Research Project: Infinity IL10 Speaker Review & Measurements

[amirm]

At this point I'm wondering why there's so much resistance against advices that could improve how speakers are measured and listened.

Because arguments are routinely personal as yours are. And impossible to implement lest you have volunteering to build me a speaker shuffler, solve the pandemic problem so I can bring multiple listeners here to use it.

I have made a lot of improvements in measurements so your comment there is uncalled for. I now spend close to a full hour in manual measurements of such things as distortion, individual driver outputs, compensating for room effect in the same. Indeed my wife just last night asked why I spend so much time before I run the tests these days. I don't enjoy any of this drudgery but I do it because a good case was made for their usefulness. I am still waiting to hear why I should build a speaker shuffler and conduct blind tests, assuming I could even do that.

I suggest you look back to what style of persuasion worked with me, and where you are going wrong. Some of you seem to think the more insulting you are, the more you can get me to do things. That is the exact opposite. I am not going to reward bad behavior this way no matter what the merit.

 

[echopraxia]

At this point I'm wondering why there's so much resistance against advices that could improve how speakers are measured and listened.

As someone who has done some amateur blind tests (which take a surprising amount of work to meticulously control), I would guess that it's this:

Whenever someone does hours of real work (for free!) to provide new data to the community (e.g. measuring speakers, performing careful sighted listening tests as a trained listener, hosting meticulously controlling blind listening tests, etc.), there is an endless supply of people online who will write text posts that critique everything about the results, and even question the competence or bias of the person who performed them. From the perspective of the people who actually do work to gather new data, it's all talk and no action. It gets old really quickly, especially when the critiques are explaining points about science to you that you already understand fully over and over.

I think for 'advise' like this (where the information behind the advise is already fully understood by both sides), it tends to be taken more seriously when they are backed by a willingness to do real work on your part to gather new data or somehow contribute otherwise, rather than just telling people they should have tested it your way instead. For example: Why don't you go buy these speakers and test it yourself, in your way? Because it's too much work vs other kinds of data gathering you could be doing? Exactly.

 

[Thomas savage]

Because arguments are routinely personal as yours are. And impossible to implement lest you have volunteering to build me a speaker shuffler, solve the pandemic problem so I can bring multiple listeners here to use it.

I have made a lot of improvements in measurements so your comment there is uncalled for. I now spend close to a full hour in manual measurements of such things as distortion, individual driver outputs, compensating for room effect in the same. Indeed my wife just last night asked why I spend so much time before I run the tests these days. I don't enjoy any of this drudgery but I do it because a good case was made for their usefulness. I am still waiting to hear why I should build a speaker shuffler and conduct blind tests, assuming I could even do that.

I suggest you look back to what style of persuasion worked with me, and where you are going wrong. Some of you seem to think the more insulting you are, the more you can get me to do things. That is the exact opposite. I am not going to reward bad behavior this way no matter what the merit.

This is what happens when obsessive individuals harass you without end. I'd not indulge them , it's clear they can't stop repeating themselves endlessly so you might want to break the circle by not responding .

 

[patate91]

Because arguments are routinely personal as yours are. And impossible to implement lest you have volunteering to build me a speaker shuffler, solve the pandemic problem so I can bring multiple listeners here to use it.

I have made a lot of improvements in measurements so your comment there is uncalled for. I now spend close to a full hour in manual measurements of such things as distortion, individual driver outputs, compensating for room effect in the same. Indeed my wife just last night asked why I spend so much time before I run the tests these days. I don't enjoy any of this drudgery but I do it because a good case was made for their usefulness. I am still waiting to hear why I should build a speaker shuffler and conduct blind tests, assuming I could even do that.

I suggest you look back to what style of persuasion worked with me, and where you are going wrong. Some of you seem to think the more insulting you are, the more you can get me to do things. That is the exact opposite. I am not going to reward bad behavior this way no matter what the merit.

Can point out where we insult you?
Everything was polite and done with the intention of improving things.

One easy thing was to listen before looking at data, plain simple to do. Note that you wrote a sarcastic comment about that in your last review.

And again since the beginning you never anwser the question about how what you've heard correlate to data you shared.

 

[echopraxia]

And again since the beginning you never anwser the question about how what you've heard correlate to data you shared.

???

Isn't the whole point of Amir's finding from this experiment that there appears to be a audible difference that cannot be explained/seen in the CEA2034 measurement results? And as to what the heard difference may corellate to, I see many hypotheses -- with Amir's initially proposed one being that the heard difference may be somehow correlated to distortion.

So in what way is your question ("about how what you've heard correlate to data you shared") not answered? I'm confused.

 

[Robbo99999]

Yet I didn't find that. Ergo, it didn't bias me that way.

You have to accept at some level that I am far less attached to preconceptions than average Joe. I test a speaker every other day, I don't own or care what the outcome is. I am surprised by cheap speakers sounding good. And expensive speakers sounding bad. I have corrected variations in response and found them to make a big difference. Or not. So I have learned to go into the listening test with little preconceptions. Not zero but far less than what people imagine.

Well, people will just have to form their own opinions on that, but listening test rigour is just one part of the whole project when discussing variable control and the general subject of scientific rigour applied within this project....I won't re-post what I have said before as it's a circular waste of paper, but they are in a few of my previous replies to you.

 

[patate91]

???

Isn't the whole point of Amir's finding from this experiment that there appears to be a audible difference that cannot be explained/seen in the CEA2034 measurement results? And as to what the heard difference may corellate to, I see many hypotheses -- with Amir's initially proposed one being that the heard difference may be somehow correlated to distortion.

So in what way is your question ("about how what you've heard correlate to data you shared") not answered? I'm confused.

Everything can be measure.

What people are suggesting is to find out why and how to find it.

 

[patate91]

Well, people will just have to form their own opinions on that, but listening test rigour is just one part of the whole project when discussing variable control and the general subject of scientific rigour applied within this project....I won't re-post what I have said before as it's a circular waste of paper, but they are in a few of my previous replies to you.

And at this point a simple anwser would be I don't know and I don't want to find out.

 

[amirm]

And at this point a simple anwser would be I don't know and I don't want to find out.

There is the insult example you asked about. There are actually two of them in there.

 

[echopraxia]

(Underlined emphasis mine):

And at this point a simple anwser would be I don't know and I don't want to find out.

Do you even realize how insulting this insinuation of yours about Amir is? Did you not even read the first post of this thread? For reference:

Conclusions
There are none as yet. I expect this to be a living research thread where we discuss what we have found here, and whether we can better rationalize speaker preference from measurements.

Your insinuation that Amir doesn't want to find out how to correlate this audible difference to measurements boggles my mind. Where is this accusation coming from? His first post literally says (under the bold section "Conclusions") we do not know, and the whole point of this thread is for us to try to find out.

 

[patate91]

Do you even realize how insulting this insinuation of yours about Amir is? Did you not even read the first post of this thread?

Maybe my english is not good enough but when I read : "a living research" it means that he/we have to search more.

For now others members shared ways to remove variables in order to persue the living research

 

[patate91]

There is the insult example you asked about. There are actually two of them in there.

That's your biaises and ego, because I never intended to insult.

 

[echopraxia]

I was referring specifically to when you summarize this thread as Amir's conclusions being "I don't know and I don't want to find out". How do you justify accusing anyone here (much less Amir, who devotes so much time, energy, and money specifically to finding out these things) that they "don't want to find out" how to correlate subjective differences between speakers to measurements?

 

[patate91]

I was referring specifically to when you summarize this thread as Amir's conclusions being "I don't know and I don't want to find out". How do you justify accusing anyone here (much less Amir, who devotes so much time, energy, and money specifically to finding out these things) that they "don't want to find out" how to correlate subjective differences between speakers to measurements?

If he wants to find out he'll have to change a couple of things. I can only base my judgment on what I'm reading. So far questions and suggestions are avoided (except for listening first).

 

[echopraxia]

Le he wants to find out he'll have to change a couple of things. I can only base my judgment on what I'm reading. So far questions and suggestions are avoided (except for listening first).

You've made these accusations of avoidance how many times now? FWIW, I still don't see anything being avoided by Amir, even though he doesn't owe you (or anyone else) infinite answers to an endless stream of questions.

All I am seeing here at this point is an excess of Amir's time wasted on defending against these repeated "judgements". Why must this keep being repeated? I think Amir's position on his methodology at this stage of the investigation has been made extraordinarily clear. You don't have to agree with it, but repeating your disagreement over and over is not going to change any minds.

Can we move on/back to hypothesize a list of possible causes?

If there's nothing left to hypothesize (though I doubt it), then great -- we indeed do need more experiments to follow-up on those new hypothesis. You are invited to buy these speakers and contribute! Otherwise, it's up to Amir how he wants to donate his time.

 

[patate91]

You've made these accusations of avoidance how many times now? FWIW, I still don't see anything being avoided by Amir, even though he doesn't owe you (or anyone else) infinite answers to an endless stream of questions.

All I am seeing here at this point is an excess of Amir's time wasted on defending against these repeated "judgements" of yours. Why must this keep being repeated?

Can we move on/back to hypothesize a list of possible causes?

If there's nothing left to hypothesize (though I doubt it), then great -- we indeed do need more experiments to follow-up on those new hypothesis. You are invited to buy these speakers and contribute! Otherwise, it's up to Amir how he wants to donate his time.

I won't provid a list.

Like I said earlier I didn't claim anything or review/measure this speaker, I'm not an expert, I'm not a trained listener, etc.

Edit : the burden of proof lies on the shoulder on the person who's making claims

 

[patate91]

You've made these accusations of avoidance how many times now? FWIW, I still don't see anything being avoided by Amir, even though he doesn't owe you (or anyone else) infinite answers to an endless stream of questions.

All I am seeing here at this point is an excess of Amir's time wasted on defending against these repeated "judgements". Why must this keep being repeated? I think Amir's position on his methodology at this stage of the investigation has been made extraordinarily clear. You don't have to agree with it, but repeating your disagreement over and over is not going to change any minds.

Can we move on/back to hypothesize a list of possible causes?

If there's nothing left to hypothesize (though I doubt it), then great -- we indeed do need more experiments to follow-up on those new hypothesis. You are invited to buy these speakers and contribute! Otherwise, it's up to Amir how he wants to donate his time.

An exemple of burden of proof:

You say God exists.

You have to prove it, since I can't prove that something doesn't exist.

 

[echopraxia]

I won't provid a list.

That's extraordinarily counter-productive of you to this thread and this community. I would advise against that attitude, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's valuable time. Clearly there is no changing your mind or attitude here, so I'm done with this part of the discussion.

 

[patate91]

That's extraordinarily counter-productive of you to this thread and this community. I would advise against that attitude, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's valuable time. Clearly there is no changing your mind or attitude here, so I'm done with this part of the discussion.

That's basic critical thinking and science basic.

 

[amirm]

That's your biaises and ego, because I never intended to insult.

Another insult. Have someone read your posts if you can't recognize them.