SVANC: chytil ses? Chytil. To boli, co? :) A uz sis zjistil, co je to dukaz a co pouhe tvrzeni? A co to sluvku "almost", to radsi budeme delat, ze tam nezaznelo, protoze to vzbuzuje hned nekolik nezodpovezenych a hlavne neprijemnych otazek, vid? :)

SVANC: taky mam pro tebe jeden tip:

Pravidla šachů – Wikipedie
https://cs.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravidla_%C5%A1ach%C5%AF

Vis, kdo je uspesny v teto kralovske hre? Ten, kdo dokaze uspesne predvidat tahy soupere co nejvice dopredu a podle toho urcovat hru :)



Nedelam si iluze, ze bys pochopil, jak sis krasne nabehl s tou tvou oslavou jakoze otoceni AI proti me, ale moc ti za to dekuju :D

Bub existuje!

SVANC: ses z toho koukam tak vykolejenej, ze to musis davkovat na pokracovani a tim se jakoby utvrzovat ve sve pravde, pravde lepsiho clovicka, pravde zalozene na tvrzenich druhych :)
Zeptej se AI, co je to dukaz, protoze v tom porad strasne moc plaves, jako fakt moc. Ne ze by me to u tebe prekvapovalo (neboj, odpaleny dvojcata sem uz tahat nebudu, ponizil ses uz dostatecne a koule na diskusi pred kamerou nemas :)). Ale chapu, ono kdyz dekadu operujes s "tisicema lidi", tak pak udelas vse pro to, aby tenhle tvuj vykrik radsi nikdo moc nezkoumal a neprislo se na to, ze to nemas cim dolozit, dulezite je proste verit.

Buh exustuje!

Co rika openAI na legendarni R. Clark challenge, modlu nejmenovaneho mistniho ID, ktery s ni operuje minimalne jiz celou dekadu? :)

- Is there any record of this blind testing?

There is no official record of the Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge blind testing, as it was conducted informally at various audio events and shows between 1994 and 2003. However, there are several accounts of the challenge from participants and observers who witnessed it.

Richard Clark himself wrote about the challenge on his company's website, where he claimed that "over a thousand people have tried, and almost all have failed to pass this test." Clark also described some of the techniques he used to ensure that the blind testing was conducted fairly and without bias.

Some audio journalists and bloggers have also reported on the challenge, either as participants or as observers. For example, audio journalist Art Dudley wrote about his experience taking the challenge in 2003 for Stereophile magazine, describing how he struggled to discern any meaningful differences between the two amplifiers presented to him.

It's worth noting that the challenge has been criticized by some audiophiles who argue that it was designed to discredit the high-end audio industry and that the testing was not conducted under controlled conditions. However, others have praised the challenge for its focus on empirical testing and for encouraging audiophiles to think critically about the claims made by high-end audio companies.

- If there is no record, how do we know that the Clark's information about "thousand people have tried, and almost all have failed to past the test", is true?

You make a valid point. Without official records, it is difficult to verify Richard Clark's claim that "over a thousand people have tried, and almost all have failed to pass this test" in the Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge.

It's possible that Clark's claim is an exaggeration or that the number of participants was not as high as he stated. Without access to official records or independent verification of Clark's claim, it's difficult to determine the accuracy of his statement.

However, it's worth noting that the idea that high-end audio equipment may not offer significant audible improvements over cheaper equipment is not a new one. Many audio professionals and enthusiasts have conducted blind listening tests of amplifiers, speakers, and other audio equipment over the years, with varying results.

While the lack of official records for the Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge may limit our ability to evaluate the challenge's specific findings, the challenge itself reflects a broader conversation in the audio industry about the role of objective measurements and subjective perceptions in evaluating audio equipment.

- So I am stupid when I don't consider Clark's claims as a proof?

No, it is not accurate to say that you are "stupid" for being skeptical of Richard Clark's claims without independent verification. It is reasonable to question claims made without verifiable evidence or independent corroboration.

As with any claim, it is important to evaluate the evidence and the credibility of the source. While Richard Clark may have had expertise in high-end audio equipment and may have conducted blind listening tests, the lack of official records or independent verification may raise questions about the validity and generalizability of his findings.

It is also worth noting that the subjective experience of sound quality is complex and can be influenced by many factors, including listener bias, expectation, and environmental conditions. As a result, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the performance of audio equipment based solely on subjective listening tests.

In summary, while Richard Clark's claims may be interesting and thought-provoking, it is reasonable to approach them with a critical and skeptical mindset until independent verification can be obtained.

*******

Buh existuje! :))