In Reply to: RE: 'Interpretation' and 'reinterpretation' posted by John Atkinson on December 24, 2007 at 08:01:18:
So you are unable to provide any references to support your claim that reversal of absolute polarity will be audible on music, and that this audibility "indeed can be reliably detected with DBTs"?Not even one.
What are we supposed to think of your sincerety here?
What's a bit more of a surprise, however, is the degree of your arrogance, which seems to lead you to thinking that you can get away with anything with those audiophiles reading your obfuscations.
Hmmm.
Let's see:
> "...the claims you and TruthSeekerPrime have made on this newsgroup that I took _no_ action after the issue had been raised..." "
Sorry, where have I made such claims? What I've pointed out is that you have not corrected your misrepresentation of Lipshitz' claims, something which holds still at the time of writing this post.
But I will abstain from saying that you are lying again since pointing that out that seems to be punishable by banishment from this forum.
> "Who else are you speaking for, tlyyra?" :
Do you think Robert Young, bjh, and Morricab are the only ones following this discussion?
> "...your apparent inability either to quote people correctly and from your willingness to make an assumption about what was _really_ meant by the words on the page...rather than their literal meaning. Why you are so ready to dismiss the first-order meaning of what someone has written?" :
Hmmm. Let's see: In one of the sources you yourself cite, the following words by Lipshitz appear on the very first page:
"On normal music or speech signals phase distortion appears not to be generally audible." (Lipshitz & Vanderkooy, "On the Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems," JAES Vol.30 No.9, September 1982.)
Your take on the "first-order meaning" of what Lipshitz just stated, as presented in your Stereophile column:
"Work by Stanley Lipshitz in the late '70s (footnote 9[above article])...confirmed that a reversal of absolute signal polarity will be subtly audible on music..." (http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/988awsi/index1.html)
Talk about "inability to quote people correctly"... :-(
Tell me, are you really this cynical, or just not bothering to pay any attention?
> "Falsehoods? I correctly reported back in 1988 what Stanley Lipshitz had written, that with a mixture of music and test tones, absolute polarity was detectable under blind conditions with a confidence limit of 99%." :
No. You state "audible on music." So here we have yet another...well, I'm not going to say lie , since for some reason that seems to get people banned if it's about these test results; instead, let's just say "absolutely correct statement" of what Lipshitz "really meant"... How's that? ;-)
> "...to poke fun at the whole concept of double-blind testing." :
Oh. So you've turned your coat since that article, since in it you still praise Lipshitz, his "formidable mind" and "carefully organized" DBTs, so highly? Poke fun about them now just because it turned out those pesky DBTs in the end actually didn't provide any support for your agenda?
> "I don't believe absolute polarity to be very important." :
No? Another interesting twist in the plot then? In that same Stereophile column you go as far as giving people the mailing address where to send in their checks to get a copy of Clark Johnsen's self-published pamphlet promoting the subject...
The rest of your post doesn't deserve a word in reply. If I may paraphrase your own words, it's just an attempt to create a semantic swamp.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- "Semantic forests" and still no evidence you can cite? - tlyyra 12/26/0708:59:06 12/26/07 (1)
- More mindreading, it appears - John Atkinson 13:51:11 12/27/07 (0)