| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Post deleted by sasaudio
Unlike the quackery in the anti-dbt post I was referring to, I know what I'm talking about and you know it as well, given your quote from netnews.
That wasn't a quote from netnews, jj. It was a quote from memory. From any one of my debates with you, years ago. You were no less an arrogant defender of pseudoscience then, as I see you are now. Some people evolve, get wisdom, overcome the arrogance of their "youth", and see the failure of the blinkered dogma they spent years preaching, to no avail. And then there's people like you. One of the automatons that KBK was referring to (which I simply call "non-thinkers", allowing "the sacred DBT" and the "authority figures" of their religion do their thinking for them). I'm glad to see you have found your "blinkered dogmatist" paradise on the AVS Forum. No, really, I am. Which begs the question: why are you here? Still hoping to convert a lost soul of the dreadful "High End Audio Establishment" to your DBT religion? If you ever do, let me know. I'll bump your counter to: 1.
Ergo, I actualy get to say things like that.
ROTFL!
And I actually get to say things like "Logical fallacy #14: Appeal To Authority". Which just blew your entire appeal right out of the room.
I don't know, but it seems you used to be less blatant in your puerile hypocrisy, jj. You would get on your little soapbox (in order to reach your opponent's normal height), and cry to an empty stadium about how he failed to provide any evidence to support his "vigorous assertions". Appeals to authority are no more scientific, you would argue, than sighted listening tests. "Evidence is all that matters! And the harder, the better!", you'd cry. Realize that you're not getting past me with nothing more than an appeal to authority - or any other logical fallacy, while we're at it. So try again. I'm sure that if nothing else, it will be infinitely amusing.
What's more, you knew that when you attempted your propaganda.
How so? You mean like, you know that audio DBT's are a farce, and have absolutely no value to audiophiles or anyone who cares about good sound, when you attempted to troll the Stereophile forums to preach your DBT propaganda?
You don't get to speak with authority, unless you'd like to provide clear evidence of your identity, your proven expertise in DBT's, etc.
ROTFL, Part 2!!
Stop it, you're gonna give me a hernia! Seriously, is this the best you can come up with, these days? "You're wrong and I'm right, because I'm 'j.j. the curmudgeon', and I say you're wrong!!"? This is what you are hoping will convince fence-sitters to join the flock of your DBT church? Here, jj the curmudgeon. Here is my proven expertise: http://info-pollution.com/appeal.htm As for the "evidence of my identity", check out YouTube. Xenophanes has already graciously provided us with the links.
We've tasted the buns jj, now where's the beef? Like I already said, if you don't come back with evidence to give me to support your arguments against KBK, including clear evidence of your proven expertise in producing beer, as well as clear evidence supporting the claims you made about the chemical makeup of beer, do yourself a favour and don't come back. I'll simply expose the fallacies and hypocrisy of your DBT-religion all the more, until you come to regret not having taken my friendly advice.
Given your assertion that DBT-fanatics can't get emotionally involved in MUSIC. I think it's pretty clear, just from that, that you are disqualified as speaking from authority.
ROTFL, Part 3!!:
I'm sorry you fail to realize this: you by default, are disqualified from acting as the judge in your own debate. All that's clear here is that a) You don't know what a "winky face" implies and b) You claim to be a mind reader. I have in fact both given and undertaken many DBTs and other types of so-called "objective" audio tests, which is one reason why I can speak the truth about them, and I fully understand the relation between emotional invovement in music reproduction, and the quality of the reproduction. I have polled DBT-extremists for many years, more than I care to reflect on, and come to understand these two things about your lunatic-fringe group:
a) Most DBTers have God-awful sounding hifi systems. Which they've nevertheless managed to convince themselves are the bee's knees.
b) They usually don't count "emotional involvement" as a sonic criteria; along with bass, treble, soundstage, etc. I guess because it's not one of those things that shows up in FR measurements.
The difference between DBT "true believers", a very small segment of this hobby to be sure, and the rest of the community, is a self-inflicted "stunted growth syndrome" that DBTers exhibit. Audio DBT's, which have never been scientifically validated, and the DBT-fanatics (who wrongly call themselves "objectivists") that this pseudoscience has attracted, have never done a single thing to advance high end audio in the history of this aberration.
"A taunt and then 4 individuals appear from AVS, Hydrogen forum etc who either haven't posted at all or for a long time."
I trust they were a well-mannered and knowledgeable lot.
Yup, that's "jj" all right. That's what he just did with me - complete lack of proof for his assertions. Quite typical actually, in my experience with these DBT debaters. They'll demand "proof" but will do everything to squirm out of providing any for their claims, when asked. jj takes that to a new level it seems: "proof by arrogance". No proof needed apparently, when you are arrogantly told that you are supposedly in the presence of a self-professed "audio expert", and that this risible appeal to authority is "proof enough" of anything he says. I gotta hand it to the curmudgeon for even having the moxy to try that around here. I wonder how much kool-aid you have to drink before that tactic becomes effective?
Oh, so you noticed that too? No, it's no coincidence that Ethan Winer tells Sean Olive on Olive's blog that he will post his DBT test on Stereophile, and does just that. And then, out of the woodwork, come his friends... the DBT zombies from AVS Forum and HydrogenAudio.... Some creating new accounts just to "educate us on the importance of the long-discounted audio DBT", that audiophiles have never cared about. Some reviving old accounts after years. And have you noticed this?:
"I have said this for years thank you for posting ! High end audio mfgs. would cringe at this because people love to associate price with quality of the product but this study confirms what we already suspected."
This was written by Rich Meyer, the first post to follow Ethan's in this thread a mere 20 min. after, when the thread was called "The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests" (which ironically, is the conclusion of a dishonest DBT test by Sean Olive). Why is this noteworthy? Because Rich Meyer describes his occupation as "internet marketing manager". And just recently, he posted a message in the Tweaks forum; a tip for us about this great budget CD player he heard of by a company called "Emotiva" (and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's never heard of this company). As it turns out, the CD player has not even been released yet, and his entire message was in fact a blurb taken directly out of the ad on their website. What kind of a company is this? Home theatre oriented (as opposed to "high end audio"), that makes low priced audio gear that is supposed to be "superior in every way" to others.
I have said this for years: DBT propagandists try to market this idea (to high end audiophiles) that DBT's "prove" everything sounds the same, in an effort to level the playing field for their mediocre audio scrap, and even take "sound" (the most important criteria for audiophiles) out of the equasion. Because they know their products can't compete on sound, with true high end components that are built around the importance of sound quality. This is I believe is what Sean Olive was trying to do for harman int'l., and what RichM was trying to do for "Emotiva Audio Corp.". This is why that if one of these DBT-preachers told me it was raining outside, I would have to go outside and look.
Here's his message:
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...=true#Post65943
When those dismissing DBT's for the purpose that they are actually advocated for provide even a modicum of evidence for their position, discussion will be possible.
Until then, they have the same stature as so-called 'creation scientists'.
It is unsurprising, then, that they show such puerile conduct and contempt for the very science that gives them sound reproduction in any form.
When those designtaing DBT's for universal purposes are actually able to discriminate between results and conclusions as evidence for their position, discussion will be possible.
Until then, they have the same stature as so-called 'creation scientists'.
It is unsurprising, then, that they show such puerile conduct and contempt for the very science that gives them sound reproduction in any form.
Perfect!
Hey, I heard there's a guy who can't tell Lafite from Les Feet in DBT. It must prove the wine industry is dioshonest!
JJ, really, buy a logic book.
I agree. DBTs were never advocated by the (real) scientific community (as opposed to, say, audio researchers who like to gain prestige by calling themselves quote unquote "scientists") for use in determinations regarding high end hifi systems. The reasons for which are obvious to all but audio-DBT advocates, apparently. So rational discussions on them are not possibly. Sorry.
I agree. Audio researchers who believe DBTs are infallible have the same stature as so-called "creation scientists". They both tend to use the cachet of science as a political weapon to gain stature and a measure of "authority" in their misguided beliefs.
There goes those misguided beliefs again. Contempt for DBTs is not contempt for audio engineering. It is merely contempt for wayward souls who insist, no demand, that their pseudoscientific beliefs are somehow infallible (rejecting anything that says they aren't), and can dismiss what the empirical evidence from 99% of audiophiles out there says with the convienient catch-all excuse that "you're all suffering from the "placebo effect" ". "DBT's" is not "the science that gives us sound". That would be engineering. That you think it's DBT's would explain why you are not an audio engineer.
I have a lot of respect for both real science and good audio engineers, for the record. Those who care about sound first, and making cash, second. For every high end company you can name that actually use DBTs throughout the engineering of their products, I can name you 10 that don't. I laughed a hearty good laugh when your pal Sean Olive wrote at the conclusion of his useless DBT:
"It
I believe it comes down to those who can trust, train, manage, separate, quantify, and thus understand their differing human sensory packages.......and those who cannot.
Ie, those who are comfortable in the knowing and living in their own skin; both the complexity and simplicity, the very yin-yang of it ...and got past it long ago. This, vs whose who are not, or have limited awareness in those areas.
ie, they simply don't trust themselves.
They are ignorant enough in these areas that they somehow feel the need to thrust their incapacity, insecurity, and finally, 'inhumanity' so rudely upon the rest of us.
I use the word inhumanity -as what else is there to use?
I mean, it's your problem folks, your issue -you deal with it. Stop putting it on my plate. Ie, get over yourself with a bit of insightful thinking and growth. Stop bringing this crap to the rest of us. We are doing just fine.
How can you argue against that?
Isn't everyone tired of this by now?
You go ahead and pick your spouse, your pet, your home and your hifi by whatever means you prefer. Though I'll bet if you A-B-X the spouse part you'll wind up taking home neither.
How can you not like a man who knows when his equipment is licked...?
And here we agree, mah brutha.
It's really the main point -- fitting claims to evidence, no more or less. Using qualification where necessary. Imagine if the high-end did that!
Slight disagreement. What Toole and Olive's work shows rather well -- as has been shown analogously for many other consumer products -- is that nonaudible factors tend to affect loudspeaker preference, when choice is made 'sighted'.
So *IF* -- and this is a big IF -- a consumer truly wanted to evaluate a loudspeaker's *sound*, and only the sound, without any biasing effects, then the sighted method isn't the best method. A DBT would be *needed* for that particular task.
The correlary is that when the typical consumer (and reviewer) THINKS he is evaluating the loudspeakers based only on the sound, he's probably not. But it's usually the best he can do.
Unfortunately, what also happens is that the consumer/reviewer implicitly or explicity claims that he REALLY DID evaluate *just* the sound of the speakers without being affected by other factors. And off we go to the audiophile races....
More care in noting possible, scientifically-established sources of bias, would be a good thing in audio reporting.
Your argument from personal incredulity has been noted and filed appropriately.
The biasing effects of appearance, price, brand reputation on consumer choice are well-studied, and not just in audio. There are companies devoted JUST to providing test results about such effects to other companies. Obviously anything that affects consumer choice is of great interest to corporate America. You can bet IT doesn't discount the idea the way you do.
To the particular point of this thread: do you seriously believe Sean Olive tested just one or two people? And that none of his subjects were 'audiophiles'.
you are conflating the typical listener and consumer with the typical reviewer.
The two are miles apart.
If the two are not, in your mind - then the problem is you, not the methodology of listening/reviewing speakers at and in audio magazines.
It really is that simple.
One of my favorite t-shirt slogans (mine own design, as well-I'm trying to get a specific point to settle into people's brains):
"AVERAGE is for NORMAL"
A different way of saying, stop bringing this crap to people who know better.
Then you can get into the whole psychological train of thought that can surround the idea of let's say the reviewer (or scientist) knowing better, and the general populace in some fashion recognizing that (as the group animal that they are)..and this reviewer's (or scientist's) word being taken as gospel. This happens in religions, where the prophet's time ends and their correctly 'liquid and ever-changing analysis to fit the situation' (human, live, real, etc!) existence somehow gets written into stone and run by a bunch of second tier nimrods into some sort of soul grinding extrapolation of perpetuity for the sake of the mental peace of the said nimrods who have no real capacity for reasoning of their own.
It is not a slight to say that balance requires insight and intelligence tied together.
To say that DBT is some sort of concrete reality that is fundamentally necessary -- is a crock of shit that embraces neither intelligence or insight.
I'm not picking on Floyd Toole, But I AM picking on people who want to bring his words and findings to me as some sort of gospel. It is merely the result of controlled tests that Floyd has done in a given environment with a given group of people. NOTHING MORE. Extrapolating from that the insinuation that I am incapable of understanding the sonic presentation of a piece of gear ONLY if it is done blind is the real 'mental stink' in thinking here. It is borne in the mind of the given person due to them not trusting themselves and/or not having the capacity to make correct judgement calls.
Learn how to do so -or don't, but stop thrusting this crap onto my plate.
What is your major malfunction, DBT people/fanatics?
And that's about all there is to it.
Oh yes, that's abundantly clear.
I am saying that both make the same methodological and logical mistake: they assume they have been unaffected by nonaudible factors.
Well, no. But you get to think that. Especially here.
(It can be entertaining: I especially enjoy when reviews seem to contradict what JA's measurements show.)
As for the need for experimental controls (DBT is one) not being a 'concrete and fundamental reality', that would be joyous news to every scientist I know, if it were true.
Last, and certainly least, I don't choose gear using DBT methods -- mainly because I can't. And all that means is that I don't make 'concrete and real' claims for the differences I hear, unless there's some other objective reason for them to exist (which is why I'd be happy to claim that two different loudspeakers sound different -- the measurements would very likely back me up).
Simple as that, really.
That's putting a finger on it; "DBTologists" simply don't trust themselves. I once asked one of the developers of a DBT comparator system to try doing subjective tests between very disparate pieces of audio gear, and that should end the debate right there. But of couse, he dismissed the very idea with this belief: it doesn't matter if he hears differences with his own two ears under subjective listening, or what differences he hears - he doesn't trust his own ears to tell him what a piece of audio equipment sounds like. The unflinching belief in DBT's supercedes all reason and rationality, apparently.
Oh, the inhumanity! No really, good word!
Indeed! It's a wonder how most of the history of audio has managed without the wonderment of audio-DBT's, and all the great benefits they bring. I don't even know how I can tie my shoes in the morning without DBT's. Must be why I keep tripping all the time....
Completely fine and great post!
Fair enough!
I do wonder why you think it has to be DBT.
Single blind should be OK, it would seem.
Or, if you are Ethan, you can do it sighted and just declare yourself unaffected by sighted listening.
It seems our biggest objectivists here don't shop or make claims about their own gear in any DBT fashion.
Nope, and we don't trust your ears either! It's a consistent view. And the science is on our side, for that. I could probably fool you quite easily into believing two 'same' things sound different.
"Subjective' test of 'very disparate gear' - how did you quantify 'very disparate'? If it's *measurably* disparate enough -- like, say, typically two different loudspeakers -- you can make a reasonable call that they will be audibly different, and no 'DBTologist' will dispute it.
'Positive' DBT results are legion. As jj said, DBT *works*. Audiophiles are just annoyed that the positve difference results haven't been forthcoming for certain beloved classes of audio devices/technologies.
Quite sensibly cautious. Btw, was this Arny Kruger, David Carlstrom, or one of the QSC guys?
No, he was basing his caution on good evidence from research into human hearing and psychology. That's very rational.
,
They don't believe 'subjective critical listening tests' (by which I think you mean, 'sighted' A/B type test) are particularly reliable. For good reason. As Sean Olive's work (for example) showed.
A *TRULY* 'critical' subjective listening test is one where only the sound matters -- in other words, a blind subjective listening test.
What part of this are you folks not understanding?
oh, so I'm not a 'troll' anymore? ;>
I don't think Ethan claimed to be *unaffected* -- but he can read my posts as well as you can. I think he would agree he was still susceptible to biasing effects on preference, and that a DBT setup would be required to *nail it down*.
However, AIUI both the Revel and his loudspeakers measure very well, and it could be that the measurements alone support his perception well.
First, DBT is always preferable to SBT because int he latter the 'tester' may consciously or unconsciously cue the 'subject'-- the 'Clever Hans' effect.
Again, in science, this is elementary , uncontroversial stuff -- Experimental Methods 101.
Second, 'DBTologists' can and do make claims about gear even in the absence of DBTs, from objective data about it.
The only 'universal purpose' DBT is even remotely being 'designated' for , is to demonstrate an audible difference where there is no good objective evidence for assuming one to exist.
Now, audiophiles can claim all they want they they are 'hearing' such difference routinely -- and not being biased at all by other factors that can either produce a 'false positive' for difference, or can influence quality evaluation where real difference exists -- but the science is emphatically not on their side there.
So they can either ignore the science, and essentially claim to be infallible unbiased detectors, or they can qualify their claims.
Your choice.
Yep. The analogy between creationists, whom I've also dealt with, and the halfwit reactionary anti-DBT wing of audiophilia is quite apt, IME. One thing they're both prone to, is being stubbornly ignorant of what the other side is actually saying and the evidence provided, or mischaracterizing it outright.
The 3/4-witted of them even attempt satire (see Michael Frog) but satire based on ignorance only works for an audience no better informed than the satirist.
LOL. A 'logic book'.
Well, at least you did go back and read the thread. You still got it as ass backwards as all the other DBT devotees who insist this has to be a fight and that they are superior in every way.
But you did go back and read - you failed miserably but you did regurgitate something from what? a week and a half past? What's the point in that? You just had to get a little swipe in when no one was looking?
What a brave little boy you are.
OH, LOOK! It's a convention of mini-ethans!
The title still says it all. What a bunch of jerks!
Nope, and we don't trust your ears either! It's a consistent view.
That's just my point. Unlike you and your DBT crew, I don't ask anyone to "trust my ears". I have always publically espoused the consistent view that people should trust their own. Read this next part carefully, because this is where you lose the debate: You DBTologists are asking me and everyone else to trust the ears of perfect strangers who took a DBT test. No matter how many people that is, or how many tests they took, I don't automatically assume they can hear what I can. Especially under blind conditions. This is what makes audio DBT's quite unrelated to real DBT's used in real sciences, despite superificial similarities in methodology.The nature of audio DBT's is that they demand special skills from their subjects in order to derive any meaningful data out of them. Pharmacological DBT's don't. This is why you can't extrapolate anything meaningful from the abberation that is the audio DBT, even if the conductor does have the level-headed sense to think of using two speakers.
All this of course assumes that those who analyze and give us the "results" of the test don't themselves have an agenda to push, which pretty much never occurs, and that the DBT was done correctly, which they rarely ever are. A good example of this is the 1999 Stereophile DBT debate between the distinguished editor, John Atkinson, and the infamous net kook known as "Arny Krueger". If you asked any audiophile who won the debate, they'd say it was clearly John Atkinson. And if you asked any DBT fanatic who won the debate, they'd say Krueger wiped up the floor with him. I have never seen one true ounce of "objectivity" within the so-called "objectivist" camp who peddle this DBT hogwash. I'm sure I'll be told next that it's because all the true objectivists in audio don't engage in web discussion groups.
And the science is on our side, for that. I could probably fool you quite easily into believing two 'same' things sound different.
In doing so, you are probably already fooling yourself. I know a lot more about what can produce perceptive changes in audio than you do. There is a lot that "science" has not even bothered to try to discover, about audio, and perception of musical sound in audio. To assume it has, well that's just ignorant beyond all words. Those on the frontlines doing the grunt work are more likely to know more about this than the pretend scientist members of the AES - who on the whole, all but deny that audio even produces a sound. My point is this: how do you and how can you know what are "two same things"? If there's a difference between two conditions; maybe there's a valid reason for that which you are unaware of. This is but one of the many ways DBT enthusiasts conclude false "truths" from false presumptions.
"Subjective' test of 'very disparate gear' - how did you quantify 'very disparate'? If it's *measurably* disparate enough --
No, "very disparate" like $500 vs. $5,000. Or put another way, disparate enough in quality that even a non-audiophile with one working ear suffering from tinititus would have no problem hearing the differences in sound quality.
like, say, typically two different loudspeakers -- you can make a reasonable call that they will be audibly different, and no 'DBTologist' will dispute it.
Tell that to Sean Olive. Or did you not read the DBT test we are discussing in this thread?
'Positive' DBT results are legion. As jj said, DBT *works*.
Yes. And the "proof" that audio DBT *works*, is that he's an "audio expert" and everyone else is not. I heard his mantra, but I guess I have to drink some more kool aid before it 'works' on me.
Audiophiles are just annoyed that the positve difference results haven't been forthcoming for certain beloved classes of audio devices/technologies.
Thank you for establishing that you are not even an audiophile. Yes, we're so 'annoyed' that DBT's "prove" everything sounds the same, that most consumers of audio equipment think that a "DBT" must be some kind of deli sandwich. I think that's what most annoys you and JJ and the rest, and the very reason y'all insist on pushing an irrelevant and unpopular belief system.
Quite sensibly cautious. Btw, was this Arny Kruger, David Carlstrom, or one of the QSC guys?
Yes, it was.
No, he was basing his caution on good evidence from research into human hearing and psychology. That's very rational.
Not when it causes you to believe that a Pioneer rack system sounds every bit as good as a Krell system. Then it becomes not just a laughable degree of self-delusion but just short of a dangerous one.
They don't believe 'subjective critical listening tests' (by which I think you mean, 'sighted' A/B type test) are particularly reliable. For good reason. As Sean Olive's work (for example) showed.
Yes, I know. This is where we must suspend all intelligent thought and pretend that one audio researcher with an agenda and a reason to show everything sounds the same overrules the experience of millions of audiophiles who find sighted A-B type tests to be quite reliable over the long run; more so than the DBT's they may have taken.
A *TRULY* 'critical' subjective listening test is one where only the sound matters -- in other words, a blind subjective listening test. What part of this are you folks not understanding?
I guess it would be the part where it violates the scientific range rule. The part that you're not understanding.
Now you know why I call DBT hawkers "DBTologists". They're more "scientology" than they are about "science". They call themselves "objectivists", but I have never seen a DBTologist who wasn't agenda-driven. The article about the Mundorf caps is only but one good example of that. Ethan claims to be an audio expert and tells people that tests prove that caps have no sound. JJ (Jim Johnston) claims to be an audio expert and supports what Ethan says about caps having no sound. Both fellows make "appeals to authority", by constantly telling people to believe what they are saying, because they are "audio experts". My concern is that audio noobs might buy into the pitch these fellows are making, reasoning that they themselves are not "audio experts", self-professed or otherwise, and that the DBT-advocates must know better about whether capacitors can influence the sound, because after all, they claim to be self-professed "audio experts". Yet as you pointed out, when you are informed of the real results of the test, you can see for yourself that it isn't at all saying that caps can't influence sound. On the contrary, the author concludes he will not part with his Mundorfs. I thank you for illustrating this example, because it shows that just as easily as test results can be manipulated to further a personal agenda someone might have, ignorance about audio can spread from one mind to another.
So I agree one should not blindly trust either side. Which refers back to what I had emphatically stated to "krabapple": you have simply to learn to trust your own ears, not pseudoscientific rhetoric. They are after all, what will remain with you after all the DBT and snake oil smoke clears.
I suggest that in the future you do not lie about what either of us have said. I think that a complete, abject, and sincere retraction of your claim should be forthcoming, so get with it.
No, I state AS an authority. An appeal to authority fallacy happens when false authority is cited. So I would suggest that not only are you telling lies about what my position on capacitors is (in fact I haven't even stated it here, so it's quite dishonest to claim otherwise), but that you are either ignorant of what an "appeal to authority" fallacy is, or that you are lying about who is an authority.
Well, that's a hoot, "trust your own ears" is, after all, shown to be quacked, pseudoscientific rhetoric.
It is quite telling that the obscene professional insults uttered here are done so under a pseudonym.
I would suggest that this board take up the same policy as many other boards, and require people to post under their name, and to take full responsibility for their words.
Maybe it's time "Mr. Authority" describe how he chose his Hi Fi gear.
We know Ethan fell into the trap of using sighted listening, and claims he doesn't require these in his listening trials.
Good for the goose, but not the gander, I guess.
OK, JJ, tell us how you shop!
___
It's cool how a one speaker trial is found by an 'authority' to have such broad application in audio!
No need to even address the other points that were broguth up about how the test was done and interpreted.
Since a blind test was done, your work here is over!
Careful, man, Ethan trusts his own ears.
So do you, I bet.
Sean's data point out that even serious/excperienced listeners are fooled by sighted listening.
I think it's time to set up a chain of Hi FI stores with no lighting or windows, and all listening is done blind. Your salesman is really your guide, then!
Krabapple made a misstatement. Those participating in a DBT have only their own ears to rely upon. In sighted auditioning, one relies on seeing and other senses besides hearing as well, and one's knowledge the device under test. In sighted auditioning, one can identify the DUT with virtually 100% accuracy (I say 'virtually' because one might make recording errors). After all, one already knows the identity of the DUT. In a double blind test, one can only rely on one's hearing.
Toole and Olive have done preference testing on loudspeakers over some decades, even before coming to work for Harman International. Preference testing presupposes that they sound different, and as a rule it is hardly necessary to do same/difference testing on loudspeakers as virtually all of them do sound different. Toole and Olive have established that sighted evaluations of speakers are likely to be different from evaluations done under controlled blind conditions.
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf
I have never seen or heard anyone affirm that everything sounds the same. That affirmation seems to be a figment of your imagination.
You appear to suffer some time displacement. The debate between John Atkinson and Arny Krueger did not take place in 1999 but in 2005. It is certainly true that John Atkinson was unable to dispute any of Krueger's points. So it is clear that on any rational grounds, Krueger won the debate. Atkinson himself offered an anecdote in which he misapplied the results of a DBT. He took a DBT and generalized to his own system, bought an unsuitable amplifier. You can find the link to the debate in a self-serving article by Jason Victor Serinus:
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
Whether you like it or not, jj is a world class expert in audio psychometrics, with many peer-reviewed articles to his credit. You show no expert knowledge, just as the fellow who found Michigan J. Frog failed to show MJF could sing and dance to other people.
Range rule--is that where you feast on range fed chicken eggs before listening? When you can show that DBTs fail a range rule, get back to us.
You know, you actually bring up a good point without even knowing it. Yes, I do trust my ears - I trust them because I've been a pro audio engineer for 40 years. If my ears were no good I'd have changed careers 39 years ago. I also know that my ears are not as reliable as I wish they were. Such is the frailty of human hearing. At least I understand this!
The difference between me and guys who are certain they can "hear capacitors" and hear the effect of "demagnetizing plastic" is that my hearing is thus proven superior to theirs. I never once was fooled into thinking I heard such silliness that so obviously does not exist.
--Ethan
Hey Ethan,
I heard your cat talk shit about your system when I was over for a visit. I trust my ears and the cat swears he never lies.
Yeah, Bear is pretty nasty that way. But that's nothing compared to what he said about you after you left.
--Ethan
Please read this thread more carefully.
Perhaps you should, instead, try to argue agains the position I actually hold, rather than the dishonest straw man position quoted above. I'm not sure if you actually are the one who started that lie, or you just sucked it down with the rest of the audiophile koolaide.
Ethan, Ethan, Ethan.
If you claim that the same recording can sound different on different days (if I paraphrase you correctly,) then how come you have never been fooled by thinking wires sound different? They sound the same every time. Amazing!
"Never once fooled?"
That does not paint a very healthy picture.
We all need to be fooled, and then decide what happened. If you "have never been fooled," then you have missed things! Sometimes we are fooled, whether a difference exists or not! You said so, yourself.
You think all the 'real' evolution of audio, or science, has been done by ANYBODY who was never fooled?
Lots of examples of, "I thought I heard something, I better check it out," and then either nothing came of it or something came of it. Sometimes they were 'fooled,' other times not.
People who are never fooled are not exactly the ones we want trying to accomplish things. All the great scientists were fooled many times. Ever read a book by a great thinker who says he was has "never been fooled, not once?"
In medicine, they even build in a 'getting fooled' rate to make sure they are being sensitive enough about looking for things. An example: The classic gold starndard for doing appendectomies is about a 15% 'normal appendix' rate. Yes, they were 'fooled' into operating, but this ensures they are less likely to ignore a real problem. Even pros with 40 years experience build in a 'fooled' rate.
They want to keep sensitivity at a premium, and sometimes sacrifice specificity.
Ethan, if you have a 0% 'fooled rate,' then I'd say you aren't listening close enough.
Part of the process of making progress is being fooled here and there.
Claiming infalibility is poor augury for actual infalibility.
Now, this "I trust my ears because...40 years...blah blah blah."
Dude, you are still susceptible to bias, especially with sighted trials. As we all are, by the way. Ethan, your are not uniquely immune, Sean has tested 'experienced listeners,' and they are as easily fooled as many novices. You can't deny Sean's truth by claiming time spent listening - unless Sean is wrong!
If you ain't shopping for speakers via blind listening, then you are as dishonest as anybody.
A DBT hypocrite. Preaching the law, yet not practicing it.
I am shocked. SHOCKED!
(JJ disclaimer: JJ, Ethan is a great guy and I am teasing him.)
So, then.
Your idea of teasing involves accusations of professional misconduct.
I find that, well, unusual.
Did you bother to read where I pointed out (and I think others did as well) that a preference for something going into the home must necessarily involved more than how something sounds?
If you did, then you'd understand why blind listening isn't the only thing involved in shopping for anything.
Blind listening is to discover how something sounds, and only sounds.
I consider Ethan a friend, so I have at him, and he at me.
If I had a nickle for every time Ethan has claimed my gear must be broken in order for me hear something I mention, I'd have alot of nickles!
Ethan is a kind and generous person with much humor. He knows I like and admire him. He also talks about his gear, how he does things personally, etc. Ethan doesn't cross that line to being a tendentious pedant that some other DBT thumpers fall prey to doing.
Ethan is a cut above the usual hoi polloi.
_____
So, did you read where people mentioned that a one speaker blind trial doesn't really apply to broad conclusions about stereo listening and certainly doesn't support the bone headed conclusion that the audio industry 'needs to grow up?'
Maybe you could diagram that:
Sean chose a group of speakers for a one speaker listening trial. Preferences changed with blind vs. sighted listeing. Therefore, the audio industry needs to grow up and sighted listening is dishonest.
I'll try one more time: How does Sean's data support his conclusion?
Also, since you seem enamored of his conclusion, how would you apply that to the industry?
Let's get to the details.
Oh, would you happen to have done DBT's when speakers shopping so you know how your home speakers sound, just sound? Which speakers do you use?
So, in your mind, the "audio industry" includes all consumers?
Could you please explain that to me?
It is my opinion that the "I hate Sean" side has mischaracterized his opinion from the beginning. The "one speaker" objection is simply irrelevant. The "audio industry" does not include end consumers. That's just two examples of the nonsense being bandied about.
I suggest that in the future you do not lie about what either of us have said.
I suggest that in the future you do not lie about lying about what either of you (whoever you may be) have said.
I think that a complete, abject, and sincere retraction of your claim should be forthcoming, so get with it.
(Blank stare). (Stunned silence). (Pause 10 seconds...). ROTFL!
You know, you always were a hoot, JJ. This silly phony indignation retort of yours didn't work 15 years ago on me or anyone else that I know of. What in the holy blue blazes makes you think its going to work now? 
Quote:Both fellows make "appeals to authority",
No, I state AS an authority.
Man, what an ego! For someone like you who violates so many logical fallacies in the delivery of your weak arguments jj, you should really inform yourself better. "Argument from authority", which is the logical fallacy you're guilty of here, is the same beast as "appeal to authority". Here, maybe Wikipedia can explain it to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority. Read this part extra carefully: "the fallacy arises when it is implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism".
I note as welll, that if you had anything better to counter my aguments, you would not have to use this tactic. Thank you for illustrating what I have been saying all along; that your only strong argument for believing in DBT's is to submit to an authority figure; and a "self-professed" one no less. One who isn't even an audio engineer, and has never designed and marketed an audio component in his entire life! As my friend Bugsy says, "It is to laugh".
An appeal to authority fallacy happens when false authority is cited.
Wrong. Maybe you wouldn't make so many logical fallacies if you understood what they were. Remember, I'm only trying to help you get better at your game, jj. Because if Stereophile is just the first (or simply "next") stop on a net-wide agenda of trolling all of the high end audiophile discussion forums, along with your AVS Forum friends "krabapple", "Steven Sullivan" etc., in an effort to "convert" audiophiles to this pseudoscientific audio-DBT religion of yours, which is something you've been trying to do in this DBT crusade you've been waging against the audiophile community for the last 20 years or so... you guys are definitely going to need to get better at this.
Start by reading what Wikipedia says about the "appeal to authority" fallacy:
"This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premisses can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). "
you have simply to learn to trust your own ears, not pseudoscientific rhetoric.
Well, that's a hoot, "trust your own ears" is, after all, shown to be quacked, pseudoscientific rhetoric.
Uh no, not quite, partner. (Though I realize you probably don't even believe that nonsense yourself in private, but your agenda demands that you state otherwise). It's your audio DBT's that have, after all, been shown to be quacked, pseudoscientific rhetoric. "Trust your own ears" (wow, what a concept!) has shown to have worked on the whole, since the beginning of the hifi industry; long before the audio DBT was devised by a small group of people who didn't trust their own ears. As has been shown time and time again, the simple practice of trusting one's own hearing has steered people far better than trusting someone else's hearing, which is what DBT's demand you do. This btw, is not even debatable, so save yourself the trouble.
It is quite telling that the obscene professional insults uttered here are done so under a pseudonym.
Oh indeed. You should really consider posting under your real name, if you're going to continue that sort of thing.
I would suggest that this board take up the same policy as many other boards, and require people to post under their name, and to take full responsibility for their words.
Er, no. Sorry, matey. Trolls who recently came here from the AVS Forum, joining Stereophile only to kick up DBT dust in this thread, do not get to make demands on how the forum should be run. When you have 240 posts to your 'nym, and they're not all in one thread, then maybe you can start talking about that. Furthermore "jj", trolls who make such a demand and don't even post under their own name, even less so. Everyone here takes "full responsibility" for their words. They are bound to, by the TOS. So don't you come off of AVS or Hydrogen and insult everyone here, and suggest that you take more responsibility than anyone else, simply because your pseudonym is "jj". No one forced you to come here, and if you don't like the policy of a board soon as you arrive, then no one's forcing you to stay, either. I won't even waste time arguing the stupidity of your "suggestion" in the first place, because I have never heard of any board that has such a ridiculous policy, or how they would even go about enforcing it.
Perhaps you should, instead, try to argue agains the position I actually hold, rather than the dishonest straw man position quoted above.
I did, and I do. It's basically this (though I'm sorry if I'm not using your exact words): "My name is 'jj'. I claim that is my real name. First name "J". Last name "J". You know, just like it's spelled on my driver's license. Please make a note of that, because using "real names" on discussion groups is very very very very very very very very very important to me. n.b. If I don't think your name sounds as real as my name, and exactly at the point which I feel am losing the debate, I will claim it isn't as real as mine, and try to use that as an ad hominem debating tactic against you. I listen to music, but only as a means of testing audio-DBT's. Which is like a religion to me. I start or troll DBT threads, arguing with high end "audiophools" to get them to join my audio-DBT religion, that proves they are wrong and that everything-really-just-sounds-the-same. I constantly like to tell everyone that I'm an audio expert in my debates, in the hopes that it makes my arguments more credible. I don't know why, but it generally just makes them more laughable, from the responses I get. So I get sad and angry when people don't believe me, or simply don't care. If only people would stop listening and thinking for themselves and just understand that my (pseudo)scientific audio-DBT proves that what they are hearing and thinking is wrong (it's "scientifical" reg. tm., after all!), then I would be happy in life. And I'm a self-professed "expert" in knowing right from wrong, so that proves it right there."
I'm not sure if you actually are the one who started that lie, or you just sucked it down with the rest of the audiophile koolaide.
Sorry, I've lost interest, so I don't know what you're babbling about any more. I'll presume you're talking about the "lie" of the so-called "audio DBT". If so then no thanks. I have no use for pseudoscientific quackery masquerading behind the guise of the legitimate DBT methodologies of real science, and that has no relevance or usefulness in this hobby. Which means, keep your Kool-Aid, I'm not thirsty.
Krabapple made a misstatement.
I don't get it.... I know you all sound the same, but are you DBT zealots completely interchangeable now? Since my comments were about and addressed to your friend "krabapple", why don't you let him speak for himself?
In sighted auditioning, one can identify the DUT with virtually 100% accuracy (I say 'virtually' because one might make recording errors). After all, one already knows the identity of the DUT. In a double blind test, one can only rely on one's hearing.
You're just so wrong about that, it's not even funny. I do sighted AB tests all the time on people, who have no idea what the DUT is; only that a change was made. And before you jump on that, sometimes, they can't know whether a change was made. Still not a DBT.
I have never seen or heard anyone affirm that everything sounds the same. That affirmation seems to be a figment of your imagination.
Yes, of course. Just like Sean Olive's DBT test that affirmed very disparate loudspeakers can nonetheless sound the same under blind conditions was a figment of my imagination.
You appear to suffer some time displacement. The debate between John Atkinson and Arny Krueger did not take place in 1999 but in 2005.
So I simpy misremembered the date of this event, which changes my point in absolutely no way. Wow, what a big deal your "correction" of the date is! And from that you extrapolate a 'time dsiplacment' theory about me? Thank you for exemplifying how DBTologists like to "extrapolate" all kinds of meaning in their conclusions, that has no relevance to the data, in order to purse their biased agenda.
It is certainly true that John Atkinson was unable to dispute any of Krueger's points.
Yeah, right. Krueger never had any valid points to "dispute". IIRC, he blamed much of his failure in this debate on his failure to get his PowerPoint presentation up and running. One of Krueger's "points" was that phase inaccuracies were not discernable. After that, he just continued to make an even bigger fool of himself, and everyone had a great time laughing at him. But then, making a fool of himself is something Krueger is a "professional" at, so no wonder. Anyway, I'm not here to debate that debate, and you know that's not why I brought it up. If you don't, go back and read the point I was making, because all you're doing here is emphasizing that my point was correct.
Whether you like it or not, jj is....(blablabla....yet another appeal to authority...).
As jj said, DBT *works*.
Stop right there. I don't care what special powers you claim for your DBT priest. I've already explained that appeals to authority are a logical fallacy and will carry no weight in this debate, nor will any other logical fallacy. Don't waste everyone's time with this nonsense. There isn't enough kool-aid in the world to make me believe that your so-called "audio DBT", much-refuted and long since exposed as the pseudoscientific quackery it is, 'works' simply because some dogmatic troll on the internet who calls himself "jj" says so. And btw, putting stars around the word "works" doesn't advance your argument one bit either. If there were so much as a grain of truth to this loud braying about DBTs from you advocates of these misguided beliefs, there wouldn't even be all this controversy with it and lack of acceptance for it among both legitimate high end audio engineers and audio consumers alike.
You show no expert knowledge, just as the fellow who found Michigan J. Frog failed to show MJF could sing and dance to other people.
Thanks. You're doing a great job defending me in this "interception" response. (I wonder if the "krabapple" sock would have done a better job?) What you're saying by this example is that I do indeed have expert knowledge, but simply haven't shown it, and that not showing expert knowledge does not mean you do not have expert knowledge. It can simply mean you're not so insecure with yourself that you feel you have to "profess expert knowledge" in a sad and desparate attempt to win an argument on the internet.
Of course, you would have us believe now that everyone here who has "expert knowledge" about something, which you Mr. 50 Posts are not personally aware of, does not have "expert knowledge". Your DBT idol "jj", has failed to show expert knowledge of even capacitors here, let alone laser interferometry or gastric bypass surgery. You have failed to show expert knowledge in everything. So are we to assume neither of you two have "expert knowledge" in these areas? Ok then, I will!
I see that you still haven't understood the paradox of the cartoon, despite having thoroughly researched it for us. I find that terribly amusing.
Range rule--is that where you feast on range fed chicken eggs before listening?
Ok. So you don't even understand the basics of scientific tenets. What a shocker!
I guess that pretty much tells us all we need to know about you, and the rest of this "audio DBT" quackery.
When you can show that DBTs fail a range rule, get back to us.
Ok. So you don't even understand the most basic of scientific tenets, known as "the burden of proof". Read this and then get back to us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
hint: It's up to you to show that they don't.
Since you claim omniscience regarding all goings on on netnews, etc, then you already know that it is trivially shown that DBT's do, in fact, exhibit sensitivity down very, very close to the actual detection thresholds allowed by physics.
You also know that DBT's that come out negative (i.e. nothing detected) are actually quite rare in the industry.
So, you have lots of evidence, a preponderance of evidence, a large and very clear set of evidence, that show that DBT's work.
Quite aside from your misrepresentations of the 'range rule', the evidence for performance of DBT's in the laboratory or test facility is concrete, evident, and conclusive.
This, since you claim to have participated in the netnews discussions, is something you know.
Why, then, do you fail to acknowlege the clear, obvious success of DBT's? You knew the existance of evidence before you falsely accused others of failing to provide evidence.
It is time for you to acknowlege that you have falsely accused several experts in psychometrics of professional misconduct, and that your accusations are utterly, completely, and totally false. It is time for you to apologize sincerely, retract your accusations, and demonstrate an honest and civil face to this forum.
The "Sean Apologists" see the letters D,B, and T and start thumping, no matter how broad the conclsuion.
Oy!
Two questions:
1) What makes you think this was a one-speaker test?
2) Why do you suppose mono was used?
Someone had pointed out that the test Ethan referenced was done using only one speaker at a time. Sean didn't really fully explain his materials in methods in his blog.
If it were only one speaker, I would suppose it fair to call the sound it produced as 'mono.' You can call it something else if you find another term to be more accurate.
____________
What is the sound of one speaker imaging?
Yes, it's a straw man argument. But when you point that out to Buddha he gets defensive and makes other irrelevant statements.
I'm pretty sure that if I got Buddha here to my place for a few hours, he'd leave agreeing with me 100 percent on everything.
--Ethan
You are aware of many test results that show that close matching between speakers and avoiding the first floor bounce are key elements to imaging, right?
So, if the testing that Sean performs (which does take into accout both radiation pattern and accuracy) includes this, you still imagine that imaging is not involved?
Do you object to studies that single out one variable at a time?
Frog-boy is not swayed by facts or logic or even common sense. He believes you can demagnetize plastic.
--Ethan
We agree on about 99%, mon ami.
You do confound me by thinking that setting up one speaker and demonstrating a sighted bias leads one to conclude that the audio industry promotes 'dishonest listening' and 'needs to grow up.'
His conclusion is not apropos of the data!
Straw man it is not.
Not at all, and sighted bias is a well known event. But I do not support the conclusion that 'the audio industry needs to grow up' and the claim that 'sighted listening is 'dishonest'' based on the result of a monophonic test trial.
Do you support any random conclusion because the clamimant made the conculison at the end of a DBT?
The conslusion should be, "I have demonstrated that in a listening trial using two brands of speakers, that test subjects demonstrated a change in preference between sighted and unsighted listening trials."
The conclusion is not: "I have used a monophonic listening test to demonstrate that the audio industry needs to grow up."
I'm surprised you didn't just really take it down to one variable and grab some data that shows tweeters playing test tones are hard to tell apart and take it from there.
"In a monophonic single tone tweeter listening trial, people had a hard time telling tweeters apart, so I conclude the tweeter industry needs to grow up."
Jesus, JJ.
Hey, I'm still wondering when you'll reveal how you shop for speakers in an honest fashion. Are you one of those guys who just says, "Take my word for it," or do you walk the walk?
I admit to shopping via sighted listening trials. You?
Since you claim omniscience regarding all goings on on netnews, etc,
Uh yo, back up there Charlie. Not so fast. Where in the hell did I claim "omniscience regarding all goings on on netnews, etc"?? What kind of a fool would even make that claim? You? Do you claim "omniscience regarding all goings on on netnews, etc"?
I hope you have some good evidence to back up your latest false claims about me, because you're gonna need to get that out now. Otherwise, you know the drill: a complete, abject, sincere, grovelling retraction of your claim should be forthcoming. Preferably with you in a maid's uniform. So get with it.
So, you have lots of evidence, a preponderance of evidence, a large and very clear set of evidence, that show that DBT's work.
What are you trying to do here, hypnotize me? I mean, what do you call this, the "Obi Wan Kanobe" tactic? It sounds like you actually think that if you just repeat this lie often enough, I will believe it no matter that I know full and well it isn't even close to being true. Sorry, I saw Star Wars 22 years ago. Your ruse wouldn't have worked even then. So far, you haven't even presented us with a ZIT of evidence. Never mind "lots", a "preponderence", "large" or "very clear" evidence. In fact, now that I think about it "jj" (or whatever you're calling yourself this week), you haven't presented us with so much as a pimple of evidence about anything, since you came-a-trolling here to preach the DBT word. The only evidence you ever gave about anything, was some arrogant laughter-inducing rant of yours about what an "audio expert" you are, and how we should all learn to love your DBT quackery, simply because you say so. Surely you remember, the "argument from authority" logical fallacy that I just finished clobbering you with, and you were in the end unable to refute?
Second, I'm gonna ask you to qualify what you are referring to, when you refer to "DBT's"; such as when you claim "DBT's work". Because if you're talking about scientific DBT's, as used in the medical industry, I agree they generally do. But if you're talking about this joke known as the "audio DBT", that your buddies "invented" on a drunken day during one of their audio club meetings, then no, I don't recognize that as being scientifically valid. Nor does any legitimate body of science. Which is why it is only sanctioned by organizations that have commercial ties. Remember that "agenda" criticism I keep mentioning, that you keep shying away from? Yeah, that's it.
One reason for the lack of scientific validation of the audio DBT, and what makes them different from DBT's used in real science, is that DBT's using subjective outcomes are poorly regarded unless they use validated scales or mass amalgamation of data. A DBT using subjective outcomes has so much bias that the results may well be meaningless. You can NEVER control all the variables possible in an audio DBT, and you're just a fool, fooling yourself, if you think you can. You can produce the same numbers for a given DUT over several trials, but because of the nature of subjective testing, you'll never know what they are really saying. And that's when people like you who are full of biases and prejudices, begin to add meaning to those numbers. I personally wouldn't trust you to analyze the results of a DBT test determining whether it was Wednesday today. *Especially* if you work for Microsoft. Professional DBT's can not be trusted by consumers, and wisely so, because of the agenda their sponsors may have. Personal end-user DBT's are not trusted by professionals, whenever they're mentioned. Which is why I have always said: only a fool takes any of this audio DBT nonsense seriously. If you want to use it for your own preferences, that's fine with me. But don't come on here and pretend there's anything "scientific" about it.
Quite aside from your misrepresentations of the 'range rule',
"Misrepresentation"? This ought to be interesting. "How so", Mr. J?
This, since you claim to have participated in the netnews discussions, is something you know.
Perhaps you should, instead, try to argue agains the position I actually hold, rather than the dishonest straw man position quoted above.
Why, then, do you fail to acknowlege the clear, obvious success of DBT's?
My best guess would be because audio DBT's are a clear, obvious failure. An epic failure, in fact, so stop pretending otherwise. I'm sure you already know this and won't admit it. And if you don't, then I'm sorry if what I just said causes you to break out in hives, and I'm sure we can expect another indignant fit from you after hearing that your precious audio DBT still just doesn't have the acceptance you would have hoped after several decades of wasting your time with this pseudoscientific claptrap. Not only has the audio DBT failed to be scientifically validated, it has never even been proven to have any real value or purpose in high end audio. They are just a pastime for people who are too insecure to believe in their own hearing ability or have simply failed to have any. They are certainly no more meaningful than whatever biases may arise from sighted listening tests.
Audio DBT's are inherently inaccurate by nature, because differences subjectively heard in DBT trials are unmeasurable, undefined and unquantifiable. That is because audio is both a combination of acoustic waves and perception; both of which are a valid part of the process of subjective listening. But none of this need be related to the DUT, and assuming it does, illustrates the very problem I have with chumps like you who always insist on subjecting your unscientific biases to the test itself. All of the very subjective presumptions and fallacious reasoning you have made about me and other people here, shows us exactly how you would conduct DBTs, and apply this practice to your own DBT's.
Audio DBT's are pointless. Most people conducting "so-called DBT's" know the equipment involved, which introduces but one element of bias, and all outcomes are purely subjective and flawed from a scientific POV. Plus they are commonly conducted in groups. Another source of bias, as groups tend to alter individual opinions towards a mean. Any preconceptions about the result can also introduce bias. Even if the conclusion of the test results, or the test itself wasn't manipulated by the biased author of the test, you can not extrapolate test results over to any real-life scenario, because it won't apply. You and your other DBT zealots are being disingenuous at best, in doing so. Buddha did a fine job illustrating one example of what I'm talking about, when he showed Sean Olive's blatant (and shameful) bias by concluding in the results of a single channel loudspeaker test, that "the audio industry is dishonest" (not to mention the fact that the DBTologists here extrapolate results from that test to speakers in general). If that is not a clear indication of how you can not trust the results of a DBT test because of the author's agenda and-or bias, then nothing will be. Since it's obvious you will never admit that you or Sean Olive, working for harmon int'l, have an agenda, it's pointless and a waste of time to even argue this point with you.
You knew the existance of evidence before you falsely accused others of failing to provide evidence.
Falsely accused others of failing to provide evidence"?? LOL! Of all the many falsehoods you promulgate, that are an excercise in futility for me to try to deal with, this is one of the more interesting ones. I can't wait to see how you are going to provide evidence of me falsely accusing you of failing to provide evidence. So let's get with the evidence already. Where in this thread did you provide any evidence that I asked for?
Pages