Dr. Bose Passes Away at 83

[Bill Hart]

Some of you here; at any occasion it is your passion to jump on people's opinion.
...Nothing's wrong with that; it is your pleasure to attack as it is mine to fence. :b

* You can invoke any Godwin's law you like to your heart's contentment Bill.

I am not fencing. Your remarks are inappropriate.

 

[amirm]

We should end the thread guys....

 

[MylesBAstor]

I am not fencing. Your remarks are inappropriate.

Touche!

 

[microstrip]

We should end the thread guys....

IMHO it should have been moderated at due time.

 

[sasully]

Stop being so parochial Tim. If you read anything at all, you would know, and it's been reported in many places, that Fremer has passed with flying colors, several DBTs (as has Atkinson). In fact, Fremer is the perpetual thorn in the side of these people and despite him picking 5/5 in one test, he was labelled the lucky coin. So he's hardly the victim of expectation bias; but you are certainly guilty of bias.

How many DBTs, exactly, have Fremer and Atkinson participated in, that have been documented by others? 'Several'? As far as I can see, they both keep retailing stories of a few DBTs they did decades ago (hardly rigoorous ones, if you count ones conducted with an auditorium full of people, orusing tube amps vs solid state) .

5/5 -- that's from one of those old DBTs -- well, that's nice, it's even a little bit beyond the standard threshold for 'significance' (p=0.05), but it's not stunningly unlikely by chance. In fact 5 is the only score out of 5 that gets you to significance at the 95% level ; 4/5 has a p=0.19, 5/5 has a p=0.03. Normally a DBT will be run with considerably more trials than that -- 16, 20 -- to give it more power.

Regardless, why *would* Fremer and Atkinson be frequent users of DBT? They 1) don't believe DBT's (which are standard procedurre in academic sensory perception work) 'work' for refined audio evaluations and 2) their authority could take a rather large hit if their DBT results didn't go the 'audiophile' way (as they tend not to).


Fremer is right about Bose Corp being litigious. But his insistence that he was blacklisted at the NYTimes for not being Bose-happy enough is comical -- especially as he admits having badmouthed a Times writer (or 'knucklehead').

A few final notes about the Bose line (and for the record, a pair of 901 Series IVs were the first 'high price' loudspeakers I owned, as a teen; I even splurged for the lovely wood-veneered 'Spatial Control Receiver' a few years later; both long gone now but fondly remembered)


- not all Bose speakers were direct/reflecting

- In 2009 Seigfried Linkwitz issued a "challenge to find the optimum radiation pattern and placement of stereo loudspeakers in a room for the creation of phantom sources and simultaneous masking of real sources". Members of a midwest Audio society (including some decently well-known names) set up a blind test for that, pitting Linkwitz Orions against Behringer B2031As and a modified version of Bose 901s. Guess which speakers 'won'.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/177403-linkwitz-orions-beaten-behringer-what.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103681479/SLReport10-05
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/20100313.htm

 

[sasully]

Maybe true but that's not what you said Tim. You attacked Fremer's hearing ability, "he's one of the most marked victims of expectation bias I've ever seen." Again you try and be the teflon man.

Just because Fremer bridles at the (scientifically mundane) fact that humans aren't foolproof interpreters of what they hear, doesn't mean we have to. Has Fremer *ever* acknowledged the (scientifically mundane) possibility that a 'heard' difference or 'improvement' in quality might be the product of (perfectly normal) psychological biases? Or does he think that only applies to the Bose-loving hoi polloi?

 

[MylesBAstor]

How many DBTs, exactly, have Fremer and Atkinson participated in, that have been documented by others? 'Several'? As far as I can see, they both keep retailing stories of a few DBTs they did decades ago (hardly rigoorous ones, if you count ones conducted with an auditorium full of people, orusing tube amps vs solid state) .

5/5 -- that's from one of those old DBTs -- well, that's nice, it's even a little bit beyond the standard threshold for 'significance' (p=0.05), but it's not stunningly unlikely by chance. In fact 5 is the only score out of 5 that gets you to significance at the 95% level ; 4/5 has a p=0.19, 5/5 has a p=0.03. Normally a DBT will be run with considerably more trials than that -- 16, 20 -- to give it more power.

Regardless, why *would* Fremer and Atkinson be frequent users of DBT? They 1) don't believe DBT's (which are standard procedurre in academic sensory perception work) 'work' for refined audio evaluations and 2) their authority could take a rather large hit if their DBT results didn't go the 'audiophile' way (as they tend not to).


Fremer is right about Bose Corp being litigious. But his insistence that he was blacklisted at the NYTimes for not being Bose-happy enough is comical -- especially as he admits having badmouthed a Times writer (or 'knucklehead').

A few final notes about the Bose line (and for the record, a pair of 901 Series IVs were the first 'high price' loudspeakers I owned, as a teen; I even splurged for the lovely wood-veneered 'Spatial Control Receiver' a few years later; both long gone now but fondly remembered)


- not all Bose speakers were direct/reflecting

- In 2009 Seigfried Linkwitz issued a "challenge to find the optimum radiation pattern and placement of stereo loudspeakers in a room for the creation of phantom sources and simultaneous masking of real sources". Members of a midwest Audio society (including some decently well-known names) set up a blind test for that, pitting Linkwitz Orions against Behringer B2031As and a modified version of Bose 901s. Guess which speakers 'won'.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/177403-linkwitz-orions-beaten-behringer-what.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103681479/SLReport10-05
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/20100313.htm

You're talking to the wrong person about DBT. I think they're flawed from the start and are conducted by engineers who conveniently ignore each and every piece of evidence we know about perception, hearing, biology and testing. Meaningless no matter the stats; check out the first issue of Scientific Mind where a researcher from the Univ of Arizona discusses hearing and that hearing varies so much from person to person as to make any test useless.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Just because Fremer bridles at the (scientifically mundane) fact that humans aren't foolproof interpreters of what they hear, doesn't mean we have to. Has Fremer *ever* acknowledged the (scientifically mundane) possibility that a 'heard' difference or 'improvement' in quality might be the product of (perfectly normal) psychological biases? Or does he think that only applies to the Bose-loving hoi polloi?

Why don't you ask him, not me.

 

[sasully]

You're talking to the wrong person about DBT. I think they're flawed from the start and are conducted by engineers who conveniently ignore each and every piece of evidence we know about perception, hearing, biology and testing.

What an absurd claim! What we know about perception, hearing, biology, and testing was pretty much worked out by scientists. Blind testing is standard in academic research and in commercial product development (e.g. the food industry). What are the engineers (?) who do audio blind tests ignoring, exactly? What part of science is JJ Johnston ignoring in his AES presentations? Specifics please.

Meaningless no matter the stats; check out the first issue of Scientific Mind where a researcher from the Univ of Arizona discusses hearing and that hearing varies so much from person to person as to make any test useless.

Please link to it, I'm interested in seeing why a credible scientist would make such a remarkable claim (or whether it's actually relevant to blind testing, which measures an individual's ability to distinguish A from B, or whether their preference for A over B is based on sound alone)

 

[Bill Hart]

What an absurd claim! What we know about perception, hearing, biology, and testing was pretty much worked out by scientists. Blind testing is standard in academic research and in commercial product development (e.g. the food industry). What are the engineers (?) who do audio blind tests ignoring, exactly? What part of science is JJ Johnston ignoring in his AES presentations? Specifics please.







Please link to it, I'm interested in seeing why a credible scientist would make such a remarkable claim (or whether it's actually relevant to blind testing, which measures an individual's ability to distinguish A from B, or whether their preference for A over B is based on sound alone)

With due respect (don't you love that preface, you know what's gonna come), haven't we migrated from the subject of Fremer's eulogy of Dr. Bose? SA, if you want to debate double blind testing, objective vs. subjective audio, etc., there are a bunch of folks here that line up on both sides, as you'll see from past threads. I'm not saying that you shouldn't pursue the topic, but perhaps it belongs in a new thread?
Best,
Bill Hart

 

[MylesBAstor]

What an absurd claim! What we know about perception, hearing, biology, and testing was pretty much worked out by scientists. Blind testing is standard in academic research and in commercial product development (e.g. the food industry). What are the engineers (?) who do audio blind tests ignoring, exactly? What part of science is JJ Johnston ignoring in his AES presentations? Specifics please.







Please link to it, I'm interested in seeing why a credible scientist would make such a remarkable claim (or whether it's actually relevant to blind testing, which measures an individual's ability to distinguish A from B, or whether their preference for A over B is based on sound alone)

Absurd is the crap that is foisted on us by DBT tests.

I've already enumerated the issues before on WBF. Do a search.

And don't give me the crap that DBT is standard testing in science. If I read correctly you are in science and ergo you more than anyone should appreciate that the BLIND and Moonie like application of any testing methodology to any and all situations is what is anti-scientific. Just because DBT works for one area doesn't mean it's applicable to all research areas.

As far as the Scientific American Mind, do a search. I can't find my copy around the apt. at the moment. But SA are are hardly ones to publish unscientific research. We used many of their biology offprints in teaching courses.

And also do a little reading on motor control and perception that also has profound implications to any and all testing situations, specifically short vs. long term memory, conversion from short to long term memory and the inverse U-effect. Knowing that alone, invalidates and DBT testing methodology. Hint: think linebacker blitz.

 

[cjfrbw]

I didn't find Fremer's article offensive in the least, I rather enjoyed it. Bose was a lucky, successful flim flam SOB when he was alive, what is the deal about praising a stiff if he didn't deserve it?

Uh, Oh! Bose's ghost just appeared in my listening room, shredded my ribbons with scissors and left invisible gremlins that will make my audio systems sound like Bose Wave Radios forever.

 

[mep]

I didn't find Fremer's article offensive in the least, I rather enjoyed it. Bose was a lucky, successful flim flam SOB when he was alive, what is the deal about praising a stiff if he didn't deserve it?

Uh, Oh! Bose's ghost just appeared in my listening room, shredded my ribbons with scissors and left invisible gremlins that will make my audio systems sound like Bose Wave Radios forever.

Let's see how long this post stands up! I think Bose is busy with Fremer right now though.

 

[Andre Marc]

I didn't find Fremer's article offensive in the least, I rather enjoyed it. Bose was a lucky, successful flim flam SOB when he was alive, what is the deal about praising a stiff if he didn't deserve it?

Uh, Oh! Bose's ghost just appeared in my listening room, shredded my ribbons with scissors and left invisible gremlins that will make my audio systems sound like Bose Wave Radios forever.

Bose...no Highs no Lows....lol...

 

[Whatmore]

With due respect (don't you love that preface, you know what's gonna come), haven't we migrated from the subject of Fremer's eulogy of Dr. Bose? SA, if you want to debate double blind testing, objective vs. subjective audio, etc., there are a bunch of folks here that line up on both sides, as you'll see from past threads. I'm not saying that you shouldn't pursue the topic, but perhaps it belongs in a new thread?
Best,
Bill Hart

Actually the subject was Dr. Bose's passing, not Fremers article. I guess we all have managed to give him exactly the sort of air he probably wanted.

 

[Bill Hart]

Actually the subject was Dr. Bose's passing, not Fremers article. I guess we all have managed to give him exactly the sort of air he probably wanted.

You are right, I went back and checked, and it did start that way, and we all digressed once Fremer's article was posted.

 

[DonH50]

Remind me to never post an obit again. Especially if it happens to be my own. This whole mess was predictable, which is why I tried to start with a different view of Dr. Bose. Oh well...

 

[rbbert]

You know, in a back-handed way, even Fremer's article could be said to complement Bose. Bose certainly stood fast in his beliefs and was very successful at it.

 

[mep]

Remind me to never post an obit again. Especially if it happens to be my own. This whole mess was predictable, which is why I tried to start with a different view of Dr. Bose. Oh well...

Don-You know the old saying: No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Remind me to never post an obit again. Especially if it happens to be my own. This whole mess was predictable, which is why I tried to start with a different view of Dr. Bose. Oh well...

Perhaps it's how Frank Lloyd Wright felt about the person who designed Levittown, NY.