dat19
blind test terrorist
Re: Re: Golden Ears.
It's not unreasonable to ask you to pay for these report - back issues of HiFi+ and other such magazines cost money.
Let's review what the word "published" means.
In the context of Stereophile or HiFi+, the article author writes what the hell he pleases, passes it to the editor, who mindful of advertizing revenue, might suggest some appropriate changes and then, pretty much no matter what is said, it is published without any attempt to verify a single word. Stereophile have a habit of publishing graphs of measurements, but there is usually no attempt to correlate the measurements with the subjective review..
On the other hand: to publish an article in the Journal of the AES or IEEE, requires the article to pass peer-review. The article will be read by at least three independent reviewers who are experts in appropriate fields. The article will only be published if the findings it makes follow from the evidence that is provided. The evidence will also be examined to determine if it has been gathered in an appropriate way (to not introduce bias).
Nothing is "Published" in Stereophile/HiFi+ etc, it's a vanity publication.
And Olive is entitled to draw that conclusion because it fits with the evidence he has presented.
Note however, he does NOT name "cables", "amplifiers" or "CD sources" as nuisance variables.
That's fair enough. But, the inference is usually made the other way around by the buying public - if it looks good, it sounds good. Ever wonder why so much money is wasted on fancy veneers?
We can continue presenting evidence to you of what other people can or cannot hear all day, but it will do no good. Your going to doggedly hang onto to your beliefs about what you can hear.
There is a vast body of evidence about what people (in general) can hear, and the probabilty that you (in particular) are in some way special is vanishingly small
If you can argue the facts - argue the facts;
if you can argue the law - argue the law;
otherwise pound the table.
Keep pounding the table
[You're not fooling any of us..]
Now, if you want more evidence (which you have asked me for) you only need to follow up the references in the paper that you already have.
Alternatively, why not phone up your mate Greg Timbers and ask him what the hell his boss (Floyd Toole) was doing wasting his time being president of a "mythical and short sighted organisation" such as the AES
Oh wait, would this be the same Greg Timbers:
"An Analysis of Some Off-Axis Stereo Localization Problems "
Author(s): Eargle, John; Timbers, Gregory
Publication: AES Preprint 2390; Convention 81; October 1986
Originally posted by merlin
I'd be delighted to comment Wolfgang, if you were to post a full test report that would allow me to judge it's relevence. As it stands, I would have to handover $60 per annum and $4 per paper - nice little earner they have there.
It's not unreasonable to ask you to pay for these report - back issues of HiFi+ and other such magazines cost money.
Again, what i asked for Datty Boy was some published evidence.
Let's review what the word "published" means.
In the context of Stereophile or HiFi+, the article author writes what the hell he pleases, passes it to the editor, who mindful of advertizing revenue, might suggest some appropriate changes and then, pretty much no matter what is said, it is published without any attempt to verify a single word. Stereophile have a habit of publishing graphs of measurements, but there is usually no attempt to correlate the measurements with the subjective review..
On the other hand: to publish an article in the Journal of the AES or IEEE, requires the article to pass peer-review. The article will be read by at least three independent reviewers who are experts in appropriate fields. The article will only be published if the findings it makes follow from the evidence that is provided. The evidence will also be examined to determine if it has been gathered in an appropriate way (to not introduce bias).
Nothing is "Published" in Stereophile/HiFi+ etc, it's a vanity publication.
With respect all I have is the author's own personal conclusion
And Olive is entitled to draw that conclusion because it fits with the evidence he has presented.
that asserts that room positioning and acoustics play a significant part in one's apreciation of differing loudspeakers. Hardly newsworthy that one is it?
Note however, he does NOT name "cables", "amplifiers" or "CD sources" as nuisance variables.
In addition, it is worth remembering that for most of us, listening to our hifi's is a sighted experience. If the loudspeaker we own looks apalling, is this not likely to influence our enjoyment of the music?
That's fair enough. But, the inference is usually made the other way around by the buying public - if it looks good, it sounds good. Ever wonder why so much money is wasted on fancy veneers?

Originally posted by merlin
No one has yet provided me with any documentation whatsoever despite my requests, nor answered any questions to my satisfaction, with the exception perhaps of PeteH.
We can continue presenting evidence to you of what other people can or cannot hear all day, but it will do no good. Your going to doggedly hang onto to your beliefs about what you can hear.
There is a vast body of evidence about what people (in general) can hear, and the probabilty that you (in particular) are in some way special is vanishingly small

I actually contribute to the furtherence of this mythical and short sighted organisation by paying to read the flawed papers some of their members seem to be producing.
If you can argue the facts - argue the facts;
if you can argue the law - argue the law;
otherwise pound the table.
Keep pounding the table

Now, if you want more evidence (which you have asked me for) you only need to follow up the references in the paper that you already have.
Alternatively, why not phone up your mate Greg Timbers and ask him what the hell his boss (Floyd Toole) was doing wasting his time being president of a "mythical and short sighted organisation" such as the AES

Oh wait, would this be the same Greg Timbers:
"An Analysis of Some Off-Axis Stereo Localization Problems "
Author(s): Eargle, John; Timbers, Gregory
Publication: AES Preprint 2390; Convention 81; October 1986