• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Blind test: we have a volunteer!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spkrdctr

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
2,212
Likes
2,934
I also think the test is dead. Too many of our objectivists worry that someone will succeed in picking the unit versus a different unit. If set up close to correctly, no one will pick the "correct" unit. But at least for once in thousands of attempts, the subjectivists didn't back out first. Usually as a test date nears, they run and hide. Good for GoldenOne for hanging in there.
 
Last edited:

SimpleTheater

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 6, 2019
Messages
927
Likes
1,789
Location
Woodstock, NY
It's entirely possible that GoldenOne got a standard Magnius and not the audiophile version, and that's why he didn't like it.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
I also think the test is dead. Too many of our objectivists worry that someone will succeed in picking the unit versus a different unit.
We are not worried that he would do so on merit. We are worried that he has a) changed the test completely to be one of any detectable difference and b) is using protocols that provide simple "tells" to enable that false conclusion.

My original challenge was simple: show us all the same conclusions in your video but in a controlled setting. That's all. He said a ton of things were subjectively wrong with Magnius. I am not sure even his fans in the other forum agree with any of that. Facing that reality, he has become in favor of the simplest "can there be any audible difference." Yes, we were partially guilty of leading the path for him in suggesting such tests initially in the thread. But once I stopped that, he is now wanting to hold on to that type of testing for obvious reasons per above.

Remember, I passed tests of 16 bits versus 24 bit audio with good knowledge of how to pass such tests:


But I don't go around saying that is indicative of massive subjective difference in 16 bit vs 24 bit and that anyone listening to 16 bit audio is experiencing junk. I am perfectly fine with him first passing the test as proposed (of any difference) but the outcome needs to be confirmed by us using more proper tests and the second test to show that he can indeed tell all those subjective things about Magnius.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
If GS claims he can hear differences in stereo imaging than it is important to do the test in stereo.
I don't remember him saying so in his video. Everything he talked about was independent of that.

But sure, he can test in stereo but it needs to be verified that the channel balance is the same between two amps. This would require some work in picking a volume position where this occurs between the two amps.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
Nothing has changed in regards to me wanting to do the test properly and have it be reliable. But the goalposts and aims of the test have been shifted so far from what was initially discussed and quite frankly I don't even know what it is amir is actually wanting me to test at this point.
I was the one actually resetting the shifting goal posts that went from you verifying all the subjective things you said about Magnius in a controlled test to now a remote test where you only show there is a difference with none of us stakeholders there to verify accuracy of the test.

So one simple way you could do this is to get a bunch of people to listen to Magnius blind -- i.e. not knowing what the identify of amp is -- against Atom. Let's see if their impressions are the same as yours. If they don't agree with your opinions, then you have to explain to us why you think you were still right. As I explained, this is how speaker research is performed.

Your job in the above would be just to shoot the video and nothing else. This is what the typical Pepsi vs Coke taste tests are. Do you have interest in such a test?
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
On the issue of the bet, this is what I am willing to do. For merely taking the initiative to perform a more controlled test, I will donate $300 to your charity regardless of the outcome! I want to encourage people to do more formal and controlled testing. So whether you are able to tell the difference or not, the money will be donated.

To earn the rest of the money for your charity, you need to follow the proposals we are making, not what you want to do.
 

oldsysop

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
383
Likes
657
So one simple way you could do this is to get a bunch of people to listen to Magnius blind -- i.e. not knowing what the identify of amp is -- against Atom. Let's see if their impressions are the same as yours. If they don't agree with your opinions, then you have to explain to us why you think you were still right. As I explained, this is how speaker research is performed.
I'm lost. At times I think the challenge is to verify what GS claims.
But at times I interpret something like "Yo Amir I listen better than GS".
It seems like a fight of egos.
I also don't understand why Amir changes the rules all the time.

:confused:
 

Blaspheme

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
461
Likes
515
I'm lost. At times I think the challenge is to verify what GS claims.
But at times I interpret something like "Yo Amir I listen better than GS".
It seems like a fight of egos.
I also don't understand why Amir changes the rules all the time.

:confused:
GO: Moving targets are harder.

Amir: Moving targets are smarter.

:cool:
 

Blaspheme

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
461
Likes
515
I will be doing the test with the recommendations that yourself and others made in this thread so far.

Nothing has changed in regards to me wanting to do the test properly and have it be reliable. But the goalposts and aims of the test have been shifted so far from what was initially discussed and quite frankly I don't even know what it is amir is actually wanting me to test at this point.

So I'm going to do the test anyway. The money to charity was my main goal, Amir isn't going to do that anymore, so I'll raise it elsewhere.
If anyone here has suggestions or input on how it should be done then please do feel free to dm me or contact me elsewhere and I'll do my best to accommodate sensible suggestions.

Also looking into getting a few others to participate on canjam weekend so that it isn't just me and we have several participants to get better info from.
Not too far back, Amir appeared to say that a blinded experiment where you listen to the musical selections you used in the contended video (say) and rate each amp on sonic characteristics per your descriptors (not sure if it was your descriptors as written, or assessing bass, mid, treble and dynamics similar to an example posted) was a goer.

Assuming the other technicalities (level and balance matching, switching tells, and so on) can be sorted. I'm not going to read everything since then to check for tectonic plate shift, but it's something you may be motivated to get back to him on.
 
Last edited:
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
I'm lost. At times I think the challenge is to verify what GS claims.
We are still doing the same thing but simply finding issues around trust. If Cameron were here, then I would test him myself. Indeed in the past I have offered thousands of dollars for proof of such things by spending my own money to travel to the location of the poster to do the test correct. This can't be done right now due to distance and travel restrictions.

So an alternative is to get people who have no stake in the outcome -- or at least not nearly as much -- to take the same test but this time controlled. I have more trust in this situation than letting Cameron take the test. He has many ways to game this test from practicing in advance to finding tells to who knows what. These other people do not as they don't have a review to prove.

"Review" is the key word here. We don't have an online person with such claims. We have a reviewer telling people that the Magnius is broken in multiple ways. It reasons then that he believes his assessments would apply to others. Otherwise why be a reviewer?

If I were challenged on my measurements, you could get here and watch me measure things again. Or, find another person similarly situated to make another set of measurements. You wouldn't be "confused" about this way of proving my results. Not sure why you would be confused about doing the same for listening tests.

Put the challenge aside: don't you want to know at all if someone else can experience the same thing Cameron did in his video? Why is that not of interest to you? This is of huge interest to me and others and is the reason we are in favor of digital capture and letting everyone here for themselves.

If Magnius is broken, there should be no issue with arriving at that truth in different ways. All provide valuable data to the discussion. I don't know why anyone believing in objectively analyzing this would want to limit the options for verifying it.
 

Blaspheme

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
461
Likes
515
We are still doing the same thing but simply finding issues around trust. If Cameron were here, then I would test him myself. Indeed in the past I have offered thousands of dollars for proof of such things by spending my own money to travel to the location of the poster to do the test correct. This can't be done right now due to distance and travel restrictions.

So an alternative is to get people who have no stake in the outcome -- or at least not nearly as much -- to take the same test but this time controlled. I have more trust in this situation than letting Cameron take the test. He has many ways to game this test from practicing in advance to finding tells to who knows what. These other people do not as they don't have a review to prove.

"Review" is the key word here. We don't have an online person with such claims. We have a reviewer telling people that the Magnius is broken in multiple ways. It reasons then that he believes his assessments would apply to others. Otherwise why be a reviewer?

If I were challenged on my measurements, you could get here and watch me measure things again. Or, find another person similarly situated to make another set of measurements. You wouldn't be "confused" about this way of proving my results. Not sure why you would be confused about doing the same for listening tests.

Put the challenge aside: don't you want to know at all if someone else can experience the same thing Cameron did in his video? Why is that not of interest to you? This is of huge interest to me and others and is the reason we are in favor of digital capture and letting everyone here for themselves.

If Magnius is broken, there should be no issue with arriving at that truth in different ways. All provide valuable data to the discussion. I don't know why anyone believing in objectively analyzing this would want to limit the options for verifying it.
"our blogger" = "Cameron". That was subtle. But ambiguous. Are we on friendlier terms or is a doxx incoming?
 

BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp

Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2021
Messages
201
Likes
245
Are we on friendlier terms or is a doxx incoming?
Some random user did actually doxx him in the MQA thread, but the mods had him retract the post after it was reported. Not sure where Amir got the name - perhaps GS publicly mentioned it in one of his videos at some point? I hope it wasn't from that post in the MQA thread. I know there's some diverging opinions on this, but IMO anonymity on the internet should generally be preserved for those that want it.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
"our blogger" = "Cameron". That was subtle. But ambiguous. Are we on friendlier terms or is a doxx incoming?
Well, he said it was easy to figure out who he is and it indeed is seeing how he uses the same unique alias elsewhere. See: https://forum.electricunicycle.org/...th-or-poole-area/?tab=comments#comment-259328

1623102324583.png


I can never remember his bloody alias :) so decided to use his real first name.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,274
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
So just test one channel. He can choose L or R. That solves any channel imbalance. He can also use only his best ear.

Part of the distinguishing characteristics are rendering of space, stability of images, depth etc. Take that out by playing mono and there's no point.

Constant handicapping to level a playing field makes for a predictably boring race.

Use case dictates stereo, not mono.
 

MDT

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
63
Likes
216
I was the one actually resetting the shifting goal posts that went from you verifying all the subjective things you said about Magnius in a controlled test to now a remote test where you only show there is a difference with none of us stakeholders there to verify accuracy of the test.

So one simple way you could do this is to get a bunch of people to listen to Magnius blind -- i.e. not knowing what the identify of amp is -- against Atom. Let's see if their impressions are the same as yours. If they don't agree with your opinions, then you have to explain to us why you think you were still right. As I explained, this is how speaker research is performed.

Your job in the above would be just to shoot the video and nothing else. This is what the typical Pepsi vs Coke taste tests are. Do you have interest in such a test?
I think this changing of the goalposts is disingenuous. Initially you wanted him to prove he heard the differences he claimed. Now you want him to prove that others can hear it as well? How is this in any way reasonable? We know these are subjective claims. Why should he prove that others experience the same as himself?

Your issue with his review was his claims that he could hear issues with the magnius. It should be enough for him to demonstrate that he can hear these differences. It is subjective after all. For all we know, he was born with abnormal hearing and he can hear things most people can't. The only test should be if he can hear these differences in a controlled setting. Not that others can as well.
 

MDT

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
63
Likes
216
Part of the distinguishing characteristics are rendering of space, stability of images, depth etc. Take that out by playing mono and there's no point.

Constant handicapping to level a playing field makes for a predictably boring race.

Use case dictates stereo, not mono.
At this rate, the test is going to end up being a null between the two amps with a 1kHz sine wave. The requirements keep getting more and more strict they will no longer resemble the listening conditions that GO used when making his subjective claims.
 

Blaspheme

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
461
Likes
515
Well, he said it was easy to figure out who he is and it indeed is seeing how he uses the same unique alias elsewhere. See: https://forum.electricunicycle.org/...th-or-poole-area/?tab=comments#comment-259328

View attachment 134419

I can never remember his bloody alias :) so decided to use his real first name.
C'mon 'fess up: you just couldn't come at me correcting you on 'blogger' vs 'vlogger'
At this rate, the test is going to end up being a null between the two amps with a 1kHz sine wave. The requirements keep getting more and more strict they will no longer resemble the listening conditions that GO used when making his subjective claims.
We need to take listening out of the equation when the claim is that differences can be heard.

*every difference pixel in the null image will be a glistening jewel o_O
 
Last edited:

Blaspheme

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
461
Likes
515
I think this changing of the goalposts is disingenuous. Initially you wanted him to prove he heard the differences he claimed. Now you want him to prove that others can hear it as well? How is this in any way reasonable? We know these are subjective claims. Why should he prove that others experience the same as himself?

Your issue with his review was his claims that he could hear issues with the magnius. It should be enough for him to demonstrate that he can hear these differences. It is subjective after all. For all we know, he was born with abnormal hearing and he can hear things most people can't. The only test should be if he can hear these differences in a controlled setting. Not that others can as well.
I don't know about disingenuous, that goes to motive which is unknowable (from my position anyway). Maybe. It is confused/confusing though. I think it's the process of personal and experiential assumptions and reactions attached to words and concepts. Thence misreading and mis-speaking. I know I do it.
 

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
Frankly, this is a PR disaster.

Don't get me wrong @amirm, your objective reality is my objective reality. I am typically unable to hear the differences @GoldenOne hears/claims to hear. I also do understand the near impossibility to check a remote test for cheating. Not implying that @GoldenOne would cheat, just that even if he doesn't, a remote uncontrolled/weakly controlled test will not convince anyone anyway. However, that was clear from the start, and going all-in with a $1000 bet was probably unwise, if spectacular.

Some of the back-tracking/conditions make sense and were actually graciously accepted by "our blogger". And that's when the PR tide starts to turn. Whenever he calmly and confidently accepts something, you add new requirements, change the nature and the scope of the test. The net PR result is very negative: while "our blogger" builds his "nice accomodating and confident guy" image, you now appear to wiggle frantically in damage control mode, mostly because you trapped yourself in proposing a flawed challenge in the first place... :(

:facepalm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom