Misleading Measurements

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Well, I will have to just survive the veiled slurs on my motivations and character #776 #780 #781 but that aside nothing here or in the other dedicated thread changes one inconvenient truth.

 

I see no evidence that the app in question has  "been validated through independent testing" as claimed. That is not to say it doesn't do as claimed.There is talk of self-validation and doing your own measurements and theory/fact about how Transfer functions work that produce a reliable model. I am open to this possibility.Trust but verify independently

 

The new development appears to be that the "independent testing" confirming validity is an Audio "Science" Review internet forum thread and additionally a blog site conducted a survey using the app. For now, let's just say this might be seen as questionable verification.YMMV

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

back partially on topic:

 

The whole 'self- validation' issue still strikes me as a user satisfaction method based on the belief that the simulation model is correct (which may be correct) and is satisfied with the outcome. Each end user "verification" of "objective data" adds to the anecdotal pool of potentially misleading measurements.

 

It seems to me that people like @Superdad cop a lot of flack from objectivists for using a self-satisfaction criterion based on listening. The end user hears a difference (which may be correct) and each end user "verification" adds to the anecdotal pool but they get admonished for not producing some kind of independent validation.

 

I see possible misleading measurements and a double standard emerging. If its good for the goose it's good for the gander.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Would any of you want a vaccine that was validated as effective against an infectious agent but was not validated to have a lack of deleterious autoimmune side effects? I hope not.

 

I would also want a vaccine that doesn't "self-validate" for efficacy, even if I could do my own IgG immunofluorescent antibody assays and feel I could interpret the results as inferring immunity. Call me crazy but I want independent testing before I get jabbed.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

The question I have is why aren't you pestering @Superdad for his independent validation data in the same way you are pestering Paul, especially considering that @Superdad is selling commercial products while Paul is charging nothing...

 

Seems like you're the one with the double standard.  👺

 

AFAIK @Superdad never said he had "independent validation" but they are nonetheless searching. The only double standard emerges when independent validation is used as a weapon in one circumstance and considered unnecessary in another.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

False equivalence, David. There's no lack of objective evidence that DISTORT does what is claimed,

 

The "objective data" lacks independent testing beyond anecdotal reports from arguably questionable sources.

 

 

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

you are just too lazy to look for it.

 

may I suggest that this and other assertions/slurs made earlier about me are in your own words, " missing some basic etiquette in communicating"

 

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 in fact, some pretty strong objective evidence against the claims made by @superdad.

 

Paul, maybe in your opinion but again using your own words "your opinion is not better than enyone else's"

 

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 so why do you keep rehashing it?

 

I don't, point to where i keep on rehashing it apart from mentioning it in a thread which cites misleading measurements , double standards and hypocrisy.

 

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

There's nothing similar between uncontrolled, purely subjective reports of "many satisfied customers" and the measurement results from independent testers.

 

Let me fix that for you:

There's something similar between uncontrolled, subjective reports of "many satisfied customers" and the uncontrolled, subjective reports of measurements resulting from non-independent satisfied testers.

 

 

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

There's no need for someone to purchase a $15k jitter analyzer to show that DISTORT works as advertised: it can be measured using simple and free tools, such as REW, in about 2 minutes. There's no need for someone to purchase a $15k jitter analyzer to show that DISTORT works as advertised:

 

All the easier to arrange independent testing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

 

You'll continue to argue to death that any objective result is anecdotal and from arguably questionable sources, without knowing who the sources are or what the result was.

 

..or you could just tell us.

 

Thus far we have an anonymous guy on the internet referring to Audio "Science" review as verification and an implicit endorsement on some other guys blog with a survey of 67 self selected internet respondents that used the App (but don't even address it's accuracy that I could see)

 

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Why should anyone listen to you?

 

I don't, or you?

 

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

You're wasting my time. Talking in generalities, and not providing a single fact or objective result to back it up. Why are you posting in an objective forum, by the way?

 

That's simple, I am asking for independent objective data from an objectivist who claims it exists. Why should that be so hard?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

What I'm getting from this is that @pkane2001's motives are pure and @Audiophile Neuroscience's aren't. Since this is the Objective forum - is there like, um any evidence in support of this claim?

 

I agree it was an unsubstantiated slur made by @pkane2001. I understand he doesn't like what I am saying, but I believe he feels he is right.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

There's an old objective practice of tying up hands and feet and throwing the one being tested into a large, freezing body water. If they are pure of heart the water will support them and not let them drown. I suggest you start with AN. 

 

I don't think the methodology is very scientific. How about some independent validity tests first? Alternatively, you go first 😃🤷‍♂️

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

20 hours ago, MarkusBarkus said:

 

A good tradesman never blames his tools but like most tools, sometimes a hammer works well and sometimes  ...... 😄🤔🤣

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 9/25/2020 at 6:47 AM, semente said:

On 9/25/2020 at 6:37 AM, lucretius said:

 

Without euphonic distortion, all DACs and amps sound the same.

 

It's the same with unpleasing distortion.

 

A "self-validating" App should sort this conundrum 🤣🤷‍♂️