The hypocrisy of Ethan Winer's ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

Quote:
Frog-boy is not swayed by facts or logic or even common sense. He believes you can demagnetize plastic.

"Frog-boy"? This is your contribution to the debate in this thread, Ethan? Calling me insulting names in a blatant ad hominem attack, and on top of that, launching a strawman argument, based on a complete lie you fabricated about me?

I note that this insulting response of yours was completely unprovoked, as I have never addressed you in this thread. So don't ever complain about anyone else's name calling, ad hominem attacks or strawman arguments; provoked or unprovoked. For this post will remain, and will be illustrated to show you to be a lying hypocritical fool, never to be taken seriously by anyone but same.

Now, as to your strawman: Where did I say I believe you can "demagnetize plastic"? Provide evidence for your fallacious assertion. Otherwise, in words you should be familiar with:

I expect a complete, abject, sincere, grovelling retraction of your claim should be forthcoming.

Quote:
The hypocrisy of Ethan Winer's ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

Quote:
Frog-boy is not swayed by facts or logic or even common sense. He believes you can demagnetize plastic.

"Frog-boy"? This is your contribution to the debate in this thread, Ethan? Calling me insulting names in a blatant ad hominem attack, and on top of that, launching a strawman argument, based on a complete lie you fabricated about me?

I note that this insulting response of yours was completely unprovoked, as I have never addressed you in this thread. So don't ever complain about anyone else's name calling, ad hominem attacks or strawman arguments; provoked or unprovoked. For this post will remain, and will be illustrated to show you to be a lying hypocritical fool, never to be taken seriously by anyone but same.

Now, as to your strawman: Where did I say I believe you can "demagnetize plastic"? Provide evidence for your fallacious assertion. Otherwise, in words you should be familiar with:

I expect a complete, abject, sincere, grovelling retraction of your claim should be forthcoming.

You are confusing an ad hominem argument with a personal attack.

Quote:
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.

I happen to disagree with that particular statement by Krabapple, so I pointed it out. Those who participate in controlled audio DBTs are relying only on their hearing to detect which piece of equipment is being used. The who do sighted auditions do not rely only on their hearing to determine which piece of equipment is being used. Indeed, they already know what the Device Under Test (DUT) is. BTW, I don't know Krabapple, which shows you have drawn an incorrect conclusion.

So why is the way you have described an A-B comparison not blind, since you maintain that the people involved do not know what is tested, only that a change has been made? Oh, and I should point out that the subjects should control when the changes are made.

I have not claimed to have expert knowledge in audio. You have. You still haven't shown you have expert knowledge in audio (and nothing you have said indicates it, either). I have not said you do not have it, and so you have simply misrepresented me. Your claim is like that of the fellow who found MJF, but failed to show other people that MJF could sing and dance, and who therefore have no reason to believe him.

I evidently understand the "One Froggy Evening" cartoon better than you do, since there is more than one paradox involved and there is more than one interpretation possible.

j-j is an expert and can speak as an authority in his field. That is not merely a claim by him. His expertise is acknowledged by his peers and he is a Fellow of the IEEE and the AES. He is a world class expert in audio psychometrics. You have already admitted you know who he is, so you should not claim otherwise. In any case, anyone can find out who he is through his Profile.

BTW, I didn't quote "works" from j-j, someone else did.

You say "IIRC." Alas, your memory of what was said in the debate between John Atkinson and Arny Krueger is not correct, either, but is also completely flawed. You should listen to it again so you can determine what was said and by whom.

You have claimed that DBTs fail something unstated that you call the range rule, so you have the burden of proof, even according the the Wikipedia article you linked, which is primarily about legal aspects of BOP rather than scientific ones.

See, Frog, they never "attack, they "argue". You and I on the other hand have nothing but "attacks" in our posts.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

If you don't mind, I'm going to borrow this for a moment ...

Quote:
The hypocrisy of Ethan Winer's ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

Quote:
Frog-boy is not swayed by facts or logic or even common sense.

I note that this insulting response of yours was completely unprovoked, as I have never addressed you in this thread. So don't ever complain about anyone else's name calling, ad hominem attacks or strawman arguments; provoked or unprovoked. For this post will remain, and will be illustrated to show you to be a lying hypocritical fool, never to be taken seriously by anyone but same.

>>> "Frog-boy is not swayed by facts or logic or even common sense. He believes you can demagnetize plastic." <<<

When Ethan chooses that form of wording to try to insult (to 'put down') you, M J F, it also implies exactly the same thing (insult - put down) to the other people (to name but four prominent people - Michael Fremer, Stephen Mejias, Robert Deutsch and John Atkinson) who can ALSO hear the effect of applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs. If Ethan does NOT realise that he is also, at the same time, with the same wording, insulting those other people then that shows sheer stupidity. If he DOES realise it and goes ahead anyway, then that shows sheer arrogance !!!!

As with another comment by Ethan :-

"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."

And yet another comment by Ethan :-

>>> "Very simple - a blind test lets someone audition speakers without being influenced by how much they cost or how they look. That may not help experienced audio pros like me, but it would certainly help much of the hi-fi buying public." <<<

Again, bordering on arrogance - showing such disdain for the INTELLIGENT audio equipment buying public !!!!! With Ethan's reasoning, why would manufacturers hold Hi Fi Shows if the buying public have to be led around those shows blindfolded so that, in Ethan's eyes, they would not be unduly influenced by price tags or how the equipment looked ???

Regards,
May Belt.

In Ethan's defense, he looks at himself as the person at a witch burning who bothers to question the existence of witchs, even though everyone says they can tell the victim is a witch, as evidenced by the universal agreement of the prominent witch identifiers.

Ethan fancies himself the little boy looking at the naked emperor.

It's good he does that, except he might call out that the emperor is naked when, in fact, he is not.

So, how to satify a naysayer?

Surely, we would not stoop to blind listening. Never that!

____
____

For every person who claims credibility by stating that Lister was laughed at before being proven right, we have a Ptolemy or a Franz Joseph Gall who was regarded as being correct before being found out by a skeptic.

We need Ethan just as much as we need Enid Lumley (RIP.)

Quote:
For every person who claims credibility by stating that Lister was laughed at before being proven right, we have a Ptolemy or a Franz Joseph Gall who was regarded as being correct before being found out by a skeptic.

We need Ethan just as much as we need Enid Lumley (RIP.)

Ba Da BING!

RG

Quote:
You are confusing an ad hominem argument with a personal attack.

The same folks who confuse this also confuse disagreement with "logic error", and think that anyone who disagrees with them is making an "ad hominem" argument when the person disagrees with what they SAID.

So I don't think they really quite understand what they are trying to read at the Nizor project.

In any case, Michigan J. Frog hides behind his pseudonym and makes crass, inaccurate, obscene professional accusations, Buddha likewise. It's clear that neither is willing to come forward and attach their actual name and reputation to their ad hominem attacks, straw men, extractions from context, and other false propagandistic manouevers.

Quote:
Mr. Frog (I'm trying to be civil with you here), don't bother to reply because I probably won't read it and I surely won't respond.

LOL!

Yes, you will; and yes, you will!

[quoteHey, 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?

So, then, you admit to either not having read this whole thread before you started demanding things already in evidence, you admit to not UNDERSTANDING the answers that are already in evidence, or more likely you're just pretending that you didnt' read it.

You apparently malicious demands for something I've already said, and your attempt to try to compare them to a dishonest view of what I espouse elsewhere suggest to me that you are being intentionally obtuse, and that your uncalled-for personal attacks are deliberate, and as such intended to cause my reputation actual harm, much like Michigan J. Frog's lies and abuse.

It is a shame that you are unwilling to actualy discuss the matters at hand, and would rather engage in a series of straw-man attacks and ad-hominem attacks and insinuations.

Unfortunately, this appears unlikely, and I must conclude that you are another malicious, cowardly troll who hides behind a pseudonym in order to avoid having their own reputation damaged by their obvious misconduct.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

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.

Pardon me, but I recall writing nothing different from this, it is exactly what I have been contending, so where was my 'misstatement'?

Quote:
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.

That consistent view happens to fly in the face of psychological fact: they shouldn't trust their ears unconditionally.

Quote:
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.

How do you know for sure what your ears can hear if you never test it?

Quote:
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.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. DBTs are used in 'real science' of hearing, as a perusal of the e.g., the Journal of Audiology will demonstrate. DBTs can, and do, allow reliable detection of sound *down to the theoretical atmospheric limits* jj cites. And they do not necessarily *demand* special skills of the listener -- *if* you already claim you hear a difference between DUT A and B, what 'special skill' do you need to bring to at DBT to demonstrate that or not? You';re already claiming to have the a 'special skill' that would otherwise require training to hear.

Don't confuse this with a recommendation for training for DBTS -- which is a proper recommendation, when doing research, rather than testing a *particular audiophile blowhard's* claim that he *already* hears a big diff between DUT A and B.

Quote:
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".

Actually, it was 2005, in NYC, and I was *there*, sparky.

Quote:
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'd say (and have said) that the debate went pretty far off track and didn't really result in a slam dunk for either side.

Quote:
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.

I'm sure no one will say that.

Quote:

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.

Really? So far you're failing rather badly and fundamentally to demonstrate that.

Quote:
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.

'Maybe'? that's your best shot?

Quote:

"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.

LOL...so the *numbers* that were verifiably most different had dollar signs in front of them...*classic* audiophoolery.

Quote:

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?

OK, so you didn't understand what Sean wrote, or what I'm writing. I get that. Olive never disputes that two loudspeakers sound different. He is studying *preference* based on sound -- which is really only possible when difference in sound exists. It's impossible to have a truly sound-based preference for two things that sound the same. However,it's quite possible to observe a subject having no statistically significant preference between two different-sounding things.

Quote:
'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.

Knowing that JJ *does* happen to be one of the world's experts on these topics, and has the resume and professional accolades to prove it, only makes your braying more amusing.

Quote:

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,

bzzt. fail.

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.

When you present evidence beyond 'I heeeered it!' then maybe you can make such claims. As it stands, the only one making the assumption here is you -- that the Krell and Pio MUST sound different because goshdarnit , it's KRELL vs PIONEER for pete's sake! I say that if compared fairly, they might, under specific circumstances, sound different, whereas in others, they are likely to sound the same. And the objective evidence backs me up.

Quote:

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.

No, here is where we must *apply* intelligence, not knee jerk 'common sense'. It's why science always requires controls.

Quote:

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.

Except it doesn't 'violate the scientific range rule', you silly person. Statistical tests are integral to scientific evaluation of audible difference. A scientific subjective test for difference -- that is, a DBT -- relies on them to intrepret the results, because 'common sense' can be misleading. Comparison of the subjective report to the actual identities, and statistical evaluation of the score, is what makes the 'subjective' objective there. Specifying typically a p<.05 -- that is, a smaller than 1-in-20 chance that the 'successes' were just luck -- sets the 'range'.

Quote:

Quote:
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?

So, then, you admit to either not having read this whole thread before you started demanding things already in evidence, you admit to not UNDERSTANDING the answers that are already in evidence, or more likely you're just pretending that you didnt' read it.

You apparently malicious demands for something I've already said, and your attempt to try to compare them to a dishonest view of what I espouse elsewhere suggest to me that you are being intentionally obtuse, and that your uncalled-for personal attacks are deliberate, and as such intended to cause my reputation actual harm, much like Michigan J. Frog's lies and abuse.

It is a shame that you are unwilling to actualy discuss the matters at hand, and would rather engage in a series of straw-man attacks and ad-hominem attacks and insinuations.

Unfortunately, this appears unlikely, and I must conclude that you are another malicious, cowardly troll who hides behind a pseudonym in order to avoid having their own reputation damaged by their obvious misconduct.

It's not, it's that your blah blha blah is so mind numbing and off the point of the original conclusion, that it may, in fact, have slipped by.

Of course, I also missed the connection between a monophinic speaker experiment and the conclusion that 'the audio industry needs to grow up,' and how 'dishonest listening' is promulgated on the masses.

You'll do anything in your power to back up that idiotic conclusion, I guess.

You have never shown how the data lead to the conclusion.

___

As to my name, I'm easily found, "JJ."

I'm the same person who's been on the forum for however long, and post only under one name. Nothing dishonest, my email reaches me just as "JJ's" does you.

Is JJ your full name, or do you piss and moan and troll for DBT under something different from your real name?

Pretty damned funny, "I 'JJ' don't like your name."

Maybe "JJ" is like Elvis, or to be more accurate, Cher.

Good one, "J underscore J."

Quote:

Quote:
I must conclude that you are another malicious, cowardly troll who hides behind a pseudonym in order to avoid having their own reputation damaged by their obvious misconduct.

Buddha does get his panties in a bunch sometimes with this stuff, especially DBT for some reason. And his logic is not always flawless. But Buddha is definitely not a bad guy as are some others here, and his real name is available if you look hard enough. I'm sure Buddha is a genuine audiophile, and pretty sure he's not in the business. Versus some of the others who hide behind fake names. It's the others who are truly disgraceful because they have a vested interest in refuting what real pros like you and me have to say. So they try to pass themselves off as unbiased bystanders as they hurl their insults.

--Ethan

JJ is just having a hissy fit.

Ethan, I love DBT.

It's the blatantly stupid conclusion that your are supporting from the article you posted.

That limited, handicapped trial leads one to conclude that 'sighted listening is dishonest' and 'the audio industry needs to grow up?'

These are social conclusions, not science in ANY form.

I am amazed you would support such a leap.

I've even posted examples of what conclusion would be scientifically appropriate, but no, JJ wants zombie/moonie DBT validation for a dumb ass conclusion.

A have no issue with the fact that sighted preference can vary from blind preference, either, but JJ's unblinking moon eyed love for that idiotic conclusion is amazing.

"See? See? The audio industry needs to grow up! It's dishonest listening, yes!"

I hear Gollum's voice when he types.

"Yes, my precious, he doesn't think the audio industry needs to grow up, does he? We'll show him, we'll show them all. My precious says the audio industry needs to grow up..."

Lordy.

He's maybe a smart guy in other spheres, seems politically liberal (which mitigates in his favor,) but the leap from Sean's listening trial to his conclusion and JJ's level of enamorata with it are perplexing. He seems to have suspended his critical faculties after seeing the term "DBT."

"DBT, slowly I turned, step by step, determining that the audio industry needs to grow up..."

He's tazy.

Quote:
I've even posted examples of what conclusion would be scientifically appropriate, but no, JJ wants zombie/moonie DBT validation for a dumb ass conclusion.

Really? Would you mind, perhaps, addressing my real position?

You've already shown that you are willing to demand answers to questions I've already answered, and show, as well, that you are willing to LIE about my position so that you can engage in professional insult.

I think you're an intentional, willful, insincere troll who wants to support the lunatic-fringe part of the high end and nothing more, and that you are hiding behind your pseudonym.

When you stop making up positions that I don't hold and then venting bile on your own imaginary positions, get back to me.

Quote:

Quote:
I've even posted examples of what conclusion would be scientifically appropriate, but no, JJ wants zombie/moonie DBT validation for a dumb ass conclusion.

Really? Would you mind, perhaps, addressing my real position?

You've already shown that you are willing to demand answers to questions I've already answered, and show, as well, that you are willing to LIE about my position so that you can engage in professional insult.

I think you're an intentional, willful, insincere troll who wants to support the lunatic-fringe part of the high end and nothing more, and that you are hiding behind your pseudonym.

When you stop making up positions that I don't hold and then venting bile on your own imaginary positions, get back to me.

Mmmmmmmmmm. Buttons fully engaged, I see.

I am intentional, but you're the new angry man on the block. Sean's avatar arriving to defend the honor of DBT at any cost.

JJ, if that's any kind of 'real' name, you are supporting a social conclusion from a limited listening trial's data.

Now, I'm politically liberal, but your type of science meets social engineering is beyond the pale.

Sean's data in know way logically or scientifically supports his social conclusion.

There's a few leaps I'd welcome you taking, especially flying ones, but that conclusion is nonsensical.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

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.

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.

Pardon me, but I recall writing nothing different from this, it is exactly what I have been contending, so where was my 'misstatement'?

Sorry, I misread something you had said. I know that is your position and I misread something you said. You said you didn't trust Mich. J.'s ears.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I've even posted examples of what conclusion would be scientifically appropriate, but no, JJ wants zombie/moonie DBT validation for a dumb ass conclusion.

Really? Would you mind, perhaps, addressing my real position?

You've already shown that you are willing to demand answers to questions I've already answered, and show, as well, that you are willing to LIE about my position so that you can engage in professional insult.

I think you're an intentional, willful, insincere troll who wants to support the lunatic-fringe part of the high end and nothing more, and that you are hiding behind your pseudonym.

When you stop making up positions that I don't hold and then venting bile on your own imaginary positions, get back to me.

Mmmmmmmmmm. Buttons fully engaged, I see.

I am intentional, but you're the new angry man on the block. Sean's avatar arriving to defend the honor of DBT at any cost.

JJ, if that's any kind of 'real' name, you are supporting a social conclusion from a limited listening trial's data.

Now, I'm politically liberal, but your type of science meets social engineering is beyond the pale.

Sean's data in know way logically or scientifically supports his social conclusion.

There's a few leaps I'd welcome you taking, especially flying ones, but that conclusion is nonsensical.

If you would trouble to look at j-j's profile, you could find out who he is.

Quote:
Sean's data in know (sic) way logically or scientifically supports his social conclusion.

There's a few leaps I'd welcome you taking, especially flying ones, but that conclusion is nonsensical.

Now, explain to me what MY position is, rather than going off into a completely falacious rant about what you imagine it might have been.

I've already stated it. If you can't find it, search for "preference".

Quote:

Quote:
Ethan, I love DBT.

LOL, you sure coulda fooled me!

Here it is in a nutshell, and if you disagree with this please address this, and not Sean Olive or JJ or what anyone else said anywhere else:

1) DBT is the only valid way to determine if people who claim to "hear capacitors" and power cords and all the rest really can hear a difference. DBT is not needed where there is universal agreement that something is audible.

I think for many examples, SBT is acceptable. I wouldn't care if the guy who soldered in a new capacitor knew what it was, or not.

You recall my interconnect thread?

SBT.

Nobody who was asked to choose a cable and put it in had to wear a blindfold. But then that person wouldn't be there for the trial, either. Single blind without the clever Hans.

I also favor trying to get reviewers to do blind reviewing, but DBT would require too many extra people. let someone pop in an interconnect and leave, knowing full well what was put in.

"Universal agreement" does not negate the need for DBT at all. Everyone agreed the Earth was flat at one point, and that tomatoes were poison. How do you think we ever move away from things that at one time were under the umbrella of "universal agreemnt?"

If DBT is good for the goose, then it's good for the gander crowd who are all in univesal agreement, as well

2) Some people are afraid to stick out their necks and be tested blind lest others - and probably themselves! - discover that they really can't hear what they think they can. So instead they make up BS reasons that DBT is somehow invalid.

DBT does minimize difference reporting. It should remain a concern. We also need to work out how many trials someone is good for, what dB levels, source materials, etc...

3) People identified in 2) above are being dishonest because DBT is proven science and deep down they damn well know it. If they really don't know this, then they are fools.

It's all about the conslusions. A one speaker listening trial extrapolates to one speaker monophonic trials, not to some pie eyed conclusion about rampant dishonesty and codemnation of the audio indurty's need to grow up.

I think that exploring blind listening is important for my fun in the hobby. I like having someone change something and I keep listening.

Doesn't mean that if you say JBL floats your boat and I say Lowthers or some other brands float mine that either of us are wrong.

If I don't buy into an industry-wide conclusion based on a monophonic one speaker listening trial, I'm being more honest than some self-proclaimed genius who says he is immune to bias effect is being when he says Sean's data support that conclusion.

4) Even worse than 3) are vendors of BS products who have a direct financial interest in dissing science and DBT so they can sell their BS products. These people are even more dishonest than 3) because of their profit motive. I assume this is the "dishonest industry" that Sean Olive is talking about. It's certainly what I'm talking about when I say I agree with Sean in that regard. It's also what J. Gordon Holt was talking about when he said current hi-fi thinking is an embarrassment.

You've seen the arguments I have had with Geoff Kait and May.

However, I don't think you draw an accurate conclusion from Sean's comment in that regard, either.

Again, one trial of a few speakers does not automatically extrapolate to every effing thing audiophiles do!

Would one successful DBT of any tweak then prove that all tweaks are effective and Ethan needs to shut up?

Science is not that broad, Ethan. It makes conclusions that are not on the order of one speaker trial proving that the audio industry is dishonest or 'needs to grow up.'

Come now.

Okay dood, give it your best shot. But please, address only what I said above. And please, no straw men like changing the subject to how someone picks a speaker to buy, or whether we should audition only one speaker in mono.

--Ethan

Well, let's get some terminology straight. An SBT where neither the person presenting the system or the person doing the listening knows what the test condition is is in fact a DBT.

So if the guy who presents the pre-amp, etc, in the previous article, does not know which capacitor you're using, you're doing a DBT.

"Sauce for the goose ..."

No, sorry, arguments to the excluded middle are only annoying, not actually valid.

As to one-speaker trials: Using a mono presentation, measurements of the consistancy of the speakers in question, and prior knowlege of stereo imaging, what's the problem? Yes, you can certainly interpret an experiment properly using prior, supported knowlege. You do not need to push all variables into one test, as long as you can comfortably show their lack of interaction, which I submit has clearly been done. (with some limitations on particular kinds of speakers that aren't normal speakers)

One trial of a few speakers, showing that they rank differently in sighted and blind testing shows conclusively that sound quality is not the only factor being used in the sighted test. One does not, therefore, need to test all speakers in all combinations, because one already has proof of the conjecture.

Arguments to exhaustion, arguments to ignorance, and ad-populum ignored, Sean is right for what he actually said, as is Ethan.

Sorry, but Sean's conclusion is not correct.

His conclusion has nothing to to with the 'audio industry needing to grow up.'

He made a broad social conclusion based on a speaker trial.

Quote:
Sorry, but Sean's conclusion is not correct.

His conclusion has nothing to to with the 'audio industry needing to grow up.'

He made a broad social conclusion based on a speaker trial.

That's not an argument, that's mere controversion!

Quote:

Quote:
Sorry, but Sean's conclusion is not correct.

His conclusion has nothing to to with the 'audio industry needing to grow up.'

He made a broad social conclusion based on a speaker trial.

That's not an argument, that's mere controversion!

Right you are, what Sean did was not not a proper argument leading from his findings to his conslusion.

Quote:
As to my name, I'm easily found, "JJ."

I'm the same person who's been on the forum for however long, and post only under one name. Nothing dishonest, my email reaches me just as "JJ's" does you.

Is JJ your full name, or do you piss and moan and troll for DBT under something different from your real name?

Pretty damned funny, "I 'JJ' don't like your name."

Maybe "JJ" is like Elvis, or to be more accurate, Cher.

Good one, "J underscore J."

Yeah, I find that hilarious myself. A troll who comes here from AVS forum under the pseudonym "j_j", bringing along other AVS forum members with names like "krabapple" (which you notice he doesn't have a problem with?), complains long and loud about people posting under names he doesn't like. It is to laugh. When he's unable to attack their content, he attacks their character. And yes, this old dude has been around discussion groups a -long- time preaching his audio-DBT religion, and as a matter of fact he has pissed and moaned and trolled for DBT under different names in the past. Sometimes under sockpuppet identities on the same forum (he got caught on it, but he was never willing to admit it then, and I doubt he'd admit it now). I think on AA he trolled DBT's under the name "the real JJ", because some other fellow beat him to his favorite letters.

I warn you now: He is the absolute King, or possibly Queen of Umbrage. He reminds me a bit of "Gorgeous George", an old timey wrestler. George's "shtick" was to play prissy boy, and engage the audience with histrionics and melodramatic behaviour; and to cry "Get your filthy hands off of me!" whenever you came close to touching him. But after nearly 20 years of exagerrated indignation and resent, I figure it's probably not a "shtick" for this "j_j" character. I think he really _is_ that uptight in real life. One of his handles was "jj the curmudegon", so that probably has something to do with it.

Quote:

Quote:
The hypocrisy of Ethan Winer's ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

Quote:
Frog-boy is not swayed by facts or logic or even common sense. He believes you can demagnetize plastic.

"Frog-boy"? This is your contribution to the debate in this thread, Ethan? Calling me insulting names in a blatant ad hominem attack, and on top of that, launching a strawman argument, based on a complete lie you fabricated about me?

I note that this insulting response of yours was completely unprovoked, as I have never addressed you in this thread. So don't ever complain about anyone else's name calling, ad hominem attacks or strawman arguments; provoked or unprovoked. For this post will remain, and will be illustrated to show you to be a lying hypocritical fool, never to be taken seriously by anyone but same.

Now, as to your strawman: Where did I say I believe you can "demagnetize plastic"? Provide evidence for your fallacious assertion. Otherwise, in words you should be familiar with:

I expect a complete, abject, sincere, grovelling retraction of your claim should be forthcoming.

You are confusing an ad hominem argument with a personal attack.

No, I'm not. Your move, next.

Now I'm curious to see if you are going to run away from your claims, as "jj" does all the time, or are at least one of you DBT trolls actually going to support one of your claims, for a change? Surprise me. If you're afraid to make the next move, just tell me and I'll make your move for you and tell you what you're going to say.

Quote:
Now I'm curious to see if you are going to run away from your claims, as "jj" does all the time,

Evidences, sir?

No, didn't think so.

You're still just a coward who hides behind a cartoon pseudonym in order to avoid having your words actually affect your (lack of?) reputation in a bad way.

Quote:
Quote:
MJF wrote: Where did I say I believe you can "demagnetize plastic"?

LOL, how quickly they forget. CDs are made from plastic, no?

Ethan, I'm going to refrain from using the "f" word to describe you, and instead, will just quiety and politely point out your unfettered ignorance in not realizing that CD's, which are polycarbonate over aluminum substrate, can contain inks on their labels which contain particles readily susceptible to magnetization; ie. iron, nickel and cobalt. In addition to that, the aluminum substrate is not necessarily 100% pure, and may contain ferrous particles as well. I am so surprised that a self-professed "audio expert", as you so often and so loudly claim to be around here, would not already know that. (insert rollingeyes emoticon here).

Quote:
You wrote: "I heard differences in the CD demag files FC posted, so I would have thought LP demag would be just as noticeable."

Yes, I recognize that. I am talking about digital sound files here, and nothing more. It was a blind test I had undertaken (which I might add, you did not have the courage to do so yourself). It had nothing to do with me "demagnetizing plastic", nor did I even state any belief here about "demagnetizing plastic", and most importantly, nowhere in your quote do I state that demagnetizing plastic is possible.

So since you have not supported your claim against me, as I knew you could not, I expect an abject, sincere and grovelling apology from you, "Mr. Winer", for misappropriating my words and using your misappropriations to attack my character.

"I demand satisfaction!" (insert gloveslap clip)

Quote:

Mr. Frog (I'm trying to be civil with you here), don't bother to reply because I probably won't read it and I surely won't respond.

--Ethan

Ethan, get over yourself. I know it's a powerful task, because of the size of your ego, but at least try. I don't -ever- reply to you because I care about whether you read my replies or respond to them, so don't flatter yourself. Whether you do or not reply to me in any situation is incidental, and always in your interest, not mine. To prove this is so, let me emphatically state with bold underline, that I do NOT want you to respond to this message; either directly, or indirectly by making insulting comments about me to one of your friends (except of course to simply deliver the apology I demanded).

Let me note that you added the weasel words, you "probably" won't read my response and "surely" won't respond. This shows you don't even know yourself very well. But, I think we both know the real reason those weasel words are there. It's to give your perceived "reading audience" a face-saving reason to run away from your own words and not have to support them, or to give yourself "a way back in", in case I effectively trounce you in my response. At least this way, no one can accuse you of not being a man of your word, since your word says two different things, allowing you to squirm your way out of or into anything! "Ooooh, clever!" (reg. tm.)

Quote:

>>> "Frog-boy is not swayed by facts or logic or even common sense. He believes you can demagnetize plastic." <<<

When Ethan chooses that form of wording to try to insult (to 'put down') you, M J F, it also implies exactly the same thing (insult - put down) to the other people (to name but four prominent people - Michael Fremer, Stephen Mejias, Robert Deutsch and John Atkinson) who can ALSO hear the effect of applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs. If Ethan does NOT realise that he is also, at the same time, with the same wording, insulting those other people then that shows sheer stupidity. If he DOES realise it and goes ahead anyway, then that shows sheer arrogance !!!!

I understand your point May, and I agree. But I can truly never tell whether I am being assaulted by stupidity or arrogance when dealing with what I have come to call "Ethanisms", because stupidity and arrogance are constantly having it out in Ethan's mind, to see who will rule the moment.

As with all reductionists, Ethan reduces complex processes to a simpler understanding that he is more able to deal with, intellectually. So instead of doing more research on a phenomenon, and looking deeper to try to understand it, both of which require more work or thinking than Ethan has always shown he is ready or equipped to do, he instead choosese to adopt the simple-minded belief that myself, Michael Frehmer, Bob Deutsch, Stephen Mejias, John Atkinson, etc etc etc, believe that with the aid of a little audio device, we can happily go around and "demagnetize" anything made of plastic. He then does not hesitate a moment to mischaracterize the position of all these people who may have heard or used the device, and label them unscientific dimwits, with no grasp of "facts or logic or common sense", as he stated. Especially when in fact, as any intelligent person knows, they are not making any sort of statement about how a product works, by simply saying it does.

Next example, he then goes on to "prove" he has "superior hearing" to any of us, by -not- being able to hear the effects of various audio devices he does not happen to believe are having any effect (surprise, surprise). Which I guess is kind of like "proving" you have superior mathematical skills, by not knowing how to add or subtract. Ironically, in the thread about 'demagnetizing plastic', entitled "A Visit to Mikey's & the Furutech deMag", I recently asked Ethan to post the Frehmer files John sent him, so that myself and others could test them for ourselves. At first he didn't see how it was possible (despite claiming to be a digital recording expert), and asked me to ask John to send me the same CD. Then after I explained how it is not only possible but pretty easy to do, he agreed it is possible, but his next excuse was that he didn't want to host the files. (Except I had already given him a link to a free hosting service in my first request, which he ignored). Then he used the excuse that it would be a waste of time, because I would not be able to hear the differences if the files were compressed to the mp3 format (as I, myself, requested!). Then after saying it was too much trouble for him to upload the files, he'd be glad to demonstrate them for me at his place. So in other words it's not asking too much to have me pack my bags and make arrangements to fly to another country to hear and test these files, but It's asking too much for him to hit the send button and upload them to a free hosting site! Well I repeated the link to that site and my request, and he has since ignored my last request, and is not responding to the thread any longer. I guess he plumb ran out of excuses for why he couldn't transfer the files and let me test them.

The reason why I mention this is because in that thread, Ethan claimed his failure to hear differences proves LP demagnetization is a crock. I wanted to see whether there was anything to Ethan's claim about Frehmer's Furutech sample files (particularly when Mr. Frehmer insists there are differences and they're not subtle), or whether Ethan's claim that the Furutech LP demagnetizer does nothing is because of what most of us already believe: Ethan simply can't hear very well, and is not the "superior expert" he claims to be on the forums. To this end, I asked Ethan to upload not only the original demagnetized and non-demagnetized file, but two more copies of the non-demagnetized file, and to rename all four files to something random, to make it harder for me to identify. This was Ethan's chance to "prove" his "superior hearing" of not being able to hear things. And it is my firm belief that the reason he ignored my request on two separate occasions, is because he simply did not want to take the chance that I could identify the demagnetized file blind (whereas he was not even put under that stress), out of 4 copies, despite them being converted to a lossy compressed format, as I requested. Because to take that chance, would risk Ethan being (further) exposed as having inferior listening skills, and not "superior" to everyone else, as he claims.

>>> "So, how to satify a naysayer?" <<<

Experience. Only when they themselves have experienced what others have experienced will they change from being a naysayer !! And, it can happen overnight.

Others have testified to the same thing happening - such as the people who claimed to be disbelievers (naysayers) that different cables could sound different UNTIL they actually heard it happen for themselves, and such as Michael Fremer who "did not want the demagnetiser to work" - he really didn't !! He was so sceptical about it working that, as he says, he was so cynical "that it sat on the floor for 3 months before I tried it" !!!!

Let me explain my reference to "It can happen overnight". Obviously I am replying to an intelligent person so I do not expect to have that sentence misunderstood. So, before "others" jump in, I will explain what I mean more fully.
I do not mean that when someone experiences a 'being knocked back on their heels' event that they IMMEDIATELY change from being a sceptic to a non sceptic 'overnight'. But, for an 'expert in a particular field' to have experienced something and to have been 'knocked back on their heels' it CAN happen overnight but an 'expert' will then proceed to check thoroughly what has happened. AND, to then double check and then re-check the double check !!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes the checking may last months (even years) and many times it is only when someone else, in the same field of work, not connected in any way, not even knowing what happened earlier or elsewhere, also reports similar things happening, that things begin to confirm the effect experienced. THAT is when the scepticism begins to turn to non scepticism. THAT is when the naysayer is no longer a naysayer !! But, I repeat, the initial experience of "being knocked back on one's heels" event CAN happen overnight !!!

I feel I will have to qualify that statement even further (it is amazing how much 'qualifying' one has to do in all these discussions so as not to be misrepresented !!).

When I say that 'experts in a field', when they experience something unexpected happening but remain sceptical, and can then be influenced to cease being sceptical by the experience of others experiencing something similar - I DON'T mean 'influenced' by every report - from every Tom, Dick or Harry. I am not being disrespectful to every Tom, Dick or Harry, their personal opinion and experiences are as relevant as any other persons opinions and experiences. It is just that an 'expert in a particular field' would be more inclined to move from being a sceptic to being a non sceptic by being influenced by (say) SIX similar 'experts in that field' experiencing the same thing as they, than by the experiences of TWENTY disassociated Toms, Dicks or Harrys.

Regards,
May Belt.

Somebody please lock this thread

Quote:
The hypocrisy of Ethan Winer's ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

I recognice that posting style. Why, I'm back on RAO! ;-)

Quote:

Quote:
Frog-boy is not swayed by facts or logic or even common sense. He believes you can demagnetize plastic.

"Frog-boy"? This is your contribution to the debate in this thread, Ethan? Calling me insulting names in a blatant ad hominem attack, and on top of that, launching a strawman argument, based on a complete lie you fabricated about me?

Instant pomposity, anyone? ;-)

Let's review the relevant facts:

Someone posts under the name of a cartoon character who is a male frog and then objects to being called the same?

Quote:

I note that this insulting response of yours was completely unprovoked,

Nice job of declining to take responsibility for your own actions!

Quote:

as I have never addressed you in this thread. So don't ever complain about anyone else's name calling, ad hominem attacks or strawman arguments; provoked or unprovoked. For this post will remain, and will be illustrated to show you to be a lying hypocritical fool,

"show you to be a lying hypocritical fool" is not a personal attack?

Which alternative universe is that? ;-)

I wouldn't take one word that this sockpuppet posted seriously again in my life. He's 100% put-on.

Can we have some serious audio discussion here, please?

Quote:
Can we have some serious audio discussion here, please?

I agree. Do you have anything relevant to add, Arny, or are you just looking to stir the pot? We don't need any more pot-stirrers.

I will close this thread very soon if we can't get back on course with an intelligent, respectful discussion.

Quote:

Quote:
Can we have some serious audio discussion here, please?

I agree.

Hold that thought!

Quote:

Do you have anything relevant to add, Arny, or are you just looking to stir the pot? We don't need any more pot-stirrers.

Thanks for the personal attack, Stephen. It helps continue the RAO-like experience. ;-)

I mean we have what seems like Middius, we for sure have JJ and we have Arny and I haven't yet figured out the other aliases. We all know where that took RAO. But this forum has something that RAO lacks which is moderation.

IMO, It's time for moderation to do its job.

Despite our history Stephen, it seems like you caught my drift, which is that this thread is going around and around in personality-driven circles.

I've looked at both sides and I see nothing new from the pro-DBT side and nothing new from the anti-DBT side over the past few pages of posts. Furthermore, in my area of greatest familiarity being pro-DBT I see a very lucid, complete expression of just about all the relevant ideas.

If something new were to be said about DBT, it seems like JJ or I would have to first invent it! ;-)

Quote:

I will close this thread very soon if we can't get back on course with an intelligent, respectful discussion.

Please take this post as my vote for doing that, forthwith.

Quote:
Thanks for the personal attack, Stephen.

There is no personal attack, Arny.

Quote:
Despite our history Stephen, it seems like you caught my drift, which is that this thread is going around and around in personality-driven circles.

I have no history with you, Arny. However, I agree that this thread is going nowhere. I'll close it now.