CD Vs. Vinyl?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry F Lavo wrote:
>
> Perhaps part of the problem here is that Michael seems adept at
seeing the
> possible dots that could be connected. With some lack of modesty,
that has
> been one of my strengths over the years that led to great success in
my
> field.

With at least an equal lack of modesty, the ancients seemed
especially adept at not only seeing the possible dots
that could be connected, but went on ahead and connected
them.

But being able to connect dots does not mean that the night
sky IS inhabited by number of creatures and beasts and other
wonderful beings instead of a random scattering of stars
that COULD be connected.

Science is NOT about connecting dots, but finding the real
connections, and rejecting those that only pretend to be real
or are wished into existance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> nabo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > No, there isn't a shred of evidence from psychology that these
tests
> > are inadequate. That's why tenured psychology professors like the
> > people whose books you are quoting use them every day.
> >
> > bob
>
> Not a "shred," eh?

No, not a shred. Present to us a counterexample--a single psychology
text anywhere that states that these tests are inadequate for the
purposes for which we are using them. You said psychology offered such
evidence. So supply it, and I'll eat crow. Or don't supply it, and pass
your plate.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> > They are however aware of two pieces of music sounding the same or
> > different, however they reach that conclusion, and decades of
> > experimentation have shown which comparison methods are able to
> > discriminate the smallest differences. If *you* wish to claim that
> > these methods are somehow flawed, then *you* have to present some
> > convincing evidence, not just handwave about psychoacoustics.
>
> Actually *I* (you just love putting stars around the word "you",
don't
> you?) don't have to do anything. Any idea can be hypothesized
whether
> or not it passes your personal standards. If you think it's bs, I
> suggest you simply not respond.

RAHE is not your personal blog, Michael. You put up your ideas here,
and grace them with the highfallutin' label "hypothesis," and you can
expect them to get shot down if you don't know what you are talking
about.

You have repeatedly made the claim that standard DBTs are somehow
inadequate. You have also repeatedly made the astounding claim that the
psychoacoustics literature provides evidence for this conjecture. Do
you really think statements like that will go unchallenged in a public
forum?

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d370v102sgo@news3.newsguy.com...

> Guess what? Those people were conscious of the their listening
> experience. Harman constructed a model of preference/accuracy based on
> a report of subjective experience. So consciousness and subjective
> experience can't be taken out of the equation.

I'll repeat a question I've asked before. If subjective experience "can't
be taken out of the equation", doesn't this invalidate ALL human
listening tests, and mean that measurements are the only way
to make comparisons?


> My hypotheses are based on the results of experiments in psychology, as
> well as introspection--- which by the way, is how a lot of hypotheses
> in psychology got started.

No doubt many hypotheses in psychology start as introspection. Does
this mean that all introspection results in a valid psychological
hyopthesis?

- Gary Rosen

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> They are however aware of two pieces of music sounding the same or
>> different, however they reach that conclusion, and decades of
>> experimentation have shown which comparison methods are able to
>> discriminate the smallest differences. If *you* wish to claim that
>> these methods are somehow flawed, then *you* have to present some
>> convincing evidence, not just handwave about psychoacoustics.
>
> Actually *I* (you just love putting stars around the word "you", don't
> you?) don't have to do anything. Any idea can be hypothesized whether
> or not it passes your personal standards. If you think it's bs, I
> suggest you simply not respond.
>

These forums will be really empty if people do not respond to anything
they think is BS. (See, I just responded . )

> -Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > >
> > > They are however aware of two pieces of music sounding the same or
> > > different, however they reach that conclusion, and decades of
> > > experimentation have shown which comparison methods are able to
> > > discriminate the smallest differences. If *you* wish to claim that
> > > these methods are somehow flawed, then *you* have to present some
> > > convincing evidence, not just handwave about psychoacoustics.
> >
> > Actually *I* (you just love putting stars around the word "you",
> don't
> > you?) don't have to do anything. Any idea can be hypothesized
> whether
> > or not it passes your personal standards. If you think it's bs, I
> > suggest you simply not respond.

> RAHE is not your personal blog, Michael. You put up your ideas here,
> and grace them with the highfallutin' label "hypothesis," and you can
> expect them to get shot down if you don't know what you are talking
> about.


Here is my prediction: Michael is going to end up somewhere like
audioasylum.com complaining to the chorus that RAHE is
dominated by objectivists who aren't open to 'new ideas' that challenge
accepted beliefs.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 9 Apr 2005 01:24:14 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>nabo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Michael Mossey wrote:
>>
>> > It is simply your opinion that my hypotheses are without virtue. By
>> > the way, my hypothesis is not so much that cables are audible, it's
>> > that there's something wrong with the tests we use to prove they aren't
>> > audible. There's plenty of evidence from psychology that relates to
>> > this.
>>
>> No, there isn't a shred of evidence from psychology that these tests
>> are inadequate. That's why tenured psychology professors like the
>> people whose books you are quoting use them every day.

>Not a "shred," eh? I suppose you have me accept *your* summary of an
>entire field of research on the force of your authority?

Absolutely not - we want *you* to produce evidence that one single
psychological authority figure has stated that quick-switched DBTs are
unsuited to the discrimination of subtle sonic differences. Just one.

BTW, when I previously mentioned that psychoacousticians are deeply
involved in the creation of audio compression algorithms, I failed to
mention that *all* of them use quick-switched DBTs to check their
results...............

> I think that
>you simply wish to be *entirely* sure of something, *utterly* beyond a
>doubt, so that you can't tolerate the idea that *any* evidence, not
>even the tiniest bit, would point in some other direction, or that
>there would be any ambiguity.

Actually, *you* are the one who instantly discards any and all
evidence which does not fit whatever 'hypothesis' you have cooked up
today. We would be more than happy to accept *evidence* that supports
any of your fancies, but you have not provided any.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d37hor015mu@news1.newsguy.com...
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >
>> > They are however aware of two pieces of music sounding the same or
>> > different, however they reach that conclusion, and decades of
>> > experimentation have shown which comparison methods are able to
>> > discriminate the smallest differences. If *you* wish to claim that
>> > these methods are somehow flawed, then *you* have to present some
>> > convincing evidence, not just handwave about psychoacoustics.
>>
>> Actually *I* (you just love putting stars around the word "you",
> don't
>> you?) don't have to do anything. Any idea can be hypothesized
> whether
>> or not it passes your personal standards. If you think it's bs, I
>> suggest you simply not respond.
>
> RAHE is not your personal blog, Michael. You put up your ideas here,
> and grace them with the highfallutin' label "hypothesis," and you can
> expect them to get shot down if you don't know what you are talking
> about.
>
> You have repeatedly made the claim that standard DBTs are somehow
> inadequate. You have also repeatedly made the astounding claim that the
> psychoacoustics literature provides evidence for this conjecture. Do
> you really think statements like that will go unchallenged in a public
> forum?

I think you're being needlessly rough with Mr. Mossey. Of all the
individuals taking the subjective viewpoint on this board, he is the most
reasonable and open to change. Personally, I'd like him to stay with us,
not be hounded to the point where he feels unwelcome.

Norm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
news:d37hn6015lf@news1.newsguy.com...
> Harry F Lavo wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps part of the problem here is that Michael seems adept at
> seeing the
>> possible dots that could be connected. With some lack of modesty,
> that has
>> been one of my strengths over the years that led to great success in
> my
>> field.
>
> With at least an equal lack of modesty, the ancients seemed
> especially adept at not only seeing the possible dots
> that could be connected, but went on ahead and connected
> them.
>
> But being able to connect dots does not mean that the night
> sky IS inhabited by number of creatures and beasts and other
> wonderful beings instead of a random scattering of stars
> that COULD be connected.
>
> Science is NOT about connecting dots, but finding the real
> connections, and rejecting those that only pretend to be real
> or are wished into existance.

I think we've reached rock bottom of the CD Vs.Vinyl business.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > >
> > > They are however aware of two pieces of music sounding the same
or
> > > different, however they reach that conclusion, and decades of
> > > experimentation have shown which comparison methods are able to
> > > discriminate the smallest differences. If *you* wish to claim
that
> > > these methods are somehow flawed, then *you* have to present some
> > > convincing evidence, not just handwave about psychoacoustics.
> >
> > Actually *I* (you just love putting stars around the word "you",
> don't
> > you?) don't have to do anything. Any idea can be hypothesized
> whether
> > or not it passes your personal standards. If you think it's bs, I
> > suggest you simply not respond.
>
> RAHE is not your personal blog, Michael.

Nor is it yours. Nor is it Stewart's. We're all free to do whatever
we want. I'm not the one demanding what other people do. It's fine
with me whether you present evidence for your position or not.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> Here is my prediction: Michael is going to end up somewhere like
> audioasylum.com complaining to the chorus that RAHE is
> dominated by objectivists who aren't open to 'new ideas' that
challenge
> accepted beliefs.

Not necessarily. Let's give him some credit. He, unlike so many we have
heard from before, has at least tried to do some blind tests. (And,
contrary to your misreading of him, he's never disputed the absolute
necessity of blind tests. His argument is with "quick switching.") And
now that he's done a few more and gotten the results that some of us
supposedly closed-minded objectivists predicted he would, perhaps he'll
give us a little more credit than he did at first.

And perhaps he'll take up his own initial challenge--to do his
five-minutes-at-a-time same-different test and see whether he doesn't
do better. (I predict he won't, but he shouldn't take my word for
that.)

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d37hor015mu@news1.newsguy.com...
> > Michael Mossey wrote:
> >> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> >
> >> > They are however aware of two pieces of music sounding the same
or
> >> > different, however they reach that conclusion, and decades of
> >> > experimentation have shown which comparison methods are able to
> >> > discriminate the smallest differences. If *you* wish to claim
that
> >> > these methods are somehow flawed, then *you* have to present
some
> >> > convincing evidence, not just handwave about psychoacoustics.
> >>
> >> Actually *I* (you just love putting stars around the word "you",
> > don't
> >> you?) don't have to do anything. Any idea can be hypothesized
> > whether
> >> or not it passes your personal standards. If you think it's bs, I
> >> suggest you simply not respond.
> >
> > RAHE is not your personal blog, Michael. You put up your ideas
here,
> > and grace them with the highfallutin' label "hypothesis," and you
can
> > expect them to get shot down if you don't know what you are talking
> > about.
> >
> > You have repeatedly made the claim that standard DBTs are somehow
> > inadequate. You have also repeatedly made the astounding claim that
the
> > psychoacoustics literature provides evidence for this conjecture.
Do
> > you really think statements like that will go unchallenged in a
public
> > forum?
>
> I think you're being needlessly rough with Mr. Mossey. Of all the
> individuals taking the subjective viewpoint on this board, he is the
most
> reasonable and open to change. Personally, I'd like him to stay with
us,
> not be hounded to the point where he feels unwelcome.

I was being rough on him in this particular instance because I just
don't take kindly to people telling anyone they shouldn't respond to
things they disagree with. That way leads to the Asylum.

More generally, I think I and others have been mostly measured in our
responses to him. When he's asked questions (as opposed to making
pronouncements), we've answered them. When he's proposed to conduct
listening tests, we've encouraged him and offered advice on how best to
do them.

Once he started using the psychoacoustics literature for his own
purposes, things got a little ugly, as they are wont to do around here.
Some of his statements I thought really were out of bounds--and
especially irksome coming from someone who had seemed so reasonable!
Perhaps that explains some of the vehemence.

But you are right--He's been more open-minded than most of those we see
arguing his point of view, and I for one will resolve to try to take
his future posts in that spirit.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Gary Rosen wrote:
> "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d370v102sgo@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> > Guess what? Those people were conscious of the their listening
> > experience. Harman constructed a model of preference/accuracy
based on
> > a report of subjective experience. So consciousness and subjective
> > experience can't be taken out of the equation.
>
> I'll repeat a question I've asked before. If subjective experience
"can't
> be taken out of the equation", doesn't this invalidate ALL human
> listening tests, and mean that measurements are the only way
> to make comparisons?
>
>

Thank you for asking a philosophical question rather than bashing my
hypothesis.

I don't think it *invalidates* all listening tests. First of all,
subjective is not equal to unknowable. We can form hypotheses about
consciousness and test them.

We can also know objectively that consciousness can resolve a
difference, simply by showing a positive result in a DBT.

We can also try to improve the conditions of DBT's by developing an
understanding of consciousness.

> > My hypotheses are based on the results of experiments in
psychology, as
> > well as introspection--- which by the way, is how a lot of
hypotheses
> > in psychology got started.
>
> No doubt many hypotheses in psychology start as introspection. Does
> this mean that all introspection results in a valid psychological
> hyopthesis?
>
> - Gary Rosen

Another good philosophical question. I don't think there really is
such a notion as "valid" or "invalid" hypotheses. There are "likely"
and "unlikely" hypotheses. There are hypotheses we wish to spend our
money testing, and those we don't. There are hypotheses we with to
spend our time debating, and those we don't.

My hypothesis happens to match the subjective experience of a lot of
people. (I'm not talking about the subjective experience of cables
mattering or anything like that, but rather the subjective experience
of knowing that context affects perception.) I happen to trust these
observations--not as absolute truth, but certainly as leading to a
hypothesis that is worth discussing and testing. I happen to wish to
spend my time discussing it. And if I had some spare money, I would
spend that testing it.

Other people disagree. That's fine, although it is a bit odd to
denounce my hypothesis as absurd, and then spend so much time replying
to me.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
> > nabo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > No, there isn't a shred of evidence from psychology that these
> tests
> > > are inadequate. That's why tenured psychology professors like the
> > > people whose books you are quoting use them every day.
> > >
> > > bob
> >
> > Not a "shred," eh?
>
> No, not a shred. Present to us a counterexample--a single psychology
> text anywhere that states that these tests are inadequate for the
> purposes for which we are using them. You said psychology offered
such
> evidence. So supply it, and I'll eat crow. Or don't supply it, and
pass
> your plate.
>
> bob

I think we are getting a bit off the track. I know we are on the track
*you* want to be on, which is an evidence vs. evidence pitched battle
to the death. However, from the beginning I have made it clear that I
have a *philosophical* objection to the experimental technique. Of
course, from *inside* the technique, nothing will look wrong. If you
consider thinking about "how we know what we know" to be a waste of
time, then I suggest you ignore me.

There happens to be plenty of evidence from psychology that
consciousness is not a projection of our senses onto an internal
screen, where we are free to see anything we wish or anything we think
relevant.

My example is this: subjects are shown a videotape
of a basketball game. At one point during the game, a man in a
gorilla suit walks through the court in plain view. During the
experiment, subjects are told to follow the ball. Almost without
fail, they don't see the gorilla suit. When they are told about it
afterwards, most people vehemently deny that this could be possible,
that something so obvious could happen and not be noticed. As humans,
our feeling that we should be able to "see" everything going in front
of our noses is very strong, but it's not true.

You probably think this is meaningless. Fine. Feel free to call it
ridiculous, or not evidence, or anything you want. However, I'm going
to keep thinking about *how* we know what we know. I'm going to keep
doing blind tests whenever I can get my friend to help. I hope to test
my ability to distinguish vinyl and digital copy.

If you aren't interested in a discussion on philosophical grounds, or
you aren't interested in looking *outside* a field into order to find
links back into it, then don't reply.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2005 01:24:14 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>

> BTW, when I previously mentioned that psychoacousticians are deeply
> involved in the creation of audio compression algorithms, I failed to
> mention that *all* of them use quick-switched DBTs to check their
> results...............
>

I noticed you never replied to a couple of my earlier points.

By the way, I truly am impressed with your point that audio compression
is understand well. I truly am impressed that we can throw out so much
of a signal and not change it subjectively, significantly.

However, earlier I said that audio is about replicating a conscious
experience. You disagreed. I said that if you were right, we wouldn't
need conscious test subjects. You never have responded to me about
that.

I pointed out that conscious test subjects are necessary to interpret
measurements of speakers. They are necessary to interpret distortion
measurments of amplifiers (although, I grant you that a near-perfect
amplifier could be called accurate without further tests). And here,
in your example of audio compression algorithms, they are necessary to
evaluate algorithms.

Measuring the output of a codec doesn't tell you whether it is
accurate. Listening to it does. I grant you that once we had listened
to enough, we could form models and begin to predict things from the
measurements.

However, all these points support my contention that audio is about
creating a conscious experience first and foremost. Only as a tool or
model can it be said to be about reproducing a signal.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2005 02:45:17 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, I think that the human brain is very sensitive to realism of
> >stimuli, to the question of whether the details line up. If we are
> >presented with something phony, we know it.
>
> Michael, at least three people have now told you that this is not
> true, and have described the situations where they and others were
> 'fooled'. Where is your *evidence* to back your assertion that we
know
> if a sound is not 'live'?

My point was never that "anyone can tell a difference under any
situation." I think that the original point was raised by Steven, who
objected to something I said on the basis that "memory" would be a
problem. My example was meant simply to broaden our focus--to point
out that it can be more than "memory" that lets us detect a phony
signal.

We *know* that some signals are distorted enough to detect on that
basis, no memory required. I extend from that, the possibility that
audiophiles can detect distortions in their equipment or remember
sounds better than we think.

What's my evidence? Intuition gained from other fields. Last time I
checked, "intuition" was an acceptable reason to post something on
RAHE.

>
> > Again I mention the
> >experiments with infants in which they preferred to look at a movie
> >with synchronized sound and image (compared to a movie with a skew
> >between sound and image).
>
> What has this to do with anything?

The point follows.

>
> >It doesn't even have to be a question of memory--you don't have to
> >"remember" anything to know that "something is wrong with this
> >picture." Infants can do it at a few months old.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d37hor015mu@news1.newsguy.com...
> > Michael Mossey wrote:
> >> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> >
> >> > They are however aware of two pieces of music sounding the same
or
> >> > different, however they reach that conclusion, and decades of
> >> > experimentation have shown which comparison methods are able to
> >> > discriminate the smallest differences. If *you* wish to claim
that
> >> > these methods are somehow flawed, then *you* have to present
some
> >> > convincing evidence, not just handwave about psychoacoustics.
> >>
> >> Actually *I* (you just love putting stars around the word "you",
> > don't
> >> you?) don't have to do anything. Any idea can be hypothesized
> > whether
> >> or not it passes your personal standards. If you think it's bs, I
> >> suggest you simply not respond.
> >
> > RAHE is not your personal blog, Michael. You put up your ideas
here,
> > and grace them with the highfallutin' label "hypothesis," and you
can
> > expect them to get shot down if you don't know what you are talking
> > about.
> >
> > You have repeatedly made the claim that standard DBTs are somehow
> > inadequate. You have also repeatedly made the astounding claim that
the
> > psychoacoustics literature provides evidence for this conjecture.
Do
> > you really think statements like that will go unchallenged in a
public
> > forum?
>
> I think you're being needlessly rough with Mr. Mossey. Of all the
> individuals taking the subjective viewpoint on this board, he is the
most
> reasonable and open to change. Personally, I'd like him to stay with
us,
> not be hounded to the point where he feels unwelcome.
>
> Norm

Thanks, Norm. Actually, I have participated in several usenet groups
from time to time, but usually my interest is short-lived. I realize
we aren't getting much from this current discussion and I will attempt
to leave it alone if I can convince myself to be so rational.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Michael Mossey wrote:
> > > nabo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > No, there isn't a shred of evidence from psychology that these
> > tests
> > > > are inadequate. That's why tenured psychology professors like
the
> > > > people whose books you are quoting use them every day.
> > > >
> > > > bob
> > >
> > > Not a "shred," eh?
> >
> > No, not a shred. Present to us a counterexample--a single
psychology
> > text anywhere that states that these tests are inadequate for the
> > purposes for which we are using them. You said psychology offered
> such
> > evidence. So supply it, and I'll eat crow. Or don't supply it, and
> pass
> > your plate.
> >
> > bob
>
> I think we are getting a bit off the track. I know we are on the
track
> *you* want to be on, which is an evidence vs. evidence pitched battle
> to the death. However, from the beginning I have made it clear that
I
> have a *philosophical* objection to the experimental technique.

Huh? You have made no such thing clear. Please explain your
"philosophical" objection. Also, please explain why such a
"philosophical" objection should matter, when the evidence is clear.

> Of
> course, from *inside* the technique, nothing will look wrong. If you
> consider thinking about "how we know what we know" to be a waste of
> time, then I suggest you ignore me.

It's not. In fact, I have considered "how we know what we know," and
I've determined to my own satisfaction that we *know* as a result of
decades of careful scientific research that cannot be tossed aside by a
simple plea to "philosophy."

> There happens to be plenty of evidence from psychology that
> consciousness is not a projection of our senses onto an internal
> screen, where we are free to see anything we wish or anything we
think
> relevant.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

> My example is this: subjects are shown a videotape
> of a basketball game. At one point during the game, a man in a
> gorilla suit walks through the court in plain view. During the
> experiment, subjects are told to follow the ball. Almost without
> fail, they don't see the gorilla suit. When they are told about it
> afterwards, most people vehemently deny that this could be possible,
> that something so obvious could happen and not be noticed. As
humans,
> our feeling that we should be able to "see" everything going in front
> of our noses is very strong, but it's not true.

And the relevance of this to listening tests is...? What "gorilla" are
our test subjects missing, and what is your evidence (sorry to use that
word, but it really is necessary if you're going to determine anything)
that they are missing it?

> You probably think this is meaningless. Fine. Feel free to call it
> ridiculous, or not evidence, or anything you want. However, I'm
going
> to keep thinking about *how* we know what we know. I'm going to keep
> doing blind tests whenever I can get my friend to help. I hope to
test
> my ability to distinguish vinyl and digital copy.
>
> If you aren't interested in a discussion on philosophical grounds, or
> you aren't interested in looking *outside* a field into order to find
> links back into it, then don't reply.

I'm getting a little tired of this line.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> > <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d37hor015mu@news1.newsguy.com...
> > > Michael Mossey wrote:
> > >> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > They are however aware of two pieces of music sounding the same
> or
> > >> > different, however they reach that conclusion, and decades of
> > >> > experimentation have shown which comparison methods are able to
> > >> > discriminate the smallest differences. If *you* wish to claim
> that
> > >> > these methods are somehow flawed, then *you* have to present
> some
> > >> > convincing evidence, not just handwave about psychoacoustics.
> > >>
> > >> Actually *I* (you just love putting stars around the word "you",
> > > don't
> > >> you?) don't have to do anything. Any idea can be hypothesized
> > > whether
> > >> or not it passes your personal standards. If you think it's bs, I
> > >> suggest you simply not respond.
> > >
> > > RAHE is not your personal blog, Michael. You put up your ideas
> here,
> > > and grace them with the highfallutin' label "hypothesis," and you
> can
> > > expect them to get shot down if you don't know what you are talking
> > > about.
> > >
> > > You have repeatedly made the claim that standard DBTs are somehow
> > > inadequate. You have also repeatedly made the astounding claim that
> the
> > > psychoacoustics literature provides evidence for this conjecture.
> Do
> > > you really think statements like that will go unchallenged in a
> public
> > > forum?
> >
> > I think you're being needlessly rough with Mr. Mossey. Of all the
> > individuals taking the subjective viewpoint on this board, he is the
> most
> > reasonable and open to change. Personally, I'd like him to stay with
> us,
> > not be hounded to the point where he feels unwelcome.


> I was being rough on him in this particular instance because I just
> don't take kindly to people telling anyone they shouldn't respond to
> things they disagree with. That way leads to the Asylum.

> More generally, I think I and others have been mostly measured in our
> responses to him. When he's asked questions (as opposed to making
> pronouncements), we've answered them. When he's proposed to conduct
> listening tests, we've encouraged him and offered advice on how best to
> do them.

> Once he started using the psychoacoustics literature for his own
> purposes, things got a little ugly, as they are wont to do around here.
> Some of his statements I thought really were out of bounds--and
> especially irksome coming from someone who had seemed so reasonable!
> Perhaps that explains some of the vehemence.

To answer both yours and Norman's posts in one post --

IMO, I'm not willfully misreading Michael; I realize he knows that sighted listening
has serious problems. My question is -- and Stewart appears to have zeroed
in on the same bit of rhetorical judo -- Why does he presume that there is a 'problem'
with blind testing methods? From where comes this pressing need to 'fix' blind testing?
In his own words, he is motivated at least in part by 'intuition' that tells him
there's something wrong... at which point the hunt is on in t he psychoacoustic literature
to validate that intuition.

I've been reading RAHE for some years now...by no means the longest, but
long enough to remember that similar arguments have come up before.
The semi-regular outbreaks of 'philosophical' musings on memory,
consciousness, and the mind/body problem on RAHE are *always* in the context of subjectivists
trying to 'explain' why those pesky blind tests are so often at odds with
results from sighted evaluation. Even if this is not explicitly
stated, it is the foundation and subtext of the 'speculation'. Inevitably , 'normal'
evaluation (i.e., sighted, uncontrolled), even when admitted to be intrinsically flawed,
is clung to as also having some real predictive value that blind testing
methodology 'misses' or obscures. By this POV there *has* to be something wrong with standard
blind testing methods. Michael's arguments rest on this premise, and thus he
joins the lineage of Mirabels, Lavos, maybe a half-dozen or so others whose names
I can't retrieve right now, who have each in their own ways taken up a plea for special
'modes of consciousness' that might salvage that reputation of sighted listening.




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> > <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d37hor015mu@news1.newsguy.com...
> > > Michael Mossey wrote:
> > >> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > They are however aware of two pieces of music sounding the
same
> or
> > >> > different, however they reach that conclusion, and decades of
> > >> > experimentation have shown which comparison methods are able
to
> > >> > discriminate the smallest differences. If *you* wish to claim
> that
> > >> > these methods are somehow flawed, then *you* have to present
> some
> > >> > convincing evidence, not just handwave about psychoacoustics.
> > >>
> > >> Actually *I* (you just love putting stars around the word "you",
> > > don't
> > >> you?) don't have to do anything. Any idea can be hypothesized
> > > whether
> > >> or not it passes your personal standards. If you think it's bs,
I
> > >> suggest you simply not respond.
> > >
> > > RAHE is not your personal blog, Michael. You put up your ideas
> here,
> > > and grace them with the highfallutin' label "hypothesis," and you
> can
> > > expect them to get shot down if you don't know what you are
talking
> > > about.
> > >
> > > You have repeatedly made the claim that standard DBTs are somehow
> > > inadequate. You have also repeatedly made the astounding claim
that
> the
> > > psychoacoustics literature provides evidence for this conjecture.
> Do
> > > you really think statements like that will go unchallenged in a
> public
> > > forum?
> >
> > I think you're being needlessly rough with Mr. Mossey. Of all the
> > individuals taking the subjective viewpoint on this board, he is
the
> most
> > reasonable and open to change. Personally, I'd like him to stay
with
> us,
> > not be hounded to the point where he feels unwelcome.
>
> I was being rough on him in this particular instance because I just
> don't take kindly to people telling anyone they shouldn't respond to
> things they disagree with. That way leads to the Asylum.

Actually, what I'm suggesting is that he stop repeating the same
ad-hominen attacks. And if his response boils down to mocking the idea
that a philosophical argument has any relevance, then it would be best
if he said that directly and got it over with.

>
> More generally, I think I and others have been mostly measured in our
> responses to him. When he's asked questions (as opposed to making
> pronouncements), we've answered them. When he's proposed to conduct
> listening tests, we've encouraged him and offered advice on how best
to
> do them.
>
> Once he started using the psychoacoustics literature for his own
> purposes, things got a little ugly, as they are wont to do around
here.
> Some of his statements I thought really were out of bounds--and
> especially irksome coming from someone who had seemed so reasonable!
> Perhaps that explains some of the vehemence.

What was so "out of bounds"?

>
> But you are right--He's been more open-minded than most of those we
see
> arguing his point of view, and I for one will resolve to try to take
> his future posts in that spirit.
>
> bob

I appreciate your information and I will try to be nicer. It think it
was clear from the beginning that I have primarily philosophical
arguments. I have already given as much evidence
as I can. To some extent this is degerating into "this is what my
intuition tells me" / "give us the evidence" over and over. It may be
best to let it go.

-Mike