1) Avrev.com: Can you tell us a bit about your background, and how you got into the business of designing and selling USB DACs?

John Kenny: My professional background doesn't involve audio....
...Always in search of better (fake data) "sound", I have since moved to using a different USB receiver board & a TI/BB DAC chip which (fake data) sounds even better than the Sabre DAC. The fake data sound I'm attuned to is an organic, full-bodied sound with all the detail intact which conveys a great sound stage & excellent instrument timbre. Almost like the sound Santa makes landing on my roof.

I suggest you read this short piece "Why faking data is bad" - it might give you some insights into your logic - then again it probably won't

No offence taken but I & others have done numerous side by side comparisons of stock unit to modified unit - were they DBT, no - there is absolutely no need, the difference in sound is so glaringly obvious & noticeable from the first couple of notes. No offence but I already have given this proof with links to the reviews. Have you read any? Anecdotal fake data, yes & not worth a damn according to those who have never heard the unit - say this to one of the people who have a unit & they will laugh at your stupidity in requiring DBT.

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

Yep, I've no doubt that sighted tests are prone to false positives

As I said, I personally check any I am interested in - so I don't accept other's sighted reports.

As I said if I'm interested, I check it myself. So I have verified to my own satisfaction that sighted results can be correct.

I think it is well known & accepted that sighted listening can be prone to false positives - I don't know to what extent - you say "overflowing" but I don't personally experience that.

I suggest you read this short piece "Why faking data is bad" - it might give you some insights into your logic - then again it probably won't

Quote from: jkeny on 2015-05-10 14:48:39

- Arny tries to claim that there are sufficient controls in ABX because his test results were exposed as fraud - put simply, his results revealed his stupidity - if he had taken just a bit longer between each random guess nobody would have been any wiser about this fraud (he certainly wouldn't have admitted it)

Keny thus again denies the proof of success of a test control that he has cited dozens of times.  His new supposition is starts out with "if". There are a milliion if's that could be raised but their existence is not proof.

Here is reliable and incontrovertible proof is that JKeny is a habitual liar: How many times has Keny posted that ABX tests have nocontrols related to false negatives?

Google shows that Kenny posted this phrase dozens of times:

"Typical ABX/blind tests that don't have false negatives controls are not to be trusted"

Then Keny remembers what he has known for months,  that typical ABX tests do have false negative controls. He tries to use selective quoting to falsely take advantage of them in a vain attempt to humiliate me, and then goes back to falsely claiming:

"Typical ABX/blind tests that don't have false negatives controls are not to be trusted"

Google finds about 74 similar results!

Afair Arnold B. Krueger was not guessing but instead intentionally pressing "A" continuously as answer; am i mistaken?

Quote from: Porcus on 2015-05-09 22:56:22

Quote from: jkeny on 2015-05-09 13:24:47

It has no way of determining if any null result is valid.

I still do not get what you think is a "valid" conclusion that the experiment could not reject the null.

An experiment will (aside from chance) only be able to reject the null, if it is valid (means that it really tests what it pretends to test) and if the power of the test is sufficient to avoid type II errors.

• .

"An experiment will (aside from chance) only be able to reject the null, if it is valid (means that it really tests what it pretends to test) and if the power of the test is sufficient to avoid type II errors."

The ABX timing log isn't a control for false negatives - it simply reveals anybody who is stupid enough to hit the same button again & again, quickly, while at the same time pretending to do an ABX test. It is very seldom such stupidity is revealed so, Arny, I wouldn't cite this as a control unless you believe there are many people like yourself who try to fake it & this is the only source of false negatives?

Quote from: Jakob1863 on 2015-05-10 16:54:52

Afair Arnold B. Krueger was not guessing but instead intentionally pressing "A" continuously as answer; am i mistaken?

Quote from: Porcus on 2015-05-09 22:56:22

Quote from: jkeny on 2015-05-09 13:24:47

It has no way of determining if any null result is valid.

I still do not get what you think is a "valid" conclusion that the experiment could not reject the null.

An experiment will (aside from chance) only be able to reject the null, if it is valid (means that it really tests what it pretends to test) and if the power of the test is sufficient to avoid type II errors.

That was not really an answer to the question (except what you write in parentheses highlight the issue with sighted tests - they do not test the sound). What I was trying to get jkeny into elaborating on, is whether he actually agrees that it is "valid" to keep the null until data tells otherwise.

Thus far jkeny has dodged even the most basic concepts, so I doubt I will ever get to what he means by "control" for

• .
  

No offence taken but I & others have done numerous side by side comparisons of stock unit to modified unit - were they DBT, no - there is absolutely no need, the difference in sound is so glaringly obvious & noticeable from the first couple of notes. No offence but I already have given this proof with links to the reviews. Have you read any? Anecdotal fake data, yes & not worth a damn according to those who have never heard the unit - say this to one of the people who have a unit & they will laugh at your stupidity in requiring DBT.

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

As I said, I personally "check" any I am interested in - so I don't accept other's sighted reports.

As I said if I'm interested, I delude myself. So I have verified to my own satisfaction that sighted results can be correct.

you fail to understand the basics of what a "test" means

How does any of this preclude asking a person for ABX data, to support his claim that he heard a difference?

Dance, dance

Dance, dance

What Jakob is telling you is that a null (or any result) can only be the result of a "valid" test - it can't be the outcome of a test where you sit 100 monkeys in front of a keyboard who are trained to continuously hit the A button. If you don't understand this, you fail to understand the basics of what a "test" means

Quote from: jkeny on 2015-05-10 20:39:54

The ABX timing log isn't a control for false negatives - it simply reveals anybody who is stupid enough to hit the same button again & again, quickly, while at the same time pretending to do an ABX test. It is very seldom such stupidity is revealed so, Arny, I wouldn't cite this as a control unless you believe there are many people like yourself who try to fake it & this is the only source of false negatives?

I've already shown you to be wrong over 3 months ago here.
You must be really desperate.


@mods: I'm seriously wondering why this stupidity has been tolerated for so long in this thread. You locked the other one down pretty quickly after jkeny started ... being himself.

Your point is that you can also avoid doing a genuine listening test

What Jakob is telling you is that a null (or any result) can only be the result of a "valid" test - it can't be the outcome of a test where you sit 100 monkeys in front of a keyboard who are trained to continuously hit the A button.

If you don't understand this, you fail to understand the basics of what a "test" means

So what your link shows is that you can use a "tell" (a timing click) to spot differences between files & you can do this in 1 or 2 seconds for each trial.
Your point is that you can also avoid doing a genuine listening test just like Arny except you are using two files with an easy "tell" to differentiate them so you don't get a null result, like Arny did with his random guessing. Brilliant revelations!

That's ridiculous - just proves just how little you know about the basics of what a listening test means. You tried first to pass off a listening test of two different songs to show trials could be done in 1 or 2 secs & get it right - Duh!!

As I say, keep posting - it is very revealing!

So, Arny, let's examine your logic

No offence taken but I & others have done numerous side by side comparisons of stock unit to modified unit - were they DBT, no - there is absolutely no need, the difference in sound is so glaringly obvious & noticeable from the first couple of notes. No offence but I already have given this proof with links to the reviews. Have you read any? Anecdotal fake data, yes & not worth a damn according to those who have never heard the unit - say this to one of the people who have a unit & they will laugh at your stupidity in requiring DBT.

So, Arny, let's examine your logic - you want false positive & false negative statistics for something you don't consider a test - sighted evaluations.

@mods: I'm seriously wondering why this stupidity has been tolerated for so long in this thread. You locked the other one down pretty quickly after jkeny started ... being himself.

<snip>

That was not really an answer to the question (except what you write in parentheses highlight the issue with sighted tests - they do not test the sound).

What I was trying to get jkeny into elaborating on, is whether he actually agrees that it is "valid" to keep the null until data tells otherwise.

Thus far jkeny has dodged even the most basic concepts, so I doubt I will ever get to what he means by "control" for

• .

Quote from: knucklehead on 2015-05-08 20:06:09

<snip>

Review thread for all the times it's been said that negative results aren't particularly interesting. If you would adopt the orientation presented here, your problems would go away -- That simple.

Inattentional deafness is not possible to quantify, so you allow for it.

As transparency is one of the goals of course "negative results" are interesting.
If you follow the discussions in forums, you´ll certainly notice that the negative results show up in a number of arguments; mostly along the lines , that numerous failed tests showed that......

The inventors of the ABC/HR developed a quite ingenious way to deal with a lot of these points. Allowing for something without being able to quantify the impact is questionable.

The point that you seem to have missed is that everything that jkeny has said here is just a ruse.