Diva vs Analogue - a real world test

[Gamma-UT]

This all reminds me of the many thousands of "photographers' who don't take pictures and instead spend all their time doing focus tests and lens calibrations - "measurebators" they are known as.

You can scoff. But when archeologists of the future need a large number of pictures of different brick walls to document construction methods of the 20th and 21st Century, who are they going to turn to? No-one has a larger collection of pin-sharp brick walls than that lot. No-one.

[trimph1]

I think this appears to be a case of technoweenie syndrome.

[IncarnateX]

Dude you have absolutely no idea what i am talking about lol.
Admit you did not read that wiki page about double blind test i linked.
And these are not accusations but widely known facts - the researchers beliefs and convictions will influence the end result if the test is not double blind.
I accuse the OP of being a human, not some immune to bias, perfect being from outer space.

Dudella, for the third time, here is your claim:

For obvious reasons A was MADE to sound better while still close to B (possibly unconsciously, but probably not)

Thus presuming not only that he consciously or unconsiously cheated but also that he actually consciously or unconsciously know the formular to make something sound "better" to people. And if you, in addition, really think that the fact that people can be, or even is, biased can be taken as a proof that they are biased in the direction you claim, you are either 40% less intelligent than a piece of plywood or your defences are epic to an extent where a researcher could build a whole career on it.

[trimph1]

Dude you have absolutely no idea what i am talking about lol.
Admit you did not read that wiki page about double blind test i linked.
And these are not accusations but widely known facts - the researchers beliefs and convictions will influence the end result if the test is not double blind.
I accuse the OP of being a human, not some immune to bias, perfect being from outer space.

Dudella, for the third time, here is your claim:

For obvious reasons A was MADE to sound better while still close to B (possibly unconsciously, but probably not)

Thus presuming not only that he consciously or unconsiously cheated but also that he actually consciously or unconsciously know the formular to make something sound "better" to people. And if you, in addition, really think that the fact that people can be, or even is, biased can be taken as a proof that they are biased in the direction you claim, you are either 40% less intelligent than a piece of plywood or your defences are epic to an extent where a researcher could build a whole career on it.

Could a case of technoweenie syndrome be built up here.

[zvenx]

Dwl.. clearly.. I see Mutant is still at it, some, is it two weeks later?
rsp

"It" ?
The saw shape thing was solved a week ago.

Am i not allowed to post kinda on topic here ?
The topic is Diva vs some other synth and a (flawed) test to see if we can tell which is which.
Am i not allowed to state the truth that a for a real test, the one that makes the test should not be biased, because even unconsciously he will design it in a way that will get him a result that will prove something he believes ?

"it" being something fishy is going on here...
of course you are free/allowed to post here, not my call at all. I am partially teasing.
rsp

[beely]

You can scoff. But when archeologists of the future need a large number of pictures of different brick walls to document construction methods of the 20th and 21st Century, who are they going to turn to? No-one has a larger collection of pin-sharp brick walls than that lot. No-one.

Lol

[IncarnateX]

Could a case of technoweenie syndrome be built up here.

Yeah. Maybe I should just have communicated this at a more appropriate level:

For obvious reasons A was MADE to sound better while still close to B (possibly unconsciously, but probably not)

MUTANT IS A BAD LOSER! MUTANT IS A BAD LOSER!

[Mutant]

Dude you have absolutely no idea what i am talking about lol.
Admit you did not read that wiki page about double blind test i linked.
And these are not accusations but widely known facts - the researchers beliefs and convictions will influence the end result if the test is not double blind.
I accuse the OP of being a human, not some immune to bias, perfect being from outer space.

Dudella, for the third time, here is your claim:

For obvious reasons A was MADE to sound better while still close to B (possibly unconsciously, but probably not)

Thus presuming not only that he consciously or unconsiously cheated but also that he actually consciously or unconsciously know the formular to make something sound "better" to people. And if you, in addition, really think that the fact that people can be, or even is, biased can be taken as a proof that they are biased in the direction you claim, you are either 40% less intelligent than a piece of plywood or your defences are epic to an extent where a researcher could build a whole career on it.

Dudellino ! That you are even arguing it, proves that you don't understand my claim.
Stop for a moment, throw away your initial understanding, think up a new one.
Everything will become clear.
Maybe.

Are you claiming this is a 100% valid scientific grade test and that the OP is not biased at all by his goal of selling as many of his sound sets as possible ?
That would be not only pretty dumb, but naive too.
Are you claiming that a double blind test design is useless and doesn't provide better data, because we have to assume that if we can't prove that the researcher is biased, then he must be not biased ?
How about Googling "science forum", registering there and trolling them with this ridiculousness ?

[trimph1]

Only someone who is a pure technoweeny would argue this over and over and over....

Maybe another dose of AD should be administered to this thread to add a bit of a different pong to the air here...

[Mutant]

Only someone who is a pure technoweeny would argue this over and over and over....

Maybe another dose of AD should be administered to this thread to add a bit of a different pong to the air here...

We are provinding free bumps. Making the OP a millionaire.

[Gamma-UT]

Steady on. I for one am eagerly anticipating Mutant's upcoming Guide To Architecture Through The Medium Of Interpretive Dance. Once he's finished staring at audio waveforms, naturally.

[Mutant]

Once he's finished staring at audio waveforms, naturally.

The waveform thing was solved many pages ago, i was right in my statement that it can't be just 2 saws and nothing else.
The confusion was caused by the OP stating that there were just 2 saws and nothing else and me assuming that there were 2 saws on Diva like there were 2 saws on OB-8, while there was also a small amount of triangle as we could discover once the OP posted the patch.

[IncarnateX]

Are you claiming this is a 100% valid scientific grade test and that the OP is not biased at all by his goal of selling as many of his sound sets as possible ?
That would be not only pretty dumb, but naive too.
Are you claiming that a double blind test design is useless and doesn't provide better data,

I have already answered all your bullshit. That this test is not scientific does not prove you right. That people usually are biased does not prove your specific claim to be right. One classical fallacy after another. What you have is a belief, nothing more, nothing less. Trying to make this a fact the way you do makes you look uneducated and a bad loser.
That is all their are to it.

[Gamma-UT]

The confusion was caused by the OP stating that there were just 2 saws and nothing else and me assuming that there were 2 saws on Diva like there were 2 saws on OB-8, while there was also a small amount of triangle as we could discover once the OP posted the patch.

I just goes to show, Christopher Walken was wrong. To make it sound better, you don't need to add more cowbell, you need MOAR TRIANGLE!!!

I'm going to add it to all my soft synth patches to make them sound more analogue, cos that's obviously really, really important.

Oh wait...

[Mutant]

Are you claiming this is a 100% valid scientific grade test and that the OP is not biased at all by his goal of selling as many of his sound sets as possible ?
That would be not only pretty dumb, but naive too.
Are you claiming that a double blind test design is useless and doesn't provide better data,

I have already answered all your bullshit

No, you did not - you answered what you thought i said, not what i really said.
Now have some balls and answer these 2 questions with yes or no.
I want to see if it is 100% hopeless to try drag you back into the territory of common sense or if there is at least a dim ray of hope.

Are you claiming this is a 100% valid scientific grade test and that the OP is not biased at all by his goal of selling as many of his sound sets as possible ?

Yes, or no.

Are you claiming that a double blind test design is useless and doesn't provide better data, because we have to assume that if we can't prove that the researcher is biased, then he must be not biased ?

Yes, or no.

And stop clinging to your "proving" thing, it was proven millions of times that a double blind test is better, because it eliminates bias, thats why i said i don't need to prove anything.