Bits Is/Ain't Bits: A Modest Proposal

[trithio]

For Fitz

Dont forget to hold your temper and not answer in kind to all provocations. Some people's harshness seems to be well tolerated. Yours may or may not be.

[esldude]

Expect to be crucified for that. At least twice

Plus, I think you forgot to mention the storytellers and/or salesmen.

Your post is somewhat harsh even for my taste. But you make at least one very good point: from software developers to hardware people to music business and other industry people and to the last joe-poster, almost no one seems to accept even the minimum amount of proof standards.

Everyone is free, beautiful and has a bat's ears . Pure Wonderland

 

Tell me more about these "proof standards". Don't believe I have seen them around the forum anywhere. How does that work and why do we need them? And will they interfere with Pure Wonderland?

[trithio]

Tell me more about these "proof standards". Don't believe I have seen them around the forum anywhere. How does that work and why do we need them? And will they interfere with Pure Wonderland?

 

It's just one of those things who works in 'misterious ways'

 

How about this barest minimum as test standard: non sighted and with a minimum amount of control. Like having at least 2 people involved. Or someone may come with a better idea.

You think even that bare minimum could be accepted?

[esldude]

It's just one of those things who works in 'misterious ways'

 

How about this barest minimum as test standard: non sighted and with a minimum amount of control. Like having at least 2 people involved. Or someone may come with a better idea.

You think even that bare minimum could be accepted?

 

Nope the recent trend of denial has been to say if a test doesn't meet full ITU criteria then it is no good. Only the highest possible standards can be accepted. Anything less can be dismissed. Just go listen and trust your ears instead. It will all be clear then.

[Paul R]

It's just one of those things who works in 'misterious ways'

 

How about this barest minimum as test standard: non sighted and with a minimum amount of control. Like having at least 2 people involved. Or someone may come with a better idea.

You think even that bare minimum could be accepted?

 

How about a bare minimum of listen to the thing on your own system and compare it to what you are familiar with?

 

That should be pretty much enough proof for those whose goal is something like "find a piece of audio gear that scratches some it I have."

 

If you want laboratory standards as a minimum, then where are we going to find funding for those kinds of resources?

 

You also assume that blind testing is a absolute minimum mandatory standard; whose is going to write those test plans, implement and monitor them, and pay for such testing? Not to mention it is a hell of a lot of work!

 

And that some here have already arrogantly and inaccurately dismiss the less formal blind testing you describe here as nothing less than worthless ancedotes. That would be at least partially because the results from those more informal tests do not agree with the results they desire.

 

I am not sure there should be any minimum standards for testing here in the forums, though I like the difection you take here. It can not be done right without significant effort, and if one wants a strict mandatory testing standard (however invalid such a standard may be, as well as useless) there is always the gasbag forums.

[sandyk]

It's just one of those things who works in 'misterious ways'

 

How about this barest minimum as test standard: non sighted and with a minimum amount of control. Like having at least 2 people involved. Or someone may come with a better idea.

You think even that bare minimum could be accepted?

 

As usual, you clowns are requesting proof from mainly non technical people. Can't you see how self serving that is ?

This isn't Hydrogen Audio, and will hopefully never be like it. If people like yourselves had their way, nobody would be able to report anything new, and progress would be stifled. This doesn't just apply to Audio either.

If you so called technical types are so hell bent in proving others wrong, then get off your lazy arses and do so using correct technical procedures instead of ridiculing the non qualified in the area while sitting in front of a computer screen.

Standards of proof may be necessary for professionals in their field, but C.A. is not an association for professional engineers. .

In any event, I have more than met your required minimums on quite a few occasions, including Blind testing performed by a well qualified E.E. but you still refuse to do meaningful testing in that area to either prove or disprove the Blind test results as published in HiFi Critic vol.6 no.1.

BTW,

"Mysterious has a "Y" in it ,and the whole sentence is badly written. It makes me wonder if you managed to even qualify for a Uni Course in Electronics.

I make plenty of mistakes too, but then I don't claim to have Professional qualifications in this area like some of you seem to have , or pretend to have..

[esldude]

As usual, you clowns are requesting proof from mainly non technical people. Can't you see how self serving that is ?

This isn't Hydrogen Audio, and will hopefully never be like it. If people like yourselves had their way, nobody would be able to report anything new, and progress would be stifled. This doesn't just apply to Audio either.

If you so called technical types are so hell bent in proving others wrong, then get off your lazy arses and do so using correct technical procedures instead of ridiculing the non qualified in the area while sitting in front of a computer screen.

Standards of proof may be necessary for professionals in their field, but C.A. is not an association for professional engineers. .

snippage.....

 

BTW,

"Mysterious has a "Y" in it ,and the whole sentence is badly written. It makes me wonder if you managed to even qualify for a Uni Course in Electronics.

I make plenty of mistakes too, but then I don't claim to have Professional qualifications in this area like some of you seem to have , or pretend to have..

 

Nope the recent trend of denial has been to say if a test doesn't meet full ITU criteria then it is no good. Only the highest possible standards can be accepted. Anything less can be dismissed. Just go listen and trust your ears instead. It will all be clear then.

 

It's just one of those things who works in 'misterious ways'

 

How about this barest minimum as test standard: non sighted and with a minimum amount of control. Like having at least 2 people involved. Or someone may come with a better idea.

You think even that bare minimum could be accepted?

 

trithio

 

Sorry, I had to quote myself. But you see how it goes. Two people who just say, "hey can you hear this if I don't tell you which is which?". Well now that is too technical for our crowd. And doing the full ITU is too expensive and difficult. Besides which you unveiled yourself as uneducated when you substituted an 'i' for the 'y' in mysterious. Even though you put little marks around it so show it intentional. So you are both too technical and not well versed. How does it feel to be made of straw?

 

Your little request that maybe we sometimes do a sanity check was too much. It became you requiring proof of non-technical people. Oh my! So sorry, what can be done? Just listen and trust. Become a trusted listener and your raw experience is all the proof you need. And conjecture, you also really need to work on the conjecture. Just build a nice story about what might be happening, but no need to check or anything. Too technical.

[YashN]

I don't have a problem with that for those who appear to be here mainly to troll, and aren't interested in the experiences of others. Of course, there will always be personality clashes, but if more than a few feel that the person concerned is a Troll, the suggestion that they may be happier in another forum isn't unreasonable.. I find that far less objectionable than downright nasty sarcasm and suggestions of mental instability, like a few on your side of the fence consistently post.

 

I agree 100% with you. The field comes with a lot of new knowledge, but lately, isn't it since the end of last year or around that time, we have had an influx of trolls coming in with their preconceptions, lack of understanding and when pointed to more information to further their understanding, start becoming abusive.

 

The forum is invaluable for people getting set up with Computer Audiophilia, with all the shared experiences in various combinations (and there are many), with the threads by Superdad and many others' contributions in various threads.

 

So you have to wonder what their agenda is, what they're doing in this forum?

 

In addition to that, esldude's petty and childish attempts to side with the trolls above to attempt to garner support for his limited perspective is rather amusing and pathetic simultaneously.

[sandyk]

So you have to wonder what their agenda is, what they're doing in this forum?

 

In addition to that, esldude's petty and childish attempts to side with the trolls above to attempt to garner support for his limited perspective is rather amusing and pathetic simultaneously.

Exactly.

As to the "misterious ways"sentence, the whole sentence is poorly constructed, and it seems likely that he wouldn't have passed Uni English standards. More appropriate would have been "It's just one of those things that works in 'mysterious ways'

[sandyk]

It became you requiring proof of non-technical people. Oh my! So sorry, what can be done? Just listen and trust. Become a trusted listener and your raw experience is all the proof you need. And conjecture, you also really need to work on the conjecture. Just build a nice story about what might be happening, but no need to check or anything. Too technical.

Dennis

What utter garbage. You, of all people know that I have done far more than most, by seeking, and obtaining confirmation from quite a few suitably qualified people. Nothing anybody does will ever be enough for those who don't wish to accept what is being reported. I presume that you have also read confirming reports (FYI ONLY) from a Sydney E.E. who for obvious reasons does not wish to get into non winnable arguments from closed minded and sarcastic members ?

No, he didn't use flawed DBTs. The differences were so obvious that he didn't need to !

 

Alex

[esldude]

Dennis

What utter garbage. You, of all people know that I have done far more than most, by seeking, and obtaining confirmation from quite a few suitably qualified people. Nothing anybody does will ever be enough for those who don't wish to accept what is being reported.

 

Yes, Alex you have. But your comments seemed to indicate things get too technical for most forum pariticpants in a hurry in your opinion.

 

No, he didn't use flawed DBTs. The differences were so obvious that he didn't need to !

 

Alex

 

Gee, where I have I heard that before, too obvious, no need to test blind.....?????

[Paul R]

trithio

 

Sorry, I had to quote myself. But you see how it goes. Two people who just say, "hey can you hear this if I don't tell you which is which?". Well now that is too technical for our crowd. And doing the full ITU is too expensive and difficult. Besides which you unveiled yourself as uneducated when you substituted an 'i' for the 'y' in mysterious. Even though you put little marks around it so show it intentional. So you are both too technical and not well versed. How does it feel to be made of straw?

 

Your little request that maybe we sometimes do a sanity check was too much. It became you requiring proof of non-technical people. Oh my! So sorry, what can be done? Just listen and trust. Become a trusted listener and your raw experience is all the proof you need. And conjecture, you also really need to work on the conjecture. Just build a nice story about what might be happening, but no need to check or anything. Too technical.

 

Oh please- stop twisting things there Dennis. Nobody is stopping you from doing any type of testing you please. Just do not expect people to agree with you that your testing is necessary, desirable, informative, or conclusive for anyone else.

 

You totally brush off any suggestion that listening to the gear is a valid way to test such gear. Maybe you are right. But maybe, testing just by listening is quite satisfactory for most people. it probably returns about the same number of false results as loosey-goosey blind tests. And it sure is a hell if a lot better that psuedoscientific ABX fanatical testing.

[kumakuma]

Exactly.

As to the "misterious ways"sentence, the whole sentence is poorly constructed, and it seems likely that he wouldn't have passed Uni English standards. More appropriate would have been "It's just one of those things that works in 'mysterious ways'

 

Dennis

What utter garbage. You, of all people know that I have done far more than most, by seeking, and obtaining confirmation from quite a few suitably qualified people. Nothing anybody does will ever be enough for those who don't wish to accept what is being reported. I presume that you have also read confirming reports (FYI ONLY) from a Sydney E.E. who for obvious reasons does not wish to get into non winnable arguments from closed minded and sarcastic members ?

No, he didn't use flawed DBTs. The differences were so obvious that he didn't need to !

 

Alex

 

Alex,

 

1. The opposite of winnable is unwinnable, not "non winnable".

 

2. "closed minded" should be "closed-minded"

 

3. We typically don't put spaces in front of punctuation marks.

 

KK

 

P.S. Do you really want to go down this road?

[sandyk]

 

Have you seen a copy of his reports ? He has also heard these differences at another listening session elsewhere.

[esldude]

 

Have you seen a copy of his reports ? He has also heard these differences at another listening session elsewhere.

 

No I have not.

[sandyk]

Alex,

 

1. The opposite of winnable is unwinnable, not "non winnable".

 

2. "closed minded" should be "closed-minded"

 

3. We typically don't put spaces in front of punctuation marks.

 

KK

 

P.S. Do you really want to go down this road?

 

I don't claim to be able to pass Uni English pass requirements these days. But unlike many here, I know when to use "lose" and "loose"

There have also been many changes in English words and spelling , since I was High School.educated >60 years ago..

Check with Google and you will find that non winnable is also in common use, as is closed minded.

Spelling in an American Dictionary also may not be identical to that in say an earlier edition of the Oxford Dictionary, yet we often use bastardised U.S. English.( "U.S. English" is often given as an option with many programs etc.)

3. We typically don't put spaces in front of punctuation marks.

Typically is the operational word there. Doing as I have done helps with legibility on a high resolution computer screen, so shoot me !.

[sandyk]

Have you seen a copy of his reports ? He has also heard these differences at another listening session elsewhere.

 

No I have not.

 

Dennis

Please check your emails.

Alex

[kumakuma]

Typically is the operational word there. Doing as I have done helps with legibility on a high resolution computer screen, so shoot me !.

 

What's your excuse for putting a period after an exclamation mark?

[Daudio]

Exactly.

As to the "misterious ways"sentence, the whole sentence is poorly constructed, and it seems likely that he wouldn't have passed Uni English standards. More appropriate would have been "It's just one of those things that works in 'mysterious ways'

 

Alex,

 

One of the very few things we know about the real person behind the 'trithio' facade, is that he said he is not a native English speaker. So cutting him a little slack in the writing department is in order. I suspect that you missed that tidbit while in hospital. Glad to have you back, and in good form

 

 

Kuma,

 

Being raised by a strict 'Kings English' mother, I bite my lip all the time at the slaughter of grammar, spelling, vocabulary, punctuation, et al. But this is an international forum and I have to respect anyone who can write anything in a 'foreign' language !

Not to mention the wreckage that can be wrought by auto-correct, spell-checkers, fat fingers, brain farts, and more

 

Everyone,

 

Regardless of your mother tongue, could you please be more careful to use 'two', 'too', and 'to' correctly ?? It is so easy to do, and will help keep my blood pressure down

 

And remember that stupid writing mistakes should be an exception, not a habit. The goal is to communicate, after all !

 

Thanks,

[kumakuma]

Kuma,

 

Being raised by a strict 'Kings English' mother, I bite my lip all the time at the slaughter of grammar, spelling, vocabulary, punctuation, et al. But this is an international forum and I have to respect anyone who can write anything in a 'foreign' language !

Not to mention the wreckage that can be wrought by auto-correct, spell-checkers, fat fingers, brain farts, and more

 

I was simply giving Alex a taste of his own medicine after his ad hominem attack on another member's use of the English language.

[sandyk]

What's your excuse for putting a period after an exclamation mark?

 

Havent you got anything better to do ?

I certainly have !

[sandyk]

I was simply giving Alex a taste of his own medicine after his ad hominem attack on another member's use of the English language.

 

'Well you failed miserably as usual!

[sandyk]

Alex,

 

One of the very few things we know about the real person behind the 'trithio' facade, is that he said he is not a native English speaker. So cutting him a little slack in the writing department is in order. I suspect that you missed that tidbit while in hospital. Glad to have you back, and in good form

I apparently missed that. All I saw on my return was an abrasive character who appeared to be on a personal crusade to destroy all subjective reports, perhaps as a plant from Gas Bag Audio.

[trithio]

As usual, you clowns are requesting proof from mainly non technical people. Can't you see how self serving that is ?

This isn't Hydrogen Audio, and will hopefully never be like it. If people like yourselves had their way,.....

 

That is pretty much what I was talking about above. You and a few others apparently have no issues going 'you clowns' and 'shit your hands and clap' and whatnot. But if I go even 1/10 that way, the whole bunch of you jumps on my back with yells of troll, ban him and retard and go somewhere else and so on.

Such nice people you are.

About hificritic, used to like that one. But then they started 'listening' to storage for some misterious reason. See my post at the end of that 'bits are bits disease' thread. So that's off for me too.

 

The rest doesnt even deserve attention.

[trithio]

How about a bare minimum of listen to the thing on your own system and compare it to what you are familiar with?

 

That should be pretty much enough proof for those whose goal is something like "find a piece of audio gear that scratches some it I have."

 

If you want laboratory standards as a minimum, then where are we going to find funding for those kinds of resources?

 

You also assume that blind testing is a absolute minimum mandatory standard; whose is going to write those test plans, implement and monitor them, and pay for such testing? Not to mention it is a hell of a lot of work!

 

And that some here have already arrogantly and inaccurately dismiss the less formal blind testing you describe here as nothing less than worthless ancedotes. That would be at least partially because the results from those more informal tests do not agree with the results they desire.

 

I am not sure there should be any minimum standards for testing here in the forums, though I like the difection you take here. It can not be done right without significant effort, and if one wants a strict mandatory testing standard (however invalid such a standard may be, as well as useless) there is always the gasbag forums.

 

Quite sure I was _not_ asking for formal, expensive tests. Just try it blind a few times.

Is that perfect or enough? No. And nothing is. But it's a huge step forward from a sighted test. Why not doing it? It doesnt even require much effort, just close your eyes and ask someone to switch the components for you.