|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: "Semantic forests" and still no evidence you can cite? posted by tlyyra on December 26, 2007 at 08:59:06:
> > > > > John Atkinson in Stereophile: "Work by Stanley Lipshitz in the
> > > > > late '70s (footnote 9), using carefully organized double-blind
> > > > > testing, confirmed that a reversal of absolute signal polarity will
> > > > > be subtly audible on music [and definitely audible on test signals]
> > > > > to a 99% confidence limit! (Indeed, it is one of the few things that
> > > > > can be reliably detected with double-blind testing.)"
> > > >
> > > > John Atkinson above: "This statement of mine is absolutely correct."
> > >
> > > So: Two references please to show that audibility of polarity
> > > reversal can be reliably detected with DBTs? Even one?? Otherwise
> > > the conclusion will be evident even to the casual readers here
> > > that you are lying, since this has been pointed out to you already
> > > many times before, and so it is not like you are unaware of the
> > > facts by now and are simply making one more "innocuous error" as
> > > your apologists would have it.
> >
> > Sigh. I really think that your anger arises from 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, tlyyra, rather than their literal
> > meaning. Why you are so ready to dismiss the first-order meaning
> > of what someone has written, I have no idea.
> >
> > For example, please note that my saying earlier in the thread
> > that "This statement of mine is absolutely correct" was clearly
> > referring to my parenthetical sentence on my 1988 essay that
> > "Indeed, it is one of the few things that can be reliably
> > detected with double-blind testing," _not_ the entire quoted
> > passage as you misleadingly present above. As I was introducing
> > the subject of absolute polarity, the antecedent for the word
> > "it" was just plain "absolute polarity." And yes, absolute
> > polarity _is_ conclusively audible in DBTs. You yourself,
> > tlyrra, have given references to such tests where the listeners
> > scored 24 correct identifications out of 24 trials, and in a
> > report I published in HFN in the mid-1980s, I write about a test
> > I took in Boston in 1984 where, using an ABX comparator, I
> > scored 19 correct identifications out of 20.
> >
> > Now, it is fair to clarify that such success was with
> > asymmetrical test tones. But if you read my parenthetical
> > sentence carefully, you will note that I did not qualify it
> > in any way, by saying "on test tones only" or "not on music."
> > This is because I was using this literally correct statement
> > to poke fun at the whole concept of double-blind testing. I
> > had thought the humor self-evident; obviously I was wrong to
> > have thought that, given that I have had to explain the joke
> > to you. :-(
>
> 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"?
I have inserted the full text of mine to which you were responding,
tlyyra, so others can clearly see how you twist my words in order
to score debating points. I don't see the point of continuing a
discussion with someone like yourself who misquotes, misinterprets,
and misrepresents what others write, then claims he knows what others
_really_ meant to have written, even though they didn't actually write
the words he "quotes."
> I will abstain from saying that you are lying again since pointing
> that out that seems to be punishable by banishment from this forum.
Thank you, tlyrra. That is very gracious of you. In return, I will
refrain from asking whether English is your first language, given
how difficult you find it to comprehend what others write.
> 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.)
"Not generally audible" does not mean the same as inaudible under all
circumstances, so I fail to see this as the "gotcha" you believe it
to be, tlyrra.
> 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])...
No, the complete footnote 9 in my 1988 essay referred to _two_
articles, vide: 'A little understood factor in A/B testing,'
The BAS Speaker, March 1979, followed by 'On the Audibility of
Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems' (with John Vanderkooy
and Mark Pocock), JAES, Vol.30 No.9, September 1982."
> ...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"... :-(
Forgive me, but I fail to see how how does your quoting from
the 1982 AES paper proves that my 1988 paraphrase was incorrect.
"Not generally audible" allows for audibility under some
circumstances; Stanley had earlier used the phrase "subtly audible"
on music. None of this equates to "inaudible under all circumstances,"
as you appear to believe.> > "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.
No? That is what Stanley wrote. I know that in your opinion he was
wrong to state the combined results, but your opinions are not my
concern.
> You state "audible on music."
When did I write that it was "audible on music" without qualification?
Again, tlyrra, your willingness to misrepresent what others write makes
discussion fruitless.
> > please note that, despite your mindreading claims earlier in this
> > thread, I don't believe absolute polarity to be very important.
>
> No? Another interesting twist in the plot then?
When have I said the opposite, that absolute polarity _is_ very
important? More mind-reading on your part, tlyyra?
> 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...
Yes. It's an excellent read, passionately written. I still recommend it.
> > While I do preserve it in my own recordings, almost all commercial
> > recordings are compromised in this respect, as I pointed out in that
> > 1988 essay. But if there is a recording that I feel might benefit, I
> > flip the preamp polarity with my remote control. Most often it makes no
> > difference; very occasionally it does. It's "no biggie," to use your
> > own phrase, and certainly not worth the thousands of words you have
> > now posted on this subject.
>
> The rest of your post doesn't deserve a word in reply.
Sorry. I thought you would interested in my opinion. Oh well,
have a nice day, tlyrra.
John Atkinson
Editor, StereophileEdited to correct a typo
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- More mindreading, it appears - John Atkinson 12/27/0713:51:11 12/27/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
