It’s All a Preference

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim Stop arguing and read.

Sean's study purports to show a corrrealtion between acuuracy and preference. (He concedes the sample is to small to apply to the general public). Niow read the other quote:

[Empahsis supplied]

See the difference. In Seans persoanl preference verified by measured accuracy. In quote "without any vailidation whatsoever."

I read it the first time. I just re-read it twice. I still don't get your point. FWIW, I'm just trying to give you and the rest of the Subjectivists some room to enjoy whatever it is that you enjoy.

Sean's study - which by the way was not the college student thing - was pretty exhaustive and just the latest installment of similar studies conducted by Toole and company in Canada over a couple of decades does show a correlation between accuracy and preference. I believe it. It is a fundamental part of my belief about audio -- accuracy, not euphonic tonality, is what is "musical" because it is closer to the music.

That, however, doesn't invalidate the choice of anyone who prefers something less "accurate."

That was my point.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Who said I was a subjectivist? I just discussed that whole thing on the Terasa Goodwin thread.

I never said "euphonic tonality" whatever that is, is closer to the music. Although if it's what I think it is, it is often less offensive.
For both arguments I quoted directly from the orignal poster,from Sean's study, from the URL provided by the poster and statistics form the book Understand Statistics. I don't know how I could be clearer.

As you pointed out "speakers are the most colored of the components. There's a big stretch to call them accurate. I also believe it was a a majority of listeners not a unanamity.

BTW two insufficient samples adds to two insufficient samples. Not one sufficient one.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Who said I was a subjectivist? I just discussed that whole thing on the Terasa Goodwin thread.

I never said "euphonic tonality" whatever that is, is closer to the music. Although if it's what I think it is, it is often less offensive.
For both arguments I quoted directly from the orignal poster,from Sean's study, from the URL provided by the poster and statistics form the book Understand Statistics. I don't know how I could be clearer.

As you pointed out "speakers are the most colored of the components. There's a big stretch to call them accurate. I also believe it was a a majority of listeners not a unanamity.

BTW two insufficient samples adds to two insufficient samples. Not one sufficient one.

I wasn't quoting you, or talking about you when I said subjectivist or euphonic tonality. I was talking about subjectivists in general. I don't know how you could be any clearer either, but I'm still not sure I have any idea what you're talking about. Here's all I've said:

-- The Toole/Olive studies indicate a correlation between even FR in speakers and preference.

-- That doesn't make even response the only preference that is legitimate. People prefer what they prefer, and that is their valid choice, regardless of what any study says.

Here's what I haven't said:

-- Anything about your preferences
-- That the Toole/Olive studies prove anything

Now, I don't know how I can be any clearer, and I don't know what you could possibly be arguing with, but I'm not arguing at all.

Oh, and this has me very confused:

No. He was responding to ym post which he edited to mean something completely difference

Who is ym? Which post did I "edit?" Please point to this post. If I've begun editing in my sleep again, I need to know...

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

---"ym post" = 'my' post (Greg's post). ...Simple typo. :b

* And when Greg mentioned "editing", I too was confused. ...I did not see any editing, or even a glimpse of it.
And by the way Greg, I knew that Tim was replying to one of your posts earlier.
Me, I simply gave my understanding of it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

---"ym post" = 'my' post (Greg's post). ...Simple typo. :b

* And when Greg mentioned "editing", I too was confused. ...I did not see any editing, or even a glimpse of it.
And by the way Greg, I knew that Tim was replying to one of your posts earlier.
Me, I simply gave my understanding of it.

Ah...well, now I'd like to know which of Greg's posts I edited. Gotta stop sleep-editing.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Ah...well, now I'd like to know which of Greg's posts I edited. Gotta stop sleep-editing.

Tim

-----No no Tim; Greg was referring to your own post when he mentioned "edited".

Lol, you guys are navigating into the wrong waters! ...I think?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

-----No no Tim; Greg was referring to your own post when he mentioned "edited".

Lol, you guys are navigating into the wrong waters! ...I think?

I edited my own post? So? I do that all the time. I write one. I look at it, I decide to make additions or minor adjustments. I don't do it after someone has responded to it, but sure, I do it. I'm a writer. Editing is part of the process. You don't just throw up something into the ether in the time it would take you to say it just because it's the internet. The discipline doesn't just go away. But I don't think I have "completely changed the meaning" of anything. Still, I'll cop to it if we can end this mindless head-banging. Yeah. I edited my own post.

Tim

Oops...I'd put a quotation mark in the wrong place and went back and changed it...my bad.

ON EDIT (does this help?): If it was my post he was talking about, why did he say, and I quote (accurately, not euphonically) "ym post"? Is ym short for Tim? Vulcan perhaps? Really, audio can be so difficult....

 

[NorthStar]

---Now don't be so silly Tim.

You and Greg are two terrific guys, and you are both funny. :b ...And that's all it truly matters.
...And that's my preference as well; even if it's not truly accurate.

 

[Gregadd]

Tim that's the problem I have. I could deconstruct Seans' study. This is my point and be very careful, How does Sean extrapollate the results of his study to the general public? That is, how did he choose the test subjects. Did he hire them? Did he take anyone who showed up? Addiutonally how did he chose the speakers to be tested? You have to be very careful how you go about that. How is that his speaker was the most "accurate?" Did he design a unique product. Maybe you do not know these things. Perhgaps AMIR can help us. He purchased the paper.

 

[Gregadd]

I wasn't quoting you, or talking about you when I said subjectivist

Tim Post #597

I'm just trying to give you and the rest of the Subjectivists

Tim Post #595

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim that's the problem I have. I could deconstruct Seans' study. This is my point and be very careful, How does Sean extrapollate the results of his study to the general public? That is, how did he choose the test subjects. Did he hire them? Did he take anyone who showed up? Addiutonally how did he chose the speakers to be tested? You have to be very careful how you go about that. How is that his speaker was the most "accurate?" Did he design a unique product. Maybe you do not know these things. Perhgaps AMIR can help us. He purchased the paper.

Greg, I think the problem is we're talking about two different studies. You keep referring to the short, informal study he did with the college students. I'm referring to the speaker studies that began at the Canadian research center with Toole in the 1980s and continue, on-going, at Harman today under Olive's leadership. You want to deconstruct that? Be my guest. It is probably the most comprehensive set of speaker studies done to date. And it is pretty seriously buttoned-up. There was a long thread about it here a couple of months ago. Surely you remember, it's the one in which the poor FR of MLs was revealed in measurements and reacted to negatively in listening. Guys kept coming around, like test samples on Harman's rotating speaker shifter, to take shots. Every substantive shot I remember had an even more substantive answer from Dr. Olive. As often as not, an objection was raised and Sean's answer went something like "we anticipated that and ran another study to....." Or "We anticipated that problem and inserted this control..." I don't think anyone came up with a substantive objection that wasn't anticipated and addressed before the study began.

Deconstruct. I'll watch.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim Post #597

Tim Post #595

Busted. My apologies if I labeled you inaccurately.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Tim You and Northstar are having a little fun with my typos. Fair enough. You have done it before. It's getting a little old.
This is much ado about nothing.
Here's waht Norhtstar Posted"

Originally Posted by NorthStar
---What a drag! ...Don't seem to be fair!

Soooo, Preference is based solely on personal taste without any validation whatsoever on what is the closest to the most accurate truth in audio reproduction?

My response:

Originally Posted by Gregadd
Shhh...don't tell Sean Olive. His test says "accuracy" is preferred by his test group.

It would appear I was aggreeing with Northstar in a sarcastic manner. Provided you read the entire quote. I could see how a different meaning could be reached if you left Northstars 'quote out. Which you did.

All the other stuff could have been avoided.
gregadd

 

[Gregadd]

Greg, I think the problem is we're talking about two different studies. You keep referring to the short, informal study he did with the college students. I'm referring to the speaker studies that began at the Canadian research center with Toole in the 1980s and continue, on-going, at Harman today under Olive's leadership. You want to deconstruct that? Be my guest. It is probably the most comprehensive set of speaker studies done to date. And it is pretty seriously buttoned-up. There was a long thread about it here a couple of months ago. Surely you remember, it's the one in which the poor FR of MLs was revealed in measurements and reacted to negatively in listening. Guys kept coming around, like test samples on Harman's rotating speaker shifter, to take shots. Every substantive shot I remember had an even more substantive answer from Dr. Olive. As often as not, an objection was raised and Sean's answer went something like "we anticipated that and ran another study to....." Or "We anticipated that problem and inserted this control..." I don't think anyone came up with a substantive objection that wasn't anticipated and addressed before the study began.

Deconstruct. I'll watch.

Tim

Tim you are so busy on this site I think sometimes you can't remember things. I am well aware of the existence of different studies, the standards remanin the same. The poster referenced me to the study involving the Japaenese and American students as proof there was an adequate sample. I think I demonstrated that was not true.In order to make generalizations you must have a scientific sample. Dr. Olive concedes that at every oppurtunity. It may well be that the study contains proof of an adeqaute scientific sample. No one has demonstrated that to me yet. Having people walk in and out of the study does not constitute a scientific sample. I am also suggesting that the speakers in the test show no evidence of being a scientifc sample. I could be wrong or right. That's the purpose of debate.

 

[NorthStar]

---Greg, I just want to make one thing very clear here:
I am NOT making fun of your typos, or from anyone else for that matter.
I am way too intelligent to do such a thing.

If, when I met a new member at any forum, and that I see an obvious typo, I usually mention it.
It happened with Amir, Steve, you and a lot of other members.
But after that I don't mention anymore; I just get used to, and accept it the way it is.

BUT! If me I make a typo or more, I love to always be reminded it by any member, and each time.
...Because that's the way I learned more in the English language which is my second language after French. ...French Canadian that is.

The Internet, because of no visual with your interlocutor, and no vocal intonation,
it is often easy to misinterpret (misjudge) other people.
And even more so when each individual has his own level of sense of humor.
And furthermore; each day it varies too. ...We have some better days ...

That is why you have to be stronger and more intelligent when you post on the Internet.
And you also need a stronger balance in your emotions.
And NEVER judge others! ...Because 99% of the time we are WRONG!

One thing is certain here at WBF; I have the greatest respect to all the members here.
I respect you 100%, and I respect Tim 100%, and I even respect Frank 100%.
And I know for a fact that this is exactly what Steve and Amir and the rest of the gang here at WBF are advocating first and foremost. Heck, that's why I'm here in the first place, because without that we are simply a bunch of animals without a functioning head on our shoulders.
- Disagreeing, yes, no sweat. But always with respect. ...That's the only way we improve living on Earth! And anywhere!

And more than that; I even respect the people who misjudged me in the past!
I simply do my very best to never judge others, even the people who dislike me for some reason.

And that, is my choice; I decided to live like that. It is my own decision (not my preference, and not my reference either; just my own choice).

If other people want to judge me wrongly, that is their own choice, and that's too bad.
...Because when you get used to know me, I am one of the very best person around.
...Always trying to help, to learn more, and to share everything with everyone.

I'm also human, sensitive, and emotional. So I am not perfect, but I try to enjoy life the best I can from what I know. And a good sense of humor is part of a healthy calibration.

When you are in good company; are you laughing at others, or are you laughing all together and enjoying life in its true sense?

What is the use to be a member of a forum, and talk with people you dislike?

Here, in the now, I am communicating with you and Tim. And for me that means a great deal.
...Total respect for you both.

* Sorry for the small interlude but sometimes it is indeed for the Best. :b

With 100% sincerity,
Bob

P.S. Any typos?

P.P.S. Under red highlight; it is intentional. :b

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I have had fun with your typos before. I've also expressed my sincere understanding, assuming that you are trying to post from a Blackberry or iPhone. Even an iPad can be challenging. This time I really misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I was not fishing for an apology or sympathy. I was just making a point.

 

[mep]

I'm amazed that there is any life left to this thread I started so long ago. I thought it was going to be put out of its misery way before now.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I was not fishing for an apology or sympathy. I was just making a point.

I didn't think you were fishing. I thought I was conceding your point.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

---To Be or Not to Be ...London, Summer Olympic Games 2012. :b

"Faster, Higher, Stronger."

"Live as one."

"The most important thing is not to win but to take part!"