Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: what we're up against (Read 94257 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

what we're up against

Reply #125 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: analog scott on
I recall JJ of all people saying that single blind tests could actually be pretty effective if done with due care.

No, you're right, single-blind tests can be pretty effective, though based on the shenanigans and nonsense I've seen from both Hoffman and Diament, I don't trust that their single blind tests are unbiased.



And yet you said "Yep and because single blind tests are pretty much useless, his results were also pretty much useless" single blind tests can't be pretty much useless and actually be "pretty effective if done with due care."

If you want to point a finger at Steve Hoffman you might want to be more careful about posting eroneous claims here. Glass houses and all.

Your position that Steve Hoffman's single blind test can not be trusted to be unbiased because of the "shenanigans and nonsense you have seen" looks to me to be based on several logical fallacies, ad hominem, ad ignoratum, confusing association with causation and nonsequitor. It does not matter what "shenanigans "Steve Hoffman has or has not pulled. It does not matter what Steve Hoffman knows about psychoacoustics. It does not matter if he worships the devil. All that matters is whether or not the protocols used in his single blind test sufficiently controled bias. Steve Hoffman is immaterial. The protocols are the way to judge the test from a distance. If you see a problem with his protocols (he does explain them in reasonable detail) then you have something to point to as a problem. If you see no problems with the protocols but find the results to be highly unexpected then the logical thing to do would be to repeat the test. Ironically, unlike so many reported tests, this one is repeatable. The same cutting lathe and computer hardware used for his test is still there. If one were so inclined to do so one could actually varify his results.

what we're up against

Reply #127 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Even on one of the most boring days of my life (that was yesterday btw!), I don't think I could bring myself to read through the whole of that thread!

Still, I think I'm not going to breach the HA TOS's if I say that, from reading the first few pages, I see an argument where most of the participants don't have a clue. If the one who does have a clue gets terse (and I didn't read that far), it's hardly surprising.

Where "us" "objective folks sometimes go astray is arguing too simplistically with people who don't have a clue. Then someone who has slightly more of a clue can come along and find fault in the simplistic argument. Fair enough - but since the person who it was aimed at couldn't even grasp the simplistic argument, never mind the nuances, it's an understandable "mistake" to make.

I think some of the few objectivists who are willing to take the battle to audiophiles (rather than just let them wallow in their cesspit of expensive, industry destroying, progress restricting ignorance), are probably a bit too battle hardened to respond quite as diplomatically as you would hope.


Some of the frustration is that some of these things (e.g. jitter) are really basic - worst case scenarios are well understood - the maths and simulations have been carried out - theory and reality are in good agreement - and there is no magic or even mystery involved at any point.

Cheers,
David.



I'm not debating here about wether Ethan is right or wrong. Some of his claim have been refuted and proved wrong by highly respected professionals and designers such as John Lagrou from Millenia, for instance. You'll have to read further to get to the "heavy weights" (or not, it's boring, I agree)

I'm just seing Ethan trashing a lot of audio sites and fine people everywhere on the net. I'm just reporting a pattern here, and defending our reputation. It's only statistics report, I'm not engaging anyone who would claim that any gear can be judged out of 4 measurement, that jitter is inaudible or, or that blackface adats are better than a studer A800 to record drums.

I don't care about Ethan's claims.

I do care about his constant trolling and whining, and the way he trashes a place I care.

But at least, he doesn't call anyone here "asshole"

so far...

malice

what we're up against

Reply #128 –
Quote from: malice on
I'm not debating here about wether Ethan is right or wrong. Some of his claim have been refuted and proved wrong by highly respected professionals and designers such as John Lagrou from Millenia, for instance. You'll have to read further to get to the "heavy weights" (or not, it's boring, I agree)


That is exactly the way of argumentation, that is not accepted here, and why I'd prefer Hydrogenaudio a 1000 times. Please refer to an actual argument or conclusive demonstration, where Ethan has been proven wrong. Just because someone has won a Grammy for a musical score and tells Ethan to shut up for being wrong, I could not care less. Usually it is Ethan, who is willing to deliver evidence at all. His opponents get hysterical and start partying as soon as a random "heavy weight" shows up and tells that Ethan, that he is wrong - without actually presenting counter proof or demonstrating methodological flaws.

It sometimes reminds me of a 'Cop of the Year' calling an automotive engineer, specializing in direct fuel injection, to have no clue about engines, just because the cop's the one driving around 40000 km a year chasing criminals and not the engineer, who develops engines for a living.

what we're up against

Reply #129 –
Quote from: googlebot on
Quote from: malice on
I'm not debating here about wether Ethan is right or wrong. Some of his claim have been refuted and proved wrong by highly respected professionals and designers such as John Lagrou from Millenia, for instance. You'll have to read further to get to the "heavy weights" (or not, it's boring, I agree)


That is exactly the way of argumentation, that is not accepted here, and why I'd prefer Hydrogenaudio a 1000 times. Please refer to an actual argument or conclusive demonstration, where Ethan has been proven wrong. Just because someone has won a Grammy for a musical score and tells Ethan to shut up for being wrong, I could not care less. Usually its Ethan, who delivers the most evidence. His opponents get hysterical and start partying as soon as a random "heavy weight" shows up and tells that Ethan, that he is wrong - without actually presenting counter evidence or demonstrating methodological flaws.

It sometimes reminds me of a 'Cop of the Year' calling an automotive engineer, specializing in direct fuel injection, to have no clue about engines, because the cop's the one driving around 40000 km a year and not the engineer.


What is the part of "I'm not debating here wether Ethan is right or wrong" that you don't understand ?

I could point you to the posts where he has been prooved wrong, the ones where he is in total denial, and the ones where he starts to insult people. But frankly, I have better cats to wipe.

The first poster claims that he sees an argument where nobody has a clue, and in the mean time says he wouldn't read the thread anyway.

Is that the way you are debating here ? Was that a good and fair argument ?

Read the thread if you feel like it, don't read it if you're bored, but don't expect me to let Ethan spread his venom without reminding him he is full of shit.

have a nice day

malice

what we're up against

Reply #130 –
Quote from: malice on
I could point you to the posts where he has been prooved wrong, the ones where he is in total denial, and the ones where he starts to insult people. But frankly, I have better cats to wipe.


I think you should wipe those cats then and don't throw dirt at someone without being willing to back it up.

Quote from: malice on
The first poster claims that he sees an argument where nobody has a clue, and in the mean time says he wouldn't read the thread anyway.

Is that the way you are debating here ? Was that a good and fair argument ?


You might not understand the difference, because you might usually be following discussions between ordinary users and "heavy weights" from a rhetorical perspective, but from a technical perspective the linked thread is so full of nonsense, that it isn't even worth discussing here (I'm not exaggerating). That might be dissatisfactory for you, but people here have other cats to wipe than discussing nonsense just so that technically uneducated readers understand why it is nonsense.

what we're up against

Reply #131 –
Quote from: malice on
my bad, one of the link, while on the same subject about measurement occured after Ethan left.

The first link point you to the lasts pages of the thread that is filled (75 pages) with Ethan posts.

here is the link to page 1:


http://thewombforums.com/showthread.php?t=13693

malice


I'm trying to figure out where the beef is located. This is an immense body of fairly boring prose to analyze. I actually read about every tenth page of the 76, and came up with the following:

(1) Being egocentric, I quickly noticed that even though I haven't ever heard of that forum until about an hour ago, let alone having ever posted there, I was libelled at least once in the linked thread. I conclude that people are prone to get excited and say stupid things in that context.

(2) While I may have only been libelled once in that thread, Ethan was libelled, quoted out of context, and generally trashed more times than I care to count, and I only read a tenth of it. The opening post was basically an invitation for one and all to pile up on Ethan. Many heartily responded to the invititation including apparently the conference immoderator.

(3) Ethan apparently got banned about 1/3 of the way through, which was pretty remarkable given the relatively low number of posts I read from him, and their relatively mild and generally technical nature. Obviously, Ehtan was making too many good logical points for the comfort for the mental comfort of immoderators of the womb. Since the thread rattled on so long after he was banned, I take it that many people at the womb needed a lot of healing from being damaged by the truth and reinforcement of their generally illogical and poorly-founded positions.

(4) It appears to me that the womb is well named. It is my understanding that a womb is a place where you find highly immature humans who may some day become productive adults, or not.

(5) And BTW, why is anybody from that forum coming here to complain about Ethan? This thread shows them in a horrible light. I take this odd turn of events as an invitation from the inmates at the womb for all reasonable people to stay away. I'm perfectly happy to comply!

what we're up against

Reply #132 –
Quote from: analog scott on
"The discussion and/or debate of "double-blind testing" (DBT) is forbidden in our forum.


Let's hear it for free speech!

Little factoids like this (which are not unique) show how far some high end vendors will go to shore up their shakey kingdoms.

Quote
Note that you may discuss the outcome of such testing, whether published in print or during a listening session among friends, for example, but the debate of the validity or methodology of DBT is not allowed."


The common problem with the discussion of the validity of DBTs is that they point out the invalidity of the means by which the high end help people in their marketplace suspend disbelief.

Quote
Heck Steve Hoffman himself discussed the results of his own single blind tests comparing various media to the master tape.


SBTs are so easy to use to mislead and be mislead. Its amazing how many people are still unaware of the story of "Clever Hans".

Quote
The reason for that rule was that many threads got bogged down in such debates and derailed.


A commonly-heard bucket of whitewash-words.


what we're up against

Reply #133 –
Quote from: malice on
I'm not debating here about wether Ethan is right or wrong.


You surely clarify that nicely in the next sentence"

Quote
Some of his claim have been refuted and proved wrong by highly respected professionals and designers such as John Lagrou from Millenia, for instance.


If that isn't an example of citing (actually misciting) a carefully-chosen minor authority to debate whether Ethan is right or wrong, I don't know what is!

I cannot believe the lack of self-consciousness already shown in your post!

Quote
You'll have to read further to get to the "heavy weights" (or not, it's boring, I agree)


I don't see any really credible neutral heavyweights in that thread other than Ethan.

Ethan is neutral in that debate because he isn't a manufacturer of audio interfaces or mic preamps.  He has no dogs in the fight he presents, except as a user.

Quote
I'm just seing Ethan trashing a lot of audio sites and fine people everywhere on the net.


Given what you can't see...

The thread is pretty clear. It starts out with a trashing of a certain video where Ethan was merely one of the contributors.

Quote
I'm just reporting a pattern here, and defending our reputation.


If you could read the thread(s) you linked as a neutral party, you would have never brought it/them here or any place else.


Quote
It's only statistics report,


I see no statistics at all.

Quote
I'm not engaging anyone who would claim that any gear can be judged out of 4 measurement, that jitter is inaudible or, or that blackface adats are better than a studer A800 to record drums.


I think you've just misttated Ethan's position twice, if not three times.

Quote
I don't care about Ethan's claims.


Then why the reference to Lagrou?

Why all the trashing of Ethan?

Do you even know how to discuss an issue in audio without making it personal?

Quote
I do care about his constant trolling and whining, and the way he trashes a place I care.


You should read your own posts here some time, Mr. Anonymous poster.  Preferably, before you press the "Add Reply" button.

what we're up against

Reply #134 –
Also, what is it with this:
Quote from: malice on
don't expect me to let Ethan spread his venom without reminding him he is full of shit.

That's a pretty strong statement about Ethan's claims.

what we're up against

Reply #135 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: analog scott on
I recall JJ of all people saying that single blind tests could actually be pretty effective if done with due care.

No, you're right, single-blind tests can be pretty effective, though based on the shenanigans and nonsense I've seen from both Hoffman and Diament, I don't trust that their single blind tests are unbiased.


And yet you said "Yep and because single blind tests are pretty much useless, his results were also pretty much useless" single blind tests can't be pretty much useless and actually be "pretty effective if done with due care."



In the hands of people who lack perspective, honest words can be dangerous.

In the hands of agenda-drive people who habitually don't do their homework, an honest admission that not all single blind tests are invalid gets turned around into a blanket approval of them.

The beauty of double blind tests is that they generally involve fewer judgement calls, and are less likely to be manipulated whether intentionally or unintentionally. That's not to say that a result is globally relelvant or always correct because it came from a DBT. DBTs just give more safeguards, which is especially important to those of us who know how easy it is to bias an evaluation to the point where the evidence it produces has little value other than as a guide about how not to do things.

Some people have a track record of simply not being able to do their homework. In situations where many people have no problems doing a good DBT, they seem to choke up and a SBT is all they can muster.

There are cases where a SBT or even a sighted evaluation is the best that can be done. Yes, its a judgement call exactly which is in fact the best that can be done.

If faced with a credible experimenter like JJ who has many reference-grade DBTs to his credit and an excellent reputation for his thorough and well-substantiated understanding of human perception and experimental design, who says that a SBT is the best that could be done at the time, then one has little recourse but to try to do better himself.

If faced by someone who seems to be running an audio sideshow for fun and profit, and who can't seem to do what others with far less resources seem to be able to do easily, and who makes all sorts of exceptional proclamations, then less suspension of disbelief seems to be in order.

what we're up against

Reply #136 –
Quote from: andy o on
Also, what is it with this:
Quote from: malice on
don't expect me to let Ethan spread his venom without reminding him he is full of shit.

That's a pretty strong statement about Ethan's claims.


In context, Malice's comments seem particularly strange. We have before us a transcript of the purported venom. And venom we find, very little if any of it actually tracable to things that Ethan said. On occasion there was some highly selective editing of Ethan's posts in order to create a false impression.

Then Ethan was arbitrarily silenced, and the venom kept on pouring out. The fact that Ethan was silenced and venom kept pouring out is indisputable evidence that he was not the primary cause of problems with excess venom.

Let's have a little lesson about word forms. What word best describes things said by someone named Malice?  Maliciousness? ;-)

what we're up against

Reply #137 –
Well not many agree with me on this, but even if someone started calling people "assholes" I wouldn't have much of a problem with it as long as the rest of the post had some substance.

what we're up against

Reply #138 –
Depending on who Ethan was talking to "asshole" might actually have been part of the substance.

what we're up against

Reply #139 –
That's very typical subjectivist audiophile behavior: when you can't win an argument you complain about the way the other argues.  Another perfect point about what it is that "we're up against."

what we're up against

Reply #140 –
Quote from: greynol on
That's very typical subjectivist audiophile behavior: when you can't win an argument you complain about the way the other argues.  Another perfect point about what it is that "we're up against."


I think that Mr. Malice's comments were very sincere and heartfelt. Just go about 7 minutes into Ethan's YouTube Audio Myths video.  Poppy Crum PhD gives a fine demonstration about how our mental context can affect our perceptions. Mr. Malice's mental context is quite clear from the womb's thread that he cites.  Due to his inability to free himself from his context, he now thinks that we are space aliens.

what we're up against

Reply #141 –
I see both Ohlsson and jj chiming in on that Womb thread. Don't have enough time right now to dig into it in any further detail.

malice goofing up his logic is a universal human behavior; what I find more "what we're up against" is this helpful blurb from The Womb TOS:
Quote
You agree to be entertaining, and if you are not entertaining, to at least provide the fodder necessary for others to be entertaining.


That thread even has its own illustration!



Classy.

what we're up against

Reply #142 –
It seems that Malice's posts have backfired.

Quote from: malice on
I'm just [...] defending our reputation.

FAIL!

what we're up against

Reply #143 –
Quote from: malice on
I'm not debating here about wether Ethan is right or wrong. Some of his claim have been refuted and proved wrong by highly respected professionals and designers such as John Lagrou from Millenia, for instance. You'll have to read further to get to the "heavy weights" (or not, it's boring, I agree)

I'm just seing Ethan trashing a lot of audio sites and fine people everywhere on the net. I'm just reporting a pattern here, and defending our reputation.



Who's "we'' in this case, 'malice'?  (Hard to know what reputation you have to defend, without knowing that.)  Are you speaking for The Womb?

And aside from which --  your secondary complaint is that Ethan isn't always polite???  This thread isn't about someone being polite.  It's about an audio 'authority' spewing technical nonsense to the credulous.  Some here have mentioned that Diament can also be impolite or a shifty debater (hell, Hoffman can be downright *bitchy* -- and that's to his *fans*) but that's beside the point AFAIC.    'What we [we = HA in this case] are up against" isn't that the Diaments or Hoffmans or Fremers are impolite  (or unfailingly polite, like John Atkinson) -- it's that when they write erroneously about  mp3s, digital audio, etc, their claims are privileged and  propagate through audio-land and increase the noise to signal ratio...making it that much harder to get good information out there.


So if you want to start a threat about politeness and impoliteness on audio forums, feel free.  I've got plenty of stories I could tell, having starting out on usenet audio groups.  But that's not what this one's about.

Btw, Mixerman's a hoot in his book, but he's another example of a guy who knows how to make good recordings, from which someone (possibly himself too) has concluded he is an authority on digital audio. 
I've not read The Womb much, but I have seen numerous arguments on ProSoundWeb over the years where 'audio engineers' are incredulous that anyone would take their subjective claims about audio less than seriously -- or that 'I believe my ears' isn't universally taken as an argument stopper.  Some of these guys are *seriously* undereducated about the technology they use, much less psychoacoustics, but fortunately for their jobs, it needn't necessarily matter that 192kHz and 96kHz SR aren't really audibly distinguishable in nonpathological conditions or that the Shakti stones they use in their studios are nonsense. (Then there's guys like Lavry or Putzys -- who aren't studio engineers, perhaps tellingly , but gear designers -- who bring a gigantic store of technical knowledge to those tables).

what we're up against

Reply #144 –
Quote from: Axon on
I see both Ohlsson and jj chiming in on that Womb thread. Don't have enough time right now to dig into it in any further detail.

malice goofing up his logic is a universal human behavior; what I find more "what we're up against" is this helpful blurb from The Womb TOS:
Quote
You agree to be entertaining, and if you are not entertaining, to at least provide the fodder necessary for others to be entertaining.


That thread even has its own illustration!

 

what we're up against

Reply #145 –
Quote from: malice on
I'm not debating here about wether Ethan is right or wrong.

Right, because you'd never win that argument!

Quote
Some of his claim have been refuted and proved wrong by highly respected professionals and designers such as John Lagrou

Ah yes, the old Argument from authority. If anyone here has the patience to read through that entire thread (don't another, the following sums it up), you'll see time and again claims that "Ethan was proven wrong" even though nobody actually proved anything of the sort. They might think they did though. I honestly don't know. This is a typical strategy by people who don't understand the subject matter but have strong opinions anyway. It's like SAS at the Stereophile forum, who repeatedly claimed "Ethan was proven to fraudulently manipulate data." SAS musta said that a dozen times. And every time I asked for evidence he just repeated the claim. Then Stereophile banned me from their forum but let him stay. Classic.

The problem when arguing with people who don't understand science and logic is they don't know they're wrong even when you explain it clearly.

That the owners of the Womb forum deleted and blocked my posts, then banned me outright, shows the weakness of their position. They can't argue the science because they don't understand the science. So all that's left is censorship. Even when I point that out to them they don't get it.

Quote
But at least, he doesn't call anyone here "asshole"

It's very rare for me to insult anyone. But in this case Sean Eldon of Mercenary Audio (a seller of expensive preamps and converters and microphones) replied to one of my technical points by insulting my musicianship. He was an asshole for doing that, and he even admitted it later and apologized. Yet guys like malice - who you will note never reveal their real names or their own credentials - ignore all the personal insults against me in that thread, and cling to the one time I got PO'd enough to respond in kind. BTW, here's a sampling of some of those insults:
[blockquote]"No matter what you can and can't hear you are still eating shit between two slices of bread."

"A-****ing-hem... sorry, got something stuck in the back of my throat... *cough*bullshit*cough*""

"Sigh, go back to tricking people with bad acoustic theory"

"it'd be fantastic for you to tap into so many years of research rather than wiping your smug ass with it."

"People who don't really make records often hate people who do"

"if I were you I'd probably forget about debunking simple truths and work on my arrangement skills."

"pull out all the band-aids from your room"[/blockquote]
Okay, I think the point is made. Hopefully we can now go back to our regularly scheduled program discussing what we're up against. Oh wait, this is what we're up against.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

what we're up against

Reply #146 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The opening post was basically an invitation for one and all to pile up on Ethan.

Arnie, just to clarify, Big Al started that thread because he likes my video and thought it would be educational for other members. I'm sure there was no malicious intent on Al's part.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

what we're up against

Reply #147 –
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The opening post was basically an invitation for one and all to pile up on Ethan.

Arnie, just to clarify, Big Al started that thread because he likes my video and thought it would be educational for other members. I'm sure there was no malicious intent on Al's part.


Right.

I'm thinking about the posts that quickly followed it. They saw Al's post as an invitiation to pile on top of each other.

what we're up against

Reply #148 –
Quote from: googlebot on
You might not understand the difference, because you might usually be following discussions between ordinary users and "heavy weights" from a rhetorical perspective, but from a technical perspective the linked thread is so full of nonsense, that it isn't even worth discussing here (I'm not exaggerating).


That's exactly true. It is just literally intelligent-sounding garbage for the most part.

what we're up against

Reply #149 –
those of you truly willing to slog through this BS might be interested to know that I collected all 76 pages of the Passion of Ethan Winer into a single HTML file, derived from the Mobile theme of thewombforums.com, for your speed-reading pleasure:

<linked removed>

418k compressed, 1700k uncompressed.