Have we lost civility and respect on Audio forums?

 Do you think that this interview will demonstrate that Toole’s and Olive’s own accounts and published papers misrepresented their use of double blind tests? Simple question.

Simple answer: I never said or implied that it does. Does the fear of listening to it lead you to think it does? I don't. In fact, I said so in my last post and yet you keep on regurgitating (what's gotten to be a meme by now) that I did. Are you confusing me with what other members may have said?

The only issue you're dancing around with is this notion that all this double blind listening is done with "quick switching" when it was most likely not. You never went back and cited where Toole and Olive did just that. Throwing up all the other things they did is not germane to this discussion, but a smokescreen, a diversion.  

You called me a liar earlier for pointing out they took 20 minute breaks between sessions, which you've never been able to dispute. If you'd listen to the recording, you'd see where you're wrong and you just can't do that, can you? It's okay to be wrong. We've all been wrong. It's not the end of the world...just an adjustment. Without adjustments, we all keep going the wrong way. 

Very simply put, they didn't have the speaker swapping device back then. That's it. The rest is some confusion on your part as to everything else you bring up.

All the best,
Nonoise

So the testimonial of some guy who worked with Toole is a better source on how Toole did his research than Toole and the actual published papers of Toole’s research? I disagree.

I've never seen anyone so afraid to listen to something that might mitigate, inform and help to broaden one's understanding of something like you do. Barton is not testifying; he's relating a past experience that's wholly relevant to this back and forth with you. I'm not saying Barton is a "better source" than Toole. He's been right there with Toole all along. 

All this tells me you're great at reading what you want and discarding the rest that doesn't conform to your views. You borrow someone else's work, cherry pick what you need, conflate things and hide behind your manufactured position. 

Every time I point you to that recording, you come back with evasion, side stepping something so simple as listening to another perspective that would help to educate yourself. Seems to me that you're aware, or feel it with your spidey senses, that you'd suffer a great heaping of cognitive dissonance yourself if you did so, hence the projection with your last post.

I see you soldiered on with another post while I wrote this so let me just say that nowhere in what you quoted from Olive's blog did he mention quick switching with the subjects. Yes, they used it, but for convenience. If you did read up on it, the speaker switcher could swap out a speaker in about 3 seconds but how long did it actually take before listening again? Cabling would have to be disconnected and reconnected. Toss in any number of things and they could have waited for a good 5 minutes before starting back up again. 

The tests I addressed in my "claims" were done a good 30-35 years before and all the way up to the speaker swapping device they came up with. I never said Toole, Olive and Barton didn't do blind listening tests. I didn't miss a thing.

All the best,
Nonoise

Why on earth would I look up an interview on YouTube with a guy who is NOT Sean Olive or Floyd Toole when I can go straight to the source?

Paul Barton is of that source. Toole has worked with him from those early days and by now, should be back where the started which is where Barton lives (who’s looking forward to working with him again). They’ve never really been out of touch since the tests were conducted. If you took the time to listen to Barton, you’d know that Toole worked with him on speaker design parameters as well, helping to perfect the product. They were like two peas in a pod when it came to speakers.

That, and it’s not a YouTube video but a SoundCloud recording. What’s the matter, can’t you listen that long? Do you need pictures/video to keep your interest? Would what he said throw buckets of cold water on your position?

The Harmon Speaker Shuffler is located in Northridge, Ca., which looks to have been developed in the early 2000s. In 1966, Toole conducted his very first tests on speakers and listening and Barton joined him around 1974, in Canada.

What are you so afraid of?

All the best,
Nonoise

Then you have people like Floyd Toole and Sean Olive who strictly evaluated sound quality in their research using proper time synchronized quick switching double blind tests but are subjectivists. All of their studies were based on listener preferences. All scoring of their tests were done with subjective ratings. 

No, they didn't. You keep repeating it as if were fact or it will be since you use it like a chant or a mantra. If you'd look up that conversation Darko had with Paul Barton (who was part of the team of Toole, Olive and others) you'd stop saying that. But you won't so here's a link to that conversation.

They used the exact same speaker positions so all the room reflections would be the same so there had to be a pause to swap out speakers. No synchronized quick switching. You can quick switch with cables but that would negate what the masters learned about human hearing and how our brains work. People need time to adjust to properly ascertain what they're listening to.

I was off a bit on the length of the listening sessions as they were of 20 minute durations and not half an hour. 20 minutes spent listening and 20 minutes spent not listening. The podcast is a great listen and worth anyone's time. 

All the best,
Nonoise

I think the difference is most people don’t want their beliefs to be challenged even if they are wrong. As I have said before, if the basic cables I use actually are not audibly transparent I really do want to know. But it’s going to take verifiable objective evidence to persuade me. Not anecdotal evidence, “trust me” testimonials or arguments from authority. If something as basic as verifiable evidence is too high a bar to clear that should be a huge red flag. 

So if you hear a difference with your basic cables compared to others out there, you won't believe your own ears until you find a way to measure it? Must suck to be you. 

All the best,
Nonoise

But even more so than that I am an advocate of time synchronized quick switching comparisons. Both are vital for getting reliable results. How other audiophiles choose to do their comparisons is on them.

By the sound of your statement, it looks like you never went and listened to Darko’s interview with Paul Barton, did you? Your way of quick switching is just a parlor trick, whereas the one you said I made up was actually done by the real experts.

I have to give you credit for sticking to your guns. That’s some real obstinance.

All the best,
Nonoise

I saw and enjoyed that video of John's. Far from what he called a rant. More like a call to reason.

All the best,
Nonoise

If you feel insulted when faced with objective reality that’s your baggage. What is laughable is that you would whine about being insulted while calling me delusional in the same post. I don’t really care but the irony is amusing. 

Again, what's with the insinuation? Is it because you didn't understand what I wrote? The use of "obviously delusional claims" was a paraphrasing of your outlandish examples of what you say members claim and your conflating that with what they say they're hearing. The two are not anywhere near the same.

It was not calling you delusional. One (yours) is made up and the other (members hearing acuity) is based in reality.

You're not as clever as you think you are. That line from the Princess Bride comes to mind....whatever.

All the best,
Nonoise

It almost sounds like you’re living with absolute certainty that we can’t trust any of our senses. How did we ever survive before measurements?

Your retorts are littered with appeals to authority and red herrings that have nothing to do with audio except that very exacting devices are needed to discern them at their extremes. Within those extremes lies the areas that we can hear and that’s where our ears come in: to choose what sounds best to us.

I have lots of old, basic cables that don’t transmit without audible distortions of sorts that I keep around for whenever I come across a new piece of gear. Once that gear has settled in to my satisfaction, I’ll break out the older cables to see how they effect the sound and sure enough, they do what they’ve always done: distort audible parts of the sound and back in go my reference cables. End of story.

All the best,
Nonoise

And there is nothing uncivil about informing audiophiles about these realities. It’s actually very useful information.

The analogies he (scotty) comes up are always good for a laugh. He thinks himself clever by insulting members by way of insinuation, using obviously delusional claims and conflating them with what we claim when listening. 

Directly or indirectly, an insult is an insult and not to go unchallenged. He then follows up with his feigned, calm demeanor, asking why members get so worked up about it. One can even say he enjoys trolling as the tactics he uses are in the troll's handbook. He's not the first member to do this. 

All the best,
Nonoise

Take all of the aforementioned and toss in an unhealthy dose of trying to be that influencer that can garner the most attention, clicks and followers.

Civil discourse is frowned upon, seen as a form of weakness, enabling toxic masculinity to rise to the fore. To own someone is the objective with any amount of pain you can inflict along the way just icing on the cake. Indeed, we are surrounded by all manner of sociopaths.

All the best,
Nonoise