MQA Discussion

AJ Soundfield said:
(...)

Self assessed, believed abilities are verboten.

(...)

He, like the testers and myself, fully understand the value of all the factors.


(...)
That is classic Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Being a self assessed/declared "expert" is irrelevant here, only demonstrable ability is. He can either do that, or "talk" about it like that article.:)

(...)

This is exactly why self assessment of ability is really, really bad idea. Thank you!


cheers,

AJ
Click to expand...


I couldn´t have made this up... :D

Cheers!
 
AJ Soundfield said:
I have no idea if Bob concurs with the conclusions both McGill and I independently reached.
Seer is not among my skills.:D
You would have to ask him.
Click to expand...

I guess he'll react to the paper's conclusions. Although I'm not a seer either, I don't think it's difficult to predict that he'll raise a few objections.

Cheers!
 
Music Fiend said:
I haven't read the entire paper


In my non expert and certainly not scientific approach

Specifically about the violin results and double blind tests I also like to take into account what some true experts have to say:
https://www.thestrad.com/blind-testing-strads-and-guarneris-misses-a-fundamental-point/6944.article


I tend to use my own hearing ability. Alas, I can't use measurement devices or double blind tests

I'd say being a professional violinist not only makes him an expert it probably allows him not to fall into the McNamara Fallacy or suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I couldn´t have made this up... :D

Cheers!
Click to expand...
Indeed. :lol:
 
Music Fiend said:
I guess he'll react to the paper's conclusions. Although I'm not a seer either, I don't think it's difficult to predict that he'll raise a few objections.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
Well, it's of his own creation.:)

Btw, great game so far today, really enjoying, though felt bad for Egypt, they played hard. And I'm sure, trained hard and had demonstrable abilities to get on the field. Go figure.

cheers,

AJ
 
Music Fiend said:
I think that you were surprised by how funnily contradictory your post sounded.

Not sure if my words, even in the mix form chosen by you and taken from more than one post, are that much contradictory or funny...

Cheers!
Click to expand...
Oh I found it all very funny, including you thinking there was contradiction. ;)
Again, there is a reason BStuart supplied his files for expert double blind listening analysis, by experts at McGill U and not to a violinist blogger or anti-science approach types. :D
If one wants to know about sound>ears/just listening, he made the right choice, even if some will hate the results. Bob of course, has enough expertise to understand expertise.

cheers,

AJ
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Oh I found it all very funny, including you thinking there was contradiction. ;)
Again, there is a reason BStuart supplied his files for expert double blind listening analysis, by experts at McGill U and not to a violinist blogger or anti-science approach types. :D

cheers,

AJ
Click to expand...

Yes, I must be imagining a contradiction here:

Self assessed, believed abilities are verboten.

(...)

He, like the testers and myself, fully understand the value of all the factors.(...)
This is exactly why self assessment of ability is really, really bad idea.


Happy to see that at least you didn't argue against it being funny!;)

Cheers!
 
Music Fiend said:
I haven't read the entire paper

In my non expert and certainly not scientific approach

Specifically about the violin results and double blind tests I also like to take into account what some true experts have to say:
https://www.thestrad.com/blind-testi...t/6944.article

I tend to use my own hearing ability. Alas, I can't use measurement devices or double blind tests

I'd say being a professional violinist not only makes him an expert it probably allows him not to fall into the McNamara Fallacy or suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the metacognitive inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence

Yes, I must be imagining a contradiction here
Click to expand...
I don't see any need for imagination unless that is what one does best.
No contradiction either, it's rather consistent!:)

cheers,

AJ
 
Music Fiend said:

He, like the testers and myself, fully understand the value of all the factors.(...)

Happy to see that at least you didn't argue against it being funny!;)

Cheers!
Click to expand...
No argument that interpretations of it are funny as heck!

Ok, so what don't you like about the MQA McGill U study?
 
AJ Soundfield said:
No argument that interpretations of it are funny as heck!

Ok, so what don't you like about the MQA McGill U study?
Click to expand...

As I've said before, I haven't read it all.

I simply think that double blind tests are not effective as there is a considerable risk of making a type II statistical error.

And many who don't understand basic statistics think that when double blind tests fail to show statistical evidence of a difference that you can then conclude something.
 
Music Fiend said:
As I've said before, I haven't read it all.

And many who don't understand basic statistics think that when double blind tests fail to show statistical evidence of a difference that you can then conclude something.
Click to expand...
Well I have read it all...and they made no conclusion whatsoever, in fact the opposite.
This is the difference here...
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Well I have read it all...and they made no conclusion whatsoever, in fact the opposite.
This is the difference here...
Click to expand...

That shows that they have a grasp of basic statistics which is hardly surprising.

You appear to say that you had the same results... does that mean that you didn't conclude anything yourself?

If so, what is the point of your posts?

To say that what you and the paper concluded is that there's no conclusions whatsoever?

Cheers!
 
Music Fiend said:
That shows that they have a grasp of basic statistics which is hardly surprising.

You appear to say that you had the same results... does that mean that you didn't conclude anything yourself?
Click to expand...
Not only of statistics but testing itself. There is no such thing as absolutes.
There were some results, that mirrored mine. So within the confines of both "tests", the conclusion of those tests were basically the same.
That some stuff is improved by MQA aliasing/EQ, while others are not. It depends heavily on the original mastering, since MQA is a remaster.
There are a lot of ways to improve via remastering...or screw up.
McGill promises further testing.
It's unfortunate that certain types of folks will auto knee jerk go on attack vs blind test results when they don't coincide with their beliefs, but I think we covered that pretty well already, thanks for your links and known effects.
Bottom line, BStuart knew what the risks were when he started this whole mess. You reap what you sow.
If he doesn't like the results, he knows exactly what to do.

Btw, you can't know this, but his own previously submitted work, The Audibility of Typical Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Playback System caught some blowback in the the AES and worse, his follow up Further Investigations of the Audibility of Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Playback System has being stuck in "Under Review"..since 2016. Not good.
It is therefore understandable that he wouldn't oppose the McGill study, though obviously it will have no effect on belief. I'm sure Bob knows that.

cheers,

AJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top