our systems for the joy of listening to music we do so with our biases in full play. That is true whether one is an objectivist who has spent a lifetime doing ABX DBTs or subjectivist who thinks freezing a picture of a friend or family member makes the system sound better. Either way or anything in between the biases are all in play. That's a result being human. Live with it. You have no choice anyway.

It's not enough for you to be right. The "enemy" must also be wrong. I have a fancy high end TT and tubed electronics.(go figure) I certainly "percieve" improved sound with these components. If JJ were to say that my percieved improvements were all bias based would that change my perceptions? I doubt it. I know my perceptions are affected by biases. Just like everyone else. It is what it is.

Quote:
One of the many things I find so ironic about this whole thing is that I have no issue with people who freeze things, bring clocks into the room (clever or not) wear tinfoil hats or put tin foil all over their components or use any other tweek and claim that their system sounds better to them. I have no problem with that.

Agreed. Personal taste is inviolate AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT PASS BEYOND MY NOSE...

Quote:

That is a personal perception and if wearing a tinfoil hat makes your system sound better to you so be it. I'm certainly not against enhanced enjoyment of one's hobby. I don't ask people to ever prove their perceptions with blind tests double, single or triple. It's silly. It's about enjoyment of casual listening is it not? Fact is when we listen to our systems for the joy of listening to music we do so with our biases in full play. That is true whether one is an objectivist who has spent a lifetime doing ABX DBTs or subjectivist who thinks freezing a picture of a friend or family member makes the system sound better. Either way or anything in between the biases are all in play. That's a result being human. Live with it. You have no choice anyway.

Hear! Hear!

Quote:

It's not enough for you to be right. The "enemy" must also be wrong. I have a fancy high end TT and tubed electronics.(go figure) I certainly "percieve" improved sound with these components. If JJ were to say that my percieved improvements were all bias based would that change my perceptions? I doubt it. I know my perceptions are affected by biases. Just like everyone else. It is what it is.

Yep.

The issue is not what an individual prefers.

That's the individual's own personal preference.

I don't know how many times I've made that point, too.

What creates the problem is when somebody starts telling me how to do science, and isn't ready to actually step up and do the science his or her self.

This kind of issue does not have to be "bias" either. If you saw the thread on euphonic distortions (I've long since forgotten what the actual thread title was), it's possible for a (mild) distortion to sound better, more dynamic, with better stereo image, etc.

And there's nothing wrong with liking that, either. The system of "stereo" is so very, very lossy that there are many ways to improve the illusion, including distortions, processing, etc. Tube amplifiers are, by the way, one way to get this kind of euphonic improvement. I don't presently have one, but I do have the ability to write a tube amp distortion simulator for a digital system, so I can even test this kind of assertion, and sure enough, especially on some early digital recordings, some transformer and tube distortion makes them sound a lot better, you know, almost like they were designed with tube amps and lp distortions in mind. 'ya think?

This is also true of multichannel, but to a substantially lesser extent, of course.

I find it interesting that J_J can challenge nearly all the criticisms I/medicine presented, from this one quote of me from Scott's post.

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.

So J_J must be peeking.

Let us see if J_J's comment hold water or whether they are simply his unsupported opinion.

Quote:
ABX testing, properly done, with controls, will detect desensitization, false positives, and the like, just like any other kind of subjective test.

A typical generic generalized prepared statement without evidence or proof, just your say so. Interesting that no expert testers has ever made this statement, just J_J. Also interesting is that J_J has never criticized Arnold Krueger's stated "testing procedures" presented in the great JA/Arny debate in 2005. http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
So J_J's response, or lack thereof, does not correlate to his above quote here. Hmmm. So what does J_J actually believe?

Quote:
Based on the various papers I've rejected in the past few yeras,

Which tells us nothing, just another general generic statement.

Quote:
ABX testing is no more fatiguing than any other listening test. Arguing for "fatigue" as an excuse is an equal bar for all listening tests.

Just the opposite. We know there are major differences, both physically and phychologically. Comparisons at the store will have a relaxed atmasphere, will not involve the many ABs of the same selection and/or total ABs that are performed in dbt testing etc. Those two factors alone demonstrate differences in fatigue between dbt and store/home that you evidently don't understand.

Quote:
ABX testing can show reveal differences very, very close to the limits that physics permits when testing low-amplitude hearing response in a room sufficient to support the testing.

Again a vague, general, generic statement that has no meaningful conditions put forth. Your extrapolation below is sheer fantasy and opinion.

Quote:
Therefore, it is clear that ABX testing isn't missing much under well-executed circumstances, and "much" is little enough that detection theory suggests that it's missing nothing at all, but of course that's always probabilistic.

If that is the case, then you have just broken the laws of physics as medicine has clearly known for decades that sensitivity does change because of cochlea fatigue, habituation to stimuli etc. So you have a huge problem contradicting mainstream science.

Quote:
In short, there is no, repeat NO evidence that properly done DBT's have any problems.

The fact is Medicine has known for a long time that problems do exist in subjective dbt testing. That is why no subjective dbt test, including audio, states its conclusion as "fact". Only you, with your multiple conflicts of interest appear to.

As one can see, J_J is vague, with simple statements that contradict mainstream science. He claims dbts have no problems yet provides no proof whatsoever. Just his say so.

Obviously, the experts who actually perform the tests that J_J reads do not claim their tests are "factual", otherwise they would state their conclusions are "fact".

What does this mean to the public? That at least some objectivists claims based on dbts are not accurate.

Quote:
What creates the problem is when somebody starts telling me how to do science, and isn't ready to actually step up and do the science his or her self.

Quite simple. You have been in violation of mainstream science in string after string, as brought out. Your above example concerning dbts is just one more example.
Your comment about tube amplifiers is yet another example of how little you actually know although you continue to hype yourself.

Quote:
Tube amplifiers are, by the way, one way to get this kind of euphonic improvement.

That is interesting since tube amps can have quite low harmonic distortion at low wattages, typically providing 90db or more peak spl at easily less than .1% HD, predominate 2nd and 3rd harmonics. And who said SS amps are not distortion producers (anything that influences the sound is distortion) in their own right?

Now it is true that different capacitors can flavor the sound to suit one's tastes in either type amplifier.

Quote:
One of the many things I find so ironic about this whole thing is that I have no issue with people who freeze things, bring clocks into the room (clever or not) wear tinfoil hats or put tin foil all over their components or use any other tweek and claim that their system sounds better to them. I have no problem with that. That is a personal perception and if wearing a tinfoil hat makes your system sound better to you so be it. I'm certainly not against enhanced enjoyment of one's hobby. I don't ask people to ever prove their perceptions with blind tests double, single or triple. It's silly. It's about enjoyment of casual listening is it not? Fact is when we listen to our systems for the joy of listening to music we do so with our biases in full play. That is true whether one is an objectivist who has spent a lifetime doing ABX DBTs or subjectivist who thinks freezing a picture of a friend or family member makes the system sound better. Either way or anything in between the biases are all in play. That's a result being human. Live with it. You have no choice anyway.

It's not enough for you to be right. The "enemy" must also be wrong.

Well, you just described yourself, haven't you? In this case, the "enemy" is Geoff and May. I can't even tell what personal flaw in you brought about that delirious rant against Geoff, where you called him an "opportunistic dick", his customers "followers", and of course everyone's favourite, "true believers"; so on and so forth. But that self-parodying meltdown you had against Geoff certainly isn't in line with you playing the calm "good objectivist" today, where you write "that is a personal perception", "I'm not against enhanced enjoyment of one's hobby", "I don't ask people to ever prove their perceptions with blind tests". So are you Scott Jekyll or Scott Hyde today? In following your agenda against May, you wrote to her:

Quote:
"It seems you have an agenda to misrepresent others who simply call you on your bullshit."

So May's products or recommendations are "bullshit", which means that according to what I read from you, all who feel they have benefitted from them are "followers" and "true believers", believing in "bullshit". Furthermore, you pretend that you and jj are "right" in your personal opinions, simply because you believe you are. Which is typical of arrogant, dogmatic, pseudoscientific reductionist skeptics, who have never proven that, and can never do so. Except the both of you also pretend to be respectful of scientific values, and clearly, you are demonstrating that neither of you know the first thing about scientific values, with your dogmatic "know-it-all" attitude. I know your friend "jj" is trying to pretend he's a "scientist", but I'm not sure on what basis you even pretend to know so much about audio science and research that you would argue so vehemently against those who have actually practiced audio science and research for decades, since apparently, by your own admittance, your expertise is in applying make-up? Is there something I don't know about make-up that is somehow related to scientific research in audio?

Just as you (say) you have no problem with others believing in things you don't believe in, I have no problem with you not believing in things others believe in. So if you want to believe that wearing a tin foil hat improves your sound, you can continue to do so freely, AFAIC. Where we clash swords is where you pretend to be objective and unbiased in your *opinions*, pretend to respect scientific values on certain days or at certain times. But then cross the line by (to begin with), calling things you don't understand "bullshit" or "parody" etc, simply *because* you don't understand them. Which shows that you are as much a dogmatic, lunatic fringe objectivist as jj, and all others who seem to make it their life's work to clash daily with audiophiles on audiophile forums.

Geoff all but confessed in that post that machina dynamica was a hoax played at the expense of "audiophools."

Sorry chief, but that's just your perception. You are again confusing your silly personal perceptions with "fact". A well known flaw in the character of the lunatic fringe "objectivist". All "but" a confession is NOT a "confession". Thank God you're not a judge. But even if it WAS a "confession", how do you know it isn't "satire" or "parody" on the part of Mr. Kaitt, since you believe he's capable of that?

If he was so frustrated why was he posting as Zorak with the image of Space ghost?

So you now claim to know someone's exact motive and mindset, based on them posting as "Zorak" an image of "Space Ghost"?? Is "mind reader" on your curriculum vitae? Note that leaping to conclusions like this is exactly the problem you share with jj, and all other so-called audio "objectivists", who deride or denounce audio products and ideas they can't understand.

How much more do you need to see the obviousness of his act. Clearly he was letting everyone in on the joke. Seriously May, have you looked at his website? " target="_blank">http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm

I don't think anyone needs to see anymore to see the obviousness of your act. I have seen his website many times, and at no point did I ever think it was anything but serious. Since it has a Paypal logo, I hope you realize the gravity of what you are accusing him of here. If you're older than 12, and from your angry fits I'm NOT assuming you are, then you had better take some responsibility for your words, before you get slapped in the head with a lawsuit so fast, it'll make your head spin.

It's a joke May. It's Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin.

No, I think the joke is you doing Pee Wee Herman. Or maybe you're not joking. Who can tell?

Geoff has simply taken advantage of the fact that the writing has already been done for him.

What evidence do you have of this foolish accusation that Geoff doesn't write his own content? Because demanding evidence of assertions that counter your arguments, and providing none to support your own claims, is yet another trait that typifies the Lunatic Fringe Objectivist on audio forums.

It's just one of the many things I find so ironic about this whole thing.

Quote:
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.

Yes, I'm sure it also brings down the national deficit, but the thing is, someone needs to tell you this: it doesn't work if you keep UN-ignoring people. Or, it would be more accurate to say, "pretending to put people on ignore so that you can 'announce' that you have taken the pretend high road and put them on 'ignore' ". Because that is just what I have seen you doing for what? At least 15 years now, I think. So dude, I think its about time you stop "threatening" to ignore people, 'kay? If you're gonna do it, just s-up and do it. Don't "announce" that you're going to do it in grand drama queen fashion, do it. Don't announce to everyone that you've done it, and then two hours or two days later (or two months...), respond to the person you'd pretended to put on "ignore". That's just pathetic, because it means the person you put on ignore is like crack to you, and you're a junkie drug slave to him, where you can't even muster up the personal will to avoid him like you announced with great fanfare to the entire world, that you would. So please, don't pull an Ethan. Don't just cry to us about how you have ignored somebody, do it. And if you want to at least pretend to have some dignity left, do it -quietly-. There's no reason anyone needs to hear about your personal turmoil. If you're offended by the fact that people on the forums continually shoot down your misinformed opinions, trust me, they are NOT going to change their opinions of you 2 hours, 2 months or 2 years down the road. So if you "UN-ignore" people because you think it's "safe" to take your opponents off of ignore, or if you're wondering when it's safe, it's NEVER safe. Comprend

Excellent post, Steve! Clearly the "audio professional" objectivist is stating his own opinions (I assume based on no more than his personal reactions) which are not substantiated, many of which cannot be proven with the absolute certainty of rigorous scientific study and he is hoping those who are "true believers" will swallow the bait. Unfortunately for jj some of us require more than "because I say so".

Quote:
One of the many things I find so ironic about this whole thing is that I have no issue with people who freeze things, bring clocks into the room (clever or not) wear tinfoil hats or put tin foil all over their components or use any other tweek and claim that their system sounds better to them. I have no problem with that.

Another terrific post that debunks all that Scott has represented as his stance on this matter. What is so absurd (we could only wish for some small bit of irony from Scott) is that if Scott actually felt no animosity toward anyone who freezes "things" he wouldn't display such enmity toward May. Frezing "things" is not something May sells, it is given away free of charge. Therefore it can't be what anyone charges for their products that upsets Scott's apple cart. It isn't that Scott objects to the perceived results anyone achieves by freezing "things" - at least that's what he wants us to believe. The only real reason then that Scott should be so intent on insulting May is that he could not hear any improvement when his friend treated his system and room with Belt devices. He is therefore in the same boat with Buddha who also cannot hear the effectiveness of the Belt devices. And that's what really pisses off both of them.

Which leads us to Scott's knowing that Geoff is a jokester pulling everyone's leg. Where did that idea come from? Well, Buddha of course. Buddha was the first to infer the idea all of Geoff's words are mere jokes on the rest of the world. Not that Buddha has tried any of Geoff's ideas but he is convinced he has this one nailed. And, Scott, unable to come up with this one on his own, just follows along because it serves his purpose.

So now we have two people who cannot hear the effectiveness of "bullshit" devices claiming they are jokes but without any proof of what they claim. They ask us to follow along without questioning their motives just as if they were selling bullshit frozen "things".

A caution to Scott; don't follow Buddha's lead - he's been known to be quite wrong on many occasions. Buddha suffers from selective hearing and even more selective logic which becomes quite clouded when he's been, let's say, left to his own devices and access to a corkscrew.

Scott, if you truly have no problems with anyone hearing the results you cannot, then you really have no reason to participate in these threads. You certainly have no reason to continue your rants towards May or your unswerving devotion to Buddha's "bullshit" ideas.

And what's to say about jj's response to Scott? Well, a good hearty laugh should suffice.

Quote:
I don't presently have one, but I do have the ability to write a tube amp distortion simulator for a digital system ...

Yep, our "audio professional" has everything there is about a tube amplifier figured out and all tube amplifiers produce the same sound. Another case of nothing left to discover, he knows everything! Haven't we heard that line before?

And Stereophile can cease publication now, all issues have been resolved.

LOL!

James and Scott,
maybe I am missing something (bit hard not to with these threads) but I do not think anyone discounts the merit of blind testing and that there are a few types of bias that affect us.

However I would like to pick up on a few points you raise, which for some I am presuming does cause some irritation.
Of course with all the ding-dongs between yourself and a select few here I doubt it worries you too much.

But still, I have to question your position of argument when you put forward the case that euphonic is a general basis of preference (as one example).
The cold reality is that this cannot be presented as a trait affecting everyone, otherwise we would had seen Krell go bankrupt along with several other manufacturers, and with Class D never seeing the light of day.
So yes "euphonic" sound may be preferable, but this is to some and not a trait affecting everyone.

And I guess that is the crux of a lot of arguments going back and forward between the two opposite point of views that seem in perpetual motion of attack; it seems (to my opinion) there are times that certain traits and facts being presented and applied to all audio peeps when in reality the scale and scope is not identified or is not univeral - comparable to the comment of euphonic sound and bias.
What is missing is the context to put the point against and this comes across as vague.

As another example is the discussion now raised on bias, however no context has been put forward.
So to clarify and get the ball rolling the primary bias I am aware of that has been proved in practical testing and actual scientific measurements is expectation bias.
Expectation bias can be tied into Floyd Toole's Harman test, with measurements proving the mechanism.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/3/1050.full.pdf

Other types of comments I have seen recently from some objective posters putting on a scientific front was that the model of the ear has been known for years, however what they omit is that the understanding of the ear was never complete.
And the next step of research seems to prove the ear model was not only incomplete but fundamentally missing key aspects.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/42/16510.full.pdf
The conclusion, accepted by other publications to date;

Quote:
Analysis of physiological loading effects of the hair bundles, the limbal attachment of the TM, and fluid viscosity in the subtectorial space suggests thatTMwaves also can propagate in vivo. Because these waves can stimulate hair cells and interact with the BM traveling wave, they constitute a distinct mode of motion (10, 45) that can have a significant effect on cochlear tuning and sensitivity, thereby fundamentally changing the way we think about cochlear mechanisms.

However whenever I see the mention of AbX combined with DBT it usually only applies as being used as a discussion tool to prove that subjective hearing is at fault and how science has the complete answer, when to my mind there is a balance and should be a more pragmatic view.

I do contend though, that to identify and explore traits of a product it has to be done sighted.
Why?
Because only sighted can one know the product and its architecture and investigate what the relationship is between that trait and say the music combined with the product, and whether it is impacted by other products in the chain.
After all if you hear subtle breakup of sound with some sound, if blind tested and it is unknown equipment you could never know if its a combination of tweeter/midrange/crossover/etc with the amp and its own architecture combined with certain music.

So I am a full supporter of the benefits of blind testing, however there is still a need for sighted, but most of the arguments put forward for ABX in my point of view ignore important aspects such as long term satisfaction testing (yet to see any studies done this way), while also restricting the identification of traits, and also highly cumbersome with a restricted criteria in implementation.

Anyway, I guess my main cut and thrust is that unless your a research scientist working in that specific field of audio research; we need to be pragmatic and realise we do not know everything and it is not right to put forward comments as facts that are not up for discussion or used as a tool against those who disagree.

I know this is my 1st post, but as a long term reader here I have to say the forum is becoming less of a joy to read with each passing week.
I would seriously love to see all sides able to discuss the technical merits of audio in an enjoyable fashion, which would hopefully result in the Stereophile staff of engaging in discussions as well.
As it stands I cannot see how any staff can become involved with the current affairs as discussed

orb

Quote:

But still, I have to question your position of argument when you put forward the case that euphonic is a general basis of preference (as one example).

Well, I don't claim that euphony is a general basis of preference, so why would I dispute anything beyond your presumption that I do?

For some people, it very, very much is part of their preference. Somebody else will loathe the same "euphonic" distortion. That's just the reality of it.

It's an issue of personal taste. As far as it doesn't leap the boundary of personal preference, there's no argument to be had for personal taste. It's just not allowed to pass my nose in either direction.

Quote:

So to clarify and get the ball rolling the primary bias I am aware of that has been proved in practical testing and actual scientific measurements is expectation bias.
Expectation bias can be tied into Floyd Toole's Harman test, with measurements proving the mechanism.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/3/1050.full.pdf

That's part of the issue. Somewhere in another thread is a discussion of the apparent (one has to be careful there, since measuring it directly is impossible) levels of memory, and how focusing can change perception with or without volition, in the presence or absense of expectation.

This is not to say that expectation is not powerful, it certainly is. There is, however, more than expectation, and despite the intemperate, defamatory responses of some of the more unkempt individuals here, nobody claims that any of these behaviors is deliberate or intentional. It's just how people work, end of discussion.

Quote:

Other types of comments I have seen recently from some objective posters putting on a scientific front was that the model of the ear has been known for years, however what they omit is that the understanding of the ear was never complete.

No, they don't omit that, sorry, but you appear to be tilting at one of the liars false summaries of my position, at least.

And one thing we do know very well is the actual, measured, tested phenominon of absolute sensitivity, for instance, yet we still see claims begging that.

One does not have to know everything it discount some theories.

Quote:

However whenever I see the mention of AbX combined with DBT it usually only applies as being used as a discussion tool to prove that subjective hearing is at fault and how science has the complete answer, when to my mind there is a balance and should be a more pragmatic view.

Again, you're projecting the entirely dishonest judgemental attitude thrown at both of us by some of the more active defamers here.

First, all "hearing" is subjective. That's why we call an ABX test a "subjective test", after all. So all data comes to us via subjective experiment.

Second, again, there is no "wrong", there is "difference detected" vs. "no difference detected" and all such has to be qualified as "in this test". Test controls can establish the sensitivity of the test, of course, so we can also say "in a sensitive test" or "in a rotten test". Despite some of the blind blustering here, I keep pointing out that people CAN do bad tests of any kind, blind or not. And for the record, tests that do not include some kind of control are not very good.

N.B. The issue of the cochlear models has been going on for decades. I don't care to know, for sure, the models. What I can do, very nicely, is model the actual, observed outcomes. These are two very different things. One models the physiology, the other the observed phenominon.

Quote:

I do contend though, that to identify and explore traits of a product it has to be done sighted.
Why?
Because only sighted can one know the product and its architecture and investigate what the relationship is between that trait and say the music combined with the product, and whether it is impacted by other products in the chain.

In other words, the WAF, the lack of intense flashing red and purple lights from the front panel, reliability, etc, all matter.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you. Furthermore, you're working on yet another straw man of someone's invention, the idea that one is obliged to use ABX testing for determining one's personal preference.

About the first thing I said here (and elsewhere) is that personal preference is just that, personal preference.

The issue comes about when personal preference passes one's nose, in either direction.

It's that simple.

Quote:
Which leads us to Scott's knowing that Geoff is a jokester pulling everyone's leg. Where did that idea come from? Well, Buddha of course. Buddha was the first to infer the idea all of Geoff's words are mere jokes on the rest of the world. Not that Buddha has tried any of Geoff's ideas but he is convinced he has this one nailed. And, Scott, unable to come up with this one on his own, just follows along

I hear what you're saying, brother Jan. And I too have considered the idea that Scott may not actually be human. I suspect he's one of those alien drones, like in The Terminator, who transmogrifies himself into a likening of anyone in his general vicinity, to further his agenda. Buddha says Geoff is a prankster, so the impressionable Scott internalizes this, and runs with it. Scott has so psyched himself up with this idea, that anything Geoff himself says, convinces him that he is right.

Geoff: "I used to sell my pebbles in a jar, but now I ship them in a plastic bag".

Scott: "A-HA!!! So you ARE responsible for the crop circles in Kazakhstan!!! I KNEW it!! I just KNEW IT!!"

Moreover, Buddha insults May, so Scott sees this and does just the same, insulting May in an irrational fashion, like as if she's personally responsible for every girl rejecting him throughout his formative years. And I don't think there's any doubt that if jj said it is a scientific fact that the moon landing never happened, Scott would be on a forum somewhere insisting to people that the moon hoax theory is true. So I realize the Scot-bot has no opinions of its own, but what I'm wondering is, if it can be reprogrammed to fight for audio good, instead of audio evil? To represent thoughtful, intelligent, progressiveness in the community, instead of mindless knee-jerk reactionism it was programmed for? I'm going to study the schematics of the Wheeler model tomorrow, and see if there is a way to access its flash bay. Will let you know. Or let's put it this way, if the Scot-bot starts posting about aligning his screws to earth or asking about the best fishing line for suspending his cables, assume that I've been succesful.

Quote:
jj wrote: I don't presently have one, but I do have the ability to write a tube amp distortion simulator for a digital system ...

Oh, yes, of course.... Professor J. Frink is still with us, playing "audiophile hobbyist", with his new found audiophile friends. And blowing up the gym locker room in pursuit of "that tube sound that the audiofileys like". I suspect that to jj, there is really no problem on earth that can't be solved by "more Flubber".

Quote:
James and Scott,
maybe I am missing something (bit hard not to with these threads) but I do not think anyone discounts the merit of blind testing and that there are a few types of bias that affect us.

I think a few people here do discount it. But what can you do?

Quote:
However I would like to pick up on a few points you raise, which for some I am presuming does cause some irritation.
Of course with all the ding-dongs between yourself and a select few here I doubt it worries you too much.

But still, I have to question your position of argument when you put forward the case that euphonic is a general basis of preference (as one example).

Im not sure I understand your question. But we can talk about euphonic colorations. First I think we need to talk about a fundamental false premise in audio. The false premise is that stereo or multichannel is an attempt at a literal reconstruct of an original live acoustic event. It isn't. Stereo and multichannel are systems designed to create an aural illusion of an original acoustic event from a single designated listener position at the original acoustic event. This is extremely important because the difference mandates very different philosophies. If one is doing a literal reconstruct then accuracy in every step of the process would be paramount. But with an illusion we are talking about smoke and mirrors (figuratively) and with smoke and mirrors somethimes a little more smoke makes for a better illusion. The point being that if one is trying to make a better illusion one can't assume accuracy in evey link in the chain is always in best service of the illusion that we are trying to achieve. I think one of the most common assumptions in audio for both objectivists and subjectivists is that literal accuracy in every step in the audio chain is always going to lead to a better (higher fidelity more realistic) result. With this false premise both camps head off into the wrong direction. Subjectivists assume that with every percieved improvement there was some removal of some audible distortion. Objectivists often assume that via measurements one can gauge the quality of the components and the system as a whole by the lack of measured distortion. So let's consider euphonic distortion for a moment. a euphonic didtortion can come in two forms. 1. is a distortion that simply pretties up the sound. The other is a distortion that can enhance the effect of the desired aural illusion of realism. This sort of distortion is not one that a person can listen to and identify as a distortion. It will create an illusion of less distortion. So those euphonic distortions are quite counter-intuitive. So you can imagine how the false premises on both sides of the aisle can lead to these crazy arguments and dismisal on both sides of the existance and or desirability of euphonic distortions.

Quote:
The cold reality is that this cannot be presented as a trait affecting everyone, otherwise we would had seen Krell go bankrupt along with several other manufacturers, and with Class D never seeing the light of day.

That may be true if everyone had the same sensibilities and every other part of the recording and playback system were nuetral. Take a speaker system like the Apogees. They tended to be on the pretty side to begin with. Too much of a good thing becomes a problem. Also the Apogees were a bitch and a half to drive. So a tube amp may be too much of a good thing AND it may not have the ability to drive those speakers. Your 80s rack system amp usually couldn't begin to drive a speaker like the Apogees without all kinds of nasty distortions. So amps like Krell were a perfect match. they could drive any speaker to the max SPLs without audibly distortiing. OTOH many an audiophile would have told you that with many other speaker systems the Krells were cold and sterile. Some systems benefit more from some euphonic distortions than other systems. After all it is a system that we listen to.

Quote:
So yes "euphonic" sound may be preferable, but this is to some and not a trait affecting everyone.

I agree. People do have different tastes and priorities.different systems have differnt synergistic needs.

Quote:
And I guess that is the crux of a lot of arguments going back and forward between the two opposite point of views that seem in perpetual motion of attack; it seems (to my opinion) there are times that certain traits and facts being presented and applied to all audio peeps when in reality the scale and scope is not identified or is not univeral - comparable to the comment of euphonic sound and bias.

Bias and euphonic colorations are mutually independent issues. And I think neither are at the crux of this particular argument. I think the crux of this argument is the difficulty some have in seperating their perceptions which are inarguable and don't need any objective varification with the desire to ascribe mechanisms of cause for those perceptions. These proposed mechanisms are often very very unlikely and are rarely tested even though they are very testable. It seems that some can't seperate these beliefs about the mechanisms from the original perceptions. So when JJ or I challenge those mechanisms it is assumed that we are also challenging the perceptions.

Quote:
What is missing is the context to put the point against and this comes across as vague.

As another example is the discussion now raised on bias, however no context has been put forward.
So to clarify and get the ball rolling the primary bias I am aware of that has been proved in practical testing and actual scientific measurements is expectation bias.
Expectation bias can be tied into Floyd Toole's Harman test, with measurements proving the mechanism.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/3/1050.full.pdf

Other types of comments I have seen recently from some objective posters putting on a scientific front was that the model of the ear has been known for years, however what they omit is that the understanding of the ear was never complete.
And the next step of research seems to prove the ear model was not only incomplete but fundamentally missing key aspects.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/42/16510.full.pdf
The conclusion, accepted by other publications to date;
"Analysis of physiological loading effects of the hair bundles, the limbal attachment of the TM, and fluid viscosity in the subtectorial space suggests thatTMwaves also can propagate in vivo. Because these waves can stimulate hair cells and interact with the BM traveling wave, they constitute a distinct mode of motion (10, 45) that can have a significant effect on cochlear tuning and sensitivity, thereby fundamentally changing the way we think about cochlear mechanisms."

However whenever I see the mention of AbX combined with DBT it usually only applies as being used as a discussion tool to prove that subjective hearing is at fault and how science has the complete answer, when to my mind there is a balance and should be a more pragmatic view.

Subjective hearing is never "at fault." We hear what we hear, We add what we add with biases and that is what we get. That is the nature of human perception. it isn't at fault it simply is what it is. It seems some egos can't endure the very idea that their perceptions are the sum of the sound and state of mind. It seems some want to delude themselves into believing their perceptions or objective points of reference.

Quote:
I do contend though, that to identify and explore traits of a product it has to be done sighted.
Why?
Because only sighted can one know the product and its architecture and investigate what the relationship is between that trait and say the music combined with the product, and whether it is impacted by other products in the chain.

Actually one can know all those things and still do bias controlled listening tests if one wishes to do so. I do believe though as *consumers* it is a good idea to use the products under consideration as we would use them in practical use as part of the audition process. Why? Becaue that is what you will do in the end anyway after you purchase a product. In the end biases are in play.

Quote:
After all if you hear subtle breakup of sound with some sound, if blind tested and it is unknown equipment you could never know if its a combination of tweeter/midrange/crossover/etc with the amp and its own architecture combined with certain music.

well done bias controlled tests are designed to eliminate such variables. But that is one of JJ's points. It is real easy to do a bad test. But citation of *possible* problems is not evidence of inherent problems of DBTs.

Quote:
So I am a full supporter of the benefits of blind testing, however there is still a need for sighted, but most of the arguments put forward for ABX in my point of view ignore important aspects such as long term satisfaction testing (yet to see any studies done this way), while also restricting the identification of traits, and also highly cumbersome with a restricted criteria in implementation.

I don't think either JJ or I are suggesting that one need to or even ought to use ABX DBTs as a part of their protocols for auditioning components. I like to use blind protocols in my auditions because I believe they actually help direct my biases and help line them up with my actual sound only preferences when I switch to sighted listening. But that is my personal preference in my audition protocols.

Quote:
Anyway, I guess my main cut and thrust is that unless your a research scientist working in that specific field of audio research; we need to be pragmatic and realise we do not know everything and it is not right to put forward comments as facts that are not up for discussion or used as a tool against those who disagree.

I hink I agree with this if we are talking about perceptions. When we shift to opinions on the nechanisms of cause for those perceptions then we are entering a realm that is far more objective and those mechansims are more subject to objective testability.

Quote:
Expectation bias can be tied into Floyd Toole's Harman test, with measurements proving the mechanism.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

DOH!!!

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...ge=13#Post64883

Quote:
Excellent post, Steve! Clearly the "audio professional" objectivist is stating his own opinions (I assume based on no more than his personal reactions) which are not substantiated, many of which cannot be proven with the absolute certainty of rigorous scientific study and he is hoping those who are "true believers" will swallow the bait. Unfortunately for jj some of us require more than "because I say so".

There is alot of talk about tube amps producing euphonic sound, supposively caused only by harmonic distortion. That is the reason for the simulator. What is really interesting is how one can develop

Quote:
a tube amp distortion simulator for a digital system

when one does not fully understand tubes to begin with. For instance, the distortion characteristics of a particular brand of tube can be considerably different than the distortion of another brand of the same number tube. So a simulator is good for what? Many amateurs do use them, such as cirmaker etc, but they are not all that accurate.

Of course the next question is, is euphonic sound only caused by harmonic distortion. Only if all parts, from different manufacturers using different materials, construction techniques etc, sound the same as believed by some. Again this demonstrates an amateur personal opinion vs reality of actually testing.

Euphonic sound can be designed in or out.

Quote:

Quote:
I do not think anyone discounts the merit of blind testing and that there are a few types of bias that affect us.

I think a few people here do discount it. But what can you do?

You think that is true due to your biases but, what can you prove?

Nothing! other than you are biased against a few of us.

Quote:
First I think we need to talk about a fundamental false premise in audio. The false premise is that stereo or multichannel is an attempt at a literal reconstruct of an original live acoustic event. It isn't. Stereo and multichannel are systems designed to create an aural illusion of an original acoustic event from a single designated listener position at the original acoustic event. This is extremely important because the difference mandates very different philosophies.

First, you are very wrong about the dedicated listener position and how most modern stereo or mc recordings are made.

Second, no one proposed the false premise you try to discount.

Quote:
I think one of the most common assumptions in audio for both objectivists and subjectivists is that literal accuracy in every step in the audio chain is always going to lead to a better (higher fidelity more realistic) result. With this false premise both camps head off into the wrong direction.

Did you read that in a fortune cookie? There certainly is no factual basis for that assumption.

Quote:
Subjectivists assume that with every percieved improvement there was some removal of some audible distortion. Objectivists often assume that via measurements one can gauge the quality of the components and the system as a whole by the lack of measured distortion.

Oh, I see, you just made all that stuff up.

Quote:
So you can imagine how the false premises on both sides of the aisle can lead to these crazy arguments and dismisal on both sides of the existance and or desirability of euphonic distortions.

Frog, Geoff, Steve and May, hold up your hand if you think we have been discussing "euphonic distortions".

Scotty, let me get this straight, you think we are arguing the presence of "euphonic distortions"?! But you also think what May and Geoff offer has no effect? You think they are peddling "bullshit devices". But now you think they are peddling bullshit devices that do add euphonic distortions? So in the couse of one paragraph you've gone from wanting us to believe the Belt devices do nothing to the Belt devices do affect euphonic distortions?

Quote:
Bias and euphonic colorations are mutually independent issues. And I think neither are at the crux of this particular argument.

Then why'd you spend all that time talking about them?

Quote:
These proposed mechanisms are often very very unlikely and are rarely tested even though they are very testable. It seems that some can't seperate these beliefs about the mechanisms from the original perceptions. So when JJ or I challenge those mechanisms it is assumed that we are also challenging the perceptions.

How you do go on! Your insults to May are nothing more than a challenge to the mechanisms. Oh, what you've convinced yourself of, Scott. You are the Lone Ranger of the forums.

Quote:
well done bias controlled tests are designed to eliminate such variables.

And as M. Lavorgna points out audiophiles should embrace their biases because that is how they listen when they are not being tested.

Quote:
When we shift to opinions on the nechanisms of cause for those perceptions then we are entering a realm that is far more objective and those mechansims are more subject to objective testability.

Then you should have a perfectly good test for one the more popular Belt devices, Silver Rainbow Foil.

Nope, I have not been discussing euphonic distortions/sounds. My hand is down. It appears to be yet another attempt to mislead, lead on a wild goose chase. Euphonic sound can be designed in or out.

Quote:
well done bias controlled tests are designed to eliminate such variables.

Of course not only is evidence or proof missing, just vague PR comments presented, but again sidestepping the huge problems mainstream medical science presents to subjective dbt testing.

So, anyway, the original post on the thread remains quite interesting.

Tried it with each eye alone and no change.

There is a definite practice affect.

Despite JJ's claims otherwise, I think it's very instructive in terms of allowing one a chance to ponder things like intervals between stimuli, etc, with overlap with loads of different stimuli.

I haven't had much screen to screen or computer to computer variation, but there is a difference in my scores based on ambient room light and incandescent vs. flourescent lighting.

Did the inventor of the test notice anything like that?

This test seems more like a 'pure tones' hearing trial. It would be interesting to see more complex stimuli used.

Quote:

Quote:
Expectation bias can be tied into Floyd Toole's Harman test, with measurements proving the mechanism.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

DOH!!!

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...ge=13#Post64883

Double Doh
But the Toole experiment being practical nicely showed how the expectation bias works, with the scientific measurements coming from the other paper I posted.
So we have a realistic practical test, combined with a scientific research paper that models and measures the cause of the bias.
What I found really interesting of the Toole experiment more than anything else was how the actual position of the speaker affected the judgement comparing blind/sighted, just wonder if that was audio imaging calculated against sighted speakers.

James,
you say bias cannot be measured but as I said earler.
Unless your an expert in this field how can you make such conclusive comments?
Also bear in mind the research I am providing has not and I doubt will never be presented to AES due to their interest purely in research and those in that specific area.
It might be good as secretary of AES to deem whether it could be beneficial for them to do so though.
Anyway it would help if you can share in greater detail what you define as bias in your statement, with their theory models and associated research.
It does not help the discussion when you just say it cannot be measured and that other models of bias are at work.

We have 1 highly specific research paper that shows the bias associated with pleasure/placebo/the con factor CAN be measured and it is shown in that paper, which has been peer reviewed.

To me, the only other bias that would affect our judgement is rationale based such as that which cause racial discrimination/etc.
And yes we can see that at work by how many purchase their equipment and ignore in their review the negative traits they identified only to at a later date repeat the cycle of auditioning, however logic based bias is easier to overcome if approaching from an analytical mindset.
You may mention loudness, but then I am yet to see any research that truly proves by use of a model theory and scientific measurement how loudness is consistently seen as biased.
As one who has been trained for pitch/loudness/chords and also my friends who are musicians we have never found we prefer a louder playback to one that is quieter.
So I feel this is another bias such as the euphonic which is not applicable to everyone or probably not even to most.
If you do have information otherwise it would be great to share as this is one aspect that seems under-researched to me (ignoring equalisation curves).

Scott, to be honest I think you may misunderstand what I am saying and your response is not a fair reflection of my post.
Also please try to share some context on your points, I am trying to lead the way on this but both you and James still seem to be responding in a certain mindset as if in the trenches of a war.
The perpetual cycle of this aggressive argument type posting needs to be broken by someone.

Anyway moving forward, what I really would love is for the expectation bias research to be looked at by Stereophile staff, as it would be highly interesting to see in greater detail the mOFC mechanism at work.
Such ideas that come to mind;
1. Can the expectation bias be controlled by professional or experienced listeners?
2. Its been proven in other research that people can/do react more positively to the more expressive work when compared to an identical pure noted version.
http://www.ccs.fau.edu/~large/Publications/NairLarge2002.pdf
This raises the question, do we have expectation bias mechanism in effect when starting up music we really enjoy compared to those that we dislike or not interested in?
3. What is the duration of expectation bias once it initiates, and does it have certain behavioral patterns?

Those are just some I can think of.

Orb

Hi, Orb, welcome.

Lots of cool expectation bias data.

There is good fiscal/expectation data that likely transfers well to the realm of audio, as well.

More pricey placebos work better than cheap ones.

This has great implications for tweak pricing/marketing. If a tweak doesn't work, mark it up 'til it does!