Hi Amir,
How about the ones where I questioned your bias in posts #286 and #287? Missed those, huh?
Never mind, no biggie. After the many posts of yours I’ve read since joining the forum, I’m guessing -
guessing, mind - your reply would more or less be something along the lines of:
—
Hi 853guy,
Thank you for your post.
Please allow me to deflect attention away from your points as if my background as Corporate VP at Microsoft obviates me from any responsibility to acknowledge them in light of my bias.
Here instead is a chart I’ve scanned from a textbook. Please note my use of red text, blue text and a different font when I’m doubling down on my bias. By the way, I used to work at Microsoft, did I tell you?
Attached is a photo of “Prof” Keith O. Johnson holding a Grammy, just like Milli Vanilli did.
I’ve also attached another chart of measurements I myself produced under sighted conditions, fully cognisant of the product’s name, its materiality, its build quality, its retail price and the fact that I am resentful I had to pony up to pay for it myself. No controls were necessary here because I decided specifically to subject this product to testing due to the fact if was from a manufacturer I do not sell through my high-end installation business.
Sean Olive.
Also, I’ve attached a stock image of something not related to your post, nor in fact, anything, really, followed by lots and lots of text about ABX tests I have “passed” and issue you a challenge to take them yourself, despite the fact they lack appropriate controls, are self-administered, have limited utility value and prove nothing except that on a particular occasion, a difference was detected to within a certain level of statistical confidence. But allow me to over-generalise on those results anyway.
A photo of my dog.
A lot of rhetoric in which I avoid the need to acknowledge any of the research that offers extremely robust, peer-reviewed, published, statistically-significant findings into experimenter bias, design bias, selection/sampling bias including omission bias and inclusivity bias, the halo effect, response bias, performance bias, procedural bias, measurement bias, reporting bias, citation bias, confounding, reactivity effect (1) and the John Henry Effect. None of those things apply to me anyway because I’ve won three Emmys.
Lots more text on the outrage that I need to justify my position here. Did I not already say I worked at Microsoft?
Floyd Toole.
There. Do you now see how much effort it is for me to deflect attention away from the inherent bias in many of my posts? If only you would take the ABX test you would appreciate that I use those tests very specifically, not because they have any statistical correlation to one’s ability to appreciate music via an intermediary electro-acoustic device, but in order to avoid any self-reflection on my part whether my agenda influences my ability to remain objective about anything I post. Also, I have lots and lots of practice detecting minute sonic differences, so I’m confident you won’t know what to listen for.
Oh. You took the ABX test and had results in which the level of confidence was greater than chance?
Let me give you another one I know I’ve already managed to “pass”.
BTW… link to my new forum: audiobiasreview.com
—
Did I more or less get the gist of them? Did I get close?
Amir, in all seriousness, you’ve had the chance to contribute something useful to this forum, and beyond that, potentially our pursuit of greater enjoyment from the gear we use to listen to music. The satirical tone above is deliberate and something I take full responsibility for, but in light of my earnest and genuine prior attempts to point out the bias that I and others believe corrupts your perspective, both in my replies to you on this forum and privately, I use this methodology as a last resort (2).
And despite being willing to learn something about an aspect of audio reproduction I’ve heretofore been naive in, your level of credibility - despite your many, many posts (or perhaps, because of them) - has declined steadily for me, and for the all the reasons related to the inherent bias I and others have mentioned previously in the posts you apparently can’t or won’t acknowledge.
“Scientific method is about using ears and only ears to evaluate things. (...) The random evaluation of audiophiles with their eyes open and brain full of prejudice (...) is a recipe for disaster.”
Do you know who said that? You did, in post #372. The exact same person who bought the “$300 AC outlet” to evaluate, and before the evaluation even began stated you were “confident (it) will do zero to improve audio performance”, while planning to conduct an uncontrolled test, sighted.
Using technical knowledge, or data, or graphs, or measurements, or ABX tests, or testing methodologies -
without eliminating bias - and using them to further an agenda against those who do not share your world-view is not audio science. It’s audio zealotry. I cannot think of any term to more accurately describes your conduct here.
Of course, I could have simply turned a blind eye to your posts and ignored them as many already do, and perhaps, as you’ve done to me. But given your level of influence, not to mention the way in which you’ve conducted yourself on this forum and your refusal to acknowledge when you’ve been mistaken, intellectually dishonest or simply wrong, I feel compelled to respond because I see someone who has a lot to offer, if only your own agenda and bias could be put to one side. Me personally? I think that’s a shame.
I realise this is just my personal view on your conduct. I too have a bias, so I offer this counterpoint to you fully aware of its limits - it is after all, one person’s perspective. Whether you take it or leave it will be of no consequence to me, but may have continued consequences for the forum in which many good people have left because of your tactics. I know, because I’ve been contacted by some of them personally.
Nevertheless, I continue to wish you well in whatever it is you put your hand to. I hope that whatever that is, it will be built upon something more credible than the posts you make here.
My best to you,
853guy
(1) See the “Hawthorne Effect” in which subjects aware of being observed in a given study show greater variance and inconsistency of results, with both positive and negative skews. For more, see McCambridge, Witton & Elbourne (2014),
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969247/
(2) For more on the use of satire as a critique of claims to power and authority in political discourse, see “The Impact of Real News about ‘Fake News’: Intertextual Processes and Political Satire”; Brewer, Goldthwaite Young & Morreale (2013);
https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/arti...-News-about-Fake-News?redirectedFrom=fulltext
