In short the quotes are all bogus straw men, the fabrication of the article's author.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-05-05 14:37:08

In short the quotes are all bogus straw men, the fabrication of the article's author.

No they're not. As mentioned in the comments under the article, many of them come from here...
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/hot-stampers/

You have to click "+ view comments" and "load more comments" to see them.

What's slightly disingenuous in using those quotes is that the comments were mostly about collectable vinyl; something which has a value quite outside of being in the category of "audiophile goods". Lots of people buy it and never play it! Plus, of course, it's often possible (even easy) to pick out different masterings in double blind tests. Sometimes even with tin ears, never mind golden ones.

If I go much beyond that, I'd be obsessing. ;-)

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-05-05 15:52:24

If I go much beyond that, I'd be obsessing. ;-)

I'm sure no one would want you to obsess over audiophiles.

But it's unwise to accuse people of "fabrication" simply because Google doesn't index the dynamic web pages the quotes came from. Especially when the person using the quotes provided a reference.

When you've made a mistake, a Mea Cupla wouldn't go amiss.

Quote from: xnor on 2015-05-05 10:32:53

Even worse is his deliberate confusion of how ABX tests are used. Suddenly a personal ABX test is a false negative when the person does not hear down to the thresholds of hearing (which have been established in laboratory settings with artificial test signals)... Maybe the person does not live in an anechoic chamber? Maybe his equipment is not so great? Maybe his hearing is shot? Why then, ffs, should he hear a difference regardless if he thinks he hears one sighted?!

I think that any person who understands experimental design would look at the experiment with a suboptimal acoustic setting, poor equipment, and poor hearing and say: "It is what it is. Now we have a data point for a test done under these conditions."

It is ironic that Keny's celebrated paper: ""Temporal predictability enhances auditory detection" could have all of those flaws!

Quote

That's why I asked him this, which he completely evaded to this day. That's dishonest.

In case John is suffering from one of his lapses, here's the relevant questions that you politely asked and that John has rudely dismissed again and again:

Reasonable questions from Xnor that JKeny has dismissed to this day (like for a month and counting!)

"

Please define:
- the test scenario:
What claims are being tested? Who is supposed to participate in it? Who is the target audience? ...



- the test itself:
What exactly is being tested? Who actually participates? How does the test procedure look like (the main part is ABX I guess)? Are all trials logged? Are all test results collected, or can participants randomly send in their logs when they feel like it? ...

- the analysis of the results:
How are positive and negative results analyzed and interpreted? When is the claim sufficiently evidenced? When can the claim be rejected? And everything in between ...

- what you mean by false negative:
So far your definitions were either unusably vague, nonsensical or unreasonable to work with. We cannot look into the brains and make judgments based on beliefs ... we can only try to eliminate biases, not eliminate them entirely.

- how do potential false positives and false negatives effect the results and conclusion?

- how do you suggest do we detect false positives and false negatives?
Please don't just say "add a control here". Be specific.
"

As amusing as this thread can be, perhaps rather than endlessly generating walls of text that run in the same all too familiar by now circles every few pages, it might be worthwhile it work work this all into a flowchart -- or series of flowcharts.

This would force some to face (or permanently run away from) the overall logic of the situation, and eventually produce a user friendly product that would work well in the knowledgebase. ... or has this already been done somewhere?

Yes, I get better, more "comprehensive results" with longer term (peeking) "listening"

I had given up a long, long time ago wondering if any reasonable discussion would ever emerge

As amusing as this thread can be, perhaps rather than endlessly generating walls of text that run in the same all too familiar by now circles every few pages, it might be worthwhile it work work this all into a flowchart -- or series of flowcharts.

Quote from: knucklehead on 2015-05-05 17:11:08

As amusing as this thread can be, perhaps rather than endlessly generating walls of text that run in the same all too familiar by now circles every few pages, it might be worthwhile it work work this all into a flowchart -- or series of flowcharts.

There are no complex arguments here. They are actually very simple and fallacious points that jkeny keeps repeating, and dishonestly does so on other forums, and every single one of them has been answered several times more or less in depth.

Yes, I find this thread amusing & revealing. I find the hard rabble of posters reveal quiet a bit about themselves & their insecurities - continually using personal attacks to deflect from the central issue. The more they post, the more revealing it becomes. I had given up a long, long time ago wondering if any reasonable discussion would ever emerge - since them I'm happy to just let the lynch mob shout & rant in a fog of self-revealing posts.

Your suggestion would probably be useful but I doubt it will be treated with anything but disdain or denial.

Quote from: xnor on 2015-05-05 18:08:57

Quote from: knucklehead on 2015-05-05 17:11:08

As amusing as this thread can be, perhaps rather than endlessly generating walls of text that run in the same all too familiar by now circles every few pages, it might be worthwhile it work work this all into a flowchart -- or series of flowcharts.

There are no complex arguments here. They are actually very simple and fallacious points that jkeny keeps repeating, and dishonestly does so on other forums, and every single one of them has been answered several times more or less in depth.

The flow chart is something like this:

Keny presents a false claim
    |
    |

One or more HA regulars present a thorough debunking of the latest Kenny False Claim

    |
    |

Keny Deflects with another false claim?          Keny Deflects with false accusation?  Keny Dismisses?    Keny Ignores?

<Loop>

Quote from: knucklehead on 2015-05-05 17:11:08

As amusing as this thread can be, perhaps rather than endlessly generating walls of text that run in the same all too familiar by now circles every few pages, it might be worthwhile it work work this all into a flowchart -- or series of flowcharts.

There are no complex arguments here. They are actually very simple and fallacious points that jkeny keeps repeating, and dishonestly does so on other forums, and every single one of them has been answered several times more or less in depth.

I know that jkeny thinks he's built up something, but besides the straw men it's not even a house of cards (actually 'circus tent' would be more fitting) - his strongest argument is completely vapid. He's just slinging mud, trying to denigrate blind testing so his fragile world view does not break apart.


He's admitted to the false positive problem in sighted 'testing', which is blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever read audiophile reviews.
He's even linked to research that demonstrates the high level of (self-)deception in sighted listening in the beginning of this thread.

That's why we need to do blind testing, there is no away around that. He is clearly in denial of this fact.

What is the question being asked?

Does someone think they can already hear a difference.

Do they want to determine if there is a difference.

Do they want to find out which sounds "better"?

What are the various tests that can be applied to the particular questions.

What is the logic flow to each approach.

It isn't overly complex, but how many pages has this gone on for ... and is it ever going to stop if people just keep typing words at each other. If someone is using propaganda techniques of burying any good point with a couple of following pages of misdirection and chaos, why keep going down that path?

Quote from: knucklehead on 2015-05-05 19:22:58

What is the question being asked?

John Keny is asking no questions. His purpose here is to repetitively declare that any kind of listening test other than casual audiophile evaluations is so flawed as to not be worth anybody's time.

Quote

Does someone think they can already hear a difference.

John Keny has said that the audible superiority of his DACs which he calls "Organic Sound" is immediately audible to just about everybody with an open mind after hearing just a few notes of music.

Quote

Do they want to determine if there is a difference.

Waste of time. The audible superiority of Keny's DACs is immediately obvious to anybody who llstens with an open mind and a good enough audio system.

Quote

Do they want to find out which sounds "better"?

Please see previous quesiton. Same answer.

Quote

What are the various tests that can be applied to the particular questions.

According to Kenny only sighted evaluations are valid because of the inherent and disabling problem of false negatives in DBTs.

Quote

What is the logic flow to each approach.

According to Keny, no need to consider logic flow for blind tests because they are disqualified from serious consideration for obvious reasons.

Since there is no particular logic flow to Casual Audiophile Sighted Evaluations, we can assume that anything goes.

You're stuck in battle mode, and it isn't helping you at all. Drop taking things personally for a bit. Forget jkeny for a bit.

A PERSON has various methods at his disposal to try to determine if one thing might sound better, or even different from something else. How can he/she best understand and use them appropriately for any given situation.

I am advocating disengaging from jkeny as that really isn't getting anywhere, and focusing on  mapping out the landscape of what is being discussed here as clearly as possible. It's been done pretty well verbally several times over in this thread, but what good does it really do buried in this mess?
I'm a primarily visual/nonverbal thinker, so I'm biased to having things presented in that way -- but pretty much anyone benefits something like a clear flowchart. However it's done, I think it would be good to clarify and externalize.the key points from this thread.

This deserves much more than I've said here, but I type slow, and need to go start on dinner.

Quote

A PERSON has various methods at his disposal to try to determine if one thing might sound better, or even different from something else. How can he/she best understand and use them appropriately for any given situation.

I am advocating disengaging from jkeny as that really isn't getting anywhere, and focusing on  mapping out the landscape of what is being discussed here as clearly as possible. It's been done pretty well verbally several times over in this thread, but what good does it really do buried in this mess?
I'm a primarily visual/nonverbal thinker, so I'm biased to having things presented in that way -- but pretty much anyone benefits something like a clear flowchart. However it's done, I think it would be good to clarify and externalize.the key points from this thread.

This deserves much more than I've said here, but I type slow, and need to go start on dinner.

There are a lot of problems with that since Keny has hijacked the thread (read it from the start!, it was about something different from false negatives) and during his hijacking there has been no real opportunity for serious discussion because of the issues already mentioned.

If have questions about DBTs, maybe you should start a different thread and maybe we can keep Keny from hijacking it, too.

Fair enough. This thread has been OT for so long I was wondering why it hadn't been split long ago.

Seems even you've become confused on what it was originally about -- "How to listen to an ABX test" and not the DBT's in general. 

A control is a test condition that tests the test. There can be many kinds of controls:

• A positive control
  
  • This is a condition that a subject should be able to detect.
  • If they don’t, you have a problem.
• A negative control
  
  • A vs. A is the classical negative control
  • If your subject hears a difference, you have a problem
• Anchoring elements
  
  • Conditions that relate scoring of this test to results in other tests
  • These can vary depending on need, and may not be obligatory

Do I have to have controls?
YES
Well, unless you don’t want to know how good your test is, of course.

Yes. and as we have explained a million times, if you e.g. test for a preference between original and lossy file, then you could run an ABX first to make sure you're scoring the right file. This is what some people actually do.

Also, as I have explained, if you don't even trust your own equipment for some home-run test, then you should start testing it first e.g. with low bitrate mp3's. If you cannot distinguish those then either your system is very low-fi, grossly misconfigured, or your hearing is shot.