|
Post by boomzilla on Jan 8, 2017 5:48:35 GMT -5
What I learned from the thread "Why double-blind testing is completely worthless:"
1. It isn't completely worthless - in certain circumstances, it can be valuable
2. But to be anything other than completely worthless, the test conditions must be controlled rigidly and the test must be properly designed
3. If any of the qualifications in No. 2 are missing, then DB testing isn't just worthless - it's worse than worthless - because it provides false results
4. Many of the classic double blind tests HAVE provided false results that were then reported as facts (Julian Hirch's test saying that two amps were audibly identical)
5. DB testing is still better at identifying large differences (Floyd Toole's speaker comparisons) than small ones
So this is an example of where my opinion WAS changed by the comments of fellow Loungers. Thanks!
Boomzilla
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,689
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 8, 2017 6:28:01 GMT -5
What I learned from the thread "Why double-blind testing is completely worthless:" 1. It isn't completely worthless - in certain circumstances, it can be valuable 2. But to be anything other than completely worthless, the test conditions must be controlled rigidly and the test must be properly designed 3. If any of the qualifications in No. 2 are missing, then DB testing isn't just worthless - it's worse than worthless - because it provides false results 4. Many of the classic double blind tests HAVE provided false results that were then reported as facts (Julian Hirch's test saying that two amps were audibly identical) 5. DB testing is still better at identifying large differences (Floyd Toole's speaker comparisons) than small ones So this is an example of where my opinion WAS changed by the comments of fellow Loungers. Thanks! Boomzilla I commend you for learning and being man enough to publicly admit it. One minor nit-pick on #5. It isn't so much that DBT's are "better" at discerning large differences...it is just easier to ID a large difference and have confidence in the result. So, I would say "Large differenece are easier to detect, therefore the smaller the difference, the more important #1 & #2 become and the more likely #3 becomes" One other build...with any result of a test, we never know universal truth. We only have an estimate of it, and there is always a risk with any test that our conclusion is wrong. This is basic statistics. Therefore, it is best to use cautionary/suggestive/not totally definitive wording than use strongly definitive statements when sharing any conclusion based on a sample of all possibilities. Mark
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Jan 8, 2017 11:22:23 GMT -5
Thanks, Mark - good advice!
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Jan 8, 2017 19:47:02 GMT -5
If you go to only one movie in 2017, let it be "Hidden Figures." It was so good that the end, the audience broke into spontaneous applause (and I along with them).
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Jan 15, 2017 20:23:35 GMT -5
Tonight, we watched a Transformers movie in 3D. My conclusions:
1. The 3D glasses tend to give me a headache 2. Some 3D movies (Avatar, for example) have most excellent 3D effects while others (tonight's Transformers show, for example) don't 3. All things considered, I might prefer to have 4K rez rather than 3D
I'll try one more 3D movie before deciding.
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,213
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 15, 2017 20:50:19 GMT -5
Tonight, we watched a Transformers movie in 3D. My conclusions: 1. The 3D glasses tend to give me a headache 2. Some 3D movies (Avatar, for example) have most excellent 3D effects while others (tonight's Transformers show, for example) don't 3. All things considered, I might prefer to have 4K rez rather than 3D I'll try one more 3D movie before deciding. Optimal viewing distance must be observed or they will give you a headache! 65" TV requires a distance of 7' to 9'. Also, some 3D movies are done much better then others. Some go just for wow factor and others are done well. Kind of like recording anything else. on another note, ive found some formats a total waist of money. Some movies would not loose much if watched as an up converted DVD vs Blueray or 4K, just not that much of a benefit per dollar spent. Other movies, well worth it. A problem ive found is you don't know what you have till you view it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 8:06:11 GMT -5
Tonight, we watched a Transformers movie in 3D. My conclusions: 1. The 3D glasses tend to give me a headache 2. Some 3D movies (Avatar, for example) have most excellent 3D effects while others (tonight's Transformers show, for example) don't 3. All things considered, I might prefer to have 4K rez rather than 3D I'll try one more 3D movie before deciding. let me start by saying I LOVE 3D..if a movie comes out and is available on BD in 3D I always get the 3D version...that being said if it is also available on 4k...I forgo the 3D and buy the 4K....MUCH preferred experience! YMMV
|
|
|
Post by bluemeanies on Jan 16, 2017 9:00:42 GMT -5
Tonight, we watched a Transformers movie in 3D. My conclusions: 1. The 3D glasses tend to give me a headache 2. Some 3D movies (Avatar, for example) have most excellent 3D effects while others (tonight's Transformers show, for example) don't 3. All things considered, I might prefer to have 4K rez rather than 3D I'll try one more 3D movie before deciding. While I do not own a 3D projector or TV my buddy has a 65"Panasonic 3D capable TV. He is a BIG fan of 3D while I am not. We negotiate 3D viewing or standard viewing when there is a movie that we mutually want to see in the theater. I prefer standard viewing as I feel that 3D viewing takes the sharpness out of the picture. Of course this is MO. I LOVE 4K....just wish there was more venues.
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Jan 16, 2017 10:14:39 GMT -5
Not a fan of 3D either. I think it is gimmicky. Not a fan of surround music either.
2.1 or 2.2 for music
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Jan 16, 2017 10:14:49 GMT -5
Tonight, we watched a Transformers movie in 3D. My conclusions: 1. The 3D glasses tend to give me a headache 2. Some 3D movies (Avatar, for example) have most excellent 3D effects while others (tonight's Transformers show, for example) don't 3. All things considered, I might prefer to have 4K rez rather than 3D I'll try one more 3D movie before deciding. While I do not own a 3D projector or TV my buddy has a 65"Panasonic 3D capable TV. He is a BIG fan of 3D while I am not. We negotiate 3D viewing or standard viewing when there is a movie that we mutually want to see in the theater. I prefer standard viewing as I feel that 3D viewing takes the sharpness out of the picture. Of course this is MO. I LOVE 4K....just wish there was more venues. As you just said, I also found that 3D viewing takes the sharpness out. And as boomzilla said, I also tend to have headache with 3D glasses, and not all the 3D movies are well made. For those reasons I'm using very rarely this feature, I prefer 2D versions of BD.
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on Jan 16, 2017 11:04:27 GMT -5
vneal - isn't a live concert "surround sound"?
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 16, 2017 11:40:21 GMT -5
vneal - isn't a live concert "surround sound"? I'm not vneal, but a live concert is not necessarily "surround sound." It depends on how the disc or file has been mixed. In a live concert you don't have instruments and voices placed all around you, they are for the great majority of the time up on stage, in front of the audience. You do pick up the ambience of the concert venue, but that is far from how many surround sound concerts are produced, in which not only the venue ambience comes from the surround speakers but also the musicians and vocalists. If you want to be sitting in the middle of the performers on stage that might be a good thing but it doesn't duplicate the normal concert experience.
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Jan 16, 2017 15:12:05 GMT -5
vneal - isn't a live concert "surround sound"? No live music is not surround sound I have been to well over 400 concerts in my life. In a small to mid size venue it is direct left & right channels. Usually you get some sound bounce off from the rear but no I have NEVER HEARD SURROUND SOUND THAT WAS RECORDED that is more satisfying than two channel
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,916
|
Post by hemster on Jan 16, 2017 15:36:13 GMT -5
I've heard some excellent presentations in DTS/5.1 surround sound. I'm talking about music. For example, The Eagles - Hell Freezes Over, Pink Floyd's DSOTM, etc. There are many.
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Jan 16, 2017 16:39:03 GMT -5
I've heard some excellent presentations in DTS/5.1 surround sound. I'm talking about music. For example, The Eagles - Hell Freezes Over, Pink Floyd's DSOTM, etc. There are many. I have those. It doesnt sound bad. But for music I prefer 2 ch
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,213
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 16, 2017 16:42:12 GMT -5
I've heard some excellent presentations in DTS/5.1 surround sound. I'm talking about music. For example, The Eagles - Hell Freezes Over, Pink Floyd's DSOTM, etc. There are many. Damn Skippy!!
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on Jan 16, 2017 16:45:34 GMT -5
I was just watching the Billy Joel "Last show at Shea" Blu-Ray. MUCH better in 5.1 than 2.0.
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Jan 19, 2017 22:07:32 GMT -5
This evening, the speaker at the Greater Baton Rouge Chapter of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers was a physicist from the LSU Superfund research department. His talk was about the physics of environmentally-persistent free radicals (EPFRs).
Although the majority of his talk was concerning the physics of the EPFR creation, and mostly above my head, the interesting thing that I learned was that the most common method of hydrocarbon waste destruction (incineration) has a nasty by-product. When ring molecules, such as benzene, for example, are incinerated in the presence of silica or metals, a radical is created. Normally radicals (being polar, i.e. having an electrical charge) decompose within milliseconds or bond with another molecule to achieve stability, but the metal or metal oxide free radical (EPFR) can persist for weeks!
Further, the particle sizes are respirable, and do significant damage to lung tissue. So just about every industry with a thermal oxidizer, incinerator, or possibly even a flare, creates EPFRs that we're only now beginning to understand the hazards of.
An interesting topic, a brilliant speaker, and useful information. Go AIChE!
PS: I also got a round of applause for having my article on chemical process safety published in the January issue of the journal of the AIChe, "Chemical Engineering Progress" magazine. Further, my better half came to the meeting with me and (being more educated and significantly smarter) soaked up the speech with great enjoyment.
Boomzilla
|
|
|
Post by charlieeco on Jan 21, 2017 11:34:53 GMT -5
Tonight, we watched a Transformers movie in 3D. My conclusions: 1. The 3D glasses tend to give me a headache 2. Some 3D movies (Avatar, for example) have most excellent 3D effects while others (tonight's Transformers show, for example) don't 3. All things considered, I might prefer to have 4K rez rather than 3D I'll try one more 3D movie before deciding. Agree with you.www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-never-will-case-closed
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Jan 29, 2017 16:57:48 GMT -5
And the more I think about it, the less eager I am to change anything I've got. First of all, the only thing that would make me move to the new Oppo UDP-205 would be MQA. If It doesn't have that, why bother changing? The higher rez TV might be OK, but I don't watch TV very often, and lately don't have time for movies.
And look at the features that I want:
Bass management - The ONLY fully-differential-balanced bass manager on the market is the JL Audio CR-2 ($3,000) that I don't see myself getting. If I use the bass management of either Emotiva's XSP-1 or Parasound's stereo preamp, I get single-ended circuitry instead.
Analog volume control - Yes, both the Emotiva and the Parasound offer that, but the supposedly inferior digital volume control of my Oppo sounds equally good (when paired with a tube amp) in my system.
Built-in DAC - Maybe the next Emotiva XSP will have it - maybe not. But the Oppo's DAC sounds (in my system & to my ears) within spitting distance of the best DACs I've heard, at ANY price.
Ability to drive low-impedance solid-state and high-impedance tube amps with equal verve - For now, the Oppo holds the sound quality record for driving 300K input tube amps, but even the lowly PT-100 outdoes it (and by a wide margin) when driving solid-state amps. Since I anticipate my system to include BOTH SS and Tube amps, I'll probably need the Oppo AND a preamp.
Tone Controls - Now the "need" for these evaporates if I'm using the subs, but to do that, I need flexible bass management. The Oppo provides its own bass management, so why buy a preamp that duplicates the function?
DLNA over Ethernet input - Right now, the Oppo's one of the FEW devices that offer this. So even if I got an outboard DAC, I'd still need the Oppo.
So ultimately, my system may shake down to the following:
Oppo single-ended outputs driving a tube amp directly AND a pair of subwoofers, using the Oppo's internal crossover - AND Oppo coaxial digital output driving the Emotiva PT-100 while using the PT-100 as BOTH a DAC and a preamp and driving solid-state amps exclusively.
This way with a total of two "front end" components, I can have tube or solid state power when needed AND for no extra cost out of pocket. Now these two components COULD be upgraded (Oppo UDP-205 replaces BDP-105 and/or Emotiva XSP-2 replaces PT-100) but unless the "upgrades" provide noticeably better sound (and NOT just "different"), then why bother?
Sunday afternoon musings...
|
|