An interesting experiment

[professorhat]

This is an exellent point. Three people is too small a sample group to give any conclusive results. My experiment is very suggestive but more people would need to be tested before any definite conclusion could be reached.

But as I've said, it's impossible get to a definite conclusion for everyone. All you can do is get definite conclusions for the people who have run the test.

 

[steve_1979]

I apologise if it comes across that I'm being rude, genuinely. I'm not intending to be rude. I do frequently intend to be a little sarcastic, partly to get my point across without being rude and partly for fun/banter. If you consider that to be an 'attack', well, I don't see it that way. The team here are fairly quick at moderating any comments that are genuinely rude, so I think if my posts were as offensive as you seem to find them then they'd be gone.

Look at the thread though. There were a few quips aimed at you before I even commented. Do you not think, given that several folk in this thread have made references to the same stuff as I have, that maybe there's something in it? You've made numerous references to blind testing, ABX, expectation bias (in bold, underlined, italics and sometimes in bold and underlined!) and so on. Stuff that What Hi-fi and us 'audiophools' don't tend to get into much, but stuff that's often the foundation of discussions on t'other forum. That's what I meant about banging the drum.

You and Max seem determined to sell us the ways and beliefs of the AVI world. I frequently see both of you challenged about some technical point, and the usual defence you have is "Martin Grindrod says..." or some other info which is on that forum. It's a wee bit cult-like. It's as if you're trying to convert us!

If you're going to keep on from one angle, people will have digs at you about it. I mentioned where I live a few times, and before I knew it PP was accusing me of working for the Tourist board. I derserved that, it was all in good fun, and I realised I was maybe going on about it a bit much, so I tried to be a bit more aware of it. Likewise, if I'm taking the piss about AVI stuff a bit too much, I need to be aware of that too.

Like this one? http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/x-mini-ii-portable-speaker-review

Oh, there is one. Jolly good! (Yes, just sarcasm!) Anyway, hopefully you can see there's no ill will, please don't get your knickers in a twist about it, but if you want to discuss it I'd be happy for you to have my email address.

I all fairness to you it's not just yourself. There is a small group of about five people who are trolling my threads trying to disrupt them with their constant derogatory AVI comments. It doesn't bother me personally but it's a shame that any readers who are interested in the threads have to read through several pages of this just to find the genuine constructive comments that are still on topic.

 

[Alec]

This is an exellent point. Three people is too small a sample group to give any conclusive results. My experiment is very suggestive but more people would need to be tested before any definite conclusion could be reached.

But as I've said, it's impossible get to a definite conclusion for everyone. All you can do is get definite conclusions for the people who have run the test.

So a statistically significant number of results is still irrelevant? Sorry, you're jumping the shark a bit for me, and that doesn't seem very you.

 

[professorhat]

So a statistically significant number of results is still irrelevant? Sorry, you're jumping the shark a bit for me, and that doesn't seem very you.

It depends on what you're trying to show. If you're trying to show most people prefer one thing over another, then no, of course the results aren't irrelevant. Which is why statistics have their use.

But if I'm looking at what I prefer or if you're looking at what you prefer (and I can't think why I would want to know any other result over and above this when it comes to music playback), then yes, absolutely - a statistically significant number of results is completely irrelevant to me, for the reasons I've explained.

What I'm trying to say is not new and it's something most people on the forum agree with - you need to listen for yourself and make your own mind up, rather than rely on someone else's opinion.

 

[John Duncan]

So a statistically significant number of results is still irrelevant? Sorry, you're jumping the shark a bit for me, and that doesn't seem very you.

To borrow from another thread, from a logic point of view it is irrelevant, yes. If one person out of 10,000 correctly ABXes differences, the theory that 320k and lossless are indistinguishable is disproved.

EDIT - what it does tell you, of course, is that the odds of *you* being able to distinguish them are 9,999 to 1.

 

[bigblue235]

I all fairness to you it's not just yourself. There is a small group of about five people who are trolling my threads trying to disrupt them with their constant derogatory AVI comments. It doesn't bother me personally but it's a shame that any readers who are interested in the threads have to read through several pages of this just to find the genuine constructive comments that are still on topic.

So, I take the time to write you a fairly honest response, I apologise, and I try to explain to you how others may see it. Your comeback is that I'm a 'troll'. But hey, I'm not the only troll, so that's OK. Troll? Really?

Do you really think that the comments people make towards you are totally unjustified? Come on. You and Max bring it on yourselves. From a quick look at some of the other threads you've taken part in there's way more than 5 people taking the mick. That should tell you something. If I went over to the AVI forum and started banging on about expensive DACs and cables, how I've never heard an Active that's clearly better than a Passive, and that I 'trust my ears', I'd probably get the same kind of responses as you get here.

Please don't say that it doesn't bother you personally after you've made a big deal out of it and claimed that I've 'attacked' you. It does bother you, or we wouldn't be having this discussion and other people wouldn't be having to read it. Maybe just take my posts with a pinch of salt, or read them as if they're being written with a smile on my face, because they usually are.

 

[Alec]

So a statistically significant number of results is still irrelevant? Sorry, you're jumping the shark a bit for me, and that doesn't seem very you.

To borrow from another thread, from a logic point of view it is irrelevant, yes. If one person out of 10,000 correctly ABXes differences, the theory that 320k and lossless are indistinguishable is disproved.

No it isn't. If enough people try to do something enough times, one of them will succeed.

 

[Alec]

I all fairness to you it's not just yourself. There is a small group of about five people who are trolling my threads trying to disrupt them with their constant derogatory AVI comments. It doesn't bother me personally but it's a shame that any readers who are interested in the threads have to read through several pages of this just to find the genuine constructive comments that are still on topic.

So, I take the time to write you a fairly honest response, I apologise, and I try to explain to you how others may see it. Your comeback is that I'm a 'troll'. But hey, I'm not the only troll, so that's OK. Troll? Really?

Do you really think that the comments people make towards you are totally unjustified? Come on. You and Max bring it on yourselves. From a quick look at some of the other threads you've taken part in there's way more than 5 people taking the mick. That should tell you something. If I went over to the AVI forum and started banging on about expensive DACs and cables, how I've never heard an Active that's clearly better than a Passive, and that I 'trust my ears', I'd probably get the same kind of responses as you get here.

Please don't say that it doesn't bother you personally after you've made a big deal out of it and claimed that I've 'attacked' you. It does bother you, or we wouldn't be having this discussion and other people wouldn't be having to read it. Maybe just take my posts with a pinch of salt, or read them as if they're being written with a smile on my face, because they usually are.

Echo...

EDITED for spelling.

 

[bigblue235]

Exho? Que?

 

[Alec]

Que?

deleted because you were responding to a typo, so the point is lost.

 

[bigblue235]

Ah.

What was echoing? Me repeating myself? Should be used to it by now...

 

[Alec]

Que?

See above

 

[bigblue235]

I edited my 'Que', its all getting a bit confusing now. I think there's a cross-channel lag. The pigeons can't be getting my messages to the port in time.

 

[John Duncan]

No it isn't. If enough people try to do something enough times, one of them will succeed.

How many attempts to get 20/20 would have to be made, if the subjects are truly unable to distinguish and are therefore choosing at random?

 

[Anonymous]

I all fairness to you it's not just yourself. There is a small group of about five people who are trolling my threads trying to disrupt them with their constant derogatory AVI comments. It doesn't bother me personally but it's a shame that any readers who are interested in the threads have to read through several pages of this just to find the genuine constructive comments that are still on topic.

So, I take the time to write you a fairly honest response, I apologise, and I try to explain to you how others may see it. Your comeback is that I'm a 'troll'. But hey, I'm not the only troll, so that's OK. Troll? Really?

Do you really think that the comments people make towards you are totally unjustified? Come on. You and Max bring it on yourselves. From a quick look at some of the other threads you've taken part in there's way more than 5 people taking the mick. That should tell you something. If I went over to the AVI forum and started banging on about expensive DACs and cables, how I've never heard an Active that's clearly better than a Passive, and that I 'trust my ears', I'd probably get the same kind of responses as you get here.

Please don't say that it doesn't bother you personally after you've made a big deal out of it and claimed that I've 'attacked' you. It does bother you, or we wouldn't be having this discussion and other people wouldn't be having to read it. Maybe just take my posts with a pinch of salt, or read them as if they're being written with a smile on my face, because they usually are.

Why is everything about the AVI forum with you? This is the What Hifi Forum, and I don't see anything in the rules that says one shouldn't start threads that ask about differences in sound, or whether expensive digital cables make a difference, etc. And as for active speakers, well some may prefer them and some may not, some may sound better than some passives and some may not, we've done it to death, but you keep dragging up the AVI Forum and mentioning names, can you not let the attitude go and let threads that you aren't interested in run their course?

 

[Alec]

No it isn't. If enough people try to do something enough times, one of them will succeed.

How many attempts to get 20/20 would have to be made, if the subjects are truly unable to distinguish and are therefore choosing at random?

No idea. But you could always just fluke it.

You seem to be agreeing with th eProf that "hey, if I'm that 1 in 1000000..." but at the same time you're saying "but how many would it take...".

Doesn't seem consistent to me.

 

[bigblue235]

Why is everything about the AVI forum with you? This is the What Hifi Forum, and I don't see anything in the rules that says one shouldn't start threads that ask about differences in sound, or whether expensive digital cables make a difference, etc. And as for active speakers, well some may prefer them and some may not, some may sound better than some passives and some may not, we've done it to death, but you keep dragging up the AVI Forum and mentioning names, can you not let the attitude go and let threads that you aren't interested in run their course?

What took you so long?

 

[John Duncan]

No idea. But you could always just fluke it.

You seem to be agreeing with the Prof that "hey, if I'm that 1 in 1000000..." but at the same time you're saying "but how many would it take...".

Doesn't seem consistent to me.

Statistically, you'd expect to need about half a million attempts to 'fluke' it. So 1 in 10,000 would be pretty fluky. If they could do it twice, I'd be wholly convinced. So I guess I am erring towards PH's stance, yes, in that 9,999:1 would make me inclined to think that the '1' was a real positive result.

TBH though, I'd be more inclined to just try it myself and see what the results were, which is what I've done, since that's really the only result that matters (hearing being what it is). I failed.

 

[professorhat]

TBH though, I'd be more inclined to just try it myself and see what the results were, which is what I've done, since that's really the only result that matters (hearing being what it is).

There may be some confusion - the above is my stance. The 1 in 10,000 thing was just an extreme example to demonstrate that it really doesn't matter what other people hear, only what you hear.

EDIT - and just to be 100% clear, I mean "you" in the third person, as opposed to suggesting only JD's opinion was important. Pretty sure that was obvious, but you never know with some folk these days...

 

[John Duncan]

EDIT - and just to be 100% clear, I mean "you" in the third person, as opposed to suggesting only JD's opinion was important.

Christ, god forbid...

 

[Alec]

EDIT - and just to be 100% clear, I mean "you" in the third person, as opposed to suggesting only JD's opinion was important.

Christ, god forbid...

I dunno, I've often wondered...

 

[steve_1979]

I all fairness to you it's not just yourself. There is a small group of about five people who are trolling my threads trying to disrupt them with their constant derogatory AVI comments. It doesn't bother me personally but it's a shame that any readers who are interested in the threads have to read through several pages of this just to find the genuine constructive comments that are still on topic.

So, I take the time to write you a fairly honest response, I apologise, and I try to explain to you how others may see it. Your comeback is that I'm a 'troll'. But hey, I'm not the only troll, so that's OK. Troll? Really?

Do you really think that the comments people make towards you are totally unjustified? Come on. You and Max bring it on yourselves. From a quick look at some of the other threads you've taken part in there's way more than 5 people taking the mick. That should tell you something. If I went over to the AVI forum and started banging on about expensive DACs and cables, how I've never heard an Active that's clearly better than a Passive, and that I 'trust my ears', I'd probably get the same kind of responses as you get here.

Please don't say that it doesn't bother you personally after you've made a big deal out of it and claimed that I've 'attacked' you. It does bother you, or we wouldn't be having this discussion and other people wouldn't be having to read it. Maybe just take my posts with a pinch of salt, or read them as if they're being written with a smile on my face, because they usually are.

I fully appreciate you taking the time to write an honest response and apologising. I also apologise myself for such a brief reply earlier - I would have written more but I was pushed for time.

Below is an example of one of the derogatory comments that I was referring to earlier.

"Anyway, tune in next week, when a random AVI forum member will try to prove a point that didn't come from the gospel according to Ashley."

This comment that you posted is typical of the sort of comments that keep cropping up in threads even when AVI have nothing to do with the subjects that's are being discussed. This particular thread is about MP3 vs FLAC comparisons and the effects of expectation bias. It's completely unrelated to AVI yet someone had to mention them.

There is a small group of people here that keep saying things like I'm preaching the "AVI way". But this is not true. I just understand that the philosophy that AVI have towards music reproduction isn't unique to them. They just have the same philosophy which is the excepted norm throughout the professional audio industry.

It is this philosophy that I agree with and it has nothing to do with AVI.

 

[bigblue235]

I fully appreciate you taking the time to write an honest response and apologising. I also apologise myself for such a brief reply earlier - I would have written more but I was pushed for time.

Below is an example of one of the derogatory comments that I was referring to earlier.

"Anyway, tune in next week, when a random AVI forum member will try to prove a point that didn't come from the gospel according to Ashley."

This comment that you posted is typical of the sort of comments that keep cropping up in threads even when AVI have nothing to do with the subjects that's are being discussed. This particular thread is about MP3 vs FLAC comparisons and the effects of expectation bias. It's completely unrelated to AVI yet someone had to mention them.

There is a small group of people here that keep saying things like I'm preaching the "AVI way". But this is not true. I just understand that the philosophy that AVI have towards music reproduction isn't unique to them. They just have the same philosophy which is the excepted norm throughout the professional audio industry.

It is this philosophy that I agree with and it has nothing to do with AVI.

That wasn't meant as a derogatory comment, it was just a bit of a piss-take. I mean, you'd have to admit there are certain things which have been pushed a little bit too often lately, no? I dread to read the word 'Accurate' now!

I stated in another thread that it's currently difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm maybe guilty of making some assumptions which are incorrect, but I'd say that's only happened result of certain things being rammed down our throats for a little while now. It's hard to tell when the point that's being made in a thread is the seemingly obvious one, or, as has been common in recent locked threads, if there's a sub-text in which someone is grinding their axe.

There was a thread where speaker design was being discussed, and the pro-AVI responses seemingly all came from things said on the AVI site. That's not really what the 'professional audio industry' thinks, it's just what AVI think. Martin Grindrod is clearly an impressively knowledgeable chap, but there's others who don't agree with his thoughts. I'm nowhere near educated enough to disagree with him, or with people who disagree with him, so I'd rather all the hype and bluster was stripped away and I could make an informed choice.

I think what set me off originally was the whole 'Actives are better' thing. I just don't like those sorts of sweeping statements, as I feel they may mislead people who are lurking. I genuinely have nothing against AVIs products, I just don't like AVIs version of things being presented as 'the truth'. As long as they're presented as an opinion, great! (says the guy who has spent a large part of the day trying to suss out if Neutrons are OK as a stand mount or if they're supposed to be used as near-fields on a desk or something!).

From now on, you try and avoid those buzz phrases and I'll try to avoid presuming you're preaching about AVI. Deal?

 

[Alec]

Maybe just stop presuming (due to total lack of evidence...oh damn, yeah, sorry, that doesnt bother you) [EDITED by MODS - please do not attack other members].

 

[BenLaw]

To presume makes an ass out of, no, wait a minute....