In Reply to: So you accept stan Ricker's observations at face value posted by Analog Scott on December 18, 2006 at 21:23:43:
You have posed the question in a very ambiguous way.It all depends what you mean by face value. Here again is the quotation from Stan Ricker from the record jacket:
"Well, let's put it this way. The signal from the digital sounds exactly the same as what we heard coming from those transformerless Schoepps [sic] microphones. What more can you say?"
----from the record jacket of Frederic Fennell, The Cleveland Symphonic Winds, Holst: Suite No. 1 in E-flat; Suite No. 2 in F/Handel: Music for the Royal Fireworks/Bach: Fantasia in G. Telarc Digital 5038
I take it that he and some others did not notice any difference between the mic feed and the output of the Soundstream recorder. He said so and I have no reason to doubt it. If they had done DBTs, they *might* have gotten positive results as a DBT could have been more sensitive.
However, Mr. Ricker asserted there was no audible difference between the mic feed and the output of the recorder, thus he seemingly accepted the null hypothesis, in effect. The null hypothesis may or may not be true, but Mr. Ricker hadn't proved it and it cannot be proven with statistics, either.
But really, we do not know what Mr. Ricker would have said had someone asked about issues of proof. Perhaps he did not mean to be taken as technically as all that.
If you take the trouble to follow the discussion further down the thread, you will find that I also said that DBTs would have been better.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Did I say that? - Pat D 12/19/0623:02:55 12/19/06 (27)
- Re: Did I say that you said that or did I ask you a question? - Analog Scott 23:15:43 12/19/06 (26)
- Analog Scott thinks the null hypothesis can be proved! - Pat D 01:59:03 12/20/06 (25)
- I see, you were just looking for any excuse not to answer a simple question - Analog Scott 08:06:51 12/20/06 (24)
- Well, you can't understand the issues until you grasp that the null hypothesis cannot be proven statistically. (nt) - Pat D 15:26:07 12/20/06 (23)
- Nope, you were clearly looking for any excuse not to answer the questions becuase - Analog Scott 20:31:45 12/20/06 (22)
- Analog scott said the null hypothesis can be proven to a 95% level of certainty. Now he refuses to explain how. - Pat D 06:45:51 12/21/06 (21)
- Sadly Pat D is now making things up me to deflect attention from the fact that he won't answer the questions - Analog Scott 22:51:51 12/21/06 (20)
- Didn't your Mommy teach you to tell the truth? I answered your question here. - Pat D 06:22:39 12/22/06 (19)
- Ironic that you would question my honesty and then tell a flat out lie all in the subject line. - Analog Scott 15:12:07 12/22/06 (18)
- You just didn't like the answer I gave. Link provided, BTW. - Pat D 15:29:16 12/22/06 (17)
- baeutiful. A link to no naswer given to my question. Nice. thank you for proving me right - Analog Scott 15:56:14 12/22/06 (16)
- Nothing there, folks. Move along. (nt) - Pat D 16:11:25 12/22/06 (15)
- embarrassed? nt - Analog Scott 17:11:41 12/22/06 (14)
- Just trying to save you some embarrassment. Move along folks, nothing there. (nt) - Pat D 17:33:36 12/22/06 (13)
- Do you ever tell the truth? Seems to me you were doing everything you could to try to embarrass me - Analog Scott 17:36:07 12/22/06 (12)
- No, I figured you were embarrassed enough. Have you figured out that one cannot prove two things to be the same yet? - Pat D 05:43:32 12/23/06 (11)
- Have you figured out that no one is buying your story? - Analog Scott 09:05:59 12/23/06 (10)
- I doubt you would admit to buying anything of mine. - Pat D 10:23:34 12/23/06 (9)
- You seem confused. do you know the difference between me and anybody?. - Analog Scott 11:05:50 12/23/06 (8)
- And ad hominem seems to be the entire substance of your arguments. - Pat D 14:03:19 12/23/06 (7)
- I'd say ad hominem seems to be the entire substance of your arguments. - Analog Scott 17:03:50 12/23/06 (6)
- Could you tell me about proving the null hypothesis. (nt) - Pat D 18:07:19 12/23/06 (5)
- Thank you for proving "ad hominem seems to be the entire substance of your arguments. " - Analog Scott 18:16:14 12/23/06 (4)
- No, the null hypothesis is substantive issue, and you refuse to tell us why you disagree with the statisticians. - Pat D 18:43:54 12/23/06 (3)
- No, the only issue is the fact that an honest answer from you would expose that old objectivist double standard - Analog Scott 09:02:22 12/24/06 (2)
- A side issue irrelevant to audio. Now, understanding the null hypothesis is important for understanding audio DBTs. - Pat D 20:08:45 12/24/06 (1)
- thank you for proving me right, again. - Analog Scott 09:37:12 12/25/06 (0)