Golden Ears Fail Again

[musicoverall]

I see a problem with the experiment. Because your mood may change from one day to the next, your choices can be more a result of variations in how you feel than differences in the cables. This could result in the test having a negative bias. If you decide to go ahead with the experiment, I recommend that you ask your friend to try to make the cable switches random -- his using coin flips should be good enough. You don't want have to deal with the possibility that he is trying to throw you a curve by using the same cable all 13 days, or giving you say 7 consecutive days of Cable A followed by 6 days of Cable B, when you assumed random switching at the start of testing.

The sonic differences should come through regardless of my mood, I would think.

Coin flips are determining which cables are used when. I won't know which cables were used on which days until the test is over.

[RobotCzar]

I see a problem with the experiment. Because your mood may change from one day to the next, your choices can be more a result of variations in how you feel than differences in the cables. This could result in the test having a negative bias. Given the method you will use, I don't know a way around the problem. It should not, however, in itself invalidate positive results.

Good luck!

One might also assume that a mood might have a positive bias.

So you (mystic) hypothesize that a person's mood can affect their ability to distinguish cable differences. I agree, even the time of day might. The fact that these variables can influence what you "hear" is in itself an indictment of uncontrolled listening tests. The advice to "just listen" is really bad advice. One must make some effort to even out all the subjective factors that might be affecting one's perceptions.

Your advice about random selection is excellent.

[mystic]

One might also assume that a mood might have a positive bias.

So you (mystic) hypothesize that a person's mood can affect their ability to distinguish cable differences. I agree, even the time of day might. The fact that these variables can influence what you "hear" is in itself an indictment of uncontrolled listening tests. The advice to "just listen" is really bad advice. One must make some effort to even out all the subjective factors that might be affecting one's perceptions.

Your advice about random selection is excellent.

I think in the proposed experiment the influence of mood can be only a negative bias. I'm in a bad mood, so I identify A (the cable preferred in sighted listening) as B. Or I'm in a good mood, so identify B as A . Misidentification obviously lowers the positive scores. I can't imagine how mood bias would work the other way(i.e., raise the scores). But you may have had something entirely different in mind when you said " one might also assume that a mood might have a positive bias."

I don't rule out that attitudes, beliefs, and expectations can influence what listeners think they hear or do not hear, be it sighted or blinded listening. But I'm not convinced that ABE's are the strong and pervasive influence some seem to think. If someone suggests I can be convinced through the power of suggestion that horse pee is beer, I'm going to say -- Hey, maybe you but not me! I believe things usually are as the senses indicate.

[Toga]

haha @ horse beer!

[RobotCzar]

"Misidentification obviously lowers the positive scores." Actually, misidentification lowers correct scores as that is the definition of misidentification. We are concerned about how a person's mood effects their peformance. Why is it hard to see that perhaps mood can make scored go up or down? You seem to imply that there are only two moods bad and good. Is there a state of neither bad nor good mood?

Well, if a "negative bias" would decrease the number correct of a subject (relative to some normal conditions--what they would score without the bias), then a "positive bias" would increase one's score relative to no bias at all. For example, if I really could distinguish A from B, then I might do better when I feel happy or am "pumped". Sometimes people say that they are "in the zone".

You to need to stretch your imagination a bit as one could demonstrate that they can hear differences--and have all their guesses be incorrect. If you did much worse than chance, you would be demonstrating that you can hear a difference, you are just misidentifying the choices. This does happen.

My main point was that if a mood can effect the outcome of a listening test, then one's expectations certainly could (as in a sighted test).

[mystic]

"Misidentification obviously lowers the positive scores." Actually, misidentification lowers correct scores as that is the definition of misidentification. We are concerned about how a person's mood effects their peformance. Why is it hard to see that perhaps mood can make scored go up or down? You seem to imply that there are only two moods bad and good. Is there a state of neither bad nor good mood?

Well, if a "negative bias" would decrease the number correct of a subject (relative to some normal conditions--what they would score without the bias), then a "positive bias" would increase one's score relative to no bias at all. For example, if I really could distinguish A from B, then I might do better when I feel happy or am "pumped". Sometimes people say that they are "in the zone".

You to need to stretch your imagination a bit as one could demonstrate that they can hear differences--and have all their guesses be incorrect. If you did much worse than chance, you would be demonstrating that you can hear a difference, you are just misidentifying the choices. This does happen.

My main point was that if a mood can effect the outcome of a listening test, then one's expectations certainly could (as in a sighted test).

"Positive" and "correct" in the context of the test under discussion mean the same thing to me. After the test, we count the number of times the subject identified the cable as positive (or correct)scores and the number of times he misidentified the cable as negative (or incorrect) scores. Perhaps I'm missing your point.

I didn't mean to imply a person is either in a good mood or a bad mood with no in between. I don't know about everyone, but I'm in between in varying degrees most of the time. However, when not in a good mood I don't like listening to music. Thankfully, music is enjoyable at other times, and can add to feeling good.

Please consider the following hypothetical example of moods hurting performance: The subject in the 13 day blinded test might say " I correctly identified Cable A (the one he preferred in sighted listening) 5 days out of 7 days, and probably would have done better, but wasn't in a good mood those two days so maybe the cable didn't sound good to me for that reason. And I identified Cable B on 5 of 6 days, the one wrong being a day when I felt particularily good."

You gave an example of how you thought a positive mood bias might enhance a person's score. "For example, if I really could distinguish A from B, then I might do better when I feel happy or am "pumped". Sometimes people say that they are "in the zone." If listeners need to be that way to do their best in blinded testing, I see it as a reason to question the validity of the testing. How can you assure that the people who need to be "pumped" will be during the testing?

I continue to wonder whether there is something inconsistent about assuming attitudes, beliefs, and expectations can affect a listener's perceptions while at the same time assuming the act of blinded testing cannot affect his listening performance. If the mind and the way the mind and ears work together can be influenced by so many things, why is the testing itself exempt?

You don't have to tell me about "have all their guesses be incorrect." I have had first-hand experience as a student in doing worse than random on true/false exams. If only I knew then what I know now, I would have tried to convince my instructors I knew the answers but just misidentified the choices. I know this is not the kind of wrong beyond random you are talking about, but it reminded me of those exams.

Reflecting on school experiences, I also recall futile efforts at trying to beat the odds on exam questions. For example, being pretty sure the first three answers on an exam were false, I might guess the fourth should be true unless I was certain it was false. Listener's uncertainty or insecurity about failing could cause "trying to beat the odds" in blinded testing, a distraction that I suspect would hurt performance.

You said " My main point was that if a mood can effect the outcome of a listening test, then one's expectations certainly could (as in a sighted test)." I agree, one's expectations could affect the outcome of a sighted test, but I don't believe they necessarily would. Also, I think expectations could work either for or against hearing differences.

[RobotCzar]

"Positive" and "correct" in the context of the test under discussion mean the same thing to me. After the test, we count the number of times the subject identified the cable as positive (or correct)scores and the number of times he misidentified the cable as negative (or incorrect) scores. Perhaps I'm missing your point..

I don't see what "positive" has to do with "correct". Postive (or good) relates to a mood (I thought from your comments). To my thinking your are confusing performance (%correct) with mood. Mood can affect performance: bad mood can decrease it, good mood can improve it (in comparison to "no mood" or neutral mood)--but they are different concepts.

Please consider the following hypothetical example of moods hurting performance: The subject in the 13 day blinded test might say " I correctly identified Cable A (the one he preferred in sighted listening) 5 days out of 7 days, and probably would have done better, but wasn't in a good mood those two days so maybe the cable didn't sound good to me for that reason. And I identified Cable B on 5 of 6 days, the one wrong being a day when I felt particularily good.".

Well, I would NOT let the subject explain what happended, I would let the data do so. If you want him to self-report his mood, fine. But his explanation of mood to performance is worthless. He shouldn't even know how he did on days he felt bad, because he is blinded. The test should merely look for correlations between self reported mood and performance. As an aside, the subejct could have said "I identified better on days when I was in a good mood, I did a bit worse on days I felt neither good or bad, and I did even worse on days I felt bad". (His explanations, however, carry no weight, the data will show if there is a correlation between mood and performance or not.)

You gave an example of how you thought a positive mood bias might enhance a person's score. "For example, if I really could distinguish A from B, then I might do better when I feel happy or am "pumped". Sometimes people say that they are "in the zone." If listeners need to be that way to do their best in blinded testing, I see it as a reason to question the validity of the testing. How can you assure that the people who need to be "pumped" will be during the testing?

I see no reason to question the testing procedure because it demonstrates that factors like mood (or time of day, or whether the subject just ate, or whether the subject took asprin, etc. etc.) affect performance. A host of factors can affect performance which is why some effort must be made to control them. The factor of expectation (or simple bias) can be controlled by blinding. Why do you think that procedure needs to be tested or checked or whatever? If you don't know which is which, you bias cannot affect your performance--it is that simple. Doesn't that make sense?

I continue to wonder whether there is something inconsistent about assuming attitudes, beliefs, and expectations can affect a listener's perceptions while at the same time assuming the act of blinded testing cannot affect his listening performance. If the mind and the way the mind and ears work together can be influenced by so many things, why is the testing itself exempt?

Blinding in a test does not mean cutting off eyesight. A typical audio ABX test lets people see just fine. Blinding in this context means removing the knowledge of which item test is which. You need to find out more, you are in no position to question testing procedure because you don't know what it is. What good is a test that tests if you can tell two things apart if you already know which is which. I wouldn't accept that as a test, would you?

Reflecting on school experiences, I also recall futile efforts at trying to beat the odds on exam questions. For example, being pretty sure the first three answers on an exam were false, I might guess the fourth should be true unless I was certain it was false. Listener's uncertainty or insecurity about failing could cause "trying to beat the odds" in blinded testing, a distraction that I suspect would hurt performance.

As I said, you don't know enough at this point. Test subjects do not know how they are doing on the test until it is over. That cannot try to "beat the odds" as you suggest, because they generally don't know their score.

You said " My main point was that if a mood can effect the outcome of a listening test, then one's expectations certainly could (as in a sighted test)." I agree, one's expectations could affect the outcome of a sighted test, but I don't believe they necessarily would. Also, I think expectations could work either for or against hearing differences.

Right, one's expectations may or may not affect the result a test. The only way to be sure they are not affecting the result is to blind the subject (remove knowledge of which component is which). You have just explained why blinding is required in a valid listening test.

[mystic]

I don't see what "positive" has to do with "correct". Postive (or good) relates to a mood (I thought from your comments). To my thinking your are confusing performance (%correct) with mood. Mood can affect performance: bad mood can decrease it, good mood can improve it (in comparison to "no mood" or neutral mood)--but they are different concepts.


Well, I would NOT let the subject explain what happended, I would let the data do so. If you want him to self-report his mood, fine. But his explanation of mood to performance is worthless. He shouldn't even know how he did on days he felt bad, because he is blinded. The test should merely look for correlations between self reported mood and performance. As an aside, the subejct could have said "I identified better on days when I was in a good mood, I did a bit worse on days I felt neither good or bad, and I did even worse on days I felt bad". (His explanations, however, carry no weight, the data will show if there is a correlation between mood and performance or not.)


I see no reason to question the testing procedure because it demonstrates that factors like mood (or time of day, or whether the subject just ate, or whether the subject took asprin, etc. etc.) affect performance. A host of factors can affect performance which is why some effort must be made to control them. The factor of expectation (or simple bias) can be controlled by blinding. Why do you think that procedure needs to be tested or checked or whatever? If you don't know which is which, you bias cannot affect your performance--it is that simple. Doesn't that make sense?


Blinding in a test does not mean cutting off eyesight. A typical audio ABX test lets people see just fine. Blinding in this context means removing the knowledge of which item test is which. You need to find out more, you are in no position to question testing procedure because you don't know what it is. What good is a test that tests if you can tell two things apart if you already know which is which. I wouldn't accept that as a test, would you?

As I said, you don't know enough at this point. Test subjects do not know how they are doing on the test until it is over. That cannot try to "beat the odds" as you suggest, because they generally don't know their score.


Right, one's expectations may or may not affect the result a test. The only way to be sure they are not affecting the result is to blind the subject (remove knowledge of which component is which). You have just explained why blinding is required in a valid listening test.

You accept results of blinded listening tests as truth. You do not accept results of sighted listening tests as truth. I get the impression you also don't believe a claim can be true unless it has been verified through blinded testing, but I may be misunderstanding you. You have confidence in the state of blinded testing in audio, believing its practice has always revealed the truth.

I accept results of objective tests as truth. Blinded listening tests do seem objective. But all this talk about how easily the mind is influenced makes me wonder about the influence of the testing itself. I'm not in a position where I have to assume the testing is objective for work or any other practical reason. So for me the reasonable conclusion is no conclusion.

[RobotCzar]

Let's suppose you meet a person who claims to be able to tell Coke from Pepsi. Knowing that human perception is easily misled, you ask him to demonstrate that he can. He agrees and you pour the colas into cups and set up a test. You attempt to hide which is which from him and he, at first, objects but eventually agrees. You mix up the drink so he doesn't know which is which (but it is written under a piece of tape on each cup. He driinks each, taking a long as he likes, and being able to take as big a sip as he wishes. You ask if he can tell the difference and he says "yes, for sure".

The test is completed and you add up his score and find that his correct number of responses is exactly what you would expect by chance from someone who could not tell the difference between the colas.

You tell him the results. He says that there is something wrong with the test, because he knows that he can tell the difference. He says that it is unfair to not let him know which is which before hand and suggests that the pressure of the test affected his ability to do the test. You test him again, this time he is not so cocky. Again he fails to demonstrate he can tell the difference.

He still claims he can. He says your test is flawed because he needs to know which is which to tell the difference (I'll bet that helps a lot). He says that you need to test your test because it does not reveal the truth. Why would he lie about this, he asks? You say, because you are fooling yourself--your perception of taste is being affected by your expectations. You point out this is a well-known scientific fact. He says you are a pin head and that all you care about is numbers, not reality. Besides, he loves Coke and you are spoiling his fun.

You meet another guy. He says he can easily tell Coke from Pepsi. You say "That's nice, but I can't believe you until you demonstrate that you can because you tested somebody and found out they couldn't. He says, "well that was him, I can do it," You test him and he cannot distinguish Coke from Pepsi. He calls you a naysayer and says: "you think everything tastes the same because you can't tell the difference." You say: "neither can you" and until somebody does, I am not sure anybody can. I know one thing for SURE, just because people SAY they can doesn't mean they really can.

This is a rough approximation of what has happened with blind listening tests of amps and cables. Except the situation is much worse for these audio compoents, Much time has gone by and nobody has demonstrated the ability to distinguish these type of components. In addition, scientific test has established that people's hearing sense cannot distinguish the differences in sound at the levels measured from audio components.

The bottom line is what you consider logical or fair is not what I do, nor, I claim--what a scientific opinion would be.

[Mash]

in trying to enlighten those who may simply be foolish.

Why do I write "those who may simply be foolish"?

Because "those who may simply be foolish" would not only be wasting their wealth on illusions. If they actually hold responsible positions in knowlege-based professions in Science, Engineering, IM and so forth which are NOT a part of the Mystical Audio Industry, if they discuss at their workplace the pseudoscience we read here they risk loosing all credibility with their peers. And once you have lost credibility with your peers in a knowlege-based profession, your career is over. Your superiors will simply find a way to "farm you out" or otherwise get rid of you. I sense that you already know this, and are trying to warn those who simply "will not get it".

Roger Russel, head of McIntosh Labs, has a wonderful site on speaker wires that not only relates the scientific information and tests but also presents the political marketing reality. It is well worth a careful read by one and all. Even "those who may simply be foolish".
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

[E-Stat]

Roger Russel, head of McIntosh Labs...

Uh, no. According to his website he was the "former director of acoustic research at McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. and originator of the McIntosh loudspeakers."

... that not only relates the scientific information and tests...

Tell me, which of the "tests" do you find most significant?

rw

[Mash]

Is this a subtle attempt to be dismissive of the presented information?

And why should I select "which of the "tests" " that I "find most significant" ?? Why do you ask this?
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

Remember, I achieved a very favorable retirement from an EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE company, with full benefits, and at a favorable age. This would not have happened if I had walked around preaching the pseudoscience I often read here. Credibility in the knowlege-based professions is key, my friend. I know many who "didn't make it".

So be as dismissive as you wish, but understand that "I got mine".

[E-Stat]

Is this a subtle attempt to be dismissive of the presented information?

I'm trying to uncover what you find to be important information.

Congratulations on the retirement.

rw

[mystic]

Let's suppose you meet a person who claims to be able to tell Coke from Pepsi. Knowing that human perception is easily misled, you ask him to demonstrate that he can. He agrees and you pour the colas into cups and set up a test. You attempt to hide which is which from him and he, at first, objects but eventually agrees. You mix up the drink so he doesn't know which is which (but it is written under a piece of tape on each cup. He driinks each, taking a long as he likes, and being able to take as big a sip as he wishes. You ask if he can tell the difference and he says "yes, for sure".

The test is completed and you add up his score and find that his correct number of responses is exactly what you would expect by chance from someone who could not tell the difference between the colas.

You tell him the results. He says that there is something wrong with the test, because he knows that he can tell the difference. He says that it is unfair to not let him know which is which before hand and suggests that the pressure of the test affected his ability to do the test. You test him again, this time he is not so cocky. Again he fails to demonstrate he can tell the difference.

He still claims he can. He says your test is flawed because he needs to know which is which to tell the difference (I'll bet that helps a lot). He says that you need to test your test because it does not reveal the truth. Why would he lie about this, he asks? You say, because you are fooling yourself--your perception of taste is being affected by your expectations. You point out this is a well-known scientific fact. He says you are a pin head and that all you care about is numbers, not reality. Besides, he loves Coke and you are spoiling his fun.

You meet another guy. He says he can easily tell Coke from Pepsi. You say "That's nice, but I can't believe you until you demonstrate that you can because you tested somebody and found out they couldn't. He says, "well that was him, I can do it," You test him and he cannot distinguish Coke from Pepsi. He calls you a naysayer and says: "you think everything tastes the same because you can't tell the difference." You say: "neither can you" and until somebody does, I am not sure anybody can. I know one thing for SURE, just because people SAY they can doesn't mean they really can.

This is a rough approximation of what has happened with blind listening tests of amps and cables. Except the situation is much worse for these audio compoents, Much time has gone by and nobody has demonstrated the ability to distinguish these type of components. In addition, scientific test has established that people's hearing sense cannot distinguish the differences in sound at the levels measured from audio components.

The bottom line is what you consider logical or fair is not what I do, nor, I claim--what a scientific opinion would be.

Someday I'll get around to doing a blinded taste test to see if I can distinguish Diet Coke from Diet Pepsi. I drink a lot of both, but have no preference, and buy whichever is on sale.I think I can tell the difference, but wouldn't bet on it. It should be an easy test to do --much easier than a cable test. One problem might be the taste carryover from cup to cup, but rinsing the mouth with water between cups could be a solution. Another problem could be the repeated number of trials in a short period lessening the ability to discern. Rather than doing say 14 trials in one day, however, you could do two trials a day for seven days.

Suppose we deveop what we believe to be a flawless way to do blinded taste testing on subjects who say they can taste a difference between Coke and Pepsi. We then test 20 subjects, and none can tell a difference. I would only conclude those 20 subjects couldn't taste the difference in that test. However, if we had a scientific sample representative of all people who claimed to taste a difference, and they all failed to do so, I would conclude there probably is no one who can taste the difference. Sure, it's possibile some rare individual out there can do it, but not likely.

From what you have told me, I think you would conclude that if those 20 subjects can't taste a difference, no one can. I suspect you might further conclude all similar soft drinks taste alike. These extrapolations would be too much of a stretch for me.

I have respect for the opinions of scientists. But I know of cases where scientific opinions have been proven wrong. I also know that opinions of scientists can be different.

[theaudiohobby]

in trying to enlighten those who may simply be foolish.

Why do I write "those who may simply be foolish"?

urm...some of RobotCzar's posts firmly places him in the same group, RobotCzar himself is a layman who is simply holding the opposite end of the audiophile myth. The precariousness of his position was brilliantly illustrated by Quagmire a while back in this excerpt

As part of his introductory speach he make the statement, "...there are no absolutes". From the back of the room, a hand is raised. The professor, looking a little bit bothered that someone had nerve to interrupt his speach reluctantly acknowledges the student. "Yes, what is it?" he says. The student stands up and asks, "I just wanted to know, sir... did you mean that last statement, absolutely?".

[markw]

urm...some of RobotCzar's posts firmly places him in the same group, RobotCzar himself is a layman who is simply holding the opposite end of the audiophile myth. The precariousness of his position was brilliantly illustrated by Quagmire a while back in this excerpt

Believe me, you wouldn't know if you were talking to someone with engineering experience. You've proved that already.

Now, as far as being a "layman" goes, there are quite a few "laymen" who are quite knowlwdgable in many areas.

Robo has come through many times with good, solid knowledge when it comes down to solid facts and explaining things. After you dismal showing on that decibles vs hearing thread in speakers last week, you proved you really aren't up to snuff in either theory or practal experience.

Your main contribution seems to be calling into question others advice, most times with no basis nor backup infornmation as to WHY you question it. Your usual snipe and scurry as evidenced here. You snidely point out what doesn't suit your beliefs (sometimes incorrect, but that's another story) in a condesending manner as if to insuniate that you know better and then scurry away without saying anything to clarify your position. This was evidenced by your incursion imto my discussion in the speakers forum as well.

Now, if you disagree with something then feel free to join in and express (intelligently) why you think what you do. Of course, you may meet with some people who may not agree with you and you might have to defend your statements on an adult level with some real, solid facts and /or evidence but hey, that's what this forum is about. This is an adult swim, kid. Just the facts, ma'm. No jolly snipe and runs allowed.

Simply throwing in childish snipes and running simply makes me think you are simply a poser with nothing of value to offer. Simply pointing fingers and snickering is a child's trick.

Now, would you care to explain why your belief that Robo is a laymen is a problem or how what he's saying is incorrect and should be ignored? If I didn't know any better I'd almost say that you are jealous that others can disagree and yet still carry on a deep, meaningful conversation based on facts and with civility and respect for each others position.

[theaudiohobby]

Believe me, you wouldn't know if you were talking to someone with engineering experience. You've proved that already.

I got to laugh here , I suppose your boo boo on the speaker board is still getting to you, get over it and move on, you were wrong pure and simple. There is no need brooding over old threads, it clouds clear judgement.

Does a preference or even knowledge of blind testing automatically indicate a knowledge of audio electronics theory. Do you join RobotCzar in saying that time domain performance and frequency domain performance measurements are audiophile myths?

I have repeatedly tried to tell you that there is no "time domain" and "frequency domain" that those concepts are made up to support the audiophile position.

[markw]

...what problems do YOU find with what he says. After all, you're the one that cast a doubtful light on his input. .and tried to use the words of two "strangers" to you in doing so.

Did you ever ask them what they meant or did you simply pick and choose words that could be taken out of context and misconstrued to mean what you wanted to imply?

*Why not confront him yourself instead of sniping him? He doesn't bite and, if you can keep up with him, which I doubt, perhaps you could learn something.

...or is this just more of your smokescreen? Why does it seem that those with the most "imnpressive" monikers that have the least to offer? Perhaps your moniker would be more appropiately "the Audio Poser"?

And, if you think you came off so clever in that other forum, feel free. It's really kinda funny. Simple sniping with nothing of substance to add. ...Just like here. Now, if you wish to show where I made my "boo boo" instead of bombarding us your trademark hyena laughing smiley faces and scurrying off with no valid rejoinder, feel free. That's what you did there, too.

..but, then again, that's what I'm saying here now, isn't it? Thanks for proving my point so succintly.

Hmmmm... on second thought, maybe "The Audio Hyena" might be more appropo.

*Oops...I see you already did and, as I suspected, could not keep up with him either. It's a biitch going up against someone who knows what they are talking about and can carry on an intellectual discourse, ain't it? Oh well, you might as well snipe if that's all you have left.

[theaudiohobby]

Read my revised post, care to answer the questions...I could always call you names but I will refrain from that and I expect you to do the same.

[RobotCzar]

Note that audiohobby does not give his own opinions, he references high end audio pundits (but he does give is snide comments). Perhaps he will share his background (as I have done in the past) so we can better judge his expertise. But, then again, we can tell he does not have any, can't we? It seems he can be classed with the other high end faithful who live here. I guess this forum is therapy for them as I speculate that they cannot get people to listen to their ramblings in real life.

Face it audiohobby, you don't konw what "time domain" and "frequency domain" means, so why do you think you can correct people about them? Don't bother trying to tell me now, you had your chance. Now, go and take the time to learn something, quit taking the easy way out or no one will ever pay attention to what you say. When you put your thoughts down in forums you expose your ignorance. Ignorance can be corrected, why get so defensive about it?

[markw]

We lined up in teams. As we approached the front of the line we were given a life saver.

The object of the game was to guess what color it was by the flavor without seeing it first.

You would think that's easy but until you've tried it, you have no idea how difficult that really is. I mean, it's most certainly doable to a great extent but you would be surprised how much our taste was influenced by the color cues.

Just a little food for thought. (yes, bad pun)

Now, on with the show. ...Move along... nothing to see here...

[theaudiohobby]

RobotCzar,

You spoke out of your arse on time domain and frequency domain performance and that was the reason you became dead silent when faced with authoritative information. As for Markw, his childish sulk in another thread where he committed a booboo similar to yours, means that you have a companion to sulk with. I know more about time domain and frequency domain performance than you do and the proof is right up in this thread where you spoke out of your arse. I repeat you are in the same boat as those that you pursue, just opposite ends, extreme opinions that are out of touch with reality.Rather than being childish and foolish, both yourself and markw should learn to accept correction, that's true learning.

[markw]

RobotCzar,

You spoke out of your arse on time domain and frequency domain performance and that was the reason you became dead silent when faced with authoritative information. As for Markw, his childish sulk in another thread where he committed a booboo similar to yours, means that you have a companion to sulk with. I know more about time domain and frequency domain performance than you do and the proof is right up in this thread where you spoke out of your arse. I repeat you are in the same boat as those that you pursue, just opposite ends, extreme opinions that are out of touch with reality.Rather than being childish and foolish, both yourself and markw should learn to accept correction, that's true learning.

Smiley faces, childish taunts and incorrect assumprions, even when made by several people don't make you right. It ain't a voting situation, where if two or more people misunderstand what they are reading that makes it right. You just jumped on the wrong dogpile and didn't even know what you were doing. Face it kid, ya saw two people who, like many newbies, misunderstood something jumping on me and you thought you would join in the fun and jumped in with your wise arse comments. Now, you're being asked to be a man and substantiate them.

Again, please prove that a 3 decible change results in "DOUBLE the audible change in volume", as was the original statement under dispute.

I thought I was pretty clear in stating my case. I'm still waiting to hear yours. C'mon kid, show me what ya got. Smiley faces don't count. If it did you would win.

And, for any interested in this train wreck, here's the thread with TAH's insightful comments. Please note that the original poster changed the question after the first three responses.

Can you hear?

And, I'm sure Robo would be open to any meaningful input that you could openly discuss on an adult level. Merely shooting a paragraph or so from another source without being able to understand, explain it and back it up doesn't count.

If not, then please drop it and let the adults carry on their conversations unimpeded with your childish taunts.

[theaudiohobby]

Markw, it is you that should drop it as you are being foolish and childish, I have no need to add to that thread, newbsterv2 has said it all

I agree with that 100% but that conflicts with everything you say before it!

behave like an adult and accept that your original post on that thread was wrong. Get off this thread and nurse your lousy self-ego somewhere else. As for RobotCzar, I am sure he is wisely keeping quiet cos he now knows he is wrong.

[markw]

Markw, it is you that should drop it as you are being foolish and childish, I have no need to add to that thread, newbsterv2 has said it all

behave like an adult and accept that your original post on that thread was wrong. Get off this thread and nurse your lousy self-ego somewhere else. As for RobotCzar, I am sure he is wisely keeping quiet cos he now knows he is wrong.

Do you even bother to undersand what you cut and paste? Can you say "oxymoron"?

You really think he's a source you want to quote? He's the one who started this whole mess by making that foolish statement in the first place!

And again, you simply cut and past someone else's words. How about something that you wrote that explains your position? ...or are you gonna huff and puff and blow my house down?

I'd say that your condescending, high and mighty and above it all attitude is being called into question. now, you getto prove you realy CAN hold your own in t hese discussions. You've talked the talk. Now it's time to walk the walk.

It's time to either put up or shut up, kid.

Now, come up with something of your own akin to my post 22 on that thread defending your position.. After all, it's a fairly basic and simple concept so it shouldn't be too much of a task for one of your superior intellect and experience to explain it in your own words so a simple, misguioded fool such as my humble self could understand the error of my ways. I've lived under this "misconception" for over 40 years since I started in audio.

I would love to finally learn the truth from you. ...and, I'm sure the rest of the people reading this thread eagerly awaits enlightenment from one so wise as yourself..

So, it's the bottom of the 9th, one strike and no balls. Wanna take another swing?

And, I'm sure Robo ran away trembling in fear of your superior knowledge and is crying into his pillow because you say he's wrong.