The fact that Atkinson showed up here

[christopher3393]

On 1/2/2018 at 12:54 PM, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So Atkinson is Father Grandier?  Really?         Then who is Cardinal Richelieu?  Your attempt at highbrow falls a little flat for me.  Perhaps I'm missing the point.

 

 

 

No specific one-to-one correspondence intended. That's part of the game. Enjoy the opera. 

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, Abtr said:

Anyway, the exclusion of runs of 6 or 7 where the correct answer is "same," is part of the experimental design; it has nothing to do with statistical outliers..

It might, however, have some bearing on the statistical analysis of the outcome.

[Abtr]

32 minutes ago, mansr said:

It might, however, have some bearing on the statistical analysis of the outcome.

I don't think it could have skewed the results one way or the other. It might make the overall outcome slightly less statistically significant but I'm not sure..

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

No specific one-to-one correspondence intended. That's part of the game. Enjoy the opera. 

 

Lame dodge noted. 

[crenca]

19 hours ago, Abtr said:

 

Well, in a number of replications of an experiment, a so called statistical 'outlier' would be an individual test result (or data point) that is more than 2 standard deviations removed from the mean result, assuming that the data is normally distributed. If JA in his experiment simply counted the total number of correct and incorrect responses, then the data is not normally distributed so there are no outliers. Anyway, the exclusion of runs of 6 or 7 where the correct answer is "same," is part of the experimental design; it has nothing to do with statistical outliers..

 

Thanks Abtr, that makes sense.  So, the question comes back to whether the removal of these runs effects the design such that the outcome can not be considered "valid".  My gut tells me no (not that JA's little experiment was all that rigorous in the first place), but that is just a subjectivist answer  

[christopher3393]

19 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Lame dodge noted. 

 

How 'bout this? When it comes to MQA and CA, there is at times an inquisitorial whiff in the air that lacks subtlety and reflection.

[Samuel T Cogley]

17 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

How 'bout this? When it comes to MQA and CA, there is at times an inquisitorial whiff in the air that lacks subtlety and reflection.

 

I think the seriousness of the potential impact of foisting a closed, proprietary system unto a public that largely doesn't want it, and certainly doesn't need it, is felt by some more than others.  To histrionically dismiss this as "inquisitorial" is at least disingenuous IMHO.

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

....To histrionically dismiss this as "inquisitorial" is at least disingenuous IMHO.

 

In some cases (but not all) I think it is not disingenuous so much as ignorant (using the term correctly).  Many of the folks around here (despite it being a Computer Audiophile site) are simply ignorant of not only the basics of their immediate digital world, but of the wider digital world and how it relates to the law, corporate commerce and strategery in general, software and patents, IP, DRM, etc.  When I and others say "MQA is not just another product, but an IP format" they truly don't get it because a format is just another piece of techno jargon they recognize but do not stand-under (i.e. to understand).  Thus they do see the meaning/implications...

[Samuel T Cogley]

12 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

In some cases (but not all) I think it is not disingenuous so much as ignorant (using the term correctly).  Many of the folks around here (despite it being a Computer Audiophile site) are simply ignorant of not only the basics of their immediate digital world, but of the wider digital world and how it relates to the law, corporate commerce and strategery in general, software and patents, IP, DRM, etc.  When I and others say "MQA is not just another product, but an IP format" they truly don't get it because a format is just another piece of techno jargon they recognize but do not stand-under (i.e. to understand).  Thus they do see the meaning/implications...

 

I agree with you, but I think the underlying inference is that everyone in the forum should always revere Mr. Atkinson's quasi messianic status in audiophilia.  Personally, I say bollocks to that! 

[Shadders]

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I agree with you, but I think the underlying inference is that everyone in the forum should always revere Mr. Atkinson's quasi messianic status in audiophilia.  Personally, I say bullocks to that! 

C'mon, if yer gonna say it, spell it right - it is "bollocks".

[wgscott]

He's talking about the oriole.