Re: Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something) [Archive]

Darryl Miyaguchi

July 1st 03, 11:42 PM

On 1 Jul 2003 15:10:59 GMT, (ludovic mirabel)
wrote:

>We're talking about Greenhill old test not because it is perfect but
>because no better COMPONENT COMPARISON tests are available. In fact
>none have been published according to MTry's and Ramplemann's
>bibliographies since 1990.

I frequently see the distinction being made between audio components
and other audio related things (such as codecs) when it comes to
talking about DBT's. What is the reason for this?

In my opinion, there are two topics which should not be mixed up:

1) The effectiveness of DBT's for determining whether an audible
difference exists
2) The practical usefulness of using DBT's for choosing one audio
producer (component or codec) over another.

> I am not knowledgeable enough to decide on differences between
>your and Greenhill's interpretation of the methods and results.
>In my simplistic way I'd ask you to consider the following:
>PINK NOISE signal: 10 out of 11 participants got the maximum possible
>correct answers: 15 out of 15 ie. 100%. ONE was 1 guess short. He got
>only 14 out of 15.
> When MUSIC was used as a signal 1 (ONE) listener got 15 corrects,
>1 got 14 and one 12. The others had results ranging from 7 and 8
>through 10 to (1) 11.
> My question is: was there are ANY significant difference between
>those two sets of results? Is there a *possibility* that music
>disagrees with ABX or ABX with music?

Even between two samples of music (no pink noise involved), I can
certainly believe that a listening panel might have more or less
difficulty in determining if they hear an audible difference. It
doesn't follow that music in general is interfering with the ability
to discriminate differences when using a DBT.

> I would aoppreciate it if would try and make it simple leaving
>"confidence levels" and such out of it. You're talking to ordinary
>audiophiles wanting to hear if your test will help them decide what
>COMPONENTS to buy.

See my first comments. It's too easy to mix up the topic of the
sensitivity of DBT's as instruments for detecting audible differences
with the topic of the practicality of using DBT's to choose hifi
hardware. The latter is impractical for the average audiophile.

> Who can argue with motherhood? The problem is that there are NO
>ABX COMPONENT tests being published- neither better nor worse, NONE.
> I heard of several audio societies considering them. No results.
>Not from the objectivist citadels: Detroit and Boston. Why?. Did they
>pan out?

I can think of a couple of reasons:

1. It's expensive and time consuming to perfom this type of testing
2. The audible differences are, in actuality, too subtle to hear, ABX
or not. Why bother with such a test?

Then there is the possibility that you seem to be focussing on,
ignoring the above two:

3. DBT's in general may be decreasing the ability to hear subtle
differences.

Which of the the above reaons do you think are most likely?

> > Moving away from the question Greenhill was investigating
>(audible
>> differences between cables) and focusing only on DBT testing and
>> volume differences: it is trivial to perform a test of volume
>> difference, if the contention is being made that a DBT hinders the
>> listener from detecting 1.75 dB of volume difference. Especially if
>> the listeners have been trained specifically for detecting volume
>> differences prior to the test.
>> However, such an experiment would be exceedingly uninteresting, and I
>> have doubts it would sway the opinion of anybody participating in this
>> debate.
>>
> The volume difference was just a by-effect of a comparison between
>cables.
>And yes, TRAINED people would do better than Greenhill's "Expert
>audiophiles" ie rank amateurs just like us. Would some though do
>better than the others and some remain untrainable? Just like us.

I have no doubt that there are some people who are unreliable when it
comes to performing a DBT test. In a codec test using ABC/HR, if
somebody rates the hidden reference worse than the revealed reference
(both references are identical), his listening opinion is either
weighted less or thrown out altogether.

>> For what it's worth, I have performed enough ABX testing to convince
>> myself that it's possible for me to detect volume differences < 0.5 dB
>> using music, so I doubt very highly that a group test would fail to
>> show that 1.75 dB differences on a variety of different music are not
>> audible using a DBT.
>>
> I can easily hear 1db difference between channels, and a change
>of 1 db.
>What I can't do is to have 80 db changed to 81 db, then be asked if
>the third unknown is 80 or 81 dbs. and be consistently correct.
>Perhaps I could if I trained as much as you have done. Perhaps not
>Some others could, some couldn't. We're all different. Produce a test
>which will be valid for all ages, genders, extent of training, innate
>musical and ABxing abilities, all kinds of musical experience and
>preference. Then prove BY EXPERIMENT that it works for COMPARING
>COMPONENTS.
>So that anyone can do it and if he gets a null result BE CERTAIN that
>with more training or different musical experience he would not hear
>what he did not hear before. And perhaps just get on widening his
>musical experience and then rcompare (with his eyes covered if he is
>marketing susceptible)
>Let's keep it simple. We're audiophiles here. We're talking about
>MUSICAL REPRODUCTION DIFFERENCES between AUDIO COMPONENTS. I looked
>at your internet graphs. They mean zero to me. I know M. Levinsohn,
>Quad, Apogee, Acoustat not the names of your codecs. You assure me
>that they are relevant. Perhaps. Let's see BY EXPERIMENT if they do.
>In the meantime enjoy your lab work.
>Ludovic Mirabel

Are you really telling me that you didn't understand the gist of the
group listening test I pointed you to?

For one thing, it says that although people have different individual
preferences about how they evaluate codec quality, as a group, they
can identify trends. This, despite the variety of training, hearing
acuity, audio equipment, and listening environment.

Another point is that it would be more difficult to identify trends if
such a study included the opinions of people who judge the hidden
reference to be worse than the revealed reference (simultaneously
judging the encoded signal to be the same as the revealed reference).
In other words, there are people whose listening opinions can't be
trusted, and the DBT is designed to identify them.

The last point is that I can see no reason why such procedures could
not (in theory, if perhaps not in practical terms) be applied to audio
components. Why don't you explain to me what the difference is (in
terms of sensitivity) between using DBT's for audio codecs and using
DBT's for audio components?

Darryl Miyaguchi

Darryl Miyaguchi

July 1st 03, 11:43 PM

Bob Marcus

July 1st 03, 11:44 PM

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message >...

> PINK NOISE signal: 10 out of 11 participants got the maximum possible
> correct answers: 15 out of 15 ie. 100%. ONE was 1 guess short. He got
> only 14 out of 15.
> When MUSIC was used as a signal 1 (ONE) listener got 15 corrects,
> 1 got 14 and one 12. The others had results ranging from 7 and 8
> through 10 to (1) 11.
> My question is: was there are ANY significant difference between
> those two sets of results? Is there a *possibility* that music
> disagrees with ABX or ABX with music?

I suspect a major reason it's more difficult to hear level differences
in music is that the actual level is constantly changing. But of
course this effect wouldn't be limited to listening in ABX tests. It
would be harder to discern level differences in *any* comparison
involving music.

<snip?

> The problem is that there are NO
> ABX COMPONENT tests being published- neither better nor worse, NONE.

Possible explanations for this:

1) People did further tests, but didn't get them published because
they arrived at the same result, and no one publishes "old news."

2) People stopped trying because they had no reason to believe they
*would* get different results.

<snip>
> >
> I can easily hear 1db difference between channels, and a change
> of 1 db.
> What I can't do is to have 80 db changed to 81 db, then be asked if
> the third unknown is 80 or 81 dbs. and be consistently correct.

Two questions:

1) What do you mean by "consistent"? 100% of the time, or just with
statistical reliability?

2) Were you able to switch instantaneously between them? Audiophiles
pooh-pooh this, but it's certainly easier to hear level differences
when you can switch instantaneously.

> Perhaps I could if I trained as much as you have done. Perhaps not
> Some others could, some couldn't. We're all different. Produce a test
> which will be valid for all ages, genders, extent of training, innate
> musical and ABxing abilities, all kinds of musical experience and
> preference.

You're assuming that if you can't hear a difference that some other
people can hear, then the test isn't right for you. But maybe you just
can't hear that difference. As you say, we are all different.

> Then prove BY EXPERIMENT that it works for COMPARING
> COMPONENTS.

How would you prove such a thing?

> So that anyone can do it and if he gets a null result BE CERTAIN that
> with more training or different musical experience he would not hear
> what he did not hear before.

The only way to be certain of this would be to train himself, and then
take the test again. OTOH, if there is no documented case of anyone
ever hearing such a difference, it might be a waste of time to try to
find out if you are the exception.

> And perhaps just get on widening his
> musical experience

I'm not aware of any evidence that musical experience is particularly
helpful in these kinds of tests. That's not what "training" is about
in this context.

>and then rcompare (with his eyes covered if he is
> marketing susceptible)

If??? Everyone is susceptible to sighted bias (which has nothing
necessarily to do with "marketing").

> Let's keep it simple. We're audiophiles here. We're talking about
> MUSICAL REPRODUCTION DIFFERENCES between AUDIO COMPONENTS. I looked
> at your internet graphs. They mean zero to me. I know M. Levinsohn,
> Quad, Apogee, Acoustat not the names of your codecs. You assure me
> that they are relevant. Perhaps. Let's see BY EXPERIMENT if they do.

So far as I can tell, the only experiment that would satisfy you would
be one that confirmed your own beliefs about what is and is not
audible. I'm afraid we can't do that.

bob

Steven Sullivan

July 2nd 03, 04:15 AM

Darryl Miyaguchi > wrote:
>>Let's keep it simple. We're audiophiles here. We're talking about
>>MUSICAL REPRODUCTION DIFFERENCES between AUDIO COMPONENTS. I looked
>>at your internet graphs. They mean zero to me. I know M. Levinsohn,
>>Quad, Apogee, Acoustat not the names of your codecs. You assure me
>>that they are relevant. Perhaps. Let's see BY EXPERIMENT if they do.
>>In the meantime enjoy your lab work.
>>Ludovic Mirabel

> Are you really telling me that you didn't understand the gist of the
> group listening test I pointed you to?

Whether he realizes it or not, he's telling you *he* doesn't comprehend them.

--
-S.

Nousaine

July 2nd 03, 05:42 AM

Darryl Miyaguchi
wrote:

In some parts I will reply to the post to which Mr Miyaguch is replying:

>On 1 Jul 2003 15:10:59 GMT, (ludovic mirabel)
>wrote:
>
>>We're talking about Greenhill old test not because it is perfect but
>>because no better COMPONENT COMPARISON tests are available. In fact
>>none have been published according to MTry's and Ramplemann's
>>bibliographies since 1990.

This is simply not true. I have published 2 double blind tests personally, one
of which covered 3 different wires subsequent to 1990.

>
>I frequently see the distinction being made between audio components
>and other audio related things (such as codecs) when it comes to
>talking about DBT's. What is the reason for this?
>
>In my opinion, there are two topics which should not be mixed up:
>
>1) The effectiveness of DBT's for determining whether an audible
>difference exists
>2) The practical usefulness of using DBT's for choosing one audio
>producer (component or codec) over another.

Actually if nominally competent components such as wires, parts, bits and
amplifiers have never been shown to materially affect the sound of reproduced
music in normally reverberant conditions why would ANYONE need to conduct more
experimentation, or any listening test, to choose between components? Simply
choose the one with the other non-sonic characteristics (features, price,
terms, availability, cosmetics, style...) that suit your fancy.

Indeed 20 years ago, when I still had a day job, Radio Shack often had the
"perfect" characteristic to guide purchase, which was "open on Sunday."
>> I am not knowledgeable enough to decide on differences between
>>your and Greenhill's interpretation of the methods and results.
>>In my simplistic way I'd ask you to consider the following:
>>PINK NOISE signal: 10 out of 11 participants got the maximum possible
>>correct answers: 15 out of 15 ie. 100%. ONE was 1 guess short. He got
>>only 14 out of 15.
>> When MUSIC was used as a signal 1 (ONE) listener got 15 corrects,
>>1 got 14 and one 12. The others had results ranging from 7 and 8
>>through 10 to (1) 11.
>> My question is: was there are ANY significant difference between
>>those two sets of results? Is there a *possibility* that music
>>disagrees with ABX or ABX with music?

No: it just means with the right set of music 2 dB is at the threshold. Don't
forget that listening position affects this stuff too. Also Mr Atkinson would
say that perhaps the lower scoring subjects didn't have personal control of the
switching.

>Even between two samples of music (no pink noise involved), I can
>certainly believe that a listening panel might have more or less
>difficulty in determining if they hear an audible difference. It
>doesn't follow that music in general is interfering with the ability
>to discriminate differences when using a DBT.

Actually it simp,y shows that pink noise and other test signals are the most
sensitive of programs. It may be possible to divulge a 'difference' with noise
that would never be encountered with any known program material.

It's also possible that certain programs, such as Arny Kreuger's special
signals, might disclose differences that may never be encountered with
commercially available music (or other) programs. So?

>> I would aoppreciate it if would try and make it simple leaving
>>"confidence levels" and such out of it. You're talking to ordinary
>>audiophiles wanting to hear if your test will help them decide what
>>COMPONENTS to buy.

As before; you haven't ever been precluded from making any purchase decisions
from scientific evidence before; why should any disclosure affect that now or
in the future.

Examination of the extant body of controlled listening tests available contain
enough information to aid any enthusiast in making good decisions. Even IF the
existing evidence shows that wire is wire (and it does) how does that preclude
any person from making any purchase decision? In my way of thinking it just
might be useful for a given individual to know what has gone before (and what
hasn't.)

I still don't know how this cannot do anything but IMPROVE decision making?

>See my first comments. It's too easy to mix up the topic of the
>sensitivity of DBT's as instruments for detecting audible differences
>with the topic of the practicality of using DBT's to choose hifi
>hardware. The latter is impractical for the average audiophile.

No it's not. Just like 0-60 times, skid-pad and EPA mileage tests simply cannot
be made by the typical individual that doesn't mean that they cannot be used to
improve decision-making. Likewise the body of controlled listening test results
can be very useful to any individual that wishes to make use of them to guide
decisions.

Otherwise the only information one has is "guidance" from sellers, anecdotal
reports and "open" listening tests. The latter , of course, is quite subject to
non-sonic influence.

So IMO, a person truly interested in maximizing the sonic-quality throughput of
his system simply MUST examine the results of bias controlled listening tests
OR fall prey to non-sonic biasing factors, even if they are inadvertent.

>
>> Who can argue with motherhood? The problem is that there are NO
>>ABX COMPONENT tests being published- neither better nor worse, NONE.
>> I heard of several audio societies considering them. No results.
>>Not from the objectivist citadels: Detroit and Boston. Why?. Did they
>>pan out?

Given the two dozen controlled listening tests of power amplifiers published
through 1991 doesn't it seem that no one needs to conduct more? Wires? The last
test I published was in 1995. Not late enough?

Why not? No manufacturer has EVER produced a single bias controlled experiment
that showed their wires had a sound of their own in over 30 years. Why should
one expect one now?

I certainly can't do it; although I've given it my level (no pun intended)
best. IOW, I can't produce an experiment that shows nominally competent wires
ain't wires .... 'cuz they ain't.

>I can think of a couple of reasons:
>
>1. It's expensive and time consuming to perfom this type of testing
>2. The audible differences are, in actuality, too subtle to hear, ABX
>or not. Why bother with such a test?

Why bother in performing a sound quality "test" that the manufacturers of the
equipment can't produce? IF amps ain't amps; wires ain't wires and parts ain't
parts then why haven't the makers and sellers of this stuff produced repeatable
bias controlled listening tests that show this to be untrue?

>Then there is the possibility that you seem to be focussing on,
>ignoring the above two:
>
>3. DBT's in general may be decreasing the ability to hear subtle
>differences.

Actually they preclude the ability to "hear" non-sonic differences.

>Which of the the above reaons do you think are most likely?
>
>> > Moving away from the question Greenhill was investigating
>>(audible
>>> differences between cables) and focusing only on DBT testing and
>>> volume differences: it is trivial to perform a test of volume
>>> difference, if the contention is being made that a DBT hinders the
>>> listener from detecting 1.75 dB of volume difference. Especially if
>>> the listeners have been trained specifically for detecting volume
>>> differences prior to the test.
>>> However, such an experiment would be exceedingly uninteresting, and I
>>> have doubts it would sway the opinion of anybody participating in this
>>> debate.
>>>
>> The volume difference was just a by-effect of a comparison between
>>cables.
>>And yes, TRAINED people would do better than Greenhill's "Expert
>>audiophiles" ie rank amateurs just like us. Would some though do
>>better than the others and some remain untrainable? Just like us.

I think Ludovic is "untrainable" because he will accept only answers he already
believes are true.

>I have no doubt that there are some people who are unreliable when it
>comes to performing a DBT test. In a codec test using ABC/HR, if
>somebody rates the hidden reference worse than the revealed reference
>(both references are identical), his listening opinion is either
>weighted less or thrown out altogether.

What you are describing is 'reverse significance' which is typically a
inadvertant form of internal bias.

>>> For what it's worth, I have performed enough ABX testing to convince
>>> myself that it's possible for me to detect volume differences < 0.5 dB
>>> using music, so I doubt very highly that a group test would fail to
>>> show that 1.75 dB differences on a variety of different music are not
>>> audible using a DBT.
>>>
>> I can easily hear 1db difference between channels, and a change
>>of 1 db.
>>What I can't do is to have 80 db changed to 81 db, then be asked if
>>the third unknown is 80 or 81 dbs. and be consistently correct.
>>Perhaps I could if I trained as much as you have done. Perhaps not
>>Some others could, some couldn't. We're all different. Produce a test
>>which will be valid for all ages, genders, extent of training, innate
>>musical and ABxing abilities, all kinds of musical experience and
>>preference. Then prove BY EXPERIMENT that it works for COMPARING
>>COMPONENTS.
>>So that anyone can do it and if he gets a null result BE CERTAIN that
>>with more training or different musical experience he would not hear
>>what he did not hear before. And perhaps just get on widening his
>>musical experience and then rcompare (with his eyes covered if he is
>>marketing susceptible)
>>Let's keep it simple. We're audiophiles here. We're talking about
>>MUSICAL REPRODUCTION DIFFERENCES between AUDIO COMPONENTS. I looked
>>at your internet graphs. They mean zero to me. I know M. Levinsohn,
>>Quad, Apogee, Acoustat not the names of your codecs. You assure me
>>that they are relevant. Perhaps. Let's see BY EXPERIMENT if they do.
>>In the meantime enjoy your lab work.
>>Ludovic Mirabel
>
>Are you really telling me that you didn't understand the gist of the
>group listening test I pointed you to?
>
>For one thing, it says that although people have different individual
>preferences about how they evaluate codec quality, as a group, they
>can identify trends. This, despite the variety of training, hearing
>acuity, audio equipment, and listening environment.
>
>Another point is that it would be more difficult to identify trends if
>such a study included the opinions of people who judge the hidden
>reference to be worse than the revealed reference (simultaneously
>judging the encoded signal to be the same as the revealed reference).
>In other words, there are people whose listening opinions can't be
>trusted, and the DBT is designed to identify them.

That result identifies a form of experimental bias, does it not?

>The last point is that I can see no reason why such procedures could
>not (in theory, if perhaps not in practical terms) be applied to audio
>components. Why don't you explain to me what the difference is (in
>terms of sensitivity) between using DBT's for audio codecs and using
>DBT's for audio components?
>
>Darryl Miyaguchi

There is no difference. It seems to me that this poster may have never taken a
bias controlled listening test or, if he has, the results didn't fit with prior
held expectations. It's much easier to argue with the existing evidence than
prove that you can hear things that no human has been able to demonstrate, when
not peeking.

As I've said before; there are many proponents of high-end sound of wires, amps
and parts ... but, so far, no one (in over 30 years) has ever produced a single
repeatable bias controlled experiment that shows that nominally competent
products in a normally reverberant environment (listening room) have any sonic
contribution of their own.

Nobody! Never! How about some evidence? I'll believe in BigFoot ....just show
me the body!

KikeG

July 2nd 03, 04:27 PM

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message >...

> We're talking about Greenhill old test not because it is perfect but
> because no better COMPONENT COMPARISON tests are available. In fact
> none have been published according to MTry's and Ramplemann's
> bibliographies since 1990.

I gave a link to one at my previous message, related to soundcards and
a DAT ( http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=21&t=6651&hl=pitch&st=0&
). It revealed some audible differences. Soundcards and DATs are audio
components, aren't they?

There's another one concerning just a soundcard here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=21&t=3487&hl=arrakis&s=5e1f7fd6b0bc03878fd6a76f1f8d0738
It finally revealed no audible differences.

About Greenhill's test and level differences:

> PINK NOISE signal: 10 out of 11 participants got the maximum possible
> correct answers: 15 out of 15 ie. 100%. ONE was 1 guess short. He got
> only 14 out of 15.
> When MUSIC was used as a signal 1 (ONE) listener got 15 corrects,
> 1 got 14 and one 12. The others had results ranging from 7 and 8
> through 10 to (1) 11.
> My question is: was there are ANY significant difference between
> those two sets of results? Is there a *possibility* that music
> disagrees with ABX or ABX with music?
> I would aoppreciate it if would try and make it simple leaving
> "confidence levels" and such out of it. You're talking to ordinary
> audiophiles wanting to hear if your test will help them decide what
> COMPONENTS to buy.

Citing Greenhill's article, refering to 24-gauge cable: "Its 1.8-ohm
resistance resulted in a 1.76-dB insertion loss with an 8-ohm
resistive load".

I don't know if this has been addressed before, but this 1.76 dB loss
corresponds to a pure resistive load. Speakers are quite different
from pure resistive loads, in the sense that their impedance varies
with frequency, being this impedance higher than the nominal in most
part of the spectrum. So, this 1.8 ohm in series with a real world
speaker would definitely result in an attenuation below 1.76 dB over
the whole audible spectrum on a wideband signal. Also, the attenuation
will vary with frequency, so that max attenuation will be at the
frequencies where the speaker impedance is minimum, and there will be
little attenuation at frequencies where speaker impedance is maximum.
So, the whole attenuation will depend on the spectrum of music used.
There's a possibility that choral music has most of its content at
frequencies where attenuation was not high, but it's difficult to know
without having access to the actual music used and the speaker
impedance curve.

Said, that, I tried yesterday to ABX an 1.7 dB wideband (frequency
constant) level attenuation on a musical sample. Result: 60/60 on a
couple of minutes, Not a single miss. It is obvious to hear, but one
could argue I'm trained.

Despite that, I claim that, any person that does not have serious
auditive problems, would be able to ABX a 1.7 dB wideband level
difference on any kind of real-world music, being trained or not in
ABX testing, just taking a couple of minutes to explain him the basics
of ABX testing.

Now, you make a point in that you have to be trained in ABXing to be
good at it. I say that you have to be trained in *any* method you use
to be good at it. Also, ABX testing per se requires little training.
What takes more training is to learn to detect reliabily some kind of
differences, whether you use ABX or not. Serious ABX training is
required just for detecting very subtle differences, just like in
every other area where high performance is required.

And finally, an analogy: you can't evaluate driving comfort in cars
without driving them, so you have to learn how to drive in order to
evaluate driving comfort. Driving a car is the only reliable way to
evaluate driving confort, whether you are good at it or not. And
such...

Bob Marcus

July 2nd 03, 04:31 PM

Darryl Miyaguchi > wrote in message >...
> On 1 Jul 2003 15:10:59 GMT, (ludovic mirabel)
> wrote:
>
> >We're talking about Greenhill old test not because it is perfect but
> >because no better COMPONENT COMPARISON tests are available. In fact
> >none have been published according to MTry's and Ramplemann's
> >bibliographies since 1990.
>
> I frequently see the distinction being made between audio components
> and other audio related things (such as codecs) when it comes to
> talking about DBT's. What is the reason for this?
>
Desperate grasping at straws.

True believers need some way to explain away the mountains of research
that have been done on human hearing perception, so they try to
pretend that comparing the sound of consumer audio components is
somehow unrelated to human hearing perception.

bob

S888Wheel

July 3rd 03, 03:59 PM

Tom said

>
>Actually if nominally competent components such as wires, parts, bits and
>amplifiers have never been shown to materially affect the sound of reproduced
>music in normally reverberant conditions why would ANYONE need to conduct
>more
>experimentation, or any listening test, to choose between components? Simply
>choose the one with the other non-sonic characteristics (features, price,
>terms, availability, cosmetics, style...) that suit your fancy.
>

That is the 64,000 dollar if.

Tom said

>
>Examination of the extant body of controlled listening tests available
>contain
>enough information to aid any enthusiast in making good decisions. Even IF
>the
>existing evidence shows that wire is wire (and it does) how does that
>preclude
>any person from making any purchase decision? In my way of thinking it just
>might be useful for a given individual to know what has gone before (and what
>hasn't.)

Well, so far I don't see it the way you do. I must at this point thanl you for
the articles on this subject you sent me when I asked for the alleged body of
empirical evidence that prooved your position on the audible differences of
amplifiers. The "body of evidence" you sent me that constituted actual
evidence, raw data, was not much of a body. Only two articles out of the six
you sent had raw data ( "Can you trust your ears" by Tom Nousiane and "Do all
amplifiers sound the same" by David Clark) and only the test you conducted had
it in a usful table which could allow for the examination of trends such as
learning curves or fatigue curves. First, this is not much of a body of
evidence. Second, if we are to draw conclusions from the results we would have
to conclude that some people can hear differences between amps and some amps
sound idfferent than some other amps. Of course it would be a mistake to draw
conclusions from those tests by themselves because they simply are not that
conclusive. If what you sent me is the best evidence out there and if what you
sent me is any significant portion of the much talked about "extant body of
controled listening tests available" then I don't see how anyone can draw any
strong conclusions one way or another.

Tom said

>
>So IMO, a person truly interested in maximizing the sonic-quality throughput
>of
>his system simply MUST examine the results of bias controlled listening tests
>OR fall prey to non-sonic biasing factors, even if they are inadvertent.
>

I examined the results of contained in the articles you sent me and do not
find them conclusive. Unfortunately four of the six articles you sent me had no
raw data to examine and only offered conclusions. Given the fact that the two
articles that did offer raw data drew conclusions that I find questionable i
have trouble feeling condifent about the conclusions drawn in the other
articles missing the raw data. So I find the evidence to date that I have seen
less than helpful in purchase decisions.

ludovic mirabel

July 3rd 03, 06:00 PM

(Nousaine) wrote in message >...
> >
>
See his full text below:
> >On 1 Jul 2003 15:10:59 GMT, (ludovic mirabel)
> >wrote:
> >_ I can't possibly answer separately and in detail all those disagreeing with me I have to live whatever remains to me of life.In particular I'll not get in between Mrs. Miyaguchi and Nousaine in the subargument of their own.
So 4 interactive complementary answers for economy.
First let's define what I am NOT saying. (No apologies for the
capitals. Google doesn't allow italics or underlining)
I'm NOT saying that the local variant of DBTs known as ABX is the
wrong tool to use in research, with careful design,proper statistics,
selected research topics and last but not least SELECTED, TRAINED
SUBJECTS.

I have no knowledge, opinion, interest in the particulars of such
research because it does not research differences between real-life
audio components.
I'm NOT saying that those audiophiles who enjoy ABX and believe that
they get valid results should not use it. As long as they do not think
that their results are valid for anyone but themselves.
ALSO as long as they keep in mind that their negative, null
results are valid for them at this particular stage of their ABX
training and musical experience. As long as they remember that if they
do not revisit their negative results they may be shutting themselves
off FOREVER from enlarging and enriching their hi-fi scope.
I'm NOT , emphatically NOT saying that individuals shouldn't use
methods of their choice to disguise the brand of components that they
compare. I have one such method, myself which serves me well but may
not suit others..
What I do object to is the belief that to "prove" your opinions re
"difference" or "no difference"- a necessary preliminary to
preference- (more about difference/preference in my answer to
Audioguy.) one has to undergo a procedure known as ABX.
Please, don't one of you tell me that "nobody says that". Speak
for yourself. Every week somebody says just that in RAHE. Sometimes
with a pseudo-objective semantical word games.: "But you have not had
a "controlled test" (meaning ABX of course) so it is only your
impression..".- as though it could be anything else. Or "Reviewers
should undergo cotrolled test for credibility" as though it msde
stupid reviewers into clever ones. And of course you Mr. Nousaine said
it many times.

There are a few unspoken assumptions here
FIRST UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION: everyone performs just as well when ABXing
and when listening for pleasure blinded or not blinded.
Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. In fact I presented evidence
suggesting that there is MARKED DIFFERENCE in people's performance
when listening to simple pink noise signal as opposed to listening to
a musical signal
I then asked Mr Miyaguchi a simple, straightforward question Is
there a difference? Instead of of a simple YES= there is a
difference (or NO- there isn't any- if anyone really wanted to play
the fool) I got convoluted explanations of WHY there is , further
beautified by you Mr. Nousaine. Incidentally I asked you the very same
question one month ago and never got an answer.
Why this dodging?. You can bet I'd get plain NO if there were NO
DIFFERENCE. and EVERYBODY who performed flawlessly listening to
pink noise would do just as well listening to music. But MOST
performed abominably, (consistent with random guessing) when listening
to music.. Explanation? Music is "more complex". Quite! And what else
is new?.Most of us use our components to listen to music, not pink
noise. If your test has problems with music is it the right one to
assess the differences in MUSICAL performance of components?
Where is the evidence ? Evidence where I come from ( see my answer to
Audioguy concerning that) is EXPERIMENTAL evidence not circular
arguments like : "Why shouldn't it be so? It is good enough for
codecs isn't it?" I listen to music not codecs. And I need convincing
that pink noise is the best way to test a component for its transient
response to a cymbal, or rendition of a violin or a cello. I'd suggest
to researchers:"Try again"
All you can name since 1990 Mr. Nousaine are your own cable tests from
1995. Where I come from (again-sorry1) one gives the mag's name, the
date, the page so that I can find out what was the design, who
proctored, how many subjects, how many tests etc. Why so shy with
details?
You say: "Likewise the body of controlled listening test results
> can be very useful to any individual that wishes to make use of them to guide
> decisions (re component choice)"
Where does one find that body? Buried in the pyramids or Alberta tar
sands?
Why not name a few ,recent representative offshoots?. Just to show
that Consumer ABXing is any use other than for discomfiting the naive.

Where are the current tests on current components?. You're not
serious saying that there's nothing new under the sun. Any difference
between the 24 bit and 16 bit cdplayers? Which dacs truly cope with
jitter?, Are the Meridian and Tact room equalising systems different
from any other equaliser? Any differences between the various digital
sound processing systems. Come on Mr. Nousaine. Winning verbal contest
against L. Mirabel is not everything. There is such a thing as putting
more information on the table.
Of course you are at least consistent, You truly believe that
there is no difference between any components at all: By your lights
such objectivist luminaries as Krueger and Pinkerton are pinkish
dissidents: "> Actually if nominally competent components such as
wires, parts, bits and
> amplifiers have never been shown to materially affect the sound of reproduced
> music in normally reverberant conditions why would ANYONE need to conduct more
> experimentation, or any listening test, to choose between components?"
And again. The profession of faith: "> Examination of the extant body
of controlled listening tests available contain enough information to
aid any enthusiast in making good decisions."

And what information is it?:
"> As I've said before; there are many proponents of high-end sound of
wires, amps and parts ... but, so far, no one (in over 30 years) has
ever produced a single repeatable bias controlled experiment that
shows that nominally competent
> products in a normally reverberant environment (listening room) have any sonic
> contribution of their own.
> Nobody! Never! How about some evidence? I'll believe in BigFoot ....just show
> me the body!

And I'll believe that there are no diferences between components
when you prove that your "bias =controlled test" does not have biases
of its own
My other unanswered question to you one month ago was:
Where is the evidence that untrained, unselected
individuals perform identically, when comparing complex musical
differences between components for a "test" as they do when they just
listen. Reasoning that they should is plausible but reasoning that at
least some of them don't is not irrational. Convincing, controlled
experiment with random control subjects etc. is missing.
Next consider the anti-common sense assumption that Tom and
Dick do their DBT assignement equally well and both are an identical
match for Harry. Should they? They are not identical in any other task
aptitude, in their fingerprints or their DNA.
If you agree that they would differ how do you justify YOUR
challenges to all and sundry to prove their perceptions by ABX.
Perhaps they are as hopeless as I'm at that task. Perhaps a violinist
will hear differences in the rendition of violin tone when not
bothered by a "test" but be a terrible subject for ABXing. Impossible?
Where is your experimental evidence that this does not happen?.

Where is the experimentation to show that the poor ABX test
subjects
would perform identically sitting and listening at home?
Finally your telling ME that " I think Ludovic is "untrainable"
because he will accept only answers he already believes are true"
really takes the cake. .I'm not propunding any "test". You are. I have
no faith to stick to. You BELIEVE in ABX. It is MY right to ask YOU
for evidence. And it is your job to give it.
You know it all perfectly well because you know what "research" and
"evidence" mean. Why copy the tactics of those who have only ignorant
bluster to offer?

Ludovic Mirabel

> >>We're talking about Greenhill old test not because it is perfect but
> >>because no better COMPONENT COMPARISON tests are available. In fact
> >>none have been published according to MTry's and Ramplemann's
> >>bibliographies since 1990.
>
> This is simply not true. I have published 2 double blind tests personally, one
> of which covered 3 different wires subsequent to 1990.
>
> >
> >I frequently see the distinction being made between audio components
> >and other audio related things (such as codecs) when it comes to
> >talking about DBT's. What is the reason for this?
> >
> >In my opinion, there are two topics which should not be mixed up:
> >
> >1) The effectiveness of DBT's for determining whether an audible
> >difference exists
> >2) The practical usefulness of using DBT's for choosing one audio
> >producer (component or codec) over another.
>
> Actually if nominally competent components such as wires, parts, bits and
> amplifiers have never been shown to materially affect the sound of reproduced
> music in normally reverberant conditions why would ANYONE need to conduct more
> experimentation, or any listening test, to choose between components? Simply
> choose the one with the other non-sonic characteristics (features, price,
> terms, availability, cosmetics, style...) that suit your fancy.
>
> Indeed 20 years ago, when I still had a day job, Radio Shack often had the
> "perfect" characteristic to guide purchase, which was "open on Sunday."
> >> I am not knowledgeable enough to decide on differences between
> >>your and Greenhill's interpretation of the methods and results.
> >>In my simplistic way I'd ask you to consider the following:
> >>PINK NOISE signal: 10 out of 11 participants got the maximum possible
> >>correct answers: 15 out of 15 ie. 100%. ONE was 1 guess short. He got
> >>only 14 out of 15.
> >> When MUSIC was used as a signal 1 (ONE) listener got 15 corrects,
> >>1 got 14 and one 12. The others had results ranging from 7 and 8
> >>through 10 to (1) 11.
> >> My question is: was there are ANY significant difference between
> >>those two sets of results? Is there a *possibility* that music
> >>disagrees with ABX or ABX with music?
>
> No: it just means with the right set of music 2 dB is at the threshold. Don't
> forget that listening position affects this stuff too. Also Mr Atkinson would
> say that perhaps the lower scoring subjects didn't have personal control of the
> switching.
>
> >Even between two samples of music (no pink noise involved), I can
> >certainly believe that a listening panel might have more or less
> >difficulty in determining if they hear an audible difference. It
> >doesn't follow that music in general is interfering with the ability
> >to discriminate differences when using a DBT.
>
> Actually it simp,y shows that pink noise and other test signals are the most
> sensitive of programs. It may be possible to divulge a 'difference' with noise
> that would never be encountered with any known program material.
>
> It's also possible that certain programs, such as Arny Kreuger's special
> signals, might disclose differences that may never be encountered with
> commercially available music (or other) programs. So?
>
> >> I would aoppreciate it if would try and make it simple leaving
> >>"confidence levels" and such out of it. You're talking to ordinary
> >>audiophiles wanting to hear if your test will help them decide what
> >>COMPONENTS to buy.
>
> As before; you haven't ever been precluded from making any purchase decisions
> from scientific evidence before; why should any disclosure affect that now or
> in the future.
>
> Examination of the extant body of controlled listening tests available contain
> enough information to aid any enthusiast in making good decisions. Even IF the
> existing evidence shows that wire is wire (and it does) how does that preclude
> any person from making any purchase decision? In my way of thinking it just
> might be useful for a given individual to know what has gone before (and what
> hasn't.)
>
> I still don't know how this cannot do anything but IMPROVE decision making?
>
> >See my first comments. It's too easy to mix up the topic of the
> >sensitivity of DBT's as instruments for detecting audible differences
> >with the topic of the practicality of using DBT's to choose hifi
> >hardware. The latter is impractical for the average audiophile.
>
> No it's not. Just like 0-60 times, skid-pad and EPA mileage tests simply cannot
> be made by the typical individual that doesn't mean that they cannot be used to
> improve decision-making. Likewise the body of controlled listening test results
> can be very useful to any individual that wishes to make use of them to guide
> decisions.
>
> Otherwise the only information one has is "guidance" from sellers, anecdotal
> reports and "open" listening tests. The latter , of course, is quite subject to
> non-sonic influence.
>
> So IMO, a person truly interested in maximizing the sonic-quality throughput of
> his system simply MUST examine the results of bias controlled listening tests
> OR fall prey to non-sonic biasing factors, even if they are inadvertent.
>
> >
> >> Who can argue with motherhood? The problem is that there are NO
> >>ABX COMPONENT tests being published- neither better nor worse, NONE.
> >> I heard of several audio societies considering them. No results.
> >>Not from the objectivist citadels: Detroit and Boston. Why?. Did they
> >>pan out?
>
> Given the two dozen controlled listening tests of power amplifiers published
> through 1991 doesn't it seem that no one needs to conduct more? Wires? The last
> test I published was in 1995. Not late enough?
>
> Why not? No manufacturer has EVER produced a single bias controlled experiment
> that showed their wires had a sound of their own in over 30 years. Why should
> one expect one now?
>
> I certainly can't do it; although I've given it my level (no pun intended)
> best. IOW, I can't produce an experiment that shows nominally competent wires
> ain't wires .... 'cuz they ain't.
>
> >I can think of a couple of reasons:
> >
> >1. It's expensive and time consuming to perfom this type of testing
> >2. The audible differences are, in actuality, too subtle to hear, ABX
> >or not. Why bother with such a test?
>
> Why bother in performing a sound quality "test" that the manufacturers of the
> equipment can't produce? IF amps ain't amps; wires ain't wires and parts ain't
> parts then why haven't the makers and sellers of this stuff produced repeatable
> bias controlled listening tests that show this to be untrue?
>
> >Then there is the possibility that you seem to be focussing on,
> >ignoring the above two:
> >
> >3. DBT's in general may be decreasing the ability to hear subtle
> >differences.
>
> Actually they preclude the ability to "hear" non-sonic differences.
>
> >Which of the the above reaons do you think are most likely?
> >
> >> > Moving away from the question Greenhill was investigating
> >>(audible
> >>> differences between cables) and focusing only on DBT testing and
> >>> volume differences: it is trivial to perform a test of volume
> >>> difference, if the contention is being made that a DBT hinders the
> >>> listener from detecting 1.75 dB of volume difference. Especially if
> >>> the listeners have been trained specifically for detecting volume
> >>> differences prior to the test.
> >>> However, such an experiment would be exceedingly uninteresting, and I
> >>> have doubts it would sway the opinion of anybody participating in this
> >>> debate.
> >>>
> >> The volume difference was just a by-effect of a comparison between
> >>cables.
> >>And yes, TRAINED people would do better than Greenhill's "Expert
> >>audiophiles" ie rank amateurs just like us. Would some though do
> >>better than the others and some remain untrainable? Just like us.
>
> I think Ludovic is "untrainable" because he will accept only answers he already
> believes are true.
>
> >I have no doubt that there are some people who are unreliable when it
> >comes to performing a DBT test. In a codec test using ABC/HR, if
> >somebody rates the hidden reference worse than the revealed reference
> >(both references are identical), his listening opinion is either
> >weighted less or thrown out altogether.
>
> What you are describing is 'reverse significance' which is typically a
> inadvertant form of internal bias.
>
> >>> For what it's worth, I have performed enough ABX testing to convince
> >>> myself that it's possible for me to detect volume differences < 0.5 dB
> >>> using music, so I doubt very highly that a group test would fail to
> >>> show that 1.75 dB differences on a variety of different music are not
> >>> audible using a DBT.
> >>>
> >> I can easily hear 1db difference between channels, and a change
> >>of 1 db.
> >>What I can't do is to have 80 db changed to 81 db, then be asked if
> >>the third unknown is 80 or 81 dbs. and be consistently correct.
> >>Perhaps I could if I trained as much as you have done. Perhaps not
> >>Some others could, some couldn't. We're all different. Produce a test
> >>which will be valid for all ages, genders, extent of training, innate
> >>musical and ABxing abilities, all kinds of musical experience and
> >>preference. Then prove BY EXPERIMENT that it works for COMPARING
> >>COMPONENTS.
> >>So that anyone can do it and if he gets a null result BE CERTAIN that
> >>with more training or different musical experience he would not hear
> >>what he did not hear before. And perhaps just get on widening his
> >>musical experience and then rcompare (with his eyes covered if he is
> >>marketing susceptible)
> >>Let's keep it simple. We're audiophiles here. We're talking about
> >>MUSICAL REPRODUCTION DIFFERENCES between AUDIO COMPONENTS. I looked
> >>at your internet graphs. They mean zero to me. I know M. Levinsohn,
> >>Quad, Apogee, Acoustat not the names of your codecs. You assure me
> >>that they are relevant. Perhaps. Let's see BY EXPERIMENT if they do.
> >>In the meantime enjoy your lab work.
> >>Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> >Are you really telling me that you didn't understand the gist of the
> >group listening test I pointed you to?
> >
> >For one thing, it says that although people have different individual
> >preferences about how they evaluate codec quality, as a group, they
> >can identify trends. This, despite the variety of training, hearing
> >acuity, audio equipment, and listening environment.
> >
> >Another point is that it would be more difficult to identify trends if
> >such a study included the opinions of people who judge the hidden
> >reference to be worse than the revealed reference (simultaneously
> >judging the encoded signal to be the same as the revealed reference).
> >In other words, there are people whose listening opinions can't be
> >trusted, and the DBT is designed to identify them.
>
> That result identifies a form of experimental bias, does it not?
>
> >The last point is that I can see no reason why such procedures could
> >not (in theory, if perhaps not in practical terms) be applied to audio
> >components. Why don't you explain to me what the difference is (in
> >terms of sensitivity) between using DBT's for audio codecs and using
> >DBT's for audio components?
> >
> >Darryl Miyaguchi
>
> There is no difference. It seems to me that this poster may have never taken a
> bias controlled listening test or, if he has, the results didn't fit with prior
> held expectations. It's much easier to argue with the existing evidence than
> prove that you can hear things that no human has been able to demonstrate, when
> not peeking.
>
> As I've said before; there are many proponents of high-end sound of wires, amps
> and parts ... but, so far, no one (in over 30 years) has ever produced a single
> repeatable bias controlled experiment that shows that nominally competent
> products in a normally reverberant environment (listening room) have any sonic
> contribution of their own.
>
> Nobody! Never! How about some evidence? I'll believe in BigFoot ....just show
> me the body!

ludovic mirabel

July 3rd 03, 06:00 PM

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message >...
> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message >...
>
Snip. I said:
> > I can easily hear 1db difference between channels, and a change
> > of 1 db.
> > What I can't do is to have 80 db changed to 81 db, then be asked if
> > the third unknown is 80 or 81 dbs. and be consistently correct.
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1) What do you mean by "consistent"? 100% of the time, or just with
> statistical reliability?
>
> 2) Were you able to switch instantaneously between them? Audiophiles
> pooh-pooh this, but it's certainly easier to hear level differences
> when you can switch instantaneously.
>
>
> I'm not aware of any evidence that musical experience is particularly
> helpful in these kinds of tests. That's not what "training" is about
> in this context.
>
Interesting. "We" don't "believe" that musical experience has anything
to do with music reproducing components.

Snip>
> So far as I can tell, the only experiment that would satisfy you would
> be one that confirmed your own beliefs about what is and is not
> audible. I'm afraid we can't do that.
>
> bob

The "instantaneous switch" is my stepped volume control. It is in
working order.
As for "statistical reliability"- how consistently do I hear the 1db.
volume difference when I switch?
100% of the time when full range music or voice are playing. . Like
everyone else not totally deaf would- Mr Myaguchi for one hears 0.5 db
volume change
I'm not reporting the results of a controlled lab test but my
experiences.
Anyone disbelieving me is free to do so.
I also am not on a witness stand in court. Should I be foolish
enough to engage in this exchange your next question might be: " Have
you any witnesses?"
"Did you say your wife? When did you stop beating your wife to get
her to witness for you?"
We're in an audiophile forum not in court Mr. Marcus.
You will not spell your qualifications for instructing others to
learn those subjects together and separately : statistics,
electronics, psychoacoustics, details of medical drug research, but
you're again telling me what "we' can or cannot do in those areas..
Who are those "we"? Lawyers? You're a lawyer aren't you?. Unless like
in all those other areas you took one course or read one law book.
As for the rest of your message; it is just a rehash of what 4 other
participants said more ably and with more inside knowledge. . Read my
answers to them.
Ludovic Mirabel

S888Wheel

July 4th 03, 05:42 PM

I said

<<
> I examined the results of contained in the articles you sent me and
> do not find them conclusive.
>>

Arny said

<<

This begs the question as to whether there exists any evidence that would be
found to be conclusive by certain persons.
>>

By certain persons I suspect you are including me. That is an interesting
question. Does such a body of evidence even exist? When Tom Nousiane made his
offer of such evidence the body of evidence he offered was hardly conclusive
about the audibility of amplifiers. This begs the question are some people
drawing definitive conclusions with less than adequate evidence to draw such
conclusions? Do you think the two cited articles supply sufficient evience to
draw any definitive conclusions about the audibility of amplifiers? Do you
think the evidence in those articles qualify as scientifically valid bodies of
empirical evidence? Do you think the issue of test sensitivity was sufficiently
addressed in those tests based on the content of those articles?

I said

<<
>Unfortunately four of the six articles
> you sent me had no raw data to examine and only offered conclusions.
>>

Arny said

<<
Would this have made a difference?
>>

It does to me when I am asking for empirical evidence. conclusions and analysis
is not data. analysis and conclusions without the raw data is just opinions
IMO.

I said

<<

> Given the fact that the two articles that did offer raw data drew
> conclusions that I find questionable i have trouble feeling confident
> about the conclusions drawn in the other articles missing the raw
> data. >>

Arny said

<<

Bottom line, there are plenty of opportunities now to do your own
experiments, gather and analyze your own data, etc.
>>

1. That is irrelevant. Tom was claiming one could use the extant body of
evidence to make purchasing decisions. I was addressing that claim. 2. That is
not neccessarily true. Unless if we are trying to limmit this to scientifically
valid tests.

I said

<<
> So I find the evidence to date that I have seen less than
> helpful in purchase decisions.
>>

Arny said

<<
The problem here relates to being able to obtain abstract knowledge and
apply it. >>

Nonsense. this is just a personal attack. Please show how I have failed to
either obtain or apply absrtact knowledge in this case. Do you think Tom
Nousiane has failed in his attempt to supply me with the best empirical
evidence on the subject? do you think the cited tests offer evidence upon which
one can draw definitive conclusions about the sound of amplifiers? Please
specifically support your inference that I have failed intelectually in my
edeavour to "obtain abstract knowledge and apply it" on this subject. If you
can't then please retract your claims on this matter. They are offensive.

Arny said

<< Once I found that dramatic audible differences between good
cables,SS amplifiers and/or CD players just don't exist; I started basing my
purchase decisions on differences that do exist.

>>

Dramatic is a subjective adjective. What is dramatic to one person is
insignificant to another. Maybe we should stick to the subject of audible
differences.

ludovic mirabel

July 4th 03, 06:40 PM

Darryl Miyaguchi > wrote in message >...
> On 1 Jul 2003 15:10:59 GMT, (ludovic mirabel)
> wrote:
>
Apologies for rearranging your text for my convenience.
You say:
> In my opinion, there are two topics which should not be mixed up:
>
> 1) The effectiveness of DBT's for determining whether an audible
> difference exists
> 2) The practical usefulness of using DBT's for choosing one audio
> producer (component or codec) over another.
>
Let me be quite brutal about this.
My ONLY concern and interest is in part 2. I'm reading and
participating in RAHE not because I'm interested in psychometric
research but exactly for help to "choose one audio producer over
another". And the "producer" that I'll use in my listening room is
not codec but a musical reproducing device.
I may just as well tackle the question of codec or any other artefact/
vs. a musical audio device.
Are they different? I don't know. You challenge me below to
demonstrate why they shouldn't behave identically. The shoe is on the
other foot- you have first to show that they would.
I'll have to explain something here: Basically I come from a different
corner of science from yours. Mine is applied science not basic
research. You ask me why codex shouldn't act like amplifiers. Maybe
they do.

But till there is a convincing experiment to show that it is so, to me
it is just more inference, reasoning by analogy.
For millenia physicians reasoned, speculated and looked at analogies.
The diseased blood is full of noxious miasmas so let's bleed poor Lord
Byron to death.
Sometime in the XXth century things changed. The question to ask
became not: "Is it likely to work because Herr Professor thinks it
should or because there are "good reasons" why it should? or what not.
It became: "Can I design an experiment to show if it will or will not
WORK ?" Reasoning and speculation be damned in medical research-
coarse practicality culminating in Random controlled Double Blind
testing rules. Patient's answers, doctor's impressions are collected
for documentation- the outcome is decided by demonstrable physical
changes.
All that I said before, But now I come to Codex vs Amplifier. No
matter how close the analogy you make it means nothing in the applied
medical research. Add one hydrogen binding to a life saving drug and
it becomes a killer. Of course the Rhinoceros are being exterminated
because the upright horn is a cure for impotence in China. An unfair
(I confess) reductio ad absurdum of reasoning by analogy: " Why
shouldn't the horn work? It looks like IT doesn't it?"

I said:
> > I am not knowledgeable enough to decide on differences between
> > your and Greenhill's interpretation of the methods and results.
> > In my simplistic way I'd ask you to consider the following:
> > PINK NOISE signal: 10 out of 11 participants got the maximum possible
> > correct answers: 15 out of 15 ie. 100%. ONE was short of 100%t. He got
> > only 14 out of 15

> > But when MUSIC was used as a signal 1 (ONE) listener got 15 corrects, one > > got 14 and one 12. The others had results ranging from 7 and 8 through 10 >
> > to 11.(one)
> > My question is: was there are ANY significant difference between
> > those two sets of results? Is there a *possibility* that music
> > disagrees with ABX or ABX with music?
>
You answered:
> Even between two samples of music (no pink noise involved), I can
> certainly believe that a listening panel might have more or less
> difficulty in determining if they hear an audible difference. It
> doesn't follow that music in general is interfering with the ability
> to discriminate differences when using a DBT.
>
Sorry, but the questiion is a simple one :"Did THIS panel perform
differently on pink noise and music or not?"
And the answer should be simple: Yes or No. Once you answer that you
can give your qualifiers, explanations and so on..

You said:
> It's too easy to mix up the topic of the
> sensitivity of DBT's as instruments for detecting audible differences
> with the topic of the practicality of using DBT's to choose hifi
> hardware. The latter is impractical for the average audiophile.
>
As I said before the only topic I'm interested in is exactly the
"practicality" of its use for comparing components. Were I interested
in DBT sensitivity for other *audible differences* I'd be reading JAES
or a "Journal of Psychometrics" (if there is such a thing) -not RAHE.
But your last sentence certainly rings true- that's why your getting
in hot water with the Old Believers is to be expected.

You said that good ABX component tests are possible (paraphrase). I
answered:
> > Who can argue with motherhood? The problem is that there are
> > NO ABX COMPONENT tests being published- neither good nor bad, NONE.
> > I heard of several audio societies considering them. No results.
> > Not from the objectivist citadels: Detroit and Boston. Why?. Did
> > they not pan out?

Your answer:

> I can think of a couple of reasons:
>
> 1. It's expensive and time consuming to perfom this type of testing
> 2. The audible differences are, in actuality, too subtle to hear, ABX
> or not. Why bother with such a test?
>
> Then there is the possibility that you seem to be focussing on,
> ignoring the above two:
>
> 3. DBT's in general may be decreasing the ability to hear subtle
> differences.
>
> Which of the the above reaons do you think are most likely?
>

If you ask me : the last one. Enough changed in audio since 1990 to
spur newer comparisons. (See my posting to Mr. Audio Guy). It is
expensive but not beyond the possibilities of such as Boston Audio
Socy. I saw the design of a Seattlee AUDIO Socy AbX test. Then
silence. No results. Was it your reason 3.? I don't know and I never ,
never speculate. Especially since the stock market expired. If it
works why don't people do it?

You asked:
> Are you really telling me that you didn't understand the gist of the
> group listening test I pointed you to?
>
> For one thing, it says that although people have different individual
> preferences about how they evaluate codec quality, as a group, they
> can identify trends. This, despite the variety of training, hearing
> acuity, audio equipment, and listening environment.
>
> Another point is that it would be more difficult to identify trends if
> such a study included the opinions of people who judge the hidden
> reference to be worse than the revealed reference (simultaneously
> judging the encoded signal to be the same as the revealed reference).
> In other words, there are people whose listening opinions can't be
> trusted, and the DBT is designed to identify them.
>
Re "trends and statistical averages:" How "likely" am I to hear those
musical differences under ABX that I heard without it? As likely as
the 72% of Greenhill's subjects who failed at a much simpler task when
being ABXed?.
Or do you have any other experimentally proven statistics?
Let me say something about statistics as applied to prognosis (
outcome forecasting) in medicine.
A patient has inoperable lung cancer. His family want to know how long
he'll live. If you're a heartless fool you say: "average survival with
this is 6 months."
If you're a clever and humane physician you say:" Whatever I'll say
you'll probably want to check in the Public Library anyway- you'll
find a 6 months AVERAGE survival rate . But you husband's name is Joe
Smith not Joe Average. Some die in a few weeks, some in a couple of
years and some-very, very few have an unexplainable, complete
disappearance of the growth. I can not tell exactly how long your
husband will live, but more likely months than years."
A "test" which depends on statistics can not be used as a universally
recommended method of differentiation. It may be O.K. for some and
worse than useless for the others. And the devil is that no one can
tell if he is being deceived by it when he gets a null result because
he may perform differently in 6 months time or when not bothered by
ABX. Or not. Do it at your own risk. Like choosing a book to read, a
movie to attend or wine to drink. Nobody pesters you with a" test"
there. Sorry, "trends" are good for public opinion polls, not as
guidance for inndividuals.

> The last point is that I can see no reason why such procedures could
> not (in theory, if perhaps not in practical terms) be applied to audio
> components. Why don't you explain to me what the difference is (in
> terms of sensitivity) between using DBT's for audio codecs and using
> DBT's for audio components?

I will not repeat why I consider the above an example of reasoning by
similarity and analogy without experimental evidence. And THAT YOU
fail to supply. Once you do that I'll see if the experiments were well
designed, properly carried out, had good controls and so on.
Ludovic Mirabel

Darryl Miyaguchi

July 4th 03, 08:08 PM

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:40:00 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

>Darryl Miyaguchi > wrote in message >...
>> On 1 Jul 2003 15:10:59 GMT, (ludovic mirabel)
>> wrote:
>>
>Apologies for rearranging your text for my convenience.
>You say:
>> In my opinion, there are two topics which should not be mixed up:
>>
>> 1) The effectiveness of DBT's for determining whether an audible
>> difference exists
>> 2) The practical usefulness of using DBT's for choosing one audio
>> producer (component or codec) over another.
>>
>Let me be quite brutal about this.
>My ONLY concern and interest is in part 2. I'm reading and
>participating in RAHE not because I'm interested in psychometric
>research but exactly for help to "choose one audio producer over
>another". And the "producer" that I'll use in my listening room is
>not codec but a musical reproducing device.

Your claim is that DBT's reduce the ability to discriminate
differences in music using audio components. This is a very specific
claim which relies upon several assumptions:

1. DBT's reduce, in general, the ability to discriminate differences.

Some evidence to the contrary:

ABX has been successfully used to differentiate truncation vs.
dithering at 16 bits:

http://ff123.net/24bit/24bitanalysis.html

ABX has been successfully used to discriminate volume differences in
music of less than 0.5 dB (personal tests).

2. ABX may be ok for pink noise, but not for music.

A controlled test (Greenhill's) showed decreased listener sensitivity
when choral music was presented instead of pink noise. From this you
infer that ABX is not suited for music. Again, I must point out that
this inference is flawed. The simpler and more likely explanation is
that all types of listening methods (included sighted listening) are
affected by musical selection.

3. DBT's may be ok for audio codecs, but not for comparing audio
components.

We seem to disagree on this basic point, although I will point out
that you can hardly claim that the onus is on me to provide evidence
that the two situations are similar. If I assume a certain position
(that the human ear/brain behaves similarly, according to the same
psychoacoustic descriptions, regardless of the audio source), then
your position is surely an assumption as well, and IMO more
speculative. I choose the null hypothesis (there is no difference)
until I see evidence to the contrary.

>Sorry, but the questiion is a simple one :"Did THIS panel perform
>differently on pink noise and music or not?"
>And the answer should be simple: Yes or No. Once you answer that you
>can give your qualifiers, explanations and so on..

See my separate post to this.

<cut>

>> 3. DBT's in general may be decreasing the ability to hear subtle
>> differences.
>>
>> Which of the the above reaons do you think are most likely?
>>
>
>If you ask me : the last one. Enough changed in audio since 1990 to
>spur newer comparisons. (See my posting to Mr. Audio Guy). It is
>expensive but not beyond the possibilities of such as Boston Audio
>Socy. I saw the design of a Seattlee AUDIO Socy AbX test. Then
>silence. No results. Was it your reason 3.? I don't know and I never ,
>never speculate.

The irony of this statement must have escaped you. As far as I can
tell, your position *is* speculative, given that it is based on very
specific assumptions (see above).

>Especially since the stock market expired. If it
>works why don't people do it?

<cut>

>A "test" which depends on statistics can not be used as a universally
>recommended method of differentiation. It may be O.K. for some and
>worse than useless for the others. And the devil is that no one can
>tell if he is being deceived by it when he gets a null result because
>he may perform differently in 6 months time or when not bothered by
>ABX. Or not. Do it at your own risk. Like choosing a book to read, a
>movie to attend or wine to drink. Nobody pesters you with a" test"
>there. Sorry, "trends" are good for public opinion polls, not as
>guidance for inndividuals.

Hearing perceptions are more similar from person to person than their
preferences in books or movies or taste in wine. If they weren't,
people wouldn't have been able to design audio codecs, which rely upon
universal characteristics of human hearing.

However, it is true that people have varying ability to hear certain
things, and that this variation affects their preferences.

There are two answers to the question "Which sounds best?" One answer
is the one each individual gives after personal audition. The other
answer is based on group results. Which answer one should choose is
based on the particular circumstance.

Darryl Miyaguchi

S888Wheel

July 4th 03, 09:44 PM

>I have no "evidence" for my perception that silver wires a la Kimber
>sound better- TO ME- than copper (even when I'm blinded). None that
>would satisfy you and none, in truth- that would satisfy a critical
>peer-review.
>MORE- I don't believe that such "evidence" is possible outside of RAHE
>wishful fantasies. I don't believe that there is experimental
>evidence (see my answer to Nousaine) that a technique, such as the
>audio version of DBT has been shown to be capable of invalidating
>mine or anyone else's perceptions.

I have to take issue with this claim. Any claims that suggest a physical
manifestation of any phenomenon is a testable claim. If you claim to hear
differences it is a testable claim.

Mkuller

July 5th 03, 07:18 PM

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:>
>> Ludovic Mirabel, for instance, has posted thousands of lines of text
>> in various attempts to discredit what evidence exists to support the
>> notion that 'wire is wire', and that, by and large, 'amps is amps',
>> yet he has offered absolutely *zero* evidence to support his own
>> beliefs.>>

Obviously, your "evidence" is NOT sufficient to convince anyone (who does not
already believe) that "amps is amps" and "wire is wire". I would suggest that
any "evidence" LM and those on the other side of this debate would show YOU (or
have shown you) would be insufficient to convince you, since you have long ago
made up your mind.

So what exactly do you hope to accomplish by continuing this endless "debate"?
Isn't one definition of "insanity", 'continuing to repeat the same behavior,
but expecting a different result'?
Regards,
Mike

Nousaine

July 5th 03, 08:11 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

>Tom said
>
>>
>>Actually if nominally competent components such as wires, parts, bits and
>>amplifiers have never been shown to materially affect the sound of
>reproduced
>>music in normally reverberant conditions why would ANYONE need to conduct
>>more
>>experimentation, or any listening test, to choose between components? Simply
>>choose the one with the other non-sonic characteristics (features, price,
>>terms, availability, cosmetics, style...) that suit your fancy.
>>
>
>That is the 64,000 dollar if.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>Examination of the extant body of controlled listening tests available
>>contain
>>enough information to aid any enthusiast in making good decisions. Even IF
>>the
>>existing evidence shows that wire is wire (and it does) how does that
>>preclude
>>any person from making any purchase decision? In my way of thinking it just
>>might be useful for a given individual to know what has gone before (and
>what
>>hasn't.)
>
>Well, so far I don't see it the way you do. I must at this point thanl you
>for
>the articles on this subject you sent me when I asked for the alleged body of
>empirical evidence that prooved your position on the audible differences of
>amplifiers.

I said that a body existed. I offered to send you Some of the existing evidence
because you said that you hadn't seen "any."

The "body of evidence" you sent me that constituted actual
>evidence, raw data, was not much of a body. Only two articles out of the six
>you sent had raw data ( "Can you trust your ears" by Tom Nousiane and "Do all
>amplifiers sound the same" by David Clark) and only the test you conducted
>had
>it in a usful table which could allow for the examination of trends such as
>learning curves or fatigue curves.

Let's be clear here. I did not offer to send you "the" body of evidence. You'll
see "The Great Debate; Is Anybody Winning" a list of over twenty controlled
listening tests on amplifiers conducted prior to 1990.

As to raw data "The Great Chicago Cable Caper" and "To Tweak or Not To Tweak"
both contained raw data.

First, this is not much of a body of
>evidence. Second, if we are to draw conclusions from the results we would
>have
>to conclude that some people can hear differences between amps and some amps
>sound idfferent than some other amps.

None of the raw data suggests that.

Of course it would be a mistake to draw
>conclusions from those tests by themselves because they simply are not that
>conclusive. If what you sent me is the best evidence out there and if what
>you
>sent me is any significant portion of the much talked about "extant body of
>controled listening tests available" then I don't see how anyone can draw any
>strong conclusions one way or another.

What is so funny is that I offered to send you copies of some data because you
claimed to have not seen ANY of the approximately 3 dozen controlled listening
tests that had been published in popular journals over the years. I didn't
offer to send you all data that exists.

If you were truly interested you should do some of your own homework. But it
certainly doesn't seem that you do have a true interest.

And you're missing an important point; no one has produced a single repeatable
experiment in normal listening conditions where nominally amps, wires or parts
have been shown to have an audible effect.

The ONLY existing evidence on your side for amplifiers is pcabx which uses a
overly sensitive microscope-like technique that doesn't represent the typical
sighted conditions where 'amp differences' are often made.

>Tom said
>
>>
>>So IMO, a person truly interested in maximizing the sonic-quality throughput
>>of
>>his system simply MUST examine the results of bias controlled listening
>tests
>>OR fall prey to non-sonic biasing factors, even if they are inadvertent.
>>
>
>I examined the results of contained in the articles you sent me and do not
>find them conclusive. Unfortunately four of the six articles you sent me had
>no
>raw data to examine and only offered conclusions.

Again, all of them contained raw data except for the summary piece which listed
over twenty reports that you can track down if you have interest.

Given the fact that the two
>articles that did offer raw data drew conclusions that I find questionable i
>have trouble feeling condifent about the conclusions drawn in the other
>articles missing the raw data. So I find the evidence to date that I have
>seen
>less than helpful in purchase decisions.

So you will reject any data that doesn't support your prior held conclusions. I
figured that would be your position. Why not try to find ANY credible data that
does? Happy hunting.

Nousaine

July 5th 03, 08:35 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

....many snips....

>By certain persons I suspect you are including me. That is an interesting
>question. Does such a body of evidence even exist? When Tom Nousiane made his
>offer of such evidence the body of evidence he offered was hardly conclusive
>about the audibility of amplifiers.

Please don't make up things that I didn't offer. You said you had never seen
ANY evidence about the audibility of amps, wires and parts. I offered to send
you one such report. Indeed one of the ones I did send you lists a couple dozen
amp experiments.

What I find interesting is that not ONE credible, replicable bias controlled
report verifying the audibility of nominally competent amps, wires or
capacitors in normally reverberant conditions exists. Not one.

This begs the question are some people
>drawing definitive conclusions with less than adequate evidence to draw such
>conclusions? Do you think the two cited articles supply sufficient evience to
>draw any definitive conclusions about the audibility of amplifiers?

Find a credible one that suggests otherwise, why don't you?

Do you
>think the evidence in those articles qualify as scientifically valid bodies
>of
>empirical evidence? Do you think the issue of test sensitivity was
>sufficiently
>addressed in those tests based on the content of those articles?

Yes. Definitely.

>
>I said
>
><<
>>Unfortunately four of the six articles
>> you sent me had no raw data to examine and only offered conclusions.
> >>
>
>Arny said
>
><<
>Would this have made a difference?
> >>
>
>It does to me when I am asking for empirical evidence. conclusions and
>analysis
>is not data. analysis and conclusions without the raw data is just opinions
>IMO.

The statemrnt about lack of data is simply not true. All the reports sent to
him contained raw data. The other was a compilation of results from a couple
dozen previously conducted amplifier tests. All Mr Wheel has to do is look them
up.

But again he originally suggested that no evidence on the matter, one way or
another, actually existed.

At the very least one should recognize that plenty of it exists, that
interested parties have had public access to same over the past 30 years and
that you can't find a single experiment that supports the claimed audibility of
amps and wires.

>
>I said
>
><<
>
>> Given the fact that the two articles that did offer raw data drew
>> conclusions that I find questionable i have trouble feeling confident
>> about the conclusions drawn in the other articles missing the raw
>> data. >>

What's funny is that Mr Wheel examines the raw data and rejects the conclusion
"no single listener was able to reliably identify amps under blind consitions"
that the data clearly depicted.

>
>Arny said
>
><<
>
>Bottom line, there are plenty of opportunities now to do your own
>experiments, gather and analyze your own data, etc.
> >>
>
>1. That is irrelevant. Tom was claiming one could use the extant body of
>evidence to make purchasing decisions. I was addressing that claim. 2. That
>is
>not neccessarily true. Unless if we are trying to limmit this to
>scientifically
>valid tests.

I've been making high quality decisions based on this evidence for a quarter
century.

>I said
>
><<
>> So I find the evidence to date that I have seen less than
>> helpful in purchase decisions.

Those who will not see and won'y examine historyt are doomed to repeat
historical mistakes and apply resources intended to improve sound quality that
have no sound quality aspect.

Nousaine

July 5th 03, 09:25 PM

Darryl Miyaguchi wrote:

>On 3 Jul 2003 02:52:02 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>>Perhaps we're missing each others points here. With the common ABC/Hr
>protocol
>>the listener is asked to identify one alternative as being the same as the
>>reference and to grade the alternative on a downward rating scale.
>>
>>If I'm taking your point correctly those listeners that reliably rate an
>>alternative as being worse than itself have responses thrown out. If so,
>this
>>could be a conscious form of subject bias.
>>
>>But it could also be a form of experimental bias where some form of other
>>identification cue is involved. In either case SOME form of bias is present;
>>just as 'reverse' significant results in common A/B Same/Different or even
>ABX
>>tests would indicate.
>>
>>Backward significance is always an indictator that some form of bias is
>>present.
>
>Just so that we don't misunderstand exactly what is happening during
>one of these comparative tests:
>
>Note the implementation of ABC/Hr being used:
>
>http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
>
>The reference is not being presented as another codec. In the process
>of rating each codec, the listener must choose from the hidden
>reference.

Yes, the hidden reference is the original unprocessed source.

This is different from MUSHRA, where there is a hidden
>reference, but which is typically presented as another codec. I think
>we're both on the same page when talking about ABC/Hr, but I just want
>to make sure.
>
>When I speak of a bias, I am mostly concerned that one codec is not
>falsely preferred over another.
>
>In the ABC/Hr implementation we're discussing, suppose a listener
>downrates the hidden reference for one or more codecs. Such a
>listener is not an *outlier* -- he is clearly *incorrect*. Then, the
>procedure used would be to discard that particular listener's entire
>set of results for all codecs.
>
>I don't believe there is a preferential bias of the type I am
>concerned about. Instead, I believe that what is happening is that
>statistical noise is being reduced when unreliable listeners are
>removed, but possibly sensitivity is being reduced as well for the
>reasons I outlined in my previous post. Reduced sensitivity is ok for
>the purposes of this experiment; preferential bias is not.

Actually in the ABC/Hr protocol any listener reliably rating the hidden
reference worse than itself has demonstrated SOME form of test or subject bias.
Ther eis no other explanation; either the protocol has some form of non-sonic
confounding identifier OR the subject can truly hear the difference and is
purposefully responding in a backward manner.

I'm all for rejecting biased data but any kind of significant "reverse" results
shoyld be followed by an examination of the experiment to find whether it's
specific to a given subject(s). If the latter cannot be shown then the entire
experiment can be ruled invalid.

>
>Now, one could argue that this procedure is selecting a special group
>out of the test population. If one of the purposes of the experiment
>is to represent a certain listening population, then throwing out
>unreliable listeners is changing things. However, this particular
>test makes no pretensions of representing the average listener. The
>people who participate in this type of experiment are already
>self-selected, and likely to be more sensitive than the average Joe.

Most likely true.

>
>Is there some mechanism whereby you think that some sort of bias
>(falsely preferring one or more codecs over others) may be operating
>if unreliable results of the type described are thrown out? I can't
>think of any.
>
>Darryl Miyaguchi

As I said earlier if you cannot determine that results were limited to a given
subject(s) then the whole experiment must be considered suspect. At the very
least it should be repeated.

S888Wheel

July 6th 03, 03:25 AM

I said

>>By certain persons I suspect you are including me. That is an interesting
>>question. Does such a body of evidence even exist? When Tom Nousiane made
>his
>>offer of such evidence the body of evidence he offered was hardly conclusive
>>about the audibility of amplifiers.

Tom said

>
>Please don't make up things that I didn't offer.

Well here is what the record shows

"Tom said

Yes, of course. I have spent the time and money to acquire all I can about
listening tests and what they show. My copy of the Proceedings wasn't free; so
are you expecting me to send you or Scott a free copy? I've done the same
formany. Just ask.

I said

Consider it asked.

Tom said

snail mail address please."

Maybe I am missing something but that looks like such an offer to me.

Tom said

> You said you had never seen
>ANY evidence about the audibility of amps, wires and parts. I offered to send
>you one such report. Indeed one of the ones I did send you lists a couple
>dozen
>amp experiments.

I said I have never seen any scientifically valid empirical evidence on the
matter.You sent six articles only two of which had the raw data I was asking
about.The two that had raw data had not been published in a peer reviewed
scientific journal so they do not qualify as scientifically valid. It was nice
of you to send the six articles. Thank you. In light of the fact that I was
asking about *any scientifically valid empirical evidence that supported your
position on the audibility of amps*. My comments on the two articles that
actually had raw data stands. I don't recall any limmits of only one report.

Tom said

>
>What I find interesting is that not ONE credible, replicable bias controlled
>report verifying the audibility of nominally competent amps, wires or
>capacitors in normally reverberant conditions exists. Not one.
>

What I find interesting is the best *evidence* you sent me on the matter was
IMO inconclusive. Some of the evidence in the Clark article suggested that
perhaps some people can hear differences and that some amps tested sounded
different to other amps tested. So how do you deal with that? Do you
acknowledge the test was inconclusive which is what I see or do you claim the
test gives us scientifically valid empirical evidence upon which we can draw
definitive conclusions?

I said

> This begs the question are some people
>>drawing definitive conclusions with less than adequate evidence to draw such
>>conclusions? Do you think the two cited articles supply sufficient evience
>to
>>draw any definitive conclusions about the audibility of amplifiers?

Tom said

>
>Find a credible one that suggests otherwise, why don't you?

The article on the Clark tests certainly did suggest that some people can hear
differences and that some amps sound different than others.

I said

> Do you
>>think the evidence in those articles qualify as scientifically valid bodies
>>of
>>empirical evidence? Do you think the issue of test sensitivity was
>>sufficiently
>>addressed in those tests based on the content of those articles?

Tom said

>
>Yes. Definitely.

How? There was no scientific peer review. Are you going to ignore the protocols
of the scientific world? I think issue of test sensitivity in both cited
articles were quite poorly addressed. So much so that one can draw multiple
conclusions from the results such as the listeners may have not been sensitive
enough. The setup may not have been releavling enough etc. A bad mistake IMO.

>
>>I said
>>
>><<
>>>Unfortunately four of the six articles
>>> you sent me had no raw data to examine and only offered conclusions.
>> >>

>
>>Arny said
>>
>><<
>>Would this have made a difference?
>> >>

I said

>
>>It does to me when I am asking for empirical evidence. conclusions and
>>analysis
>>is not data. analysis and conclusions without the raw data is just opinions
>>IMO.

Tom said

>
>The statemrnt about lack of data is simply not true.

Yes it is. Only two of the articles had the raw data.

Tom said

> All the reports sent to
>him contained raw data.

Straw man. I said "the raw data" which implies all of it. Only two of the six
did this. Heck some of the articles had no raw data.

Tom said

>The other was a compilation of results from a couple
>dozen previously conducted amplifier tests.

Right. They were an analyisis of data that was not presented in the raw. That
was exactly what I did not want as I already explained.

Tom said

>All Mr Wheel has to do is look them
>up.

As if this is an easy and cost free task. We've been down this road before. I
have been on too many fruitless Easter egg hunts on this subject. If those
claiming the existance of evidence cannot provide it than it is unreasonable
for them to expect me to go find it IMO.

Tom said

>
>But again he originally suggested that no evidence on the matter, one way or
>another, actually existed.
>

Baloney! Never suggested it. Cite your proof or withdraw the claim please. It
is a misrepresentation of anything I said or believe.

Tom said

>At the very least one should recognize that plenty of it exists, that
>interested parties have had public access to same over the past 30 years and
>that you can't find a single experiment that supports the claimed audibility
>of
>amps and wires.

All I have done is ask to see it. To date not much has been shown to me and
what has been shown is hardly something one could base any definitive
conclusions upon. What you sent me did not prove your position at all.

Tom said

>
>
>What's funny is that Mr Wheel examines the raw data and rejects the
>conclusion
>"no single listener was able to reliably identify amps under blind
>consitions"
>that the data clearly depicted.
>

Wrong.In the Dave Clark test listener #2 got 30/48 correct with a statistical
relaibility of hearing a difference of 94% Listener #6 got 26/48 with a
statistical probablity of 84% chance of hearing differences. Listener #15 got
15/21 correct with an 81% chance of hearing a difference. Given the fact that
no tests were done to measure listener's hearing acuity and no tests were done
to varify test sensitivty to known barely aduible differences one cannot
conclude anything other than those listeners may have heard differences. Bell
curves have no meaning without data on the listener's hearing acuity. The
logicqal thing would have ben to do follow up tests on those listeners to see
if it was just a fluctuation that fits within the predicted bell curve or if
they really could hear differences as the results suggest. Hence there is no
conclusive evidence from this test that as you say"no single listener was able
to reliably identify amps under blind conditions. Further more many different
amps were used in this test. If some do sound the same and some do sound
different this will have an affect on everyone's score and the bell curve.For
example a Counterpoint amp was compared to an NAD amp and the results of 30/48
correct answers with a probablity of 94% that a difference was heard. Yet no
follow up was done on this comparison.

>
>>Arny said
>>
>><<
>>
>>Bottom line, there are plenty of opportunities now to do your own
>>experiments, gather and analyze your own data, etc.
>> >>

I said

>
>>1. That is irrelevant. Tom was claiming one could use the extant body of
>>evidence to make purchasing decisions. I was addressing that claim. 2. That
>>is
>>not neccessarily true. Unless if we are trying to limmit this to
>>scientifically
>>valid tests.

Tom said

>
>I've been making high quality decisions based on this evidence for a quarter
>century.

I believe you believe that.

>
>>I said
>>
>><<
>>> So I find the evidence to date that I have seen less than
>>> helpful in purchase decisions.
>

Tom said

>
>Those who will not see and won'y examine historyt are doomed to repeat
>historical mistakes

Something politicians should pay attention to. We are not talking history here
we are talking evidence. If you can find fault with my analysis of the evidence
that we have discussed please cite it and prove it.

Steven Sullivan

July 6th 03, 03:26 AM

Mkuller > wrote:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:>
>>> Ludovic Mirabel, for instance, has posted thousands of lines of text
>>> in various attempts to discredit what evidence exists to support the
>>> notion that 'wire is wire', and that, by and large, 'amps is amps',
>>> yet he has offered absolutely *zero* evidence to support his own
>>> beliefs.>>

> Obviously, your "evidence" is NOT sufficient to convince anyone (who does not
> already believe) that "amps is amps" and "wire is wire". I would suggest that
> any "evidence" LM and those on the other side of this debate would show YOU (or
> have shown you) would be insufficient to convince you, since you have long ago
> made up your mind.

> So what exactly do you hope to accomplish by continuing this endless "debate"?

You might want to ask the person who *STARTED THE THREAD*.

hint: he's on *your* 'side'

--
-S.

Bob Marcus

July 6th 03, 03:33 AM

(Mkuller) wrote in message news:<hEENa.14984$I8.6569@rwcrnsc53>...
> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:>
> >> Ludovic Mirabel, for instance, has posted thousands of lines of text
> >> in various attempts to discredit what evidence exists to support the
> >> notion that 'wire is wire', and that, by and large, 'amps is amps',
> >> yet he has offered absolutely *zero* evidence to support his own
> >> beliefs.>>
>
> Obviously, your "evidence" is NOT sufficient to convince anyone (who does not
> already believe) that "amps is amps" and "wire is wire".

Obviously, this is false. This evidence has certainly convinced at
least one person who, before being exposed to it, honestly believed
that all amps sounded different. That person would be me.

>I would suggest that
> any "evidence" LM and those on the other side of this debate would show YOU (or
> have shown you) would be insufficient to convince you, since you have long ago
> made up your mind.

Well, you could at least try.
>
> So what exactly do you hope to accomplish by continuing this endless "debate"?
> Isn't one definition of "insanity", 'continuing to repeat the same behavior,
> but expecting a different result'?

Ah, but the point is to make it look like the other guys are the
madmen!

bob

S888Wheel

July 6th 03, 03:33 AM

Ludonvic said

>> >I have no "evidence" for my perception that silver wires a la Kimber
>
>> >sound better- TO ME- than copper (even when I'm blinded). None that
>> >would satisfy you and none, in truth- that would satisfy a critical
>> >peer-review.
>> >MORE- I don't believe that such "evidence" is possible outside of RAHE
>> >wishful fantasies. I don't believe that there is experimental
>> >evidence (see my answer to Nousaine) that a technique, such as the
>> >audio version of DBT has been shown to be capable of invalidating
>> >mine or anyone else's perceptions.

I said

>
>> I have to take issue with this claim. Any claims that suggest a physical
>> manifestation of any phenomenon is a testable claim. If you claim to hear
>> differences it is a testable claim.
>

Ludvic said

>
>Mr.S888wheel. Did you just wake up?

No.

Ludvic said

>Everything is testable - IF you
>have a way, a test, a method of doing it. Just that tiny, unimportant
>point.

There are available methods to test your claim.

Ludvic said

>
>If I say that there must be life somewhere in the universe outside of
>Earth it is testable claim if you have a test.

Bad analogy. That claim is not testable do to the lack of resources. your claim
of audibility is a specific claim that does not require an investigation beyond
human resources.

Ludvic said

>And it is the existence
>of such a
> test for audio components that we've been debating here for the last
>two years.

I believe you have been debating the merits of ABX testing. One could test your
claims scientifically without using ABX or doing anything to interupt the
conditions under which you claim to hear differences.

Ludvic said

>
>If you have a test for personal difference/preferences in cables,
>poetry, music, novels and wine out with it. You'll make billions
>selling it to the profilers who'll be spamming you and me till the end
>of our days.
>Maybe thanks to you they'll find out that , sadly,
>I'm past interest in their favourite topics and stop trying to
>titillate me in vain.
>Ludovic Mirabel
>I know that you're a serious guy but, please, for once give up.
>Believe me; frustration only lies this way.

I have proposed such tests but I don't expect to make money off them. What I
proposed is not easy to do and not practical for the garden variety of
audiophile. Just becuase evidence hasn't been obtained does not make it
unobtainable.

ludovic mirabel

July 6th 03, 03:35 AM

(KikeG) wrote in message >...

Since everything I have to say has been said by me and others at least
a dozen times already. Since, I myself, (let alone the readers), am
bored to tears with the whole thing I'll try a dodge to hold my and
their interest for the next 15 minutes. We'll ask you to paeticipate
in an easy multiple choice test.
Two >> such signs mean "I said it".. One > stands for "Kike said it."

> > I have no knowledge, opinion, interest in the particulars of such
> > research because it does not research differences between real-life
> > audio components.
>
> Why not? I'd say that some do. Probably not available to the general
> public, but some of them do.

Explain: A) Does "general public" to whom it is "not available"
include a) you b) me and c) our readers?
1) If a) is not a fact, please give me and your public the benefit of
reference; author, date, page
2) If all 3 (a,b and c) are true is the alternative of staying
silent when one has nothing to say;
2a) prejudicial to your cause?? 2b) too cruel to bear?

> > What I do object to is the belief that to "prove" your opinions re
> > "difference" or "no difference"- a necessary preliminary to
> > preference- (more about difference/preference in my answer to
> > Audioguy.) one has to undergo a procedure known as ABX.
> > Please, don't one of you tell me that "nobody says that".
>
> I believe many people say that, and I agree. Or at least the need of
> some DBT controlled procedure that doesn't have to be just ABX, it
> can be an alternative procedure such as ABC/HR or others.
> A simple answer: In a WELL DESIGNED AND PERFORMED TEST, ( my
capitals L.M.) there will be
> NO DIFFERENCE due to the test. The thing is to design a test that
> duplicates the listening habits of the listener, if that is neccesary,
> but is made double blind. Maybe the listener will feel uncomfortable
> with the idea of being tested, or with the idea that he may do "bad".
> That's a problem of the listener (unless he is not aware he is being
> "tested"), because those can't be addressed with this or with any
> other possible test or evaluation procedure.

A) Is a "well-designed" and "performed" test
1) available on this earth?
2) available only in paradise?

3) paired with the Holy Grail?
3) available only in the objectivist dry (this is a family forum!)
dreams?

If number one is the case , please quote joutrnal, author, date, page.
If you are only now setting out to design it, do tell;
Will the "well-designed" test follow the model of the medical drug
research DBT and list the number and the selection of test subjects
(aka "population") for statistical significance, relevance to the
test's objectives etc.? Or will it be
A) just any old number of the average Joes from the street ?
B) "trained" subjects only?
Ba) by whom? Bb) for how long? Bc) who grants the "pass mark"? Bd)
what's the tolerable % of untrainables before the "test" is no longer
a useful tool for the consumers at large?
C) selected populations only? ; 1) orchestra musicians 1a) before they
have been there for long enough to lose their hearing?
2) Rock musicians? 2b)- ditto?. 2c) only the rock musicians who have
ever heard a piano and a violin? or 2d) only those who have heard
nothing but electronically amplified instruments ?
3) Autosound lovers?
3a) Only the "My "bass" is louder than yours" category or 3b) those
who play chamber music in their car (if you can find them)?
4) Middle-aged chamber music lovers? 4a) with? or 4b) without a
hearing test?
4c) male? 4d) female? 4e) a mixture? What proportions?
(On the average middle aged women keep their hearing better than men)
Would you like to continue or should we take a rest... ?

> An ABX/DBT test introduces no biases, just removes them. The only
> other biases that can appear will be due to the listener but not due
> to the procedure.

Exactly. We listed just a tiny portion of the biases introduced by the
lsteners . Do you want to continue?

> For Nth time, I think nobody has said ABX results have to be the way you say.
> But if nodoby in earth has been ABX to nominally competent cables,
> that means a lot.

I assume you meant to say: Â‘But if nobody in the whole world has been
able to distinguish nominally competent cables when ABXing that means
a lot."

It would. But we don't have to ABX *everybody* on earth. The one and
only detailed, proctored and statistically valid available to me
cable ABX test is Greenhill's in The Stereophile, Aug. Â‘83.( Know any
others?)
This is what Greenhill had to say: " Final significant conclusion one
can draw is that at least one "golden ear exists".
Why? Because this participant reached and/or surpassed Greenhill's
statistical criterion for a "hit"( minimum 12 out of 15 "corrects") in
5 out of six different cable comparisons. (SCORE 83%)
HE ALSO DISTINGUISHED CORRECTLY MONSTER FROM ZIPCORD OF SIMILAR GAUGE
WHEN PINK NOISE WAS PLAYED.
His one and only failure was when Monster was compared with zipcord
and MUSIC was played. Sort of interesting -see below-isn't it?
One other participant scored 66,7%.
Three (3) scored below random chance-33% hits.
Immaculately objectivist Geenhill reviewed the majority performance
and concluded : "We can only conclude therefore, that there is little
advantage besides pride of ownership in using these thick expensive
wires.

Who do you think was "right"?
A) The "golden ear'?
B0 The majority?
C) were they all "right" within their abilities and their
limitations.?
D) Was Greenhill right when he allowed his "golden ear"? or
E) Was he right when he said it didn't matter anyway?.
Not good taste and discrimination but majority rules. The decisions
which is the better instrument are decided by a public opinion poll.
(Lloyd "integrated" wins and ABX proves it by showing "no difference"
majority vote)

You ask:
> Where is the evidence that difference in performance with music as
> opposed to pink noise has anything to do with using an ABX-DBT
> procedure? Nowhere.

> > Convincing, controlled
> > experiment with random control subjects etc. is missing.
>
> That's an oxymoron, since there's no way to prove that without a DBT.

Oxymoron sounds nice. Let's see. You put on wide band choral music,
and sit down. A friend operates your stepped volume control in steps
of one db. up or down out of your line of sight.
No problem hearing the up and down 1db changes unless you're somewhat
deaf.and NONE hearing the 1.75 db changes as in Greenhill test that
73% failed when ABXed.

You now switch to ABX and can't tell the difference just like those
unfortunate ABX rabbits.

A) Should you have a hearing test? or
B) should you blame your friend or your equipment? Or
C) music for "making the test difficult"
D) or ask the ABXer nearest to you for HIS evidence that music doesn't
bother ABX and/or ABX doesn't bother music

If he tells you that it is up to YOU to provide such evidence,
because he doesn't like oxymorons, will you tell him to:
A) .......!!! or
B)!!!!.......??!!! or
C) or you will set about pronto to set up a "well-designed test" ,
finding participants, hiring the venue and the equipment and so on.
After all you can't keep the scientists waiting all these years ,
holding their breath.

> > If you agree that they would differ how do you justify YOUR
> > challenges to all and sundry to prove their perceptions by ABX.

> ABX/DBT removes false positives, just that. It doesn't imply that
> everybody should perform equally using ABX. Stop repeating that, > > please.

Sorry, being dense. Don't get too irritatated by me. If "everybody"
does not "perform equally using ABX" should your challenges be to
"everybody" or to the selected good performers only?

> > I'm not proopunding any "test". You are. I have
> > no faith to stick to. You BELIEVE in ABX. It is MY right to ask YOU
> > for evidence. And it is your job to give it.
>
> It is proved that non-DBT tests are unreliable when it comes to
> detecting differences and deciding preferences just from the actual
> sound, and can't be trusted. It happens every day. So DBT is the only
> way to go. Period. Show me any evidence against that.
>
I'm not in the "evidence" game because I don't have any "test" worth
bothering with. In secret: just to you: I don't believe you have
either. When I point out areas of doubt and flaws you say they can
only be dispelled by a DBT. And you call this nonsense " others'
oxymoron",
Quote references to "well-designed" component comparison tests
performed according to your "good test" criteria, and published in
the form readable on this earth. A test has to be shown to WORK for
its purpose. Not because Enrique sees no reason why it shouldn't, not
because it is like other tests which work in other fields with other
controls but HERE, NOW, comparing compoents.

In the meantime ponder what the piano virtuosi, violinists,
cello,viol, trumpet, clarinet players would say to you if you told
them that they must " prove" their personal instrument choices by a
DBT. I shall not list the choices this time. Why should just us , poor
audiophiles (that includes easily suggestible newbies) be so plagued?
Ludovic Mirabel

S888Wheel

July 6th 03, 03:36 AM

>>Tom said
>>
>>>
>>>Actually if nominally competent components such as wires, parts, bits and
>>>amplifiers have never been shown to materially affect the sound of
>>reproduced
>>>music in normally reverberant conditions why would ANYONE need to conduct
>>>more
>>>experimentation, or any listening test, to choose between components?
>Simply
>>>choose the one with the other non-sonic characteristics (features, price,
>>>terms, availability, cosmetics, style...) that suit your fancy.

I said

>
>>That is the 64,000 dollar if.
>>

>>Tom said
>>
>>>
>>>Examination of the extant body of controlled listening tests available
>>>contain
>>>enough information to aid any enthusiast in making good decisions. Even IF
>>>the
>>>existing evidence shows that wire is wire (and it does) how does that
>>>preclude
>>>any person from making any purchase decision? In my way of thinking it just
>>>might be useful for a given individual to know what has gone before (and
>>what
>>>hasn't.)
>>

I said

>
>>Well, so far I don't see it the way you do. I must at this point thanl you
>>for
>>the articles on this subject you sent me when I asked for the alleged body
>of
>>empirical evidence that prooved your position on the audible differences of
>>amplifiers.

Tom said

>
>I said that a body existed. I offered to send you Some of the existing
>evidence
>because you said that you hadn't seen "any."
>

And I thank you again for doing so. Maybe you missed the part where I said "so
far" which was meant to imply that I haven't seen all the evidence to be seen.

I said

>
> The "body of evidence" you sent me that constituted actual
>>evidence, raw data, was not much of a body. Only two articles out of the six
>>you sent had raw data ( "Can you trust your ears" by Tom Nousiane and "Do
>all
>>amplifiers sound the same" by David Clark) and only the test you conducted
>>had
>>it in a usful table which could allow for the examination of trends such as
>>learning curves or fatigue curves.
>

Tom said

>
>Let's be clear here. I did not offer to send you "the" body of evidence.
>You'll
>see "The Great Debate; Is Anybody Winning" a list of over twenty controlled
>listening tests on amplifiers conducted prior to 1990.
>

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that you have sent me
all the evidence that exists on the subject.

Tom said

>
>As to raw data "The Great Chicago Cable Caper" and "To Tweak or Not To Tweak"
>both contained raw data.
>

The copy you sent me of "The great Chicago Cable Caper" doesn't really address
the issue of the audibility of amplifiers. I mistakenly identified "can you
trust your Ears" with "To tweak or not to Tweak". "Can you trust your ears
contains no raw data.

I said

>
> First, this is not much of a body of
>>evidence. Second, if we are to draw conclusions from the results we would
>>have
>>to conclude that some people can hear differences between amps and some amps
>>sound idfferent than some other amps.

Tom said

>
>None of the raw data suggests that.
>

Sure it does unless you consider a 94% probaility that a difference was heard
to to suggest that no difference was heard.

I said

>
>Of course it would be a mistake to draw
>>conclusions from those tests by themselves because they simply are not that
>>conclusive. If what you sent me is the best evidence out there and if what
>>you
>>sent me is any significant portion of the much talked about "extant body of
>>controled listening tests available" then I don't see how anyone can draw
>any
>>strong conclusions one way or another.
>

Tom said

>
>What is so funny is that I offered to send you copies of some data because
>you
>claimed to have not seen ANY of the approximately 3 dozen controlled
>listening
>tests that had been published in popular journals over the years. I didn't
>offer to send you all data that exists.

Why is that funny?

Tom said

>
>If you were truly interested you should do some of your own homework.

I have been. You sending me articles on test and me reading them and analysing
them is doing homework.

Tom said

>But it
>certainly doesn't seem that you do have a true interest.
>

You are entitled to your opinions about me. but it seems that they hinge on
whether or not I agree with you. that appears to me to be quite unfair and
unreasonable.

Tom said

>
>And you're missing an important point; no one has produced a single
>repeatable
>experiment in normal listening conditions where nominally amps, wires or
>parts
>have been shown to have an audible effect.
>

It is only important if it is taken out of context. That context being the body
of repeatable experiments that have produced definitive nulls that have been
thouroughly and properly investigated when some results suggest that some
people may have heard differences and that some equipment may have sounded
different. Further,one cannot ignore the lack of controls of test sensitivity
when drawing conclusions. Unless you have demonstrated that under the given
test conditionas the listener can distiguish known barely audible differences
you have not eliminated the possibility of insensitivity on the part of the
listener in the given test or the inability of the system used to reveal such
differences.

Tom said

>
>The ONLY existing evidence on your side for amplifiers is pcabx which uses a
>overly sensitive microscope-like technique that doesn't represent the typical
>sighted conditions where 'amp differences' are often made.

My side? The moment one takes sides they are in deep water IMO. My side, as it
stands, is I haven't seen relaible scientifically valid proof either way. I
have now seen two documented tests that never were peer reviewed and failed to
establish test sensitivity and had mixed results upon which no definitive
conclusions could reasonably be drawn.Yes I claim to hear differences between
amps here at home but I don't claim those are scientifically valid claims and I
can be wrong.

>
>>Tom said
>>
>>>
>>>So IMO, a person truly interested in maximizing the sonic-quality
>throughput
>>>of
>>>his system simply MUST examine the results of bias controlled listening
>>tests
>>>OR fall prey to non-sonic biasing factors, even if they are inadvertent.
>>>

I said

>
>>I examined the results of contained in the articles you sent me and do not
>>find them conclusive. Unfortunately four of the six articles you sent me had
>>no
>>raw data to examine and only offered conclusions.
>

Tom said

>
>Again, all of them contained raw data except for the summary piece which
>listed
>over twenty reports that you can track down if you have interest.

Nope. Only the two articles had raw data. Sorry that I misidentified one of
them.

I said

>
>Given the fact that the two
>>articles that did offer raw data drew conclusions that I find questionable i
>>have trouble feeling condifent about the conclusions drawn in the other
>>articles missing the raw data. So I find the evidence to date that I have
>>seen
>>less than helpful in purchase decisions.

Tom said

>
>So you will reject any data that doesn't support your prior held conclusions.

I haven't "rejected" any data so far. I do have issues with the lack of testing
for sensitivity which leaves any null results open to different interpretations
but I have not rejested any data because It didn't support any of my
preconceptions. I haven't rejected any data in those two tests.

Tom said

> I
>figured that would be your position.

You are sadly mistaken about my position.

Tom said

> Why not try to find ANY credible data that
>does? Happy hunting.
>

If you consider the data you sent me I would suggest that a listener was
hearing differences and a piece of equipment was being heard as different with
a 94% probablity as credible then look no further. But I think the reasonable
analysis of those two tests would be that one cannot draw any strong
conclusions one way or another without follow up tests with those listeners
that seemed to be hearing a difference or those pieces of equipment that seemed
to be sounding different fom each other.

Darryl Miyaguchi

July 6th 03, 03:37 AM

On 5 Jul 2003 20:25:01 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>Actually in the ABC/Hr protocol any listener reliably rating the hidden
>reference worse than itself has demonstrated SOME form of test or subject bias.
>Ther eis no other explanation; either the protocol has some form of non-sonic
>confounding identifier OR the subject can truly hear the difference and is
>purposefully responding in a backward manner.

Typically the listener doesn't always pull down the slider for the
hidden reference, but does it once or twice out of a total of 5 or 6
groups. If the listener were to pull the reference for every codec,
or if he were to pull the reference for the same codec every time he
repeated the entire comparison (i.e., if it was "reliable" in some
way), I would certainly become suspicious.

>I'm all for rejecting biased data but any kind of significant "reverse" results
>shoyld be followed by an examination of the experiment to find whether it's
>specific to a given subject(s). If the latter cannot be shown then the entire
>experiment can be ruled invalid.

In one particular experiment, a listener was reliably identifying two
particular codecs out of six (he was able to do this for every one of
the music samples being listened to). This was very strange because
these were among the best codecs being compared, and he never
identified the one which sounded just awful to everybody else!

It turned out that this listener was picking out the two codecs based
on a difference in time alignment of about 25 milliseconds. Needless
to say, such a result would invalidate an experiment.

What I'm saying here in a roundabout way is that certain results raise
red flags, and usually there's a sensible explanation for what's going
on. A listener downrating the reference doesn't happen too often, but
it does, and I can't say that I'm all too surprised that some people
will do this, especially if they're relative novices at performing
this type of comparison. Unless somebody can come up with a better
explanation, I chalk it up to people thinking they hear a difference
when they really don't.

>As I said earlier if you cannot determine that results were limited to a given
>subject(s) then the whole experiment must be considered suspect. At the very
>least it should be repeated.

One option is to ask the individual in question to repeat his test,
and I suppose this could be done for future comparisons. However, I'm
a very practical person. Pointing out a specific bias is one thing;
pointing out vague concerns about a possible bias with no plausible
mechanism in mind is another. Yes, some people could be downrating
the reference because of some as of yet unguessed reason. But I think
it's far more likely that they're hearing a difference that just isn't
there.

Darryl Miyaguchi

Bob Marcus

July 6th 03, 04:50 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote in message news:<WMLNa.16609$I8.10056@rwcrnsc53>...

> I said I have never seen any scientifically valid empirical evidence on the
> matter.You sent six articles only two of which had the raw data I was asking
> about.The two that had raw data had not been published in a peer reviewed
> scientific journal so they do not qualify as scientifically valid.

Huh? You seem not to understand the purpose of peer review. It does
not determine and is not the arbiter of "scientific validity." For
that matter, neither are you, though you seem to be claiming that role
here.

<snip>
>
> What I find interesting is the best *evidence* you sent me on the matter was
> IMO inconclusive. Some of the evidence in the Clark article suggested that
> perhaps some people can hear differences and that some amps tested sounded
> different to other amps tested. So how do you deal with that? Do you
> acknowledge the test was inconclusive which is what I see or do you claim the
> test gives us scientifically valid empirical evidence upon which we can draw
> definitive conclusions?

Let's remember that ALL negative ABX results are inconclusive. That
doesn't mean they can't tell us anything.

<snip>

> Wrong.In the Dave Clark test listener #2 got 30/48 correct with a statistical
> relaibility of hearing a difference of 94% Listener #6 got 26/48 with a
> statistical probablity of 84% chance of hearing differences. Listener #15 got
> 15/21 correct with an 81% chance of hearing a difference. Given the fact that
> no tests were done to measure listener's hearing acuity and no tests were done
> to varify test sensitivty to known barely aduible differences one cannot
> conclude anything other than those listeners may have heard differences. Bell
> curves have no meaning without data on the listener's hearing acuity. The
> logicqal thing would have ben to do follow up tests on those listeners to see
> if it was just a fluctuation that fits within the predicted bell curve or if
> they really could hear differences as the results suggest. Hence there is no
> conclusive evidence from this test that as you say"no single listener was able
> to reliably identify amps under blind conditions.

I don't recall this article, but this conclusion seems to be well
supported by the data you cite. If the best performance of the group
wasn't statistically significant at a 95% confidence level, then it's
perfectly reasonable to say that no listener was able to identify the
amps in the test. (Note: Saying they couldn't is not the same as
saying they can't. As I noted above, we can never say definitively
that they can't; we can only surmise from their--and everybody
else's--inability to do so.)

>Further more many different
> amps were used in this test. If some do sound the same and some do sound
> different this will have an affect on everyone's score and the bell curve.For
> example a Counterpoint amp was compared to an NAD amp and the results of 30/48
> correct answers with a probablity of 94% that a difference was heard. Yet no
> follow up was done on this comparison.

Yeah, that's close enough that it might be worth someone's while to
redo the test. But the original researcher is under no obligation to
second-guess his own work. People who doubt that result, however, have
been free to try to replicate it for a couple of decades, I think.

That's how science works, my friend. You can't just stamp your foot
and say, "I don't find this conclusive!" You have to come up with a
new result. That nobody--nobody!--has come up with the slightest bit
of real evidence to cast doubt on that conclusion in all this time is,
while not conclusive, certainly revealing.

bob

Arny Krueger

July 6th 03, 06:58 PM

"Mkuller" > wrote in message
news:hEENa.14984$I8.6569@rwcrnsc53

>> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:>

>>> Ludovic Mirabel, for instance, has posted thousands of lines of text
>>> in various attempts to discredit what evidence exists to support the
>>> notion that 'wire is wire', and that, by and large, 'amps is amps',
>>> yet he has offered absolutely *zero* evidence to support his own
>>> beliefs.>>

> Obviously, your "evidence" is NOT sufficient to convince anyone (who
> does not already believe) that "amps is amps" and "wire is wire".

This is an incredibly global statement that disqualifies itself simply on
the grounds of how unqualified it is.

Many people who once believed that amps mostly sounded different, have come
over to the "amps is amps" viewpoint, myself included.

It can be argued that the midfi audio market wouldn't exist if everybody
believed that all amps sounded different and only the really high priced
amps sounded good.

> I would suggest that any "evidence" LM and those on the other side of
> this debate would show YOU (or have shown you) would be insufficient
> to convince you, since you have long ago made up your mind.

This statement ignores the existence of people such as Marcus, Nousaine and
I who were formerly in the " amps mostly sound different" camp.

> So what exactly do you hope to accomplish by continuing this endless
> "debate"?

Ask the people who start threads like this. The google record shows that
this thread was started with the following post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bcosjk0mj%40enews1.newsguy.com

The author is clearly identified to be someone who is clearly AGAINST the
"amps is amps" viewpoint. This simple fact demolishes any argument that
might be made along these lines. It appears to me that some people need to
do their homework before posting.

>Isn't one definition of "insanity", 'continuing to repeat
> the same behavior, but expecting a different result'?

Case in point, I do believe!

Dick Pierce

July 6th 03, 06:59 PM

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<n7IKa.24750$Bg.13287@rwcrnsc54>...
> (Dick Pierce) wrote in message news:<KalKa.16012$R73.2926@sccrnsc04>...
> > Well, the answer is VERY simple: DBT does not deliver what
> > people like Ludovic want. It does not support THEIR agenda,
> > it does not validate THEIR preferences, indeed, it does not
> > elevate their preferences to the level of universal fact.> >
> > Science certainly works hard to give you answers, it just
> > doesn't give a sh*t whether you like the answer or not.
> >
> What delicate feelings! what restraint! Only 3 letters out of 4.
> > THAT'S why DBT doesn't work: because it does.
> Here comes the heavy artillery:
> "SCIENCE' gives the answers. Mr. Pierce knows them. And I'm supposed
> not to like them.
> Exactly which answers to what?
> CDs are "better" than lps.?
> Transistors are "better" than tubes.?
> Yamaha transistor amp. is "better" than VTL.?

Mr. Ludovic shows us here that he is in the "enviable" position
of not being constrained by facts or information. No, unlike the
rest of us in this universe, he gets to make his "facts" up. Indeed,
he gets to make "facts" up about other people as well. We see here
a classic existance proof of this.

HIS claim, which he makes VERY evident above, is that I "know"
that "CD's are better than LPs."

That's very curious, because I have never said that.

His claim is that I "know" that "transistors are better than
tubes.

That's very curious, because I have never said that.

His claim is that I "know" that "Yamaha transistor amp. is
better than VT: [sic]."

That's very curious, because I have never said that.

From whence does Mr. Ludovic achieve the ability, the privilege
and, indeed, the mandate to simply make stuff up and claim I or
anyone else "knows?"

There are several possibilities:

1. Ludovic occupies a unique and privilieged place in the world,
where he is privvy to information that NO ON ELSE knows about.

2. Ludovic simply made this stuff up.

In either case, it would seem that Mr. Ludovic has exempted himself
from the normal conventions of connecting claims about what others
think and know to what they actually think and know.

I shan't suggest this is anti-scientific or anything high-falutin'
like that.

I'd posit, instead, that Ludovic simply engages in a continuous
stream of misrepresentation. Why?

1. It's inadvertant. He doesn't no better. Poor Ludovic. Poor us
for having to slog through his irrelevant misrepresentations.

2. It's deliberate. He has no sound foundation for whatever the
hell it is he's arguing about and simply to keep his side of
the conversation going, he just makes stuff up because he has
absolutely nothing to contrinute of any relevance or substance.

The evidence, especially in the form of the quoted text above,
would seem to have one lean in the direction of deliberate and
malicious misrepresentation.

Frankly, I don't care. He has been one of the most voluminous
posters to rec.audio.high-end, and if you subtract the mis-
representations and the irrelevancies and the excess verbiage
and the seemingly unending repeations thereof, he is at the
same time one of the least relevant contributors.

Science, as in the process of advancing knowledge, could care less
about Ludovics' preferences. It has no feeling, has no agenda.

That's why DBT's don't agree with what Ludovic wants. It's not
supposed to. It ain't about picking Yamaha amps over VTL amps,
tubes over transistors, CDs over LPs, Stradivarii over Roland
synthesizers, despite Ludovic's misguided and continuously
unsuccessful attempts to force it into that utterly innapropriate
arena.

If science had feeling, it'd probably be laug

> Answers from "measurements"? I let the scientists like yourself (and
> eg. Mr. Atkinson of The Stereophile) argue as to exactly whose
> "measurements" prove what.I understand enough to glimpse that people
> with degrees in electronic engineering differ on those issues. Who am
> I to decide whose measurements are "better"?
> The sciences I am familiar with rely on experiment.
> I know of none that provide "scientific", experimental evidence about
> my preferences or yours.
> And, dear Mr. Pierce, for lack of anything better I'm happy with mine,
> do not ask you or anyone else to share them with me,(in fact I might
> not even like it if you did) and certainly, most definitely do not
> want or expect "scientific" support for them.
> What on earth gave you the idea that I do?
> Ludovic Mirabel

Nousaine

July 7th 03, 03:33 AM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

....snips.....

>
>The copy you sent me of "The great Chicago Cable Caper" doesn't really
>address
>the issue of the audibility of amplifiers. I mistakenly identified "can you
>trust your Ears" with "To tweak or not to Tweak". "Can you trust your ears
>contains no raw data.

Sure it does. You seem to want a subject by subject table. Why? It's all
enumerative data about Prefer A, Prefer B or No or Preference. I understand
your need to reject the data that subjects will gladly express a Preference for
one of two identical sound alternatives 3/4 of the time. Live with that.

>>None of the raw data suggests that.
>>
>
>Sure it does unless you consider a 94% probaility that a difference was heard
>to to suggest that no difference was heard.

That's the typical amp-difference response. Sift through the data and select
individual parts that seem to support one's position EVEN when they don't.

How about the below 50% data? You gonna overlook that? You can't have it both
ways. At most, such examination (I do it too) might suggest further
experimentation but it doesn't 'suggest' that some amplifiers were heard.

Dick Pierce

July 7th 03, 03:33 AM

(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
> >
> >Huh? You seem not to understand the purpose of peer review. It does
> >not determine and is not the arbiter of "scientific validity."
>
> Perhaps you don't understand it. It more or less is such an arbiter
> of such things. Any scientific claims that have not been through
> peer review and publishing is regarded as junk science without
> merit. Well at least according to the research scientists I have
> asked. Maybe you know more about it than they do. In the world
> of science when one does research via experimentation that
> value of that data hinges on peer review.

The mere fact that a published article made it through peer review
does NOT mean that the reviewers agree with the contents of that
article. It simply means that the reviewers assert that the methods
used are up to standard. One can publish an article that describes
a set of well conducted, well researeched, carefully controlled
experiments that reaches a conclusion that disagrees completely with
the currently accepted scientific views, even the view of the peer
review committee.

This, at least, is the stated purpose and obligation of scientific
and peer review committees that I have been a member of.

Now, that being said, there are two levels of such standards in
organizations such as the Audio Engineering Society. The first
level, acceptance of papers for presentation at conferences and
conventions, allows for a much wider latitude. You have to have
screwed up pretty obviously for a paper to get rejected for a
session presentation. This is for a couple of reasons:

1. You only need present a precis or outline of your work, so
there is no opportunity for the review process before the
work is presented.

2. You will be giving the presentation live to an audience of
your peers. They WILL scrutinize it at that time and, should
you not have achieved a level of scientific quality suitable,
quite simply, you will be ripped limb-from-limb if you are
unable to plausibly defend your position.

The second level is the publication process. The full article
must be presented in its final form and is submitted to at least
3 reviewers. These reviewers evaluate the paper given a number of
criteria: suitability to the topic, quality of research, quality
of data, yada, yada yada, and then there is a shopping list of
specific criteria that must be met: proper use of standard units
and abbreviations, is the work of primarily commercial propmotional
content (it is rejected if it is), and so on.

But NOWHERE in the reviewer's guidelines is the criteria that the
reviewer must agree with the position of the author. The work must
stand on its merits. Once published, it is then subject to a much
more lengthy, careful, skeptical review process by the community as
a whole, and the success of the author's position is NOT assured
simply because the article is published. MANY articles that were
published have subsequently been show to have reached a wrong
conclusion, through more extensive research.

But S888Wheels' claim that the peer review process, to paraphrase
from the two sets of quotes above, is

"the arbiter of scientific validity"

is simply NOT the case. It is an assurance to the reader that, in
the opinion of the reviewers, the author took appropriate care in
the PROCESS, but THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IS NOT A SANCTION OF THE
RESULTS OF THE AUTHORS METHODS NOR OF HIS CONCLUSIONS DERIVED
THEREFROM. All due respect to S888Wheels' scientific researcher
friends, someone is not understanding the process if they claim
otherwise.

Dick Pierce

Bob Marcus

July 7th 03, 03:35 AM

(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
> I said
>
> >
> >> I said I have never seen any scientifically valid empirical evidence on the
> >> matter.You sent six articles only two of which had the raw data I was
> asking
> >> about.The two that had raw data had not been published in a peer reviewed
> >> scientific journal so they do not qualify as scientifically valid.
>
> Bob said
>
> >
> >Huh? You seem not to understand the purpose of peer review. It does
> >not determine and is not the arbiter of "scientific validity."
>
> Perhaps you don't understand it. It more or less is such an arbiter of such
> things. Any scientific claims that have not been through peer review and
> publishing is regarded as junk science without merit.

This is oversimplistic. There is plenty of good scientific research
conducted every day which never makes it into peer reviewed journals
for all sorts of reasons. (And I've seen some real garbage pass peer
review, too.) The mere fact that something didn't appear in a
peer-reviewed journal may mean nothing more than that the
peer-reviewed journals in the field weren't interested in that
particular topic. Frankly, I'm not sure any peer-reviewed journal
would be interested in whether there were audible differences between
a couple of consumer-grade amps.

> Well at least according
> to the research scientists I have asked. Maybe you know more about it than they
> do.In the world of science when one does research via experimentation that
> value of that data hinges on peer review.

Actually, its value depends on its replicability. Data which hasn't
been peer-reviewed may be replicable, and peer-reviewed data may not
be.

<snip>

> Bob said
> >
> >Let's remember that ALL negative ABX results are inconclusive. That
> >doesn't mean they can't tell us anything.
> >
> I was refering to the positive results in that test.

I got the distinct impression that there were no positive results in
that test. Isn't that what you were complaining about?
>
> I said
>
> >> Wrong.In the Dave Clark test listener #2 got 30/48 correct with a
> statistical
> >> relaibility of hearing a difference of 94% Listener #6 got 26/48 with a
> >> statistical probablity of 84% chance of hearing differences. Listener #15
> got
> >> 15/21 correct with an 81% chance of hearing a difference. Given the fact
> that
> >> no tests were done to measure listener's hearing acuity and no tests were
> done
> >> to varify test sensitivty to known barely aduible differences one cannot
> >> conclude anything other than those listeners may have heard differences.
> Bell
> >> curves have no meaning without data on the listener's hearing acuity. The
> >> logicqal thing would have ben to do follow up tests on those listeners to
> >see
> >
> >> if it was just a fluctuation that fits within the predicted bell curve or
> if
> >> they really could hear differences as the results suggest. Hence there is
> no
> >> conclusive evidence from this test that as you say"no single listener was
> able
> >> to reliably identify amps under blind conditions.
> >
>
> Bob said
>
> >
> >I don't recall this article, but this conclusion seems to be well
> >supported by the data you cite. If the best performance of the group
> >wasn't statistically significant at a 95% confidence level, then it's
> >perfectly reasonable to say that no listener was able to identify the
> >amps in the test. (Note: Saying they couldn't is not the same as
> >saying they can't. As I noted above, we can never say definitively
> >that they can't; we can only surmise from their--and everybody
> >else's--inability to do so.)
>
> That is ridiculous. If all of them scored 94% it would be reasonable to say
> this?

If all of them had scored 94%, then we would have had a statistically
significant aggregate result. The fact that one of a panel of at least
15 did so is rather unsurprising. It's called an outlier.

> No. It all depends on how they fall into the bell curve. but even this is
> problematic for two reasons. 1. the listeners were never tested for
> sensitivty
> to subtle diferences. The abilities of the participants will profoundly
> affect
> any bell curve.

Sure, but is there any reason to believe this was a particularly badly
chosen panel? If a difference is audible, somebody in a randomly
selected panel of young to middle-aged men will probably nail it. I
gather from your report (remember, I don't have this article) that
nobody did.

>2. many different amps were used. We have no way of knowing
> that we didn't have a mix of some amps sounding different and some sounding the
> same.

Aggregating data across different comparisons is meaningless. That
goes for individuals as well as panels, by the way.

> The Counterpoint amp not only was identified with a probablity of 94% .
> Given there wre 8 idfferent combinations it fell out of the predicted bell
> curve if my math is right. Bottom line is you cannot draw definitive
> conclusions either way. If the one listener had made one more correct ID he
> would have been well above 94%. I doubt that one can simply make 95%
> probability a barrier of truth. It is ridiculous. Bell curves don't work that
> way.

But statistics DOES work that way. You have to specify your confidence
interval before you do your analysis. You can't say, "Well, he got
94%, and that's close enough."

> Besides no follow up on any scores that push or cross the predicted the
> outcome of the bell curve is an incomplete study IMO. now lets not forget the
> failure to even test the test for sensitivty to subtle differences.

What subtle differences would you have tested for? Since we don't know
what it is that would distinguish these amps, how could we have
screened the panel in advance?
>
<snip>
>
> Bob said
> >
> >Yeah, that's close enough that it might be worth someone's while to
> >redo the test. But the original researcher is under no obligation to
> >second-guess his own work.
>
> It isn't second guessing it is reasonable follow up on inconclusive data. No he
> is under no obligation to do more testing but as the test stands anyone who is
> trying to be scientific about this or even reasonable would have to acknoledge
> that the tests as they stand are quite inconclusive. That is my primary
> position on the data in those tests.

To repeat: ANY result that falls below the confidence level is
inconclusive. If you think some result is wrong, you need only
replicate the test.
>
> Bob said
>
> >People who doubt that result, however, have
> >been free to try to replicate it for a couple of decades, I think.
>
> My only criticism of the test itself is the lack of testing for listener and
> system sensitivity. It would be a mistake to repeat that mistake.

By replication, we usually include efforts to improve on the test and
correct for methodological weaknesses, to see if we get a different
result. And now you've tossed in a second red herring: system
sensitivity. Care to define that and explain just how you'd expect the
researchers to "test" for it?
>
> Bob said
> >
> >That's how science works, my friend. You can't just stamp your foot
> >and say, "I don't find this conclusive!"
>
> No foot stamping is needed. The test was quite inconclusive. Had the test been
> put infront of a scientific peer review with the same data and the same
> conclusions that panel would have sent it back for corrections. The analysis
> was wrong scientifically speaking.

I thought we'd already agreed that you were unqualified to determine
what would and would not pass scientific muster.
>
> Bob said
>
> > You have to come up with a
> >new result.
>
> No. One does not have to do the test over to argue that the *conclusions* drawn
> from that test are in eror.

Um, yes you do. At the very least, you need some conflicting data on
your side. Otherwise, you are merely talking through your hat.

> One does not have to do a test over to point out
> errors in protocol.

Errors in protocol do not automatically invalidate findings. They
merely suggest reasons why the findings MIGHT not be replicable. To
know whether they are indeed not replicable, somebody must do another
experiment, or at least find other, conflicting data.

> The lack of testing for sensitivty lead the results open to
> multiple interpretations. That is a fact.

That is a baseless opinion. You have offered no plausible reason to
doubt that either the panel or the equipment used was sufficiently
sensitive to produce reliable results. You haven't even defined in
measurable, technical terms what you mean by "sensitivity," let alone
offered a scientifically sound basis for claiming that any particular
level of "sensitivity" is necessary.
>
> Bob said
>
> > That nobody--nobody!--has come up with the slightest bit
> >of real evidence to cast doubt on that conclusion in all this time is,
> >while not conclusive, certainly revealing.
>
> Given that there seems to be an issue of interpretation of data, You are
> welcome to yours as is Tom. Since I haven't agreed with such interpretations so
> far I am only interested in the data. The data I have seen thus far on the
> audibility of amps is inconclusive. Very inconclusive.

If so, then why is it that no one, in any university psychology or
electrical engineering department in the world, has published anything
on this subject in the last decade? Inconclusive science tends to
invite feverish research. And yet the leading experts in the field
appear to have no curiosity about this matter at all. Could it be that
they--who are a bit more expert in these matters than you or
I--interpret this data differently than you do? Could it be that
they're right?

bob

BTW: Would you be willing to return Tom's favor to you by forwarding a
copy of this research to me?

Nousaine

July 7th 03, 03:39 AM

Darryl Miyaguchi
wrote:

On 5 Jul 2003 20:25:01 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>>Actually in the ABC/Hr protocol any listener reliably rating the hidden
>>reference worse than itself has demonstrated SOME form of test or subject
>bias.
>>Ther eis no other explanation; either the protocol has some form of
>non-sonic
>>confounding identifier OR the subject can truly hear the difference and is
>>purposefully responding in a backward manner.
>
>Typically the listener doesn't always pull down the slider for the
>hidden reference, but does it once or twice out of a total of 5 or 6
>groups. If the listener were to pull the reference for every codec,
>or if he were to pull the reference for the same codec every time he
>repeated the entire comparison (i.e., if it was "reliable" in some
>way), I would certainly become suspicious.
>
>>I'm all for rejecting biased data but any kind of significant "reverse"
>results
>>shoyld be followed by an examination of the experiment to find whether it's
>>specific to a given subject(s). If the latter cannot be shown then the
>entire
>>experiment can be ruled invalid.
>
>In one particular experiment, a listener was reliably identifying two
>particular codecs out of six (he was able to do this for every one of
>the music samples being listened to). This was very strange because
>these were among the best codecs being compared, and he never
>identified the one which sounded just awful to everybody else!
>
>It turned out that this listener was picking out the two codecs based
>on a difference in time alignment of about 25 milliseconds. Needless
>to say, such a result would invalidate an experiment.

Well that was my point and it's gratifying that you take the time to examine
this form of bias.

>
>What I'm saying here in a roundabout way is that certain results raise
>red flags, and usually there's a sensible explanation for what's going
>on. A listener downrating the reference doesn't happen too often, but
>it does, and I can't say that I'm all too surprised that some people
>will do this, especially if they're relative novices at performing
>this type of comparison. Unless somebody can come up with a better
>explanation, I chalk it up to people thinking they hear a difference
>when they really don't.

Sure, that's a common human trait. But if they do this reliably then you need
to examine further for some form of bias.

>
>>As I said earlier if you cannot determine that results were limited to a
>given
>>subject(s) then the whole experiment must be considered suspect. At the very
>>least it should be repeated.

>
>One option is to ask the individual in question to repeat his test,
>and I suppose this could be done for future comparisons. However, I'm
>a very practical person. Pointing out a specific bias is one thing;
>pointing out vague concerns about a possible bias with no plausible
>mechanism in mind is another. Yes, some people could be downrating
>the reference because of some as of yet unguessed reason. But I think
>it's far more likely that they're hearing a difference that just isn't
>there.

>Darryl Miyaguchi

People hear non-extant differences of human nature. That's one of the ideas
behind statistical analysis. However, if they are reliably making these choices
then some form of non-sonic bias has to exist.

S888Wheel

July 7th 03, 04:04 AM

I said

>
>>The copy you sent me of "The great Chicago Cable Caper" doesn't really
>>address
>>the issue of the audibility of amplifiers. I mistakenly identified "can you
>>trust your Ears" with "To tweak or not to Tweak". "Can you trust your ears
>>contains no raw data.

Tom said

>
>Sure it does. You seem to want a subject by subject table. Why? It's all
>enumerative data about Prefer A, Prefer B or No or Preference. I understand
>your need to reject the data that subjects will gladly express a Preference
>for
>one of two identical sound alternatives 3/4 of the time. Live with that.
>

I just reviewed it again and found absolutely no raw data. in fact I found no
data at all. It does say the following "There wereno records kept" which looks
like the truth. Is my copy incomplete?

Tom said

>
>>>None of the raw data suggests that.
>>>

I said

>
>>Sure it does unless you consider a 94% probaility that a difference was
>heard
>>to to suggest that no difference was heard.
>

Tom said

>
>That's the typical amp-difference response. Sift through the data and select
>individual parts that seem to support one's position EVEN when they don't.
>

Funny, it wasn't my response in general it was simply my response if you insist
that the data be considered conclusive. I don't consider it conclusive and I
don't think it proved that soem or one individual could hear a difference. I
certainly don't think it proved the opposite.

Tom said

>
>How about the below 50% data? You gonna overlook that? You can't have it both
>ways.

No I didn't overlook that. I don't want to have it both ways. that is why i
find the results inconclusive along with a few other reasons that i have
already stated.

Tom said

>At most, such examination (I do it too) might suggest further
>experimentation but it doesn't 'suggest' that some amplifiers were heard.
>
>
>
>

Which is pretty much what I said. But, as I said, if you are to insist that the
data is conclusive one would have to conclude the Counterpoint and the NAD
sounded different and that there is a reasonable possibilty that one of the
listeners was reliably hearing differences. The data certainly suggests that
the Counterpoint and the NAD sounded different with 94% confidence. While the
evidence suggests this it certainly doesn't prove it. But you said that no
tests *suggest* this. Given one of the two articles that had raw data did
suggest the very thing you say it does not I would be more curious to see the
raw data on the 3 dozen or so other tests you have mentioned rather than see
anyone's analysis of them. Aside from the statistical analysis which saves me a
lot of work that I find difficult.

S888Wheel

July 7th 03, 04:44 AM

>It can be argued that the midfi audio market wouldn't exist if everybody
>believed that all amps sounded different and only the really high priced
>amps sounded good.
>

I think it would be a weak argument. there is no debate that speakers sound the
same yet, many midfi inexpensive speakers are chosen over more expensive
speakers that sound better to most listeners. Many people who believe that amps
sound idfferent opt for less expensive amps. Economics are a factor even in a
world where everyone believes everything sounds different and the more
expensive stuff is believed to be intrinsically superior.

Mkuller

July 7th 03, 05:24 AM

(Nousaine) wrote:>
>Well that's the idea behind double blind testing; keep the subject and
>experimentor from contaminating the results. But you're being unresponsive.
>Why
>hasn't some manufacturer, seller, enthusiast produced a single relicable
>experiment verifying amp or wire sound?
>
>You can reject my opinion, data and experiments and you're still left with no
>positive data from the producer side of the fence. Why is that?
>

Ok, I'll bite. Here's why I think there is very little positive 'scientific
evidence' showing components sound different.

1. No one cares about 'proof' except the few who personally believe and want
to 'prove' there are NO audible differences.

2. Those who believe there are audible differences are happy to trust their
personal perceptions, regardless of the loud protestations of the few (mostly
here on RAHE) that their perceptions are misguided.

3. DBTs are the preferred method of the 'debunkers' and they usually show
null results because of the way the tests are conducted and the fact that all
of the results are averaged. DBTs do not duplicate the way audiophiles
ordinarily listen to music and compare components. (Please spare me the
arguements that DBTs only change the use of sight - they are also unnatural
because they require the listener to make a blind guess.)

4. Failing a DBT has not convinced very many people that "there are no
differences", just that they were not able to identify the differences they
normally hear under those specific DBT conditions.

So why haven't those folks suggested or designed a test that would show the
differences? I refer you back to No.1. above.

It's an endless loop just like the DBT debates here on RAHE!
Regards,
Mike

Nousaine

July 7th 03, 06:12 AM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

I said
>
>>>By certain persons I suspect you are including me. That is an interesting
>>>question. Does such a body of evidence even exist? When Tom Nousiane made
>>his
>>>offer of such evidence the body of evidence he offered was hardly
>conclusive
>>>about the audibility of amplifiers.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>Please don't make up things that I didn't offer.
>
>Well here is what the record shows
>
>"Tom said
>
>Yes, of course. I have spent the time and money to acquire all I can about
>listening tests and what they show. My copy of the Proceedings wasn't free;
>so
>are you expecting me to send you or Scott a free copy? I've done the same
>formany. Just ask.
>
>I said
>
>Consider it asked.
>
>Tom said
>
>snail mail address please."
>
>Maybe I am missing something but that looks like such an offer to me.

It looks like and was an offer to send you a copy of the individual article in
the Proceedings that was referent "The Great Debate: Is Anyone Winning".
Nowhere did it include anything else. But I did include 5 other pieces all of
which you simply ignore .... even though you (or anyone else) can produce a
single contrary experiment.

>Tom said
>
>> You said you had never seen
>>ANY evidence about the audibility of amps, wires and parts. I offered to
>send
>>you one such report. Indeed one of the ones I did send you lists a couple
>>dozen
>>amp experiments.
>
>I said I have never seen any scientifically valid empirical evidence on the
>matter.You sent six articles only two of which had the raw data I was asking
>about.The two that had raw data had not been published in a peer reviewed
>scientific journal so they do not qualify as scientifically valid. It was
>nice
>of you to send the six articles. Thank you. In light of the fact that I was
>asking about *any scientifically valid empirical evidence that supported your
>position on the audibility of amps*. My comments on the two articles that
>actually had raw data stands. I don't recall any limmits of only one report.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>What I find interesting is that not ONE credible, replicable bias controlled
>>report verifying the audibility of nominally competent amps, wires or
>>capacitors in normally reverberant conditions exists. Not one.
>>
>
>What I find interesting is the best *evidence* you sent me on the matter was
>IMO inconclusive. Some of the evidence in the Clark article suggested that
>perhaps some people can hear differences and that some amps tested sounded
>different to other amps tested. So how do you deal with that? Do you
>acknowledge the test was inconclusive which is what I see or do you claim the
>test gives us scientifically valid empirical evidence upon which we can draw
>definitive conclusions?

Oh please. You said that no evidence was extant either way. Now you will
dismiss anything that seems contrary. WHy not just produce the body? I know why
.... because it doesn't exist. And yet you will continue to buy the Legend
without evidence. That's generally called Faith.

Have a good time harboring your beliefs. I hope you won't make decisions that
only make you feel better snd do not improve the sound quality throughput of
your playback system.

>I said
>
>> This begs the question are some people
>>>drawing definitive conclusions with less than adequate evidence to draw
>such
>>>conclusions? Do you think the two cited articles supply sufficient evience
>>to
>>>draw any definitive conclusions about the audibility of amplifiers?
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>Find a credible one that suggests otherwise, why don't you?
>
>The article on the Clark tests certainly did suggest that some people can
>hear
>differences and that some amps sound different than others.

Actually only IF you already believe they don't and will accept only the
partial data that MAY support that conclusion. But why don't you acquire some
of the other reports I suggested?

>
>I said
>
>> Do you
>>>think the evidence in those articles qualify as scientifically valid bodies
>>>of
>>>empirical evidence? Do you think the issue of test sensitivity was
>>>sufficiently
>>>addressed in those tests based on the content of those articles?
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>Yes. Definitely.
>
>How? There was no scientific peer review. Are you going to ignore the
>protocols
>of the scientific world? I think issue of test sensitivity in both cited
>articles were quite poorly addressed.

In what ways? What differences other than frequency response, distortion and
level do you reference? How were those verified?

So much so that one can draw multiple
>conclusions from the results such as the listeners may have not been
>sensitive
>enough.

Oh sure that's the standard high-end response to reports of "they sound the
same to me" ...... YOU aren't sensitive enough and/or Your System Isn't Good
Enough. I'm guessing that your system isn't good enough either.

The setup may not have been releavling enough etc. A bad mistake IMO.

OK IS your system Good Enough?

>>>I said
>>>
>>><<
>>>>Unfortunately four of the six articles
>>>> you sent me had no raw data to examine and only offered conclusions.
>>> >>
>
>>
>>>Arny said
>>>
>>><<
>>>Would this have made a difference?
>>> >>
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>It does to me when I am asking for empirical evidence. conclusions and
>>>analysis
>>>is not data. analysis and conclusions without the raw data is just opinions
>>>IMO.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>The statemrnt about lack of data is simply not true.
>
>Yes it is. Only two of the articles had the raw data.
>
>Tom said
>
>> All the reports sent to
>>him contained raw data.
>
>Straw man. I said "the raw data" which implies all of it. Only two of the six
>did this. Heck some of the articles had no raw data.
>
>Tom said
>
>>The other was a compilation of results from a couple
>>dozen previously conducted amplifier tests.
>
>Right. They were an analyisis of data that was not presented in the raw. That
>was exactly what I did not want as I already explained.

You made no "requirements" about Raw Data in the beginning did you? But if you
read all of them carefully everyone except "Great Debate" and "Can you
Trust...?" had individual subject responses depicted.

But why would you care? You aren't interested in what the evidence shows, are
you? If you were you'd already have gathered some of the evidence and/or
conducted a modest experiment or two yourself.

>
>Tom said
>
>>All Mr Wheel has to do is look them
>>up.
>
>As if this is an easy and cost free task. We've been down this road before. I
>have been on too many fruitless Easter egg hunts on this subject. If those
>claiming the existance of evidence cannot provide it than it is unreasonable
>for them to expect me to go find it IMO.

Why not? I've been interested and 'found them.' Why do you get a reprieve?

>Tom said
>
>>
>>But again he originally suggested that no evidence on the matter, one way or
>>another, actually existed.
>>
>
>Baloney! Never suggested it. Cite your proof or withdraw the claim please. It
>is a misrepresentation of anything I said or believe.

So you never said that "you" had never seen any data either way?

>
>Tom said
>
>>At the very least one should recognize that plenty of it exists, that
>>interested parties have had public access to same over the past 30 years and
>>that you can't find a single experiment that supports the claimed audibility
>>of
>>amps and wires.
>
>All I have done is ask to see it. To date not much has been shown to me and
>what has been shown is hardly something one could base any definitive
>conclusions upon. What you sent me did not prove your position at all.

It certainly didn't support that none of it was extant or wasn't available to
interested parties. But, even so, why do you continue to insist that 'amps
ain't amps' when the only data you have to examine strongly shows otherwise?

It just leaves you to shout 'no' with no evidence to the contrary.

>Tom said
>
>>
>>
>>What's funny is that Mr Wheel examines the raw data and rejects the
>>conclusion
>>"no single listener was able to reliably identify amps under blind
>>consitions"
>>that the data clearly depicted.
>>
>
>Wrong.In the Dave Clark test listener #2 got 30/48 correct with a statistical
>relaibility of hearing a difference of 94% Listener #6 got 26/48 with a
>statistical probablity of 84% chance of hearing differences. Listener #15 got
>15/21 correct with an 81% chance of hearing a difference. Given the fact that
>no tests were done to measure listener's hearing acuity and no tests were
>done
>to varify test sensitivty to known barely aduible differences one cannot
>conclude anything other than those listeners may have heard differences. Bell
>curves have no meaning without data on the listener's hearing acuity. The
>logicqal thing would have ben to do follow up tests on those listeners to see
>if it was just a fluctuation that fits within the predicted bell curve or if
>they really could hear differences as the results suggest. Hence there is no
>conclusive evidence from this test that as you say"no single listener was
>able
>to reliably identify amps under blind conditions. Further more many different
>amps were used in this test. If some do sound the same and some do sound
>different this will have an affect on everyone's score and the bell curve.For
>example a Counterpoint amp was compared to an NAD amp and the results of
>30/48
>correct answers with a probablity of 94% that a difference was heard. Yet no
>follow up was done on this comparison.

Let's sort through the only evidence that Mr Wheel has ever seen and try to
find isolated stuff that supports his prior-held beliefs. Have a good time Mr
Wheel. Why not continue with the other 20+ experiments summarized in "The Great
Debate: Is Anybody Winning?"

>>>Arny said
>>>
>>>Bottom line, there are plenty of opportunities now to do your own
>>>experiments, gather and analyze your own data, etc.
>>> >>
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>1. That is irrelevant. Tom was claiming one could use the extant body of
>>>evidence to make purchasing decisions. I was addressing that claim. 2. That
>>>is
>>>not neccessarily true. Unless if we are trying to limmit this to
>>>scientifically
>>>valid tests.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>I've been making high quality decisions based on this evidence for a quarter
>>century.
>
>I believe you believe that.

Sure; and why would you think otherwise? Because I make my decisions based on
sound quality why would you decry them?

>>>I said
>>>
>>><<
>>>> So I find the evidence to date that I have seen less than
>>>> helpful in purchase decisions.
>>
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>Those who will not see and won'y examine historyt are doomed to repeat
>>historical mistakes
>
>Something politicians should pay attention to. We are not talking history
>here
>we are talking evidence. If you can find fault with my analysis of the
>evidence
>that we have discussed please cite it and prove it.

Sure; ALL the Extant Evidence shows that nominally competent amplifiers are
completely tranparent in normally reverberant conditions to non-biased
listeners. Show me ONE experiment that even suggests otherwise.

Mkuller

July 8th 03, 06:16 PM

>> (ludovic mirabel) wrote
>> The topic is: "Does ABX work for comparing high-end components?"
>>

(Bob Marcus)
wrote:>
>Yes.
>
>It works because it's a test of *hearing*, and anyone who understands
>how our hearing works (which ought to include any medical
>professional, but perhaps I'm being presumptuous here) knows that our
>hearing works independent of the *kind* of device making the sound we
>are hearing.
>
>If you know different, please tell us.
>

It never ceases to amaze me how obviously intelligent people (perhaps I'm being
presumptious here) can take such a simplistic position on this topic. If you
think a well-designed DBT comparing audio components using music is just a
"hearing test", then it's no wonder these debates go on and on the way they do.

Regards,
Mike

ludovic mirabel

July 8th 03, 06:33 PM

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message >...
> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<C7kOa.128448$R73.15582@sccrnsc04>...
> > (Dick Pierce) wrote in message >...
> > > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<n7IKa.24750$Bg.13287@rwcrnsc54>...
> >
> > The topic is: "Does ABX work for comparing high-end components?"
>
> Yes.
>
> It works because it's a test of *hearing*, and anyone who understands
> how our hearing works (which ought to include any medical
> professional, but perhaps I'm being presumptuous here) knows that our
> hearing works independent of the *kind* of device making the sound we
> are hearing.
>
> If you know different, please tell us.
>
> bob

"WE" have made an important contribution to psychometrics,
understanding of philosophy, acoustics etc. "WE" are not
"presumptuous" one little bit. It just is not in our nature. Either
"we" make sense or "we" don't.
"ABX is a test of "hearing" and "Hearing works independent(ly) of the
"kind" of device making the sound..."
A few carping ABXers may object that a "test of hearing" has been
known and practiced for years under the humble name of "hearing test"
and that their beloved ABX involves also BRAIN functions we know
little about; like for instance a cortical centre for MUSIC
processing.
Others might say that a defence lawyer produces "sounds" and is
followed by a prosecutor doing the same. The juries and the judge then
compare the respective sounds for difference/preference and if they
find none the defendant walks
Language- what's that?
Ludovic Mirabel

Audio Guy

July 8th 03, 07:10 PM

In article <sfDOa.6619$OZ2.207@rwcrnsc54>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Bob Marcus) wrote in message >...
>> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<C7kOa.128448$R73.15582@sccrnsc04>...
>> > (Dick Pierce) wrote in message >...
>> > > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<n7IKa.24750$Bg.13287@rwcrnsc54>...
>> >
>> > The topic is: "Does ABX work for comparing high-end components?"
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> It works because it's a test of *hearing*, and anyone who understands
>> how our hearing works (which ought to include any medical
>> professional, but perhaps I'm being presumptuous here) knows that our
>> hearing works independent of the *kind* of device making the sound we
>> are hearing.
>>
>> If you know different, please tell us.
>>
>> bob
>
> "WE" have made an important contribution to psychometrics,
> understanding of philosophy, acoustics etc. "WE" are not
> "presumptuous" one little bit. It just is not in our nature. Either
> "we" make sense or "we" don't.
> "ABX is a test of "hearing" and "Hearing works independent(ly) of the
> "kind" of device making the sound..."
> A few carping ABXers may object that a "test of hearing" has been
> known and practiced for years under the humble name of "hearing test"
> and that their beloved ABX involves also BRAIN functions we know
> little about; like for instance a cortical centre for MUSIC
> processing.

But unless there is something supernatural going on when listening to
music via audio components, the audio components are just reproducing
sound, they do not create music. They take a varying voltage that
represents the changes in air pressure that are detected as sound by
human ears and just reproduce them as changing air pressure. And has
been mentioned before, not all of the sound that is reproduced is
music. What about the cannon shots included in most versions of the
1812 Overture? Are they not a valid choice for determining difference
of reproduction quality?

> Others might say that a defence lawyer produces "sounds" and is
> followed by a prosecutor doing the same. The juries and the judge then
> compare the respective sounds for difference/preference and if they
> find none the defendant walks
> Language- what's that?

Sorry, but that's a very poor analogy, interpreting speech is very
different from listening to music since you can greatly reduce the
original frequency response of speech and it is still very
intelligible. Are you advocating that MP3s are just fine for
listening to music since that is even less of a change to the
original than can be done with speech?

ludovic mirabel

July 8th 03, 07:30 PM

(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message >...
> As but one example of Mr Ludovics continued misrepresentation
> and circumlocution, let's just examine two EXACT quotes of his.
> First, in a previous post, he says:
> >> > Here comes the heavy artillery:
> >> > "SCIENCE' gives the answers. Mr. Pierce knows them. And I'm supposed
> >> > not to like them.
> >> > Exactly which answers to what?
> >> > CDs are "better" than lps.?
> >> > Transistors are "better" than tubes.?
> >> > Yamaha transistor amp. is "better" than VTL.?
> Then he, in the most recent post, he says:
> >I then quoted-with FIVE question marks, FIVE examples of
> >controversies in the high- end that DBTs have not in my opinion
> >resolved as yet. Do you know the answers Mr. Dick?
>
> Here we have it folks, but one, and just one of the easiest
> examples of his own self contradictions. He claims FIRST
> that, to quote: "SCIENCE' gives the answers. Mr. Pierce knows them.
> Then he says:
> Do you know the answers Mr. Dick?
>
> A dodge, to be sure.
> Do I know the answers? Mr. Ludovic, do YOU know the questions?
> Do you even CARE what the questions are, or are you simply
> interested in overwhelming the forum with sheer quantity of
> verbiage and hope the readers are bored into missing the fact
> that it is repetitious and vacuous? Are you more interested in
> learning what the questions are or merely in the less than
> clever turn-of-phrase, confabulation.
> Mr. Ludovic, you'd do yourself a service by actually DOING the
> work you demand of others instead of whining when no one will do
> your homework for you.

I am flattered by this "close reading" of my text (as the
postmodernist literary critics call it) even though I don't follow the
logic. I agree, it deserves it! True, this particular critic does not
approve of my writing style but it is obvious that he can't tear
himself away. Food, sleep and health get neglected- (remember my
blood pressure advice? Before my retirement people used to pay me for
it. You, Mr. Pierce, get it for free)- while he pores over my
ambiguities, illogicalities,contradictions and so on. Keep on
trucking. As they say in Hollywood: "The only bad publicity is no
publicity at all"
I can take a hint: You want to keep the rest of us in suspense
waiting to hear your views on comparing components by DBT, because you
know of their world-historical importance.
I'll cease "whining". Since they are so well hidden it will be a
job to dig them out. It will take money. I'm starting a fund amongst
all those in RAHE waiting with baited breath. Send the offers by
email. In expectation of a flood I can't guarantee immediate
confirmation.
Regards from Ludovic Mirabel

ludovic mirabel

July 8th 03, 07:57 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
> Ludonvic said
>
> >> >I have no "evidence" for my perception that silver wires a la Kimber
>
> >> >sound better- TO ME- than copper (even when I'm blinded). None that
> >> >would satisfy you and none, in truth- that would satisfy a critical
> >> >peer-review.
> >> >MORE- I don't believe that such "evidence" is possible outside of RAHE
> >> >wishful fantasies. I don't believe that there is experimental
> >> >evidence (see my answer to Nousaine) that a technique, such as the
> >> >audio version of DBT has been shown to be capable of invalidating
> >> >mine or anyone else's perceptions.
>
Snip previous discussion:

> I have proposed such tests but I don't expect to make money off them. What I
> proposed is not easy to do and not practical for the garden variety of
> audiophile. Just becuase evidence hasn't been obtained does not make it
> unobtainable.

Reading the above I see three possibilities only:
1) I misunderstand you - my fault
2) You say that a test is available to check if my single-blind
preferences are mine? or if I "really" hold them or if am lying or
what? To do away with verbal quibbling ,please, note "preferences".
(Of course there is no preference without difference).
3) I do understand you correctly and you're in pssession of an
unprecedented advance in accessing personal brain processing of
musical perceptions.
I am sorry I missed your proposal that you're referring to. Could you
repeat it one more time?
Ludovic Mirabel

Bob Marcus

July 8th 03, 10:43 PM

(Mkuller) wrote in message news:<70DOa.9260$N7.1704@sccrnsc03>...
> >> (ludovic mirabel) wrote
> >> The topic is: "Does ABX work for comparing high-end components?"
> >>
>
> (Bob Marcus)
> wrote:>
> >Yes.
> >
> >It works because it's a test of *hearing*, and anyone who understands
> >how our hearing works (which ought to include any medical
> >professional, but perhaps I'm being presumptuous here) knows that our
> >hearing works independent of the *kind* of device making the sound we
> >are hearing.
> >
> >If you know different, please tell us.
> >
>
> It never ceases to amaze me how obviously intelligent people (perhaps I'm being
> presumptious here) can take such a simplistic position on this topic. If you
> think a well-designed DBT comparing audio components using music is just a
> "hearing test", then it's no wonder these debates go on and on the way they do.
>
Well, if you think it's NOT just a hearing test, maybe you can move
the debate forward by telling us what it is.

bob

Richard D Pierce

July 9th 03, 03:15 AM

In article >, Mkuller > wrote:
>>>mkuller wrote:>>
>>> It never ceases to amaze me how obviously intelligent people (perhaps I'm
>>being
>>> presumptious here) can take such a simplistic position on this topic. If
>>you
>>> think a well-designed DBT comparing audio components using music is just a
>>> "hearing test", then it's no wonder these debates go on and on the way they
>>do.
>>>
>>Well, if you think it's NOT just a hearing test, maybe you can move
>>the debate forward by telling us what it is.
>>
>
>This debate has not "moved forward" since it began many years ago.

And, methinks, you just avoided an opportunity to move it
forward by not answering the gentleman's question.

I would like to repeat it:

If the comparison of audio equipment reduced to the audible
differences ONLY, that is, all non-auditory information is
removed, thus reducing the detection of differences to those
which can only find their way to the person listening via
the auditory periphery is NOT test involving hearing only,
what, precisely is it?

Come on Mike, step up, take a swing, and be a hero :-)

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

S888Wheel

July 9th 03, 03:32 PM

I said

<<
> >Huh? You seem not to understand the purpose of peer review. It does
> >not determine and is not the arbiter of "scientific validity."
>
> Perhaps you don't understand it. It more or less is such an arbiter
> of such things. Any scientific claims that have not been through
> peer review and publishing is regarded as junk science without
> merit. Well at least according to the research scientists I have
> asked. Maybe you know more about it than they do. In the world
> of science when one does research via experimentation that
> value of that data hinges on peer review.
>>

Dick said

<<
The mere fact that a published article made it through peer review
does NOT mean that the reviewers agree with the contents of that
article. It simply means that the reviewers assert that the methods
used are up to standard. One can publish an article that describes
a set of well conducted, well researeched, carefully controlled
experiments that reaches a conclusion that disagrees completely with
the currently accepted scientific views, even the view of the peer
review committee.
>>

Never said otherwise. if someone tries to publish an article that draws
conclusions that are in conflict with the very data from the tests conducted
for the article it is a different matter. I was talking about drawing
definitive conclusions from inconclusive data.

Dick said

<<
But S888Wheels' claim that the peer review process, to paraphrase
from the two sets of quotes above, is

"the arbiter of scientific validity"

is simply NOT the case. It is an assurance to the reader that, in
the opinion of the reviewers, the author took appropriate care in
the PROCESS, but THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IS NOT A SANCTION OF THE
RESULTS OF THE AUTHORS METHODS NOR OF HIS CONCLUSIONS DERIVED
THEREFROM. All due respect to S888Wheels' scientific researcher
friends, someone is not understanding the process if they claim
otherwise. >>

Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims without
scientific peer review are junk in the world of science.

Mkuller

July 9th 03, 08:21 PM

(Richard D Pierce) wrote:>
> If the comparison of audio equipment reduced to the audible
> differences ONLY, that is, all non-auditory information is
> removed, thus reducing the detection of differences to those
> which can only find their way to the person listening via
> the auditory periphery is NOT test involving hearing only,
> what, precisely is it?
>

As you have described it, it would be a test of:
1. HEARING differences AND
2. Recognizing differences
3. Short-term memory - remembering differences (especially challenging using
a dynamic program like music)
4. Successfully matching differences to an unknown
5. Test-taking ability

That is much more complex than a simple "hearing test", right Dick?. Maybe
your audiologist requires you to go through all of those hurdles when you have
your hearing tested, but mine makes it much easier and just focuses on the
"hearing" part.

Now that the great debate has been moved forward, can we let it go and start
having some fun discussing music or audio equipment?
Regards,
Mike

Bob Marcus

July 9th 03, 09:12 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...

> if someone tries to publish an article that draws
> conclusions that are in conflict with the very data from the tests conducted
> for the article it is a different matter. I was talking about drawing
> definitive conclusions from inconclusive data.
>
Given that you have admitted to (and certainly demonstrated) no more
than a very basic understanding of statistics, perhaps you are not in
the best position to be proclaiming what does and does not constitute
conclusive data.

<snip>
>
> Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims without
> scientific peer review are junk in the world of science.

Maybe it's better not to generalize about subjects outside your field.
Findings which cannot be confirmed or replicated constitute junk
science. That something is published in an unreviewed journal (or not
published at all) does not make it wrong.

bob

Steven Sullivan

July 9th 03, 09:15 PM

Mkuller > wrote:
(Richard D Pierce) wrote:>
>> If the comparison of audio equipment reduced to the audible
>> differences ONLY, that is, all non-auditory information is
>> removed, thus reducing the detection of differences to those
>> which can only find their way to the person listening via
>> the auditory periphery is NOT test involving hearing only,
>> what, precisely is it?
>>

> As you have described it, it would be a test of:
> 1. HEARING differences AND
> 2. Recognizing differences
> 3. Short-term memory - remembering differences (especially challenging using
> a dynamic program like music)
> 4. Successfully matching differences to an unknown
> 5. Test-taking ability

> That is much more complex than a simple "hearing test", right Dick?. Maybe
> your audiologist requires you to go through all of those hurdles when you have
> your hearing tested, but mine makes it much easier and just focuses on the
> "hearing" part.

If you're going to be this semantically picky,
an audiological 'hearing test' is at least in part a test of difference.
You are asked to respond when you can hear a sound or not at a given frequency.
It is also a test of short-term memory, as is any serial presentation. And it
is no less a test of test-taking ability.
And any test of hearing differences involving self-report by the testee,
is also a test of recognizing differences,
so #1 and #2 are redundant above.

--
-S.

Steven Sullivan

July 9th 03, 11:18 PM

ludovic mirabel > wrote:
> (Richard D Pierce) wrote in message >...

> "If the auditory peripheral system is not presented with
> auditory stimuli which result in a different response by the
> auditory periphery, and thus the auditory periphery is not
> capable of presented a different response to the auditory
> cortex, then whatever DIFFERENCE in action of the "cortical
> centre for MUSIC processing" cannot be due to a difference in
> SOUND and thus must be due to non-sound differences."
> "Unless you are proposing some magic like telepathy. Or simply
> engaging in argumentation".

> I tried to translate for my own use this pretentious,
> pseudoscientific gobledygook and failed.

Given your penchant for same, I'm surprised.

In any case, I understood it easily: no different signal at the
receptors means no different signal at the auditory cortex.
Thus any such perception of difference
that results in such case, CANNOT be the result of an actual
auditory event. In other words, you imagined it.

Simple example from audio hobbyism:
the classic mistake of being convinced you heard a difference, only
to realize that one of the articles being compared
wasn't plugged in/switched in/played/working in the first place.

> Yes -it is the the *non-sound* differences that make us distinguish
> the reproduction of SOUNDS made by the violins in a Beethoven quartet
> from the SOUNDS made by a Gipsy violinn or the pink noise.
> I haven't a clue how it hapens. It is not science- just my gut
> feeling.

That's odd. I know exactly how it happens: there are in fact vast 'sound'
differences between all the examples you cite. These manifest thenvselves
as differences in the sound waves taht impringe upon the ear. These differences
are easily demonstrated objectively.

--
-S.

Steven Sullivan

July 10th 03, 05:45 AM

Bob Marcus > wrote:
> (S888Wheel) wrote in message >...

>> if someone tries to publish an article that draws
>> conclusions that are in conflict with the very data from the tests conducted
>> for the article it is a different matter. I was talking about drawing
>> definitive conclusions from inconclusive data.
>>
> Given that you have admitted to (and certainly demonstrated) no more
> than a very basic understanding of statistics, perhaps you are not in
> the best position to be proclaiming what does and does not constitute
> conclusive data.

> <snip>
>>
>> Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims without
>> scientific peer review are junk in the world of science.

> Maybe it's better not to generalize about subjects outside your field.
> Findings which cannot be confirmed or replicated constitute junk
> science. That something is published in an unreviewed journal (or not
> published at all) does not make it wrong.

There is, howver, generally more scientific
*prestige* attached to articles published in peer-reviewed
journals than elsewhere...because in a pr journal there's been at least
the possibility of nonsense-filtering.

The distinction between peer reviewed and nonpeer reviewed claims
has been noted here by *both* sides at different times. The fact that
some claims come from AES abstracts (not peer reviewed) versus peer reviewed
journal publications, for example, has been cited as one reason to
be more skeptical of the former than the latter.

--
-S.

Steven Sullivan

July 10th 03, 07:42 AM

Mkuller > wrote:
>>>mkuller wrote:>>
>>> As you have described it, it would be a test of:
>>> 1. HEARING differences AND
>>> 2. Recognizing differences
>>> 3. Short-term memory - remembering differences (especially challenging
>>using
>>> a dynamic program like music)
>>> 4. Successfully matching differences to an unknown
>>> 5. Test-taking ability
>>
>>> That is much more complex than a simple "hearing test", right Dick?. Maybe
>>> your audiologist requires you to go through all of those hurdles when you
>>have
>>> your hearing tested, but mine makes it much easier and just focuses on the
>>> "hearing" part.

>> Steven Sullivan wrote:>
>>If you're going to be this semantically picky,
>>

> I beg your pardon...
> This whole thread seems to be about picky things, semantics included.

You took it to a new level. Congratulations. Now I'm running with it.

>>an audiological 'hearing test' is at least in part a test of difference.
>>You are asked to respond when you can hear a sound or not at a given
>>frequency.

> No, it isn't a test of differences between the sounds, only a test of whether
> you can HEAR each of them individually.

As compared to NOT hearing them (i.e., hearing silence). Strictly speaking, that is a test of
difference: sound or silence.

>>It is also a test of short-term memory, as is any serial presentation.

> No, it isn't. You are not asked to remember and compare the serial sounds -
> only if you can HEAR each one.

Think of silence as another 'sound' and
it becomes a test of short term memory.

Of course, actual ABX/DBT etc tend not to compare things as radically different
as 'no sound' versus 'sound. They tend to be used to compare things taht
are only marginally different at best. BUT at the limmits of an audiological
exam -- for me, somehwere above 15 kHz -- the difference between 'heard it'
and didn't hear it' becomes just as marginal.

>> And >it
>>is no less a test of test-taking ability.

> Perhaps, but at the most basic level since no memory or comparisons are
> required.

See above.

>>And any test of hearing differences involving self-report by the testee,

> Yes, it does. I guess that means you can add a #6. to my list above -
> self-awareness and accurate self-reporting.

Subtract it because it's inbvolved in ANY comparison, sighted, or otherwise.

Otherwise you might just as well add,
#7 test of the presence or absence of consciousness.

>>is also a test of recognizing differences,
>>so #1 and #2 are redundant above.
>>

> No, hearing two sounds is different than recognizing the two sounds are
> different.

Please describe to me two distinct tests that involve self-reporting only,
one which tests 'hearing' a difference and the other which tests
'recognizing' a difference.

> Sorry, but I'm afraid you've got most of this wrong. You have just failed THIS
> test.

I'll try not to cry.

--
-S.

ludovic mirabel

July 10th 03, 08:00 AM

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<HWZOa.20234$H17.5464@sccrnsc02>...

>See his text below

Dear A.Guy . I promised myself not to bother with this kind of
contribution any longer but, true, you have a right to question my
credentials. Note that all I claim is that I know enough to know when
to shut up about matters that are on the leading edge of specialised
research in neuropsychology, neurobiochemistry, neuropharmacology and
brain-imaging. Also to know enough to surmise that however modest my
resources are in this superspecialised field in all likelihood they
are infinitely greater than yours, Pierce's, Marcus' and Sullivan's
separately and all together.
So to particulars. I had 2 years of undergraduate brain anatomy,
physiology, and function leading to an exam.
I did pre- and then postgraduate neurology in preparation for a
competive exam in my specialty of internal medicine- exam which had up
to 90% failure rate.
I then had to keep up with progress in neurology being a consultant in
internal med. to a large community hospital without a resident
neurologist.
My acquaintance, superficial as it is. with the progress in
brain-function research makes me feel that the discussion of juvenile
simplicities of Pierce's, yours etc is a waste of time.
Example of a simple, well known event in neurology; Brain injury
resulting in dysphasia ie problems with speech understanding and
production. The patient hears you producing sounds, he can produce
sounds but his productions make no more sense than... guess what. He
hears but can not follow simplest orders. Sometimes he can swear but
not utter a single coherent sentence. His speech center (in the left
temporal lobe in rt.handed people) is damaged. Not his "external
auditory gobbledygook" ie. earlobes, inner ear, acoustic nerve etc.
They are just fine.
I just read that the researchers think they located a music centre in
the brain. My guess, my "gut feeling" is that it is there that a
virtuoso distinguishes a Bluethner from a Yamaha or the reproduction
of the cello sound differently by different components. You and your
pals KNOW exactly what the brain can and can not do. That's the
difference between us.

This is the time to remind you that you took on the job of instructing
me once before. Kindly and tolerantly I demonstrated to you in this
thread that not only you did not have a clue about the intended
purpose of ABX but did not even know how it was done. You chose not to
answer then but now you're back instructing me again in neuroanatomy.
Well, if you have to... be my guest.
Any time you want me to quote from our past discussion just say so.
Ludovic Mirabel

> > I said:
> >>and that their beloved ABX involves also BRAIN functions we know
> >>little about; like for instance a cortical centre for MUSIC
> >>processing.
> > You answered:
> >
> > "If the auditory peripheral system is not presented with
> > auditory stimuli which result in a different response by the
> > auditory periphery, and thus the auditory periphery is not
> > capable of presented a different response to the auditory
> > cortex, then whatever DIFFERENCE in action of the "cortical
> > centre for MUSIC processing" cannot be due to a difference in
> > SOUND and thus must be due to non-sound differences."
> > "Unless you are proposing some magic like telepathy. Or simply
> > engaging in argumentation".
> >
> > I tried to translate for my own use this pretentious,
> > pseudoscientific gobledygook and failed.
>
> And again you show how little you yourself comprehend the topic. He's
> just repeating what I myself also posted. Audio reproduction systems
> reproduce sound, not music, and that is what ABX is for, to determine
> differences in sound. If there is no difference in the sound of two
> units, it is impossible for there to be any audio difference of any
> kind.
>
> > At least Marcus says" hearing" when he means hearing- not "auditory
> > peripheral system".. What does "...auditory periphery is not capable
> > of presented a different response to..." mean I haven't a clue.
>
> Change "presented" to "presenting" and it makes perfect sense. As if
> your posts never make simple tense or spelling errors. Again,
> demonstration of poor comprehension on your part.
>
> > Quoting me;
> >>Language- what's that?
> > You retort:
> > "Something used by some to corrupt, to twist, to manipulate, to
> > misrepresent as the prime tool of argumentation."
> > You forgot "to bore into stupor'
> >
> > Yes -it is the the *non-sound* differences that make us distinguish
> > the reproduction of SOUNDS made by the violins in a Beethoven quartet
> > from the SOUNDS made by a Gipsy violinn or the pink noise.
>
> How in the world does it get from the speakers to the brain except
> via SOUND? That's the point, it is either via sound or via some
> non-physical mechanism.
>
> > I haven't a clue how it hapens. It is not science- just my gut
> > feeling.
>
> Please keep your guts to yourself. :)
>
> > I feel also that the gulf between myself and someone who KNOWS how
> > brain differentiates Missa Solemnis from the pink noise pink noise is
> > unbridgeable.
> > I also feel tired of anticipating your manufactured outrage: "I
> > didn't say that!" Say whatever you DID say in plain and count me out.
> > This particular trick is wearing out threadbare.
>
> As if you always speak clearly and never use 100 words where 5 would
> do.
>
> > I have no intention of exchanging speculations with you (or Mr.
> > Audio Guy or Mr. Marcus) about some of the most controversial topics
> > in current pharmacological brain research and brain imaging- that I
> > know little about but am quite certain that any of you know even
> > less.
>
> Again, if you know so little, how can you judge how much another knows
> or understands of the topic?

> > Also ever since my army days I have a thing about being hectored in
> > a seargent-major voice.
>
> Then stop using it yourself, we're tired of hearing it too.
>
> > In fact I'm tired of this correspondence and so must be the
> > readers- if any are still left to us. We all deserve a breather.
> > So if you have any more "questions" like this one please send me an
> > SASE with international stamp-coupon. Your "question" may get lost in
> > the email with the volume of debt liquidation and organ enlargement
> > offers I get every day..
> > Regards. Sleep well. Ludovic Mirabel
> >

Bob Marcus

July 10th 03, 04:39 PM

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<6a8Pa.25318$ye4.20777@sccrnsc01>...

> Dear A.Guy . I promised myself not to bother with this kind of
> contribution any longer

Alas, another Mirabel promise broken.

> but, true, you have a right to question my
> credentials. Note that all I claim is that I know enough to know when
> to shut up about matters that are on the leading edge of specialised
> research in neuropsychology, neurobiochemistry, neuropharmacology and
> brain-imaging. Also to know enough to surmise that however modest my
> resources are in this superspecialised field in all likelihood they
> are infinitely greater than yours, Pierce's, Marcus' and Sullivan's
> separately and all together.

And yet, when Dick Pierce recently explained the hearing mechanism to
you, you professed not to understand a word he said.

<snip supposed credentials>

> I just read that the researchers think they located a music centre in
> the brain.

Which would leave us with the question of what information actually
gets to that center.

> My guess, my "gut feeling" is that it is there that a
> virtuoso distinguishes a Bluethner from a Yamaha or the reproduction
> of the cello sound differently by different components.

And does your highly-credentialed gut tell you that a non-virtuoso
distinguishes them in another part of his brain? Or that a virtuoso
distinguishes the reproduction of a cricket chirp by different
components in a different part of his brain than he would the
reproduction of a cello by different components?

> You and your
> pals KNOW exactly what the brain can and can not do.

Available evidence suggests that Dick Pierce, at least, knows more
about the subject of hearing perception than you do.

bob

Audio Guy

July 10th 03, 05:43 PM

In article <6a8Pa.25318$ye4.20777@sccrnsc01>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<HWZOa.20234$H17.5464@sccrnsc02>...
>
>>See his text below
>
> Dear A.Guy . I promised myself not to bother with this kind of
> contribution any longer but, true, you have a right to question my
> credentials. Note that all I claim is that I know enough to know when
> to shut up about matters that are on the leading edge of specialised
> research in neuropsychology, neurobiochemistry, neuropharmacology and
> brain-imaging. Also to know enough to surmise that however modest my
> resources are in this superspecialised field in all likelihood they
> are infinitely greater than yours, Pierce's, Marcus' and Sullivan's
> separately and all together.

And mine and Mr. Pierce's in the realm of electronics and sound
reproduction is just as infinitely greater than yours, so please keep
that in mind.

> So to particulars. I had 2 years of undergraduate brain anatomy,
> physiology, and function leading to an exam.
> I did pre- and then postgraduate neurology in preparation for a
> competive exam in my specialty of internal medicine- exam which had up
> to 90% failure rate.
> I then had to keep up with progress in neurology being a consultant in
> internal med. to a large community hospital without a resident
> neurologist.
> My acquaintance, superficial as it is. with the progress in
> brain-function research makes me feel that the discussion of juvenile
> simplicities of Pierce's, yours etc is a waste of time.
> Example of a simple, well known event in neurology; Brain injury
> resulting in dysphasia ie problems with speech understanding and
> production. The patient hears you producing sounds, he can produce
> sounds but his productions make no more sense than... guess what. He
> hears but can not follow simplest orders. Sometimes he can swear but
> not utter a single coherent sentence. His speech center (in the left
> temporal lobe in rt.handed people) is damaged. Not his "external
> auditory gobbledygook" ie. earlobes, inner ear, acoustic nerve etc.
> They are just fine.

So you seem to agree that speech recognition and sound recognition
are very different things. Thank you.

> I just read that the researchers think they located a music centre in
> the brain. My guess, my "gut feeling" is that it is there that a
> virtuoso distinguishes a Bluethner from a Yamaha or the reproduction
> of the cello sound differently by different components. You and your
> pals KNOW exactly what the brain can and can not do. That's the
> difference between us.

No, I do not know what the brain can do, but I do know that sound is
the mechanism that allows one to recognize either speech or music,
and if there is no difference in the sound reaching the ears, there
can be no different information getting to the brain for it to
analyze. By the way, I have an MSEE with over 20 years of work
experience in the field and have studied information theory and
random signal analysis which included statistical analysis of the
reception of signals with noise.

> This is the time to remind you that you took on the job of instructing
> me once before. Kindly and tolerantly I demonstrated to you in this
> thread that not only you did not have a clue about the intended
> purpose of ABX but did not even know how it was done.

Please quote this since I have never said I don't know how it is
done. I know exactly how it is done and how DBTs in general is done
as I also studied psychology at the university and that is one of the
prime subjects. I also have a much deeper and through knowledge of
how electronics work than you have and so know that the difference
between two signals can be measured to a much finer degree than can
be heard. So don't try to lecture me on ABX, please, especially since
you've never done even one while I have done many. And talk about
someone who has no clue about what ABX is used for, ABX is a test of
sound differences, not music recognition nor speech recognition.

> You chose not to
> answer then but now you're back instructing me again in neuroanatomy.

Please show where I "instructed" you, I merely asked how the brain
could determine a difference if no difference in sound was presented.
This is something you seem to have no clue about, so please explain
how it could happen.

> Well, if you have to... be my guest.
> Any time you want me to quote from our past discussion just say so.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
>> > I said:
>> >>and that their beloved ABX involves also BRAIN functions we know
>> >>little about; like for instance a cortical centre for MUSIC
>> >>processing.
>> > You answered:
>> >
>> > "If the auditory peripheral system is not presented with
>> > auditory stimuli which result in a different response by the
>> > auditory periphery, and thus the auditory periphery is not
>> > capable of presented a different response to the auditory
>> > cortex, then whatever DIFFERENCE in action of the "cortical
>> > centre for MUSIC processing" cannot be due to a difference in
>> > SOUND and thus must be due to non-sound differences."
>> > "Unless you are proposing some magic like telepathy. Or simply
>> > engaging in argumentation".
>> >
>> > I tried to translate for my own use this pretentious,
>> > pseudoscientific gobledygook and failed.
>>
>> And again you show how little you yourself comprehend the topic. He's
>> just repeating what I myself also posted. Audio reproduction systems
>> reproduce sound, not music, and that is what ABX is for, to determine
>> differences in sound. If there is no difference in the sound of two
>> units, it is impossible for there to be any audio difference of any
>> kind.
>>
>> > At least Marcus says" hearing" when he means hearing- not "auditory
>> > peripheral system".. What does "...auditory periphery is not capable
>> > of presented a different response to..." mean I haven't a clue.
>>
>> Change "presented" to "presenting" and it makes perfect sense. As if
>> your posts never make simple tense or spelling errors. Again,
>> demonstration of poor comprehension on your part.
>>
>> > Quoting me;
>> >>Language- what's that?
>> > You retort:
>> > "Something used by some to corrupt, to twist, to manipulate, to
>> > misrepresent as the prime tool of argumentation."
>> > You forgot "to bore into stupor'
>> >
>> > Yes -it is the the *non-sound* differences that make us distinguish
>> > the reproduction of SOUNDS made by the violins in a Beethoven quartet
>> > from the SOUNDS made by a Gipsy violinn or the pink noise.
>>
>> How in the world does it get from the speakers to the brain except
>> via SOUND? That's the point, it is either via sound or via some
>> non-physical mechanism.
>>
>> > I haven't a clue how it hapens. It is not science- just my gut
>> > feeling.
>>
>> Please keep your guts to yourself. :)
>>
>> > I feel also that the gulf between myself and someone who KNOWS how
>> > brain differentiates Missa Solemnis from the pink noise pink noise is
>> > unbridgeable.
>> > I also feel tired of anticipating your manufactured outrage: "I
>> > didn't say that!" Say whatever you DID say in plain and count me out.
>> > This particular trick is wearing out threadbare.
>>
>> As if you always speak clearly and never use 100 words where 5 would
>> do.
>>
>> > I have no intention of exchanging speculations with you (or Mr.
>> > Audio Guy or Mr. Marcus) about some of the most controversial topics
>> > in current pharmacological brain research and brain imaging- that I
>> > know little about but am quite certain that any of you know even
>> > less.
>>
>> Again, if you know so little, how can you judge how much another knows
>> or understands of the topic?
>
>> > Also ever since my army days I have a thing about being hectored in
>> > a seargent-major voice.
>>
>> Then stop using it yourself, we're tired of hearing it too.

[email protected]

July 10th 03, 05:49 PM

Bob Marcus > wrote:

> And does your highly-credentialed gut tell you that a non-virtuoso
> distinguishes them in another part of his brain? Or that a virtuoso
> distinguishes the reproduction of a cricket chirp by different
> components in a different part of his brain than he would the
> reproduction of a cello by different components?

What does 'virtuoso' have to do with it anyway? By definition, a 'virtuoso'
in music is someone who can display techncal acumen. There are plenty of
those around that lack artistic qualities.

But as he has shown many times, Ludovic has a lot of unique definitions of
common words and terms that are well, (how to say it?) highly personal.

Gary Rosen

July 10th 03, 05:58 PM

"Mkuller" > wrote in message
news:70DOa.9260$N7.1704@sccrnsc03...

> It never ceases to amaze me how obviously intelligent people (perhaps I'm
being
> presumptious here) can take such a simplistic position on this topic. If
you
> think a well-designed DBT comparing audio components using music is just a
> "hearing test", then it's no wonder these debates go on and on the way
they do.

A DBT *is* just a hearing test. It completely fails at testing our ability
to be influenced
by the price or reputation of the equipment.

- Gary Rosen

Mkuller

July 10th 03, 07:15 PM

>>"Mkuller" > wrote in message
>>
>> It never ceases to amaze me how obviously intelligent people (perhaps I'm
>being
>> presumptious here) can take such a simplistic position on this topic. If
>you
>> think a well-designed DBT comparing audio components using music is just a
>> "hearing test", then it's no wonder these debates go on and on the way
>they do.
>
> "Gary Rosen"
>
>A DBT *is* just a hearing test. It completely fails at testing our ability
>to be influenced
>by the price or reputation of the equipment.
>

Ah, I get it. You mean it's a test of hearing as opposed to a one of seeing
and hearing. No one has denied that.

A "hearing test" is one usually conducted by an audiologist using tones of
increasing frequency to test one's "hearing" ability. A DBT is a very
different type of test which is much more complex than that.
Regards,
Mike

Steven Sullivan

July 10th 03, 08:25 PM

Mkuller > wrote:
>>>"Mkuller" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> It never ceases to amaze me how obviously intelligent people (perhaps I'm
>>being
>>> presumptious here) can take such a simplistic position on this topic. If
>>you
>>> think a well-designed DBT comparing audio components using music is just a
>>> "hearing test", then it's no wonder these debates go on and on the way
>>they do.
>>
>> "Gary Rosen"
>>
>>A DBT *is* just a hearing test. It completely fails at testing our ability
>>to be influenced
>>by the price or reputation of the equipment.
>>

> Ah, I get it. You mean it's a test of hearing as opposed to a one of seeing
> and hearing. No one has denied that.

And no one, except for certain predictable parties, misunderstood that.

> A "hearing test" is one usually conducted by an audiologist using tones of
> increasing frequency to test one's "hearing" ability. A DBT is a very
> different type of test which is much more complex than that.

And again no one misunderstood that except for that odd contingent of
people who , while decrying the persistence of DBT debate, can't help
starting it and participating in it.

--
-S.

Richard D Pierce

July 10th 03, 09:48 PM

In article <03iPa.27941$N7.2693@sccrnsc03>, Mkuller > wrote:
>>A DBT *is* just a hearing test. It completely fails at testing our ability
>>to be influenced
>>by the price or reputation of the equipment.
>>
>
>Ah, I get it. You mean it's a test of hearing as opposed to a one of seeing
>and hearing. No one has denied that.
>
> A "hearing test" is one usually conducted by an audiologist using tones of
>increasing frequency to test one's "hearing" ability. A DBT is a very
>different type of test which is much more complex than that.

No, not correct at all.

A "hearing" test describes WHAT is being tested. A DB test
describes HOW the test is conducted. They are not mutually
exclusive. Indeed, most modern audiology equipment used for
conducting hearing tests conduct them as double-blind hearing
tests.

You have focused on a very narrow definition of "hearing test"
which, in and of itself is not incorrect, and have stated that a
double-blind test is a "very different type of test." This is
clearly not the case for several reasons.

1. As stated, most modern "hearing tests" in an audiological
context ARE double-blind tests.

2. If one is attempting to discern whether the differences
between two aural presentations, say, as in the difference
between two wires is detectable ON THE DIFFERENCES IN THE
AUDIO ONLY, and we are willing to accept the premise that
it is the ears that provide the connection between audio
stimuli and the brains reaction to that stimuli, then, yes,
such are "hearing tests" by the very definition of the
term.

If the ear can't detect the difference, what else could possibly
account for potential differences IF the choice is limited to
hearing alone, which is the ENTIRE point of conducting double-
blind listening tests?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

S888Wheel

July 11th 03, 01:44 AM

I said

>> if someone tries to publish an article that draws
>> conclusions that are in conflict with the very data from the tests
>conducted
>> for the article it is a different matter. I was talking about drawing
>> definitive conclusions from inconclusive data.

Bob said

>
>Given that you have admitted to (and certainly demonstrated) no more
>than a very basic understanding of statistics, perhaps you are not in
>the best position to be proclaiming what does and does not constitute
>conclusive data.

I have admitted to limited skill at doing the calculations. that is entirely
different than understanding the results. I find your conclusion that I have
demonstrated " avery basic understanding of statistics" based on our
disagrrement over the meaning of certain results rather arogant and selfserving
on your part. It is unfortunate that you have to make attacks on my intelect
over disagreements on the significance of the statistical analysis of the data.

I said

>
>> Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims without
>> scientific peer review are junk in the world of science.
>

Bob said

>
>Maybe it's better not to generalize about subjects outside your field.

Oh, I see. I'm not a scientist so I shouldn't express any generalized opinions
about science. Bull****. Are you a scientist by proffession? Are you not
following your own advice?

>about subjects outside your field.
>Findings which cannot be confirmed or replicated constitute junk
>science. That something is published in an unreviewed journal (or not
>published at all) does not make it wrong.

Strawman. I never said failure to get something peer reviewed made it wrong.

S888Wheel

July 11th 03, 02:15 AM

I said

>
>>>> Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims
>>without
>>>> scientific peer review are junk in the world of science.
>>

Tom said

>OK; but where is a single report in a peer reviewed journal that confirms
>the
>reports of amp/wire sound quality differences found in anecdotal reports,
>magazine reviews or Stereophile's Recommended Components List? You can't have
>it both ways.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I never said that any claims in
Stereophile have risen from anecdotal to scientifically definitive. I am so
far, simply trying to sort out the evidence that is out there. How good is the
evidence and what is it telling us and not telling us.

Tom said

>
>First there was no evidence that you had seen.

There was no scientifically valid evidence that i had seen. I have seen plenty
of anecdotal evidence on both sides. Much of it quite dubious on both sides.

Tom said

> Now published data is
>inconclusive.

No a specific published test that was never peer reviewed. Not only that the
testors never measured the test for sensitivity. their choices of samples
seemed quite slap dash to say the least. The choice to not persue instances
where there was a reasonable chance that certain persons were hearing
differences or that certain pieces of equipment may have been sounding
different strikes me as a mistake and combined with the lack of testing for
sensitivity of the test itself leaves us with an incoclusive test. i think it
would be very foolish for me or anyone else to look at this specific test and
draw definitive global conclusions on the audible differences of amplifiers.

Tom said

> Yet, you have NO confirmation of differences you think exist in a
>peer reviewed report.

Indeed I don't and never claimed I do. However this is not a reasonable basis
to make such definitve assertions of the lack of audible differences IMO.

Tom said

> Why would that be; IF they actually existed?
>

I do not have all data on the subject. I thank you again for what you sent me.

Bob Marcus

July 11th 03, 05:09 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote in message news:<WLnPa.26675$OZ2.4442@rwcrnsc54>...
> I said
>
> >> if someone tries to publish an article that draws
> >> conclusions that are in conflict with the very data from the tests
> conducted
> >> for the article it is a different matter. I was talking about drawing
> >> definitive conclusions from inconclusive data.
>
> Bob said
>
> >
> >Given that you have admitted to (and certainly demonstrated) no more
> >than a very basic understanding of statistics, perhaps you are not in
> >the best position to be proclaiming what does and does not constitute
> >conclusive data.
>
> I have admitted to limited skill at doing the calculations. that is entirely
> different than understanding the results. I find your conclusion that I have
> demonstrated " avery basic understanding of statistics" based on our
> disagrrement over the meaning of certain results rather arogant and selfserving
> on your part. It is unfortunate that you have to make attacks on my intelect
> over disagreements on the significance of the statistical analysis of the data.

It is not an attack on your intellect to say that your interpretation
of statistical results is incorrect. (My apologies if it seemed
otherwise.) Statistical interpretation is far less intuitive than most
people think, and unless someone's had some training in the field,
they're on very slippery ground in trying to second-guess published
results.

As for your understanding of these particular results, Keith Hughes
has handled that subject much more ably than I could.

>
> I said
>
> >
> >> Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims without
> >> scientific peer review are junk in the world of science.
> >
>
> Bob said
>
> >
> >Maybe it's better not to generalize about subjects outside your field.
>
> Oh, I see. I'm not a scientist so I shouldn't express any generalized opinions
> about science. Bull****. Are you a scientist by proffession? Are you not
> following your own advice?
>
> >about subjects outside your field.
> >Findings which cannot be confirmed or replicated constitute junk
> >science. That something is published in an unreviewed journal (or not
> >published at all) does not make it wrong.
>
> Strawman. I never said failure to get something peer reviewed made it wrong.

But you did call it "junk." Pardon me for failing to notice the
difference.

bob

Mkuller

July 11th 03, 07:25 PM

> (Richard D Pierce) wrote:>
>You have focused on a very narrow definition of "hearing test"

What I implied in my post, but obviously didn't state clearly enough, is that
by DBT I mean an "ABX type" or other comparing differences in audio components
- since that is what this brouhaha is all about.

To call and ABX-type DBT a "hearing test" is like calling a math exam in school
a "vision test". You still did not respond to my post to you:
____________________________________
Subject: Re: Re: Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
From: (Mkuller)
Date: 7/9/03 12:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <eXZOa.20305$ye4.17055@sccrnsc01>
As you have described it, it would be a test of:
1. HEARING differences AND
2. Recognizing differences
3. Short-term memory - remembering differences (especially challenging using
a dynamic program like music)
4. Successfully matching differences to an unknown
5. Test-taking ability

That is much more complex than a simple "hearing test", right Dick?. Maybe
your audiologist requires you to go through all of those hurdles when you have
your hearing tested, but mine makes it much easier and just focuses on the
"hearing" part.
____________________________________
Regards,
Mike

Nousaine

July 11th 03, 07:27 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

>I said
>
>>
>>>>> Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims
>>>without
>>>>> scientific peer review are junk in the world of science.
>>>
>
>Tom said
>
>>OK; but where is a single report in a peer reviewed journal that confirms
>>the
>>reports of amp/wire sound quality differences found in anecdotal reports,
>>magazine reviews or Stereophile's Recommended Components List? You can't
>have
>>it both ways.
>
>I'm not trying to have it both ways. I never said that any claims in
>Stereophile have risen from anecdotal to scientifically definitive. I am so
>far, simply trying to sort out the evidence that is out there. How good is
>the
>evidence and what is it telling us and not telling us.

It's not telling you that amp sound has ever been verified. It is telling you
that many attempts to verify amp sound have failed to do so.

You are invoking what I call the Alien Visit or BigFoot defense; it is true
that no one has conclusively proven that Aliens don't visit us or that BigFoot
doesn't exist. But, you want us to believe when no one can produce a body?

>Tom said
>
>>
>>First there was no evidence that you had seen.
>
>There was no scientifically valid evidence that i had seen. I have seen
>plenty
>of anecdotal evidence on both sides. Much of it quite dubious on both sides.

So then, the dubious evidence on the amp sound side carries MORE weight than
the contrary? Please.

>
>Tom said
>
>> Now published data is
>>inconclusive.
>
>No a specific published test that was never peer reviewed.

How is that any worse than not having peer-reviewed evidence of amp sound? It's
also true that there is no peer-reviewed experiment of anyone NOT witnessing an
alien visit or seeing BigFoot. So what?

Not only that the
>testors never measured the test for sensitivity.

Sohow would they have done that to your satisfaction? What did you think of the
20+ other experiments with similar results?

their choices of samples
>seemed quite slap dash to say the least. The choice to not persue instances
>where there was a reasonable chance that certain persons were hearing
>differences or that certain pieces of equipment may have been sounding
>different strikes me as a mistake and combined with the lack of testing for
>sensitivity of the test itself leaves us with an incoclusive test.

There was no such "reasonable chance" based on the data. You love to use the
wishful thinking analysis. So have many other believers.

i think it
>would be very foolish for me or anyone else to look at this specific test and
>draw definitive global conclusions on the audible differences of amplifiers.

So why don't you examine some of the others? That's one of the characteristics
of this particular experiment; it HAS been replicated.

>
>Tom said
>
>> Yet, you have NO confirmation of differences you think exist in a
>>peer reviewed report.
>
>Indeed I don't and never claimed I do. However this is not a reasonable basis
>to make such definitve assertions of the lack of audible differences IMO.

So IYO then we have to accept the idea that amp sound may exist because no one
has successfully proven that it doesn't? Even when no proponent has provided a
single peer-reviewed experiment that it DOES.

This is turning the 'proof' requirement from claimant to the general public.
That doesn't work in my world where anyone making a claim needs to provide the
proof. You seem to be willing to accept a claim without any positive evidence
and to reject all contrary evidence as 'inconclusive.'

>
>Tom said
>
>> Why would that be; IF they actually existed?
>>
>
>I do not have all data on the subject. I thank you again for what you sent
>me.

As I said IF these audible differences actually existed I wonder why they
remain so elusive that not one manufacturer, supplier, distributor, retailer,
reviewer, reporter, lab rat, scientist, acoustician, electrical engineer,
musician or anyone has been able to provide a single replicable positive
experiment that shows that a nominally competent amp/wire has any influence on
the sound reaching a liteners ears through loudspeakers in a normally
reverberant environment.

Yet there are a couple dozen attempts to find these differences that have
failed. Now you want us to believe that all the contrary evidence is
inconclusive and we should ignore the lack of positives?
Doesn't work for me.

ludovic mirabel

July 11th 03, 10:53 PM

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<pIgPa.28021$ye4.21152@sccrnsc01>...
> In article <6a8Pa.25318$ye4.20777@sccrnsc01>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<HWZOa.20234$H17.5464@sccrnsc02>...

Thus spoke Audio Guy:
> "I also have a much deeper and through knowledge of
> how electronics work than you have and so KNOW (my italics L.M.) that the
> difference... etc"

I said I didn't know how exactly the brain processed the reproduction
of music.

> No, I do not know what the brain can do, but I do KNOW (my italics L.M.)that
> sound is the mechanism that allows one to recognize either speech or music,
> and if there is no difference in the sound reaching the ears, there
> can be no different information getting to the brain for it to
> analyze.
> And again you show how little you yourself comprehend the topic.

> Please show where I "instructed" you, I merely asked how the brain
> could determine a difference if no difference in sound was presented.

"Difference in sound" between a Stradivarius and a corner store
violin? To whom ? To 10.000 psychology students and electronics' engs.
or to Oistrakh?
Somebody's, anybody's brain says to its owner: "No difference". Which
proves to somebody, anybody that there IS no difference. Somebody's,
anybody else's brain says:" Good Lord, how very different!"
"Scientific" (thanks to ABX ) demonstration that the difference
enters "the sound" and leaves it again because it doesn't want to make
enemies amongst our homegrown scientists.

Ludovic Mirabel

P.S.I said:
> > This is the time to remind you that you took on the job of instructing
> > me once before. Kindly and tolerantly I demonstrated to you in this
> > thread that not only you did not have a clue about the intended
> > purpose of ABX but did not even know how it was done.
Audio Guy:
> Please quote this since I have never said I don't know how it is
> done. I KNOW (my caps L.M.) exactly how it is done and how DBTs in general is
> done as I also studied psychology at the university and that is one of the
> prime subjects.

By request a quote from July 3rd Subthread (...Was......Furutech)

Audio Guy said:
"Again, you MISUNDERSTAND (my capitals L.M.) what ABX was designed
for. It is a tool to
determine if differences exist, not for determining which unit is
better. There are DBTs for that purpose, but ABX is not one".

L.M. answered:
"It is kind of you to straighten me out. I'll pass it on to Carlstrom
the "objectivist" Godfather and codeveloper of the ABX switching
device.
... here is a quote of his from the official ABX website:"

Carlstrom:---" A second common misconception about ABX is the claim
that an ABX
test result is not a preference: it does not tell which audio
component sounds better. While literally true, if an ABX test confirms
a difference is heard, selecting one's preference is easy and
completely justified." I commented:
"I think that to find out that: " This is different" and leave
it at that may be of fascinating interest to pure searchers after
truth like you but not to an unsophisticated audio consumer like
myself.." (And Carlstrom seems to agree)
I continued:
"I'm even more confused about your explanation of the ABX test:. I
said: "I can easily hear 1db difference between channels, and a change
of 1 db.
What I can't do is to have 80 db changed to 81 db, then be asked if
the third unknown is 80 or 81 dbs. and be consistently correct."

You answered:
"Not what ABX tests do. They are used to determine if you can
determine if there is a difference, not if you can identify which is
which"..
I said:
"Curiouser and curiouser as the Red Queen said. . First we have cable
A, producing 80 db. Then cable B -81 db.. Then one of these two not
known to you (cable X) and you're asked "Is it like A or like B?"
What kind of ABX protocol have you been following?"
No comment.
__________________________________________________ ____________
__Remainder of previous posting:
> I also have a much deeper and through knowledge of
> how electronics work than you have and so know that the difference
> between two signals can be measured to a much finer degree than can
> be heard. So don't try to lecture me on ABX, please, especially since
> you've never done even one while I have done many. And talk about
> someone who has no clue about what ABX is used for, ABX is a test of
> sound differences, not music recognition nor speech recognition.
>
> > You chose not to
> > answer then but now you're back instructing me again in neuroanatomy.
>
> Please show where I "instructed" you, I merely asked how the brain
> could determine a difference if no difference in sound was presented.
> This is something you seem to have no clue about, so please explain
> how it could happen.
>
> > Well, if you have to... be my guest.
> > Any time you want me to quote from our past discussion just say so.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> >> > I said:
> >> >>and that their beloved ABX involves also BRAIN functions we know
> >> >>little about; like for instance a cortical centre for MUSIC
> >> >>processing.
> >> > You answered:
> >> >
> >> > "If the auditory peripheral system is not presented with
> >> > auditory stimuli which result in a different response by the
> >> > auditory periphery, and thus the auditory periphery is not
> >> > capable of presented a different response to the auditory
> >> > cortex, then whatever DIFFERENCE in action of the "cortical
> >> > centre for MUSIC processing" cannot be due to a difference in
> >> > SOUND and thus must be due to non-sound differences."
> >> > "Unless you are proposing some magic like telepathy. Or simply
> >> > engaging in argumentation".
> >> >
> >> > I tried to translate for my own use this pretentious,
> >> > pseudoscientific gobledygook and failed.
> >>
> >> And again you show how little you yourself comprehend the topic. He's
> >> just repeating what I myself also posted. Audio reproduction systems
> >> reproduce sound, not music, and that is what ABX is for, to determine
> >> differences in sound. If there is no difference in the sound of two
> >> units, it is impossible for there to be any audio difference of any
> >> kind.
> >>
> >> > At least Marcus says" hearing" when he means hearing- not "auditory
> >> > peripheral system".. What does "...auditory periphery is not capable
> >> > of presented a different response to..." mean I haven't a clue.
> >>
> >> Change "presented" to "presenting" and it makes perfect sense. As if
> >> your posts never make simple tense or spelling errors. Again,
> >> demonstration of poor comprehension on your part.
> >>
> >> > Quoting me;
> >> >>Language- what's that?
> >> > You retort:
> >> > "Something used by some to corrupt, to twist, to manipulate, to
> >> > misrepresent as the prime tool of argumentation."
> >> > You forgot "to bore into stupor'
> >> >
> >> > Yes -it is the the *non-sound* differences that make us distinguish
> >> > the reproduction of SOUNDS made by the violins in a Beethoven quartet
> >> > from the SOUNDS made by a Gipsy violinn or the pink noise.
> >>
> >> How in the world does it get from the speakers to the brain except
> >> via SOUND? That's the point, it is either via sound or via some
> >> non-physical mechanism.
> >>
> >> > I haven't a clue how it hapens. It is not science- just my gut
> >> > feeling.
> >>
> >> Please keep your guts to yourself. :)
> >>
> >> > I feel also that the gulf between myself and someone who KNOWS how
> >> > brain differentiates Missa Solemnis from the pink noise pink noise is
> >> > unbridgeable.
> >> > I also feel tired of anticipating your manufactured outrage: "I
> >> > didn't say that!" Say whatever you DID say in plain and count me out.
> >> > This particular trick is wearing out threadbare.
> >>
> >> As if you always speak clearly and never use 100 words where 5 would
> >> do.
> >>
> >> > I have no intention of exchanging speculations with you (or Mr.
> >> > Audio Guy or Mr. Marcus) about some of the most controversial topics
> >> > in current pharmacological brain research and brain imaging- that I
> >> > know little about but am quite certain that any of you know even
> >> > less.
> >>
> >> Again, if you know so little, how can you judge how much another knows
> >> or understands of the topic?
>
> >> > Also ever since my army days I have a thing about being hectored in
> >> > a seargent-major voice.
> >>
> >> Then stop using it yourself, we're tired of hearing it too.

Audio Guy

July 12th 03, 01:08 AM

In article <8lGPa.37933$H17.11209@sccrnsc02>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<pIgPa.28021$ye4.21152@sccrnsc01>...
>> In article <6a8Pa.25318$ye4.20777@sccrnsc01>,
>> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<HWZOa.20234$H17.5464@sccrnsc02>...
>
> Thus spoke Audio Guy:
>> "I also have a much deeper and through knowledge of
>> how electronics work than you have and so KNOW (my italics L.M.) that the
>> difference... etc"
>
> I said I didn't know how exactly the brain processed the reproduction
> of music.

Didn't say you did, where did this come from?

What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is whether sound is the
only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or isn't it?

>
>> No, I do not know what the brain can do, but I do KNOW (my italics L.M.)that
>> sound is the mechanism that allows one to recognize either speech or music,
>> and if there is no difference in the sound reaching the ears, there
>> can be no different information getting to the brain for it to
>> analyze.
>> And again you show how little you yourself comprehend the topic.
>
>> Please show where I "instructed" you, I merely asked how the brain
>> could determine a difference if no difference in sound was presented.
>
> "Difference in sound" between a Stradivarius and a corner store
> violin? To whom ? To 10.000 psychology students and electronics' engs.
> or to Oistrakh?
> Somebody's, anybody's brain says to its owner: "No difference". Which
> proves to somebody, anybody that there IS no difference. Somebody's,
> anybody else's brain says:" Good Lord, how very different!"
> "Scientific" (thanks to ABX ) demonstration that the difference
> enters "the sound" and leaves it again because it doesn't want to make
> enemies amongst our homegrown scientists.

This is no answer to my question of where I instructed you, just your
unusual interpretation of my statement. Again, if sound is not the
mechanism of delivery of the music, then what is? That is my question,
and one you keep ignoring since you don't seem to have an answer.

>
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
> P.S.I said:
>> > This is the time to remind you that you took on the job of instructing
>> > me once before. Kindly and tolerantly I demonstrated to you in this
>> > thread that not only you did not have a clue about the intended
>> > purpose of ABX but did not even know how it was done.
> Audio Guy:
>> Please quote this since I have never said I don't know how it is
>> done. I KNOW (my caps L.M.) exactly how it is done and how DBTs in general is
>> done as I also studied psychology at the university and that is one of the
>> prime subjects.
>
> By request a quote from July 3rd Subthread (...Was......Furutech)
>
> Audio Guy said:
> "Again, you MISUNDERSTAND (my capitals L.M.) what ABX was designed
> for. It is a tool to
> determine if differences exist, not for determining which unit is
> better. There are DBTs for that purpose, but ABX is not one".
>
> L.M. answered:
> "It is kind of you to straighten me out. I'll pass it on to Carlstrom
> the "objectivist" Godfather and codeveloper of the ABX switching
> device.
> .. here is a quote of his from the official ABX website:"
>
> Carlstrom:---" A second common misconception about ABX is the claim
> that an ABX
> test result is not a preference: it does not tell which audio
> component sounds better. While literally true, if an ABX test confirms
> a difference is heard, selecting one's preference is easy and
> completely justified." I commented:
> "I think that to find out that: " This is different" and leave
> it at that may be of fascinating interest to pure searchers after
> truth like you but not to an unsophisticated audio consumer like
> myself.." (And Carlstrom seems to agree)

Again you seem to be deciding how ABX is to be used, and
misinterpreting Carlstrom's statements to do so. He never said that
ABX is used to determine a preference, and in fact he states it is
LITERALLY true that it is NOT a test of preference. Please re-read
what you quoted. He is saying exactly what many other ABX advocated
state, that is, once a difference is determined, than one can move on
to choosing a preference, the corollary being if no difference is
determined then there is no reason to move to the next step and
choose a preference. Again, he never said to actually use ABX to make
the preference, that is simply you reading between lines that are not
there.

You yourself just keep proving over and over again that you don't
rally understand how ABX is used.

> I continued:
> "I'm even more confused about your explanation of the ABX test:. I
> said: "I can easily hear 1db difference between channels, and a change
> of 1 db.
> What I can't do is to have 80 db changed to 81 db, then be asked if
> the third unknown is 80 or 81 dbs. and be consistently correct."
>
> You answered:
> "Not what ABX tests do. They are used to determine if you can
> determine if there is a difference, not if you can identify which is
> which"..
> I said:
> "Curiouser and curiouser as the Red Queen said. . First we have cable
> A, producing 80 db. Then cable B -81 db.. Then one of these two not
> known to you (cable X) and you're asked "Is it like A or like B?"
> What kind of ABX protocol have you been following?"

I decided it wasn't worth answering such a misconstruing of my
statement, but since you insist: I meant you are not asked if the
unknown is 80 dB or 81 dB, but only if is it A or B. Your original
statement never mentioned A or B only the measurements 80 dB or 81 dB.
A misunderstanding by you of a misunderstanding of mine.

<massive unnecessary quoting snipped>

S888Wheel

July 12th 03, 04:35 PM

<<
>I said
>
>>
>>>>> Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims
>>>without
>>>>> scientific peer review are junk in the world of science.
>>> >>

<<
>Tom said
>
>>OK; but where is a single report in a peer reviewed journal that confirms
>>the
>>reports of amp/wire sound quality differences found in anecdotal reports,
>>magazine reviews or Stereophile's Recommended Components List? You can't
>have
>>it both ways. >>

I said

<<
>I'm not trying to have it both ways. I never said that any claims in
>Stereophile have risen from anecdotal to scientifically definitive. I am so
>far, simply trying to sort out the evidence that is out there. How good is
>the
>evidence and what is it telling us and not telling us.
>>

Tom said

<<
It's not telling you that amp sound has ever been verified. It is telling you
that many attempts to verify amp sound have failed to do so.
>>

It? "It" so far for me is the one article. "it" Is not telling me anything
definitive about amp sound. It would be foolish for me to draw any definitive
conclusions one way or another based on that article.

Tom said

<<
You are invoking what I call the Alien Visit or BigFoot defense; it is true
that no one has conclusively proven that Aliens don't visit us or that BigFoot
doesn't exist. But, you want us to believe when no one can produce a body?
>>

Nonsense. I want claims of scientifically definitive facts to be sufficiently
supported by a substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence. Is
that asking too much?

<<
>Tom said
>
>>
>>First there was no evidence that you had seen.
> >>

I said

<<
>There was no scientifically valid evidence that i had seen. I have seen
>plenty
>of anecdotal evidence on both sides. Much of it quite dubious on both sides.
>>

Tom said

<<
So then, the dubious evidence on the amp sound side carries MORE weight than
the contrary? Please. >>

Please what? did I say I base my opinions on the most dubious of anecdotes?

<<
>Tom said
>
>> Now published data is
>>inconclusive >>

I said

<<
>No a specific published test that was never peer reviewed.
>>

Tom said

<<
How is that any worse than not having peer-reviewed evidence of amp sound? >>

It is no worse if someone is making claims that it has been scientifically
proven that amps sound different. That doesn't seem to be the case though does
it?

Tom said

<< It's
also true that there is no peer-reviewed experiment of anyone NOT witnessing an
alien visit or seeing BigFoot. So what?
>>

A rather lame attempt at guilt by association.

I said

<<
Not only that the
>testors never measured the test for sensitivity.
>>

Tom said

<<
Sohow would they have done that to your satisfaction? What did you think of the
20+ other experiments with similar results?
>>

Simple. introduce known audible differences into the test and gauge the
confidence levels that each listener can discern those differences at
decending levels of those added audible differences.

I said

<<
their choices of samples
>seemed quite slap dash to say the least. The choice to not persue instances
>where there was a reasonable chance that certain persons were hearing
>differences or that certain pieces of equipment may have been sounding
>different strikes me as a mistake and combined with the lack of testing for
>sensitivity of the test itself leaves us with an incoclusive test.
>>

Tom said

<<
There was no such "reasonable chance" based on the data. You love to use the
wishful thinking analysis. So have many other believers.
>>

I disagree.

I said

<<
i think it
>would be very foolish for me or anyone else to look at this specific test and
>draw definitive global conclusions on the audible differences of amplifiers.
>>

Tom said

<<
So why don't you examine some of the others? >>

I would be happy to.

Tom said

<< That's one of the characteristics
of this particular experiment; it HAS been replicated.
>>

Really? someone compared the same amps as this test using the same playback
system and got the sme results? I'd like to see that.

<<
>Tom said
>
>> Yet, you have NO confirmation of differences you think exist in a
>>peer reviewed report.
> >>

I said

<<
>Indeed I don't and never claimed I do. However this is not a reasonable basis
>to make such definitve assertions of the lack of audible differences IMO. >>

Tom said

<<
So IYO then we have to accept the idea that amp sound may exist because no one
has successfully proven that it doesn't? Even when no proponent has provided a
single peer-reviewed experiment that it DOES. >>

I suggest you believe whatever you want to believe. i suggest if you choose to
claim something is a scientifically proven fact you have the body of
scientifically valid empirical evidence to support such a definitive claim. I
think your position lacks perspective. I think your assertion of certainty
lacks support.

Tom said

<<
This is turning the 'proof' requirement from claimant to the general public. >>

No. It is keeping the burden of proof on the claiment. If anyone comes along
claiming it is a scientifically varified fact that amps sound different i would
expect every bit as much scientifically valid empirical evidence to support
that claim as i expect from those making the claim to the contrary.

Tom said

<< That doesn't work in my world where anyone making a claim needs to provide
the
proof >>

Yet you seem to be allowing yourself to be exempt from this rule.

Tom said

<< You seem to be willing to accept a claim without any positive evidence
and to reject all contrary evidence as 'inconclusive.'
>>

Really? Please cite an example of me accepting claims that are alleged to be
scientifically factual that doesn't have the requisit scientifically valid
empirical evidence to support it.

<<
>
>Tom said
>
>> Why would that be; IF they actually existed?
>> >>

I said

<<
>I do not have all data on the subject. I thank you again for what you sent
>me. >>

Tom said

<<

As I said IF these audible differences actually existed I wonder why they
remain so elusive that not one manufacturer, supplier, distributor, retailer,
reviewer, reporter, lab rat, scientist, acoustician, electrical engineer,
musician or anyone has been able to provide a single replicable positive
experiment that shows that a nominally competent amp/wire has any influence on
the sound reaching a liteners ears through loudspeakers in a normally
reverberant environment.
>>

I am not a manufacturer, supplier, distributor, retailer, reviewer, reporter,
lab rat, scientist, acoustician, electrical engineer or a musician. i doubt
that you are truly aware of everything all people who fall into any of these
catagories have and have not doen in these regards. i would suggest you take it
up with the manufacturers that make claims you take issue with and ask them.

What is a "normally reverberant envirement?"

Tom said

<<
Yet there are a couple dozen attempts to find these differences that have
failed. >>

I've looked at one that you sent me. We have already been over it.

Tom said

<< Now you want us to believe that all the contrary evidence is
inconclusive and we should ignore the lack of positives?
Doesn't work for me.
>>

No. I simply want claims of scientific fact to be duely supported. i want you
to believe whatever you want to believe.

ludovic mirabel

July 12th 03, 06:39 PM

wrote in message news:<sOgPa.27267$N7.3358@sccrnsc03>...
> Bob Marcus > wrote:
>
> > And does your highly-credentialed gut tell you that a non-virtuoso
> > distinguishes them in another part of his brain? Or that a virtuoso
> > distinguishes the reproduction of a cricket chirp by different
> > components in a different part of his brain than he would the
> > reproduction of a cello by different components?
>
> What does 'virtuoso' have to do with it anyway? By definition, a 'virtuoso'
> in music is someone who can display techncal acumen. There are plenty of
> those around that lack artistic qualities.
> But as he has shown many times, Ludovic has a lot of unique
definitions of
> common words and terms that are well, (how to say it?) highly personal.

Define "non-personally", "scientifically", please the "artistic
qualities" that some virtuoso lack. And don't rest there. Tackle the
relevance of chirping crickets to your definition.

As for Ludovic, he says that he is voicing nothing but personal
opinions . Ludovic says that there is no evidence that any but a
personal opinion is possible in the field of component comparison. He
thinks that the idea that one can get a "controlled test" and
"objective results" about differences in musical reproduction between
roughly comparable components by
collecting a gaggle of individuals, who look different, think and
perceive differently, have different skills at "controlled tests:,
different musical interest and exposure, putting them through an ABX
wringer and getting anything but a null result by a majority vote is a
simplistic pipedream. For various reasons this pipedream has been
plaguing audio and no other consumer area. Maybe chemists who design
scents and nail polish or experiment with wines are not as ambitious
as the electronics' men and lawyers.
Ludovic doesn't claim he "KNOWS" and does not call on the Goddess of
SCIENCE for a witness at a slightest provocation (or none)
But anytime he'd rather read a literate, "nonscientific" critical
opinion using "highly personal terms" than find once again that there
is a "test" that has not been done with any publishable results for
years, that this test when it was done invariably had a null result (
deduced by the proctors from a majority vote- ignoring outstanding
performers to arrive at a startling conclusion that most citizens
hear less than a few, gifted ones do).

I follow with a short "objective opinions" salad-dish, ingredients
culled in this thread and the subthreads within the last week;
I said:
>A few carping ABXers may object that a "test of hearing" has been
>known and practiced for years under the humble name of "hearing test"
Pierce :
"And precisely WHO said this. Please, if you will, QUOTE the
people who said this. Don't paraphrase, please QUOTE, so that we
may understand FROM THEM what THEY said, not from YOU what you
THINK they said.
If you will, please."

Marcus: "....

Gary Rosen:
A DBT *is* just a hearing test. It completely fails at testing our
ability
to be influenced
by the price or reputation of the equipment.

The scholastic discussion about the difference between a "hearing
test" and a "test of hearing" is still raging.

Nousaine: 5thJuly:

"What I find interesting is that not ONE credible, replicable bias
controlled
report verifying the audibility of nominally competent amps, wires or
capacitors in normally reverberant conditions exists. Not one."

And what is the name of that "credible, replicable, bias controlled"
experiment?
Why? DBT, why? ABX (or its child ABX/hr) of course.
And what do we do with those infidels who argue that the use of ABX IN
THIS FIELD may be flawed and needs experimental evidence to prove
itself? Why we tell them to disprove ABX? How? By undergoing it , of
course.
That is SCIENCE, kids. Not silly "personal opinions"
Ludovic Mirabel

S888Wheel

July 12th 03, 06:39 PM

<< > I said
>
> >> if someone tries to publish an article that draws
> >> conclusions that are in conflict with the very data from the tests
> conducted
> >> for the article it is a different matter. I was talking about drawing
> >> definitive conclusions from inconclusive data.
> >>

<<
> Bob said
>
> >
> >Given that you have admitted to (and certainly demonstrated) no more
> >than a very basic understanding of statistics, perhaps you are not in
> >the best position to be proclaiming what does and does not constitute
> >conclusive data. >>

I said

<<
> I have admitted to limited skill at doing the calculations. that is entirely
> different than understanding the results. I find your conclusion that I have
> demonstrated " avery basic understanding of statistics" based on our
> disagrrement over the meaning of certain results rather arogant and
selfserving
> on your part. It is unfortunate that you have to make attacks on my intelect
> over disagreements on the significance of the statistical analysis of the
data.
>>

Bob said

<<
It is not an attack on your intellect to say that your interpretation
of statistical results is incorrect. (My apologies if it seemed
otherwise.) >>

Fair enough.

Bob said

<< Statistical interpretation is far less intuitive than most
people think, >>

Agreed.

Bob said

<< unless someone's had some training in the field,
they're on very slippery ground in trying to second-guess published
results. >>

We don't need to talk in such generalizations when we are talking about a very
specific article in a non-peer reviewed publication.

Bob said

<<
As for your understanding of these particular results, Keith Hughes
has handled that subject much more ably than I could.
>>

Interesting, given the fact that he was unaware of the number of subjects
involved in the test.

<<
>
> I said
>
> >
> >> Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims
without
> >> scientific peer review are junk in the world of science.
> >
>
> Bob said
>
> >
> >Maybe it's better not to generalize about subjects outside your field.
> >>

I said

<<
> Oh, I see. I'm not a scientist so I shouldn't express any generalized
opinions
> about science. Bull****. Are you a scientist by proffession? Are you not
> following your own advice?
> >>

Bob said

<<
> >about subjects outside your field.
> >Findings which cannot be confirmed or replicated constitute junk
> >science. That something is published in an unreviewed journal (or not
> >published at all) does not make it wrong.
> >>

I said

<<
> Strawman. I never said failure to get something peer reviewed made it wrong.
>>

Bob said

<<
But you did call it "junk." Pardon me for failing to notice the
difference. >>

It is a big difference. By the way what i said was it is junk in the scientific
world. Many claims are junk in the world of science that may or may not be
right.

Nousaine

July 12th 03, 06:56 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

....lots of snips......

But I'd like to start with an assertion. Mr Wheel seems to believe that
nominally competent amplifiers impart a special sound of their own to music
reproduced in the home. Otherwise we'd not be 'debating' the evidence. I sent
him some articles on the subject, one which was a chronicle of more than 20
bias-controlled listening tests that had been conducted prior to 1990 because
he said he'd never seen any evidence on the matter. Another was a 1986 report
"Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" by David Clark and Ian Masters.

>Tom said
>
><<
>It's not telling you that amp sound has ever been verified. It is telling you
>that many attempts to verify amp sound have failed to do so.
> >>
>
>It? "It" so far for me is the one article. "it" Is not telling me anything
>definitive about amp sound. It would be foolish for me to draw any definitive
>conclusions one way or another based on that article.

So read some of the other twenty. There's a clear list on "The Great Debate: Is
Anybody Winning?"

>
>Nonsense. I want claims of scientifically definitive facts to be sufficiently
>supported by a substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence.
>Is
>that asking too much?

So you're saying that you want scientifically valid positive evidence of amp
sound and can't find any? That's my point.

>So then, the dubious evidence on the amp sound side carries MORE weight than
>the contrary? Please. >>
>
>Please what? did I say I base my opinions on the most dubious of anecdotes?

What other evidence do you have? You call my evidence dubious, have never seen
a positive confirmation of amp sound other than an anecdote and you STILL
believe in it?

><<
>>Tom said
>>
>>> Now published data is
>>>inconclusive >>
>
>I said
>
><<
>>No a specific published test that was never peer reviewed.

You have to show me a peer-reviewed report that has convincing evidence that
amps have a sound of their own before you can reject the other evidence (all 2
dozen of them.)

>
>Tom said
>
><<
>How is that any worse than not having peer-reviewed evidence of amp sound? >>
>
>It is no worse if someone is making claims that it has been scientifically
>proven that amps sound different. That doesn't seem to be the case though
>does
>it?

No it doesn't. Why are you still arguing? No one has verified amp sound; yet
you still tthink it exists don't you?

> Not only that the
>>testors never measured the test for sensitivity.
> >>
>
>Tom said
>
><<
>Sohow would they have done that to your satisfaction? What did you think of
>the
>20+ other experiments with similar results?
> >>
>
>Simple. introduce known audible differences into the test and gauge the
>confidence levels that each listener can discern those differences at
>decending levels of those added audible differences.

Doesn't the Bell Labs data on human hearing sensitivity count? Clark's work
tested for introduction of known audible cause (level, frequency response,
excessive distortion). Once these qualities have been verified to be below the
human threshold of audibility what else is left?

Oh, the mysterious 'amp sound' that has never been shown to be audible if not a
function of the causes just listed. You cannot verify differences that have
never been shown to exist.

Indeed that was the purpose of the Masters/Clark experiment; to find audible
cause commonly and strongly claimed to exist beyond human capability to measure
and exploit them through engineering.

> i think it
>>would be very foolish for me or anyone else to look at this specific test
>and
>>draw definitive global conclusions on the audible differences of amplifiers.
> >>

But, if this test were the ONLY evidence on the table it still aces valid
positive experiments that disclose 'amp sound.' So how can you accept anecdotal
reports of it when no one has proven its existence?

>Tom said
>
><<
>So why don't you examine some of the others? >>
>
>I would be happy to.

No one is stopping you. Go ahead. I've provided you an extensive list of them.
Even so "To Tweak...." carries amp sound serially coupled with tubes, wires,
wire dress, isolation devices and outboard DACs.

>
>Tom said
>
><< That's one of the characteristics
>of this particular experiment; it HAS been replicated.
> >>
>
>Really? someone compared the same amps as this test using the same playback
>system and got the sme results? I'd like to see that.

Look at the List in "The Great Debate:....?" Replication doesn't mean that one
has to use exactly the same equipment, only equipment said to contain the
special qualities.

><<
>>Tom said
>>
>>> Yet, you have NO confirmation of differences you think exist in a
>>>peer reviewed report.
>> >>
>
>I said
>
><<
>>Indeed I don't and never claimed I do. However this is not a reasonable
>basis
>>to make such definitve assertions of the lack of audible differences IMO. >>

As I said many claims, no evidence. Why not? Just because someone makes the
claims that this special sauce will completely eliminate septic problems, make
your dick bigger, improve your old lady's boobs doesn't let me believe the
claims without some evidence.

>Tom said
>
><<
>So IYO then we have to accept the idea that amp sound may exist because no
>one
>has successfully proven that it doesn't? Even when no proponent has provided
>a
>single peer-reviewed experiment that it DOES. >>
>
>I suggest you believe whatever you want to believe. i suggest if you choose
>to
>claim something is a scientifically proven fact you have the body of
>scientifically valid empirical evidence to support such a definitive claim. I
>think your position lacks perspective. I think your assertion of certainty
>lacks support.

"Certainty?" That's great. In over a quarter of a century of 'debate' no
proponent has delivered a single replicable experiment that verified amp sound
on reproduced music in a living room other than commonly known engineering
criteria and YOU reject any contrary evidence as 'inconclusive.'

I think your position lacks perspective. Believe what you want. I prefer to
form my opinions based on the extant evidence.

>
>Tom said
>
><<
>This is turning the 'proof' requirement from claimant to the general public.
>>>
>
>No. It is keeping the burden of proof on the claiment. If anyone comes along
>claiming it is a scientifically varified fact that amps sound different i
>would
>expect every bit as much scientifically valid empirical evidence to support
>that claim as i expect from those making the claim to the contrary.
>

But they claim amp & wire sound it every day in every high-end advertisement,
every audio salon, every small magazine review, every hallway conversation at
high-end shows. Even YOU are implicitly supporting it because you haven't any
evidence yet still believe.

>Tom said
>
><< That doesn't work in my world where anyone making a claim needs to provide
>the
>proof >>
>
>Yet you seem to be allowing yourself to be exempt from this rule.

Again I've investigated hugh-end sound in great detail. I've conducted the amp,
capacitor, speaker cable, interconnects, outboard DAC, speaker stands and
series tweaks experiments BECAUSE no evidence from the claimants was
forthcoming.

I've left no stone unturned. It's really not my fault that claimants haven't
produced positive experiments and data that verifies the claims.

My position is that UNTIL someone delivers evidence; the claims remain
un-verified.

>
>Tom said
>
><< You seem to be willing to accept a claim without any positive evidence
>and to reject all contrary evidence as 'inconclusive.'
> >>
>
>Really? Please cite an example of me accepting claims that are alleged to
>be
>scientifically factual that doesn't have the requisit scientifically valid
>empirical evidence to support it.

Have you heard the special sound of a given amplifier reproducing music in a
listening or living room? Did you purchase an amplifier based on its "sound?"

Or do you reject such claims because they haven't been verified by
peer-reviewed experimental data?

>>Tom said
>>
>>> Why would that be; IF they actually existed?
>>> >>
>
>I said
>
><<
>>I do not have all data on the subject. I thank you again for what you sent
>>me. >>
>
>Tom said
>
><<
>
>As I said IF these audible differences actually existed I wonder why they
>remain so elusive that not one manufacturer, supplier, distributor, retailer,
>reviewer, reporter, lab rat, scientist, acoustician, electrical engineer,
>musician or anyone has been able to provide a single replicable positive
>experiment that shows that a nominally competent amp/wire has any influence
>on
>the sound reaching a liteners ears through loudspeakers in a normally
>reverberant environment.
> >>
>
>I am not a manufacturer, supplier, distributor, retailer, reviewer, reporter,
>lab rat, scientist, acoustician, electrical engineer or a musician. i doubt
>that you are truly aware of everything all people who fall into any of these
>catagories have and have not doen in these regards. i would suggest you take
>it
>up with the manufacturers that make claims you take issue with and ask them.

I have. As an enthusiast and professional I've been following this topic for
30+ years. I've read the published material, I've conducted the experiments,
I've developed associations in the industry to keep up with this stuff. And so
far NO ONE has provided a single replicable experiment where nominally
competent amplifiers (or wires or capacitors) (level matched, 0.2 dB frequency
response over the audible range and clipping less than 1% of the time driving a
given load) could be audibly distinguished in a normally reverberant (living
room acoustics) environment.

You claim to have seen none of the evidence; I've seen it all. Amp sound is a
figment of your imagination.

>
>What is a "normally reverberant envirement?"

Living room acoustics.

>
>Tom said
>
><<
>Yet there are a couple dozen attempts to find these differences that have
>failed. >>
>
>I've looked at one that you sent me. We have already been over it.
>

Why not examine some more?

>Tom said
>
><< Now you want us to believe that all the contrary evidence is
>inconclusive and we should ignore the lack of positives?
>Doesn't work for me.
> >>
>
>No. I simply want claims of scientific fact to be duely supported. i want you
>to believe whatever you want to believe.

Than why are you arguing here? It seems evident that you have no positive
evidence, will fail to accept the results of any previous attempt to verify amp
sound, will not ferret out any more evidence on the topic of your own volition
and will continue to Believe without evidence. Have a nice time.

Keith A. Hughes

July 12th 03, 07:46 PM

S888Wheel wrote:
<snip>

> <<
> As for your understanding of these particular results, Keith Hughes
> has handled that subject much more ably than I could.
> >>
>
> Interesting, given the fact that he was unaware of the number of subjects
> involved in the test.

Interesting, yes, but not for the reason you seem to imply. Let's
add some clarity by synopsis shall we?

1. You made specific claims about *individual* results (e.g. your
30/48 panelist) being significant. I clearly demonstrated that
such a result is NOT significantly different than chance. This
calculation is trivial, and requires NO additional information
about the test, the numbers of, or qualification of the panelists,
aggregate results, or anything else.

2. I made it clear that I was responding based on the information
*you* provided, and NOT based on review of the article. I stated
clearly I did not have the article in question.

3. I made it clear that my opinion on the acceptability of the
overal conclusion reached by the article (the only point I
addressed that *could* be affected by knowledge of the number of
panelists) was based on *your* recounting of the appertaining
data. I made no claim as to its completeness.

Thus, the comments I made were within this limited context, and
were stated as such. Misdirection and/or obfuscation seem apt
appellations for your allusions to the contrary.

Subsequent to my last posting, Mr. Nousaine has graciously offered
to send me the article in question, and after reviewing it, my
opinion of the overall conclusion *may* change. Who knows? Time
permitting, I will probably post my opinions on the article after
my review.

The statistical analysis I provided to you, however, will NOT
change, since all requisite data was available.

Keith Hughes

Audio Guy

July 12th 03, 08:05 PM

In article <rJXPa.45341$N7.5475@sccrnsc03>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> And what is the name of that "credible, replicable, bias controlled"
> experiment?
> Why? DBT, why? ABX (or its child ABX/hr) of course.
> And what do we do with those infidels who argue that the use of ABX IN
> THIS FIELD may be flawed and needs experimental evidence to prove
> itself? Why we tell them to disprove ABX? How? By undergoing it , of
> course.
> That is SCIENCE, kids. Not silly "personal opinions"

OK, let's discuss SCIENCE. You have explained your training and
experience in the medical field. What is your opinions on faith
healer, witch doctors, and chiropractics? These "medical practioners"
have millions of believers who disdain modern medicine and its
proponents even though there exists many, many studies and tests that
prove it's efficacy? To them modern medicine is "silly personal
opinions". How do you answer those infidels?

To those trained and experienced in the electronics field, your
objections to audio DBTs smack of the much the same.

ludovic mirabel

July 12th 03, 08:16 PM

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<GjIPa.38100$ye4.29495@sccrnsc01>...
> In article <8lGPa.37933$H17.11209@sccrnsc02>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<pIgPa.28021$ye4.21152@sccrnsc01>...

> This is no answer to my question of where I instructed you, just your
> unusual interpretation of my statement. Again, if sound is not the
> mechanism of delivery of the music, then what is? That is my question,
> and one you keep ignoring since you don't seem to have an answer.
>

Dear Audio Guy, why did not you say so before? Is that all you want me
to acknowledge? Are you quite sure? Nothing about the "test" to go
with it? Or its usefulness in comparing differences between
components?
If that is all here it comes: you're 175% right and I'm happy to
acknowledge this insight in all its brilliancy: "Sound is the
mechanism of delivery of music".
Now that we have that out of the way let's go hand in hand to another
area where "sound is the mechanism...etc" as well. You guessed it:
speech, spoken language, languages.
Let's leave aside the problems you might encounter if you communicate
your message-by-sound as above to someone with more primitive
language skills than yours. .
Just land with me in England on what was intended to be a holiday
many, many years ago. Being a keen learner I learnt my English from a
grammar textbook and a dictionary. I could read Aldous Huxley and was
quite confident that I'll get around O.K. I asked a nice man on Oxford
Street for directions. He said: "Go to a pub on the corner and..."
Seeing my puzzled expression ("pub" did not figure in A. Huxley's
book) he clarified: "Go to the public house..."
Now it so happens that in most European languages "public house" is a
polite way of saying "a brothel". You can imagine how struck I was by
the English directness in these delicate matters, and how I wondered
if the public house will have a neon sign outside or just a red
lantern.
It took me some years after that to figure out that there is a
difference between the *sounds* produced by a Br.Columbia Canadian and
a Washington State Yank. I know many ,many Chinese in my nearly
half-Chinese town who would look at me strangely if I suggested that
there WAS a difference. You see, their speech centre IN THE BRAIN has
not yet computed THIS difference between the sounds coming into their
ears. And for some it never will. Now try and help them out by
suggesting a DBT. But don't do it while I'm around.
Ludovic Mirabel

> >> In article <6a8Pa.25318$ye4.20777@sccrnsc01>,
> >> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> >> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<HWZOa.20234$H17.5464@sccrnsc02>...
> >
> > Thus spoke Audio Guy:
> >> "I also have a much deeper and through knowledge of
> >> how electronics work than you have and so KNOW (my italics L.M.) that the
> >> difference... etc"
> >
> > I said I didn't know how exactly the brain processed the reproduction
> > of music.
>
> Didn't say you did, where did this come from?
>
> What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is whether sound is the
> only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or isn't it?
>
> >
> >> No, I do not know what the brain can do, but I do KNOW (my italics L.M.)that
> >> sound is the mechanism that allows one to recognize either speech or music,
> >> and if there is no difference in the sound reaching the ears, there
> >> can be no different information getting to the brain for it to
> >> analyze.
> >> And again you show how little you yourself comprehend the topic.
>
> >> Please show where I "instructed" you, I merely asked how the brain
> >> could determine a difference if no difference in sound was presented.
> >
> > "Difference in sound" between a Stradivarius and a corner store
> > violin? To whom ? To 10.000 psychology students and electronics' engs.
> > or to Oistrakh?
> > Somebody's, anybody's brain says to its owner: "No difference". Which
> > proves to somebody, anybody that there IS no difference. Somebody's,
> > anybody else's brain says:" Good Lord, how very different!"
> > "Scientific" (thanks to ABX ) demonstration that the difference
> > enters "the sound" and leaves it again because it doesn't want to make
> > enemies amongst our homegrown scientists.
>
>
> > P.S.I said:
> >> > This is the time to remind you that you took on the job of instructing
> >> > me once before. Kindly and tolerantly I demonstrated to you in this
> >> > thread that not only you did not have a clue about the intended
> >> > purpose of ABX but did not even know how it was done.
> Audio Guy:
> >> Please quote this since I have never said I don't know how it is
> >> done. I KNOW (my caps L.M.) exactly how it is done and how DBTs in general is
> >> done as I also studied psychology at the university and that is one of the
> >> prime subjects.
> >
> > By request a quote from July 3rd Subthread (...Was......Furutech)
> >
> > Audio Guy said:
> > "Again, you MISUNDERSTAND (my capitals L.M.) what ABX was designed
> > for. It is a tool to
> > determine if differences exist, not for determining which unit is
> > better. There are DBTs for that purpose, but ABX is not one".
> >
> > L.M. answered:
> > "It is kind of you to straighten me out. I'll pass it on to Carlstrom
> > the "objectivist" Godfather and codeveloper of the ABX switching
> > device.
> > .. here is a quote of his from the official ABX website:"
> >
> > Carlstrom:---" A second common misconception about ABX is the claim
> > that an ABX
> > test result is not a preference: it does not tell which audio
> > component sounds better. While literally true, if an ABX test confirms
> > a difference is heard, selecting one's preference is easy and
> > completely justified." I commented:
> > "I think that to find out that: " This is different" and leave
> > it at that may be of fascinating interest to pure searchers after
> > truth like you but not to an unsophisticated audio consumer like
> > myself.." (And Carlstrom seems to agree)
>
> Again you seem to be deciding how ABX is to be used, and
> misinterpreting Carlstrom's statements to do so. He never said that
> ABX is used to determine a preference, and in fact he states it is
> LITERALLY true that it is NOT a test of preference. Please re-read
> what you quoted. He is saying exactly what many other ABX advocated
> state, that is, once a difference is determined, than one can move on
> to choosing a preference, the corollary being if no difference is
> determined then there is no reason to move to the next step and
> choose a preference. Again, he never said to actually use ABX to make
> the preference, that is simply you reading between lines that are not
> there.
>
> You yourself just keep proving over and over again that you don't
> rally understand how ABX is used.
>
You're right again. It is used to determine preference or may be it is
not , or both or whatever. I'm not up to all this subtlety.

> > I continued:
> > "I'm even more confused about your explanation of the ABX test:. I
> > said: "I can easily hear 1db difference between channels, and a change
> > of 1 db.
> > What I can't do is to have 80 db changed to 81 db, then be asked if
> > the third unknown is 80 or 81 dbs. and be consistently correct."
> >
> > You answered:
> > "Not what ABX tests do. They are used to determine if you can
> > determine if there is a difference, not if you can identify which is
> > which"..
> > I said:
> > "Curiouser and curiouser as the Red Queen said. . First we have cable
> > A, producing 80 db. Then cable B -81 db.. Then one of these two not
> > known to you (cable X) and you're asked "Is it like A or like B?"
> > What kind of ABX protocol have you been following?"
>
> I decided it wasn't worth answering such a misconstruing of my
> statement, but since you insist: I meant you are not asked if the
> unknown is 80 dB or 81 dB, but only if is it A or B. Your original
> statement never mentioned A or B only the measurements 80 dB or 81 dB.
> A misunderstanding by you of a misunderstanding of mine.
>

Get it. Everything is clear now. See you around.

S888Wheel

July 12th 03, 09:16 PM

Tom said

>But I'd like to start with an assertion. Mr Wheel seems to believe that
>nominally competent amplifiers impart a special sound of their own to music
>reproduced in the home.

I'll fix your assertion. I believe I have heard differences between amplifiers
in sighted and blind comparisons. I may not have done a very good job in
setting up my blind comparisons and the same may be true of those that were set
up for me. i make no claims about the "competence" of thses amplifiers. my last
comparison between amplifiers was sighted and involved an SET. It is my
impression that Tom may consider SETs to be inherently incompetently designed.
I thought it sounded different than my amp. I make no claims that my
observations rise beyond anecdotal in merit and make no claims that I cannot
possibly be mistaken.

Tom said

>Otherwise we'd not be 'debating' the evidence.

Nope. I am debating the levle of scientific certainty ascribed to your views by
you. In fact i am really just trying to investigate that level. So far, the
only debate I have with you is the conclusions one can draw from one particluar
article.

Tom said

> I sent
>him some articles on the subject, one which was a chronicle of more than 20
>bias-controlled listening tests that had been conducted prior to 1990
>because
>he said he'd never seen any evidence on the matter.

A chronicle? It was basically an argument for the use of ABX DBTs in audio and
cited those tests. It is not a replacement for the evidence itself which was
the only thing that I was interested in.

Tom said

>Another was a 1986 report
>"Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" by David Clark and Ian Masters.
>

And the interpretation of those results in that one article has been a source
of differing opinions between myslef and several others on RAHE including
yourself.

>>Tom said
>>
>><<
>>It's not telling you that amp sound has ever been verified. It is telling
>you
>>that many attempts to verify amp sound have failed to do so.
>> >>

I said

>
>>It? "It" so far for me is the one article. "it" Is not telling me anything
>>definitive about amp sound. It would be foolish for me to draw any
>definitive
>>conclusions one way or another based on that article.

Tom said

>
>So read some of the other twenty. There's a clear list on "The Great Debate:
>Is
>Anybody Winning?"

I would like to but, as I said before, Easter egg hunts are not my thing.

I said

>
>>Nonsense. I want claims of scientifically definitive facts to be
>sufficiently
>>supported by a substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence.
>>Is
>>that asking too much?

Tom said

>
>So you're saying that you want scientifically valid positive evidence of amp
>sound and can't find any? That's my point.

No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying I want claims of scientifically
definitive facts to be sufficiently supported by a substantial body of
scientifically valid empirical evidence. What is so hard to understand about
this that you have to rephrase my words and wreck it's meaning? You are making
such claims, I am not.

Tom said

>
>>So then, the dubious evidence on the amp sound side carries MORE weight than
>>the contrary? Please. >>

I said

>
>>Please what? did I say I base my opinions on the most dubious of anecdotes?

Tom said

>
>What other evidence do you have?

Personal experience. So far that carries the most wieght.

Tom said

>You call my evidence dubious,

No, I did not.

Tom said

>have never seen
>a positive confirmation of amp sound other than an anecdote and you STILL
>believe in it?

I have laid out all the evidence I have seen or heard and now you choose to
edit it to attack my position that you have misrepresented earlier in this
post. Maybe you just aren't understanding what I have been saying.

>
>><<
>>>Tom said
>>>
>>>> Now published data is
>>>>inconclusive >>
>>

>
>>I said
>>
>><<
>>>No a specific published test that was never peer reviewed.

Tom said

>
>You have to show me a peer-reviewed report that has convincing evidence that
>amps have a sound of their own before you can reject the other evidence (all
>2
>dozen of them.)
>

If I made a claim as you have about the scientifically proven certainty the
audibility of amps i would indeed have to show you the evidence. You are the
one making the claim and you are the one with the burden of proof. My claims of
the audibility of amps is purely anecdotal and I make no assertions that it
rises above the reliability of anecdotal evidence.

>
>>Tom said
>>
>><<
>>How is that any worse than not having peer-reviewed evidence of amp sound?
>>>
>>

I said

>
>>It is no worse if someone is making claims that it has been scientifically
>>proven that amps sound different. That doesn't seem to be the case though
>>does
>>it?

Tom said

>
>No it doesn't. Why are you still arguing?

Because you are still making assertions that you claim are scientifically
proven facts without the requisite scientifically valid supportive empirical
evidence.

Tom said

>No one has verified amp sound;

No one as far as I can see has vierifed it's nonexistance to the level you
claim, that being a scientifically valid fact.

Tom said

>yet
>you still tthink it exists don't you?
>

Without the needed scientificaly valid empirical evidence needed to support
claims of scientifically supported claims of fact. i am left with my experience
as my best evidence on the issue. one does not have to have scientific proof to
reasonably believe something. If I were to exaggerate the reliability of my
beliefs on the subject that would be a different matter.

I said

>
>> Not only that the
>>>testors never measured the test for sensitivity

>>Tom said
>>
>><<
>>Sohow would they have done that to your satisfaction? What did you think of
>>the
>>20+ other experiments with similar results?

I said

>
>>Simple. introduce known audible differences into the test and gauge the
>>confidence levels that each listener can discern those differences at
>>decending levels of those added audible differences.

Tom said

>
>Doesn't the Bell Labs data on human hearing sensitivity count?

I suspect it does. Did Bell Labs come in and test all of these cited tests for
sensitivity?

Tom said

>human hearing sensitivity count? Clark's work
>tested for introduction of known audible cause (level, frequency response,
>excessive distortion). Once these qualities have been verified to be below
>the
>human threshold of audibility what else is left?

I didn't see that in the article. I saw no indication that the reference system
and the listeners were tested for known barely audible differences.

Tom said

>
>Oh, the mysterious 'amp sound' that has never been shown to be audible if not
>a
>function of the causes just listed. You cannot verify differences that have
>never been shown to exist.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

Tom said

>
>Indeed that was the purpose of the Masters/Clark experiment; to find audible
>cause commonly and strongly claimed to exist beyond human capability to
>measure
>and exploit them through engineering.

Really? Looked to me like a simple listening comparison test. I must have
missed the attempt to corilate measurements of amp performance.

I said

>> i think it
>>>would be very foolish for me or anyone else to look at this specific test
>>and
>>>draw definitive global conclusions on the audible differences of
>amplifiers.
>> >>

Tom said

>
>But, if this test were the ONLY evidence on the table it still aces valid
>positive experiments that disclose 'amp sound.'

It is the only test on my table as we speak.

Tom said

>So how can you accept anecdotal
>reports of it when no one has proven its existence?

Who said I accept any anecdotal reports as evidence of anything?

>
>>Tom said
>>
>><<
>>So why don't you examine some of the others? >>

I said

>
>>I would be happy to.

Tom said

>
>No one is stopping you.

Time and resources are the issue. I am probably spending more time just posting
on this forum than I should be. I am for better or worse, very busy right now.
Unlike a few years back, my endeveours are not as lucritive at the moment.
Hopefully my current R&D along with the irons I have in the fire will take care
of this.

Tom said

>Go ahead. I've provided you an extensive list of them.
>Even so "To Tweak...." carries amp sound serially coupled with tubes, wires,
>wire dress, isolation devices and outboard DACs.
>

In time if things go as I plan.

>
>>Tom said
>>
>><< That's one of the characteristics
>>of this particular experiment; it HAS been replicated.
>> >>

I said

>
>>Really? someone compared the same amps as this test using the same playback
>>system and got the sme results? I'd like to see that.

Tom said

>
>Look at the List in "The Great Debate:....?" Replication doesn't mean that
>one
>has to use exactly the same equipment, only equipment said to contain the
>special qualities.

Then you still failed to answer part of my question. Did they use the same
amps?

>
>>>Tom said
>>>
>>>> Yet, you have NO confirmation of differences you think exist in a
>>>>peer reviewed report.
>>> >>

>>I said
>>
>><<
>>>Indeed I don't and never claimed I do. However this is not a reasonable
>>basis
>>>to make such definitve assertions of the lack of audible differences IMO.
>>>

Tom said

>As I said many claims, no evidence. Why not? Just because someone makes the
>claims that this special sauce will completely eliminate septic problems,
>make
>your dick bigger, improve your old lady's boobs doesn't let me believe the
>claims without some evidence.

Well, with time against me and the level of conversation dropping to this sort
of cruedness i mustr end my response to this post. I'll get back to it when
time permits.

Audio Guy

July 12th 03, 09:19 PM

In article <b8ZPa.45649$ye4.35574@sccrnsc01>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<GjIPa.38100$ye4.29495@sccrnsc01>...
>> In article <8lGPa.37933$H17.11209@sccrnsc02>,
>> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<pIgPa.28021$ye4.21152@sccrnsc01>...
>
>> This is no answer to my question of where I instructed you, just your
>> unusual interpretation of my statement. Again, if sound is not the
>> mechanism of delivery of the music, then what is? That is my question,
>> and one you keep ignoring since you don't seem to have an answer.
>>
>
> Dear Audio Guy, why did not you say so before? Is that all you want me
> to acknowledge? Are you quite sure? Nothing about the "test" to go
> with it? Or its usefulness in comparing differences between
> components?
> If that is all here it comes: you're 175% right and I'm happy to
> acknowledge this insight in all its brilliancy: "Sound is the
> mechanism of delivery of music".

Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
music. Is it or isn't it?"

> Now that we have that out of the way let's go hand in hand to another
> area where "sound is the mechanism...etc" as well. You guessed it:
> speech, spoken language, languages.

Yes. let's do that. You also never commented on my statement in a
previous reply to you that speech can be compressed and filtered and
still be totally intelligible. This is done regularly in telephone
systems. Is that what you are advocating for music too? Just showing
how inappropriate your analogy is here and how little you really
understand the topic.

Steven Sullivan

July 13th 03, 02:54 AM

ludovic mirabel > wrote:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<HWZOa.20234$H17.5464@sccrnsc02>...

>>See his text below

> Dear A.Guy . I promised myself not to bother with this kind of
> contribution any longer but, true, you have a right to question my
> credentials. Note that all I claim is that I know enough to know when
> to shut up about matters that are on the leading edge of specialised
> research in neuropsychology, neurobiochemistry, neuropharmacology and
> brain-imaging. Also to know enough to surmise that however modest my
> resources are in this superspecialised field in all likelihood they
> are infinitely greater than yours, Pierce's, Marcus' and Sullivan's
> separately and all together.

I surmise that you're wrong.

I did my undergrad work at an Ivy League college, concnetrating in
two fields: psychology and music. THe former involved a year's coursework
in physiological psychology , and directed literatre review of
publications in the field of perception of music. The latter
involved typical ear training and theory and historical coursework,
as well as playing an instrument.

My PhD work was in the molecular biology of the development of the
vertebrate nervous system, specifically the visual system. My
postdoctoral work continued those studies at an even earlier stage
of neurobiological development. Beyond the de rigeur courses
in cell biology and biochemistry, the
coursework involved in the PhD included advanced training and reading in
experimental design, neuroanatomy, and molecular neurobiology, with
detours through neuropharmacology and evolutionary biology.

Nowadays I'm more into bioinformatics, but
I keep up with current findings in my former fields via reading
Science, Nature, Neuron, Development, and other respected journals.

So armed, that only makes me conversant in the 'wetware' end of things;
for mastters where my grasp is less sure,
I'm happy to learn from people who *obviously* know their stuff
re: engineering of audio components, and the minutiae of
psychoacoustics and comparative testing,
better than I ever will, and certainly far better than you seem
to.

Nousaine

July 13th 03, 03:34 AM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

....snips......

>Tom said
>
>>But I'd like to start with an assertion. Mr Wheel seems to believe that
>>nominally competent amplifiers impart a special sound of their own to music
>>reproduced in the home.
>
>I'll fix your assertion. I believe I have heard differences between
>amplifiers
>in sighted and blind comparisons. I may not have done a very good job in
>setting up my blind comparisons and the same may be true of those that were
>set
>up for me. i make no claims about the "competence" of thses amplifiers. my
>last
>comparison between amplifiers was sighted and involved an SET. It is my
>impression that Tom may consider SETs to be inherently incompetently
>designed.

But did you test for nominal competency? Were levels and frequency response
matched? Did you test yourself for sensitivity to known "audible" differences
and freedom for self-induced or experimental bias?

If not then you're claiming that personal anecdotal experience should carry
more weight than any other experiment, even those with matched levels and
response verification and listener bias controls implemented.

I'd say your personal experience lacks all the elements you fail to see in the
other tests on your table as we speak and then a great deal more.

>I thought it sounded different than my amp. I make no claims that my
>observations rise beyond anecdotal in merit and make no claims that I cannot
>possibly be mistaken.

With no clear picture of the experimental details (no raw data for certain) how
can anyone, even you, accept it as just more dubious conjecture?

>
>Tom said
>
>>Otherwise we'd not be 'debating' the evidence.
>
>Nope. I am debating the levle of scientific certainty ascribed to your views
>by
>you. In fact i am really just trying to investigate that level. So far, the
>only debate I have with you is the conclusions one can draw from one
>particluar
>article.

I'd say there are at least two that use amplifiers on your table right now.

>
>Tom said
>
>> I sent
>>him some articles on the subject, one which was a chronicle of more than 20
>>bias-controlled listening tests that had been conducted prior to 1990
>>because
>>he said he'd never seen any evidence on the matter.
>
>A chronicle? It was basically an argument for the use of ABX DBTs in audio
>and
>cited those tests. It is not a replacement for the evidence itself which was
>the only thing that I was interested in.

It has a clear listing of nearly 2 dozen such experiments, doesn't it?

>
>Tom said
>
>>Another was a 1986 report
>>"Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" by David Clark and Ian Masters.
>>
>
>And the interpretation of those results in that one article has been a source
>of differing opinions between myslef and several others on RAHE including
>yourself.

But those who disagree with the results have no alternative evidence other than
anecdote upon which to draw opinions.

>
>>>Tom said
>>>
>>><<
>>>It's not telling you that amp sound has ever been verified. It is telling
>>you
>>>that many attempts to verify amp sound have failed to do so.
>>> >>
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>It? "It" so far for me is the one article. "it" Is not telling me anything
>>>definitive about amp sound. It would be foolish for me to draw any
>>definitive
>>>conclusions one way or another based on that article.

OK; why not investigate some of the rest? Or draw tentative conclusions based
on the evidence at hand? You seem willing perfectly able to draw a conclusion
that 'amp sound' exists with NO evidentiary back-up other tnan a personal
anecdote.

>Tom said
>
>>
>>So read some of the other twenty. There's a clear list on "The Great Debate:
>>Is
>>Anybody Winning?"
>
>I would like to but, as I said before, Easter egg hunts are not my thing.

You've never been on an audio egg hunt or any other kind of hunt for data as
far as I can see. Even when the eggs are delivered free you reject them. I'm
not surprised you don't want to learn more. You already know the smoking gun
doesn't exist.

>
>I said
>
>>
>>>Nonsense. I want claims of scientifically definitive facts to be
>>sufficiently
>>>supported by a substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence.
>>>Is
>>>that asking too much?
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>So you're saying that you want scientifically valid positive evidence of amp
>>sound and can't find any? That's my point.
>
>No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying I want claims of scientifically
>definitive facts to be sufficiently supported by a substantial body of
>scientifically valid empirical evidence. What is so hard to understand about
>this that you have to rephrase my words and wreck it's meaning?

That's my point exactly. No interested party has delivered a single shred of
evidence that high-end amp sound exists, let alone a
"substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence." What's so hard
to understand about that?

>>
>>What other evidence do you have?
>
>Personal experience. So far that carries the most wieght.

An undocumented anecdotal report from a person that admittedly has not
investigated the existing evidence 'carries' the most weight with you? Why are
you carping about Clark and Masters then?

>>You have to show me a peer-reviewed report that has convincing evidence that
>>amps have a sound of their own before you can reject the other evidence (all
>>2
>>dozen of them.)
>>
>
>If I made a claim as you have about the scientifically proven certainty the
>audibility of amps i would indeed have to show you the evidence. You are the
>one making the claim and you are the one with the burden of proof. My claims
>of
>the audibility of amps is purely anecdotal and I make no assertions that it
>rises above the reliability of anecdotal evidence.

And my assertion is that no one has verified high-end amp sound as reported
anecdotally and in the high-end press. What's so hard to understand about that
without misrepresenting it? Do you NOT agree that no one has; as far as your
knowledge goes?

Of course, there's no stopping you from keeping the blinders on but you're
reduced to the 'I heard it once and now that I've made up my mind there's no
amount of contrary evidence that cannot be ignored or pronounced inconclusive.'

This is just another, not so clever, form of the sample size (you haven't
tested every amplifier that has ever existed or every human that has ever
lived) argument.

>>
>>>Tom said
>>>
>>><<
>>>How is that any worse than not having peer-reviewed evidence of amp sound?
>>>>
>>>
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>It is no worse if someone is making claims that it has been scientifically
>>>proven that amps sound different. That doesn't seem to be the case though
>>>does
>>>it?
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>No it doesn't. Why are you still arguing?
>
>Because you are still making assertions that you claim are scientifically
>proven facts without the requisite scientifically valid supportive empirical
>evidence.

Nope I've only said that no one has proven these differences exist. Yet, all
apologists still profess they do. You do.

>
>Tom said
>
>>No one has verified amp sound;
>
>No one as far as I can see has vierifed it's nonexistance to the level you
>claim, that being a scientifically valid fact.

Again why does one have to? I'm not claiming anything special about my
amplifiers. They sound just like every other nominally competent amplifier I've
ever encountered.

>Tom said
>
>>yet
>>you still tthink it exists don't you?
>>
>
>Without the needed scientificaly valid empirical evidence needed to support
>claims of scientifically supported claims of fact. i am left with my
>experience
>as my best evidence on the issue. one does not have to have scientific proof
>to
>reasonably believe something.

Why not? You require that others Prove the non-existence of same before you'll
accept that no one has ever verified existance UNDER your own rules of
evidence.

If I were to exaggerate the reliability of my
>beliefs on the subject that would be a different matter.

As if you were the only interested party.

>I said
>
>>
>>> Not only that the
>>>>testors never measured the test for sensitivity
>
>>>Tom said
>>>
>>><<
>>>Sohow would they have done that to your satisfaction? What did you think of
>>>the
>>>20+ other experiments with similar results?
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>Simple. introduce known audible differences into the test and gauge the
>>>confidence levels that each listener can discern those differences at
>>>decending levels of those added audible differences.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>Doesn't the Bell Labs data on human hearing sensitivity count?
>
>I suspect it does. Did Bell Labs come in and test all of these cited tests
>for
>sensitivity?

They didn't have to. They tested the known thresholds for human audibility.
Clark verifed that those levels were not exceeded prior to the test.

But, has your sensitivity been tested by Bell Labs? If not; you don't qualify
either then.

>
>Tom said
>
>>human hearing sensitivity count? Clark's work
>>tested for introduction of known audible cause (level, frequency response,
>>excessive distortion). Once these qualities have been verified to be below
>>the
>>human threshold of audibility what else is left?
>
>I didn't see that in the article.

Then you should read it.

I saw no indication that the reference
>system
>and the listeners were tested for known barely audible differences.

Such as? Level, frequency response? You demand that every listener have an
Audiogram? Then you'll have to discount every anecdotal report EVEN YOUR OWN
I'd say.

>Tom said
>
>>
>>Oh, the mysterious 'amp sound' that has never been shown to be audible if
>not
>>a
>>function of the causes just listed. You cannot verify differences that have
>>never been shown to exist.
>
>I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

That's because one cannot test a listener for sensitivity to differences
(amp-sound) that have never been shown to exist prior other than an open
listening session prior to test. That was accomplished.

>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>Indeed that was the purpose of the Masters/Clark experiment; to find audible
>>cause commonly and strongly claimed to exist beyond human capability to
>>measure
>>and exploit them through engineering.
>
>Really? Looked to me like a simple listening comparison test. I must have
>missed the attempt to corilate measurements of amp performance.

Are you this obtuse on purpose? Clark/Masters verified that differences in
level and frequency response and overload were below the audible threshold of
humans by measuring the amplifiers in the test set-up.

>
>I said
>
>>> i think it
>>>>would be very foolish for me or anyone else to look at this specific test
>>>and
>>>>draw definitive global conclusions on the audible differences of
>>amplifiers.
>>> >>
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>But, if this test were the ONLY evidence on the table it still aces valid
>>positive experiments that disclose 'amp sound.'
>
>It is the only test on my table as we speak.

Except for "To Tweak ..." regarding amplifiers.

>
>Tom said
>
>>So how can you accept anecdotal
>>reports of it when no one has proven its existence?
>
>Who said I accept any anecdotal reports as evidence of anything?

You just said that your anecdote about amplifiers carries the "most" weight,
did you not?

>>
>>>Tom said
>>>
>>><<
>>>So why don't you examine some of the others? >>
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>I would be happy to.

There's nothing I can, or want, to do to stop you.

>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>No one is stopping you.
>
>Time and resources are the issue. I am probably spending more time just
>posting
>on this forum than I should be. I am for better or worse, very busy right
>now.

What makes you think I am less busy than you?

>>>Tom said
>>>
>>><< That's one of the characteristics
>>>of this particular experiment; it HAS been replicated.
>>> >>
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>Really? someone compared the same amps as this test using the same playback
>>>system and got the sme results? I'd like to see that.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>Look at the List in "The Great Debate:....?" Replication doesn't mean that
>>one
>>has to use exactly the same equipment, only equipment said to contain the
>>special qualities.
>
>Then you still failed to answer part of my question. Did they use the same
>amps?

Some of them I'm sure. BUT they all used amplification devices "said" to have
the special high-end amp sound.

>>
>>>>Tom said
>>>>
>>>>> Yet, you have NO confirmation of differences you think exist in a
>>>>>peer reviewed report.
>>>> >>
>
>>>I said
>>>
>>><<
>>>>Indeed I don't and never claimed I do. However this is not a reasonable
>>>basis
>>>>to make such definitve assertions of the lack of audible differences IMO.

Why not. But I've only definitively said that NO ONE has verifed amp or wire
sound. True or not?

I think that its for the same reason we do not have a living or dead BigFoot to
examine.

>>>>
>
>Tom said
>
>>As I said many claims, no evidence. Why not? Just because someone makes the
>>claims that this special sauce will completely eliminate septic problems,
>>make
>>your dick bigger, improve your old lady's boobs doesn't let me believe the
>>claims without some evidence.
>
>Well, with time against me and the level of conversation dropping to this
>sort
>of cruedness i mustr end my response to this post. I'll get back to it when
>time permits.

IMO the high-end claims are on the same level as the penis-enhancement
supplement ads and probably work on roughly the same psychological mechanisms.

S888Wheel

July 13th 03, 05:58 AM

>Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
>decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
>is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
>music. Is it or isn't it?"

Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of sonic
differences between amps.

S888Wheel

July 13th 03, 06:17 PM

<<
>Tom said
>
>>But I'd like to start with an assertion. Mr Wheel seems to believe that
>>nominally competent amplifiers impart a special sound of their own to music
>>reproduced in the home.
> >>

I said

<<
>I'll fix your assertion. I believe I have heard differences between
>amplifiers
>in sighted and blind comparisons. I may not have done a very good job in
>setting up my blind comparisons and the same may be true of those that were
>set
>up for me. i make no claims about the "competence" of thses amplifiers. my
>last
>comparison between amplifiers was sighted and involved an SET. It is my
>impression that Tom may consider SETs to be inherently incompetently
>designed.
>>

Tom said

<<
But did you test for nominal competency? >>

Did I test for your idea of competency? No. I'm not entirely sure what you
consider to be competent. I have only noted that I remember you saying
something to the effect that SETs weren't. The amp certainly worked. The system
played music when the amp was used.

Tom said

<< Were levels and frequency response
matched? >>

I varied the levels for each listening session to that which sounded best for
each selection. So, on the one hand the levels were not matched. OTOH the
levels were where they would be in my normal use. If I had the means at the
time to match levels i would have. this was my way of trying to work around
this problem. i used no EQ. the frequency response was whatever it was for each
amp.

Tom said

<< Did you test yourself for sensitivity to known "audible" differences
and freedom for self-induced or experimental bias? >>

I did not test myself for sensitivity to differences. If i audition a piece of
equipment and don't hear a difference then I would have no interest in buying
it. So if I am insenseitive to audible differences it is of no consequence that
i might be missing them in an audition for purchase consideration. I did not do
the test blind as I said so i was quite aware that I may be suseptable to
biases.

Tom said

<<
If not then you're claiming that personal anecdotal experience should carry
more weight than any other experiment, even those with matched levels and
response verification and listener bias controls implemented.
>>

No I'm not.

Tom said

<<
I'd say your personal experience lacks all the elements you fail to see in the
other tests on your table as we speak and then a great deal more. >>

I would agree. that is why i make no claims of their scientific validity.

I said

<<

>I thought it sounded different than my amp. I make no claims that my
>observations rise beyond anecdotal in merit and make no claims that I cannot
>possibly be mistaken.
>>

Tom said

<<

With no clear picture of the experimental details (no raw data for certain) how
can anyone, even you, accept it as just more dubious conjecture?
>>

I don't expect anyone to accept it as anything more than an anecdote. as for
myself, i had the experience.

<<
>
>Tom said
>
>>Otherwise we'd not be 'debating' the evidence.
> >>

I said

<<
>Nope. I am debating the levle of scientific certainty ascribed to your views
>by
>you. In fact i am really just trying to investigate that level. So far, the
>only debate I have with you is the conclusions one can draw from one
>particluar
>article. >>

Tom said

<<
I'd say there are at least two that use amplifiers on your table right now. >>

Yes but yours used an unconventional protocol. One that is not used normally
for maximum sensitivity.

<<
>
>Tom said
>
>> I sent
>>him some articles on the subject, one which was a chronicle of more than 20
>>bias-controlled listening tests that had been conducted prior to 1990
>>because
>>he said he'd never seen any evidence on the matter.
> >>

I said

<<
>A chronicle? It was basically an argument for the use of ABX DBTs in audio
>and
>cited those tests. It is not a replacement for the evidence itself which was
>the only thing that I was interested in.
>>

Tom said

<<
It has a clear listing of nearly 2 dozen such experiments, doesn't it?
>>

Yes, sources are clearly listed.

<<
>
>Tom said
>
>>Another was a 1986 report
>>"Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" by David Clark and Ian Masters.
>>
> >>

I said

<<
>
>And the interpretation of those results in that one article has been a source
>of differing opinions between myslef and several others on RAHE including
>yourself. >>

Tom said

<<

But those who disagree with the results have no alternative evidence other than
anecdote upon which to draw opinions.

> >>

Ket's be clear about this. It is the interpretation that is in dispute. not the
data.

<<
>>>Tom said
>>>
>>><<
>>>It's not telling you that amp sound has ever been verified. It is telling
>>you
>>>that many attempts to verify amp sound have failed to do so.
>>> >>
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>It? "It" so far for me is the one article. "it" Is not telling me anything
>>>definitive about amp sound. It would be foolish for me to draw any
>>definitive
>>>conclusions one way or another based on that article.
>>

Tom said

<<
OK; why not investigate some of the rest? >>

As i have already explained it will be a while before i can do this due to time
and resources. i'm not broke but I'm not single if you get my drift.

Tom said

<< Or draw tentative conclusions based
on the evidence at hand? >>

I did, you just didn't like them.

Tom said

<< You seem willing perfectly able to draw a conclusion
that 'amp sound' exists with NO evidentiary back-up other tnan a personal
anecdote. >>

I have drawn such conclusions the same way I have drawn similar conclusions
about my favorite burger joint and my favorite speakers. I make no claim of the
scientific reliability of those conclusions and keep those conclusions in that
perspective.

<<
>Tom said
>
>>
>>So read some of the other twenty. There's a clear list on "The Great Debate:
>>Is
>>Anybody Winning?"
> >>

I said

<<
>I would like to but, as I said before, Easter egg hunts are not my thing. >>

Tom said

<<

You've never been on an audio egg hunt or any other kind of hunt for data as
far as I can see. >>

Sorry, i cannot help you with your perception problems.

Tom said

<< Even when the eggs are delivered free you reject them. >>

Are you seriously equating a disagrrement in interpretation of data as a
rejection of data on my part? You certianly don't lack confidence in your
opinions if you cannot tell them apart from empirical evidence.

Tom said

<< I'm
not surprised you don't want to learn more. >>

And yet you continue to surprise me with your misrepresentations of my desires
and intentions and thoughts.

Tom said

<< You already know the smoking gun
doesn't exist. >>

See above about your misrepresentations.

<<
>I said
>
>>
>>>Nonsense. I want claims of scientifically definitive facts to be
>>sufficiently
>>>supported by a substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence.
>>>Is
>>>that asking too much?
> >>

<<
>Tom said
>
>>
>>So you're saying that you want scientifically valid positive evidence of amp
>>sound and can't find any? That's my point.
> >>

I said

<<
>No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying I want claims of scientifically
>definitive facts to be sufficiently supported by a substantial body of
>scientifically valid empirical evidence. What is so hard to understand about
>this that you have to rephrase my words and wreck it's meaning? >>

Tom said

<<
That's my point exactly. No interested party has delivered a single shred of
evidence that high-end amp sound exists, let alone a
"substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence." What's so hard
to understand about that?
>>

Nothing. Maybe you have me confused with someone who is making assertions of
scientifically valid proof of such.

Tom said

<<
>>
>>What other evidence do you have?
> >>

I said

<<
>Personal experience. So far that carries the most wieght.
>>

Tom said

<<
An undocumented anecdotal report from a person that admittedly has not
investigated the existing evidence 'carries' the most weight with you? Why are
you carping about Clark and Masters then?
>>

You are taking things out of context and twisting the meaning now. i have been
quite clear that my experience is not empirical evidence for anyone else. You
are also ignoring the fact that meaning of the evidence on the table is not
conclusive IMO. If you continue to choose to ignore this when describing how I
weigh evidence then you will simply just continue to misrepresent my thoughts
on the issue. This will not make your arguments more convincing to me.

Tom said

<<
>>You have to show me a peer-reviewed report that has convincing evidence that
>>amps have a sound of their own before you can reject the other evidence (all
>>2
>>dozen of them.)
>>
> >>

I said

<<
>
>If I made a claim as you have about the scientifically proven certainty the
>audibility of amps i would indeed have to show you the evidence. You are the
>one making the claim and you are the one with the burden of proof. My claims
>of
>the audibility of amps is purely anecdotal and I make no assertions that it
>rises above the reliability of anecdotal evidence.
>>

Tom said

<<
And my assertion is that no one has verified high-end amp sound as reported
anecdotally and in the high-end press. What's so hard to understand about that
without misrepresenting it? >>

It's easy to understand but you have asserted far more than this before. Is
this all you wish to assert on the subject now? That no peer reviewed evidence
exists that shows amps sound different? I wouldn't debate that. i know of none.
But then i know of no peer reviewed *evidence* that would show they don't have
a sound either. Are you setting up a double standard now for positive results
and null results? the Clark test we have been talking about was not peer
reviewed.

Tom said

<<

Of course, there's no stopping you from keeping the blinders on >>

And I guess there is no stopping you from burning straw men and continuing to
misrepresent my position and beliefs and opinions.

Tom said

<< but you're
reduced to the 'I heard it once and now that I've made up my mind there's no
amount of contrary evidence that cannot be ignored or pronounced inconclusive.'
>>

Wrong. regardless of your efforts, I have not been reduced to your
misrepresentations such as this one.

Tom said

<<
This is just another, not so clever, form of the sample size (you haven't
tested every amplifier that has ever existed or every human that has ever
lived) argument. >>

Balony.

<<
>>
>>>Tom said
>>>
>>><<
>>>How is that any worse than not having peer-reviewed evidence of amp sound?
>>>>
>>>
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>It is no worse if someone is making claims that it has been scientifically
>>>proven that amps sound different. That doesn't seem to be the case though
>>>does
>>>it?
> >>

<<
>Tom said
>
>>
>>No it doesn't. Why are you still arguing?
> >>

I said

<<
>Because you are still making assertions that you claim are scientifically
>proven facts without the requisite scientifically valid supportive empirical
>evidence. >>

Tom said

<<
Nope I've only said that no one has proven these differences exist. >>

If that is all you are saying fine. I don't think this is all you are saying
though. It seems you have been asserting that absense of proof of a positive is
conclusive proof of a negative in this particular issue.

Tom said

<< Yet, all
apologists still profess they do. You do.
>>

Yet another misrepresentation. They are getting tiresome.

<<
>Tom said
>
>>No one has verified amp sound;
> >>

I said

<<
>No one as far as I can see has vierifed it's nonexistance to the level you
>claim, that being a scientifically valid fact.
>>

Tom said

<<
Again why does one have to? >>

For the same reason one would have to prove any other claim of scientifically
valid fact.

Tom said

<< I'm not claiming anything special about my
amplifiers. >>

Straw man. you are making specific claims about their sound.

Tom said

<< They sound just like every other nominally competent amplifier I've
ever encountered. >>

See. You are making assertions about how they sound.

I said

<<
If I were to exaggerate the reliability of my
>beliefs on the subject that would be a different matter.
>>

Tom said

<<
As if you were the only interested party.
>>

What? have you taken an interest in my anecdotes? Are you now giving them more
wieght than you ought to?

<<
>I said
>
>>
>>> Not only that the
>>>>testors never measured the test for sensitivity
>
>>>Tom said
>>>
>>><<
>>>Sohow would they have done that to your satisfaction? What did you think of
>>>the
>>>20+ other experiments with similar results?
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>Simple. introduce known audible differences into the test and gauge the
>>>confidence levels that each listener can discern those differences at
>>>decending levels of those added audible differences.
> >>

<<
>Tom said
>
>>
>>Doesn't the Bell Labs data on human hearing sensitivity count? >>

I said

<<
>
>I suspect it does. Did Bell Labs come in and test all of these cited tests
>for
>sensitivity?
>>

Tom said

<<

They didn't have to. They tested the known thresholds for human audibility.
Clark verifed that those levels were not exceeded prior to the test. >>

I must have missed the part where Clark tested the system for sensitivity to
all known thresholds of human audibility and measured all the amps and varified
them they had no measurable differences that could possibly be audible. i'll
check the article again.

<<

But, has your sensitivity been tested by Bell Labs? If not; you don't qualify
either then. >>

If i were to be used in listening tests that were going to be used for
scientifically valid empirical evidence I would expect to be tested for such
sensitivities.

<<
>
>Tom said
>
>>human hearing sensitivity count? Clark's work
>>tested for introduction of known audible cause (level, frequency response,
>>excessive distortion). Once these qualities have been verified to be below
>>the
>>human threshold of audibility what else is left?
> >>

I said

<<
>I didn't see that in the article.
>>

Tom said

<<
Then you should read it.
>>

I did. I will review it again.

I said

<<
I saw no indication that the reference
>system
>and the listeners were tested for known barely audible differences. >>

Tom said

<<
Such as? Level, frequency response? You demand that every listener have an
Audiogram? Then you'll have to discount every anecdotal report EVEN YOUR OWN
I'd say. >>

I do discount every anecdotal report including my own as scientifically valid
conclusive evidence of anything.

<<
>Tom said
>
>>
>>Oh, the mysterious 'amp sound' that has never been shown to be audible if
>not
>>a
>>function of the causes just listed. You cannot verify differences that have
>>never been shown to exist.
> >>

I said

<<
>I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
>>

Tom said

<<
That's because one cannot test a listener for sensitivity to differences
(amp-sound) that have never been shown to exist prior other than an open
listening session prior to test. That was accomplished.
>>

I said they should tested for sensitivity to *known* barely audible
differences. I saw no report of any such testing of the listeners.

And here I must call it a night. the post is simply too long and the time is
too late.

Audio Guy

July 13th 03, 06:18 PM

In article <5G5Qa.45253$OZ2.8291@rwcrnsc54>,
(S888Wheel) writes:
>>Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
>>decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
>>is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
>>music. Is it or isn't it?"
>
> Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of sonic
> differences between amps.

OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.

S888Wheel

July 13th 03, 10:03 PM

>>>Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
>>>decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
>>>is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
>>>music. Is it or isn't it?"

I said

>
>> Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of sonic
>> differences between amps.

>
>OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.
>
>

Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was never an
audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that fact is
not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

Audio Guy

July 13th 03, 10:55 PM

In article >,
(S888Wheel) writes:
>>>>Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
>>>>decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
>>>>is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
>>>>music. Is it or isn't it?"
>
> I said
>
>>
>>> Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of sonic
>>> differences between amps.
>
>>
>>OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.
>>
>>
>
> Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was never an
> audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that fact is
> not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no
relevance to the discussion of the audible differences in audio
amplifiers, only sound.

S888Wheel

July 14th 03, 01:52 AM

>>>>>Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
>>>>>decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
>>>>>is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
>>>>>music. Is it or isn't it?"
>>
>> I said
>>
>>>
>>>> Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of sonic
>>>> differences between amps.
>>
>>>
>>>OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was never
>an
>> audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that fact
>is
>> not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.
>
>OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
>this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
>reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
>that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
>discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no
>relevance to the discussion of the audible differences in audio
>amplifiers, only sound.
>
>
>
>
>

Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous DVDs
with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
perception of music. Many people including myself prefer to listen in the dark
so as to not be distracted by the lack of performers in our sight. While
isolating the influences of other senses for the purpose of testing perception
of one sense may seem like an ideal, one cannot ignore the fact that we live
most of our lives using our senses in tandom and such isolation may have
unexpected effects.

Steven Sullivan

July 14th 03, 05:32 AM

S888Wheel > wrote:
>>>>>>Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
>>>>>>decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
>>>>>>is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
>>>>>>music. Is it or isn't it?"
>>>
>>> I said
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of sonic
>>>>> differences between amps.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was never
>>an
>>> audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that fact
>>is
>>> not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.
>>
>>OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
>>this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
>>reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
>>that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
>>discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no
>>relevance to the discussion of the audible differences in audio
>>amplifiers, only sound.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

> Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous DVDs
> with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
> perception of music.

Indeed. It will tend to introduce error into our perceptions of audible
difference. This is well-known.

--
-S.

Harry Lavo

July 14th 03, 05:47 AM

"Audio Guy" > wrote in message
news:LzkQa.48647$GL4.13222@rwcrnsc53...
> In article >,
> (S888Wheel) writes:
> >>>>Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
> >>>>decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
> >>>>is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
> >>>>music. Is it or isn't it?"
> >
> > I said
> >
> >>
> >>> Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of
sonic
> >>> differences between amps.
> >
> >>
> >>OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was
never an
> > audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that
fact is
> > not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.
>
> OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
> this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
> reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
> that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
> discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no
> relevance to the discussion of the audible differences in audio
> amplifiers, only sound.
>

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music. And that is the
primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether the
music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is amiss,
is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to try
to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
*objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub. It
demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on. Let me give
you a non-musical example that I use here before...about a year and a half
ago, I think.

Suppose you hear a split second of a car crash. That's all...half a second
of indecipherable noise. You wouldn't even know what it was. However, if
you heard a recording of street sounds, and auto approaching, a squeal of
tires, and then the crash, you would know what you were hearing. And if you
heard it through two different systems you could probably which one sounded
"most real". However, if all your heard were two snippets of sound of the
crash itself, my guess is your brain would be trying so hard to make sense
of what you were hearing you couldn't evaluate anything in the way of which
sounded most "real" because you didn't know what "real" was.

Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing we
call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally. Further the work done by
Oohashi et al (The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000, pp.
3548-3558) indicated that this emotional response took place over time, as
much as twenty seconds of time, from the time of the sound. Presumable this
is the time it takes the brain to recognize and interpret the music as
pleasurable, unpleasurable, rhythmically coherent or incoherent, etc.

This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and determine
its impact as "music". The factors affecting how we respond to music are
apparently very subtle and "time-based" and "harmony-based" and not static.
But a short burst comparison without much in the way of context for
recognition, relaxation, and response (which is the way most short-interval
testing is done) tends to short-circuit the process. This is the objection
must "subjectivists" have to ABX'ng in practice and why they question "null
results" that seem so at odds with so many people's otherwise fairly clear
perceptions of differences.

Oohashi et al indicate in the quoted article that they have confirmed this
speculation. That is, they have used short-interval comparisons of music,
and found "no difference" in ratings in line with accepted believe. But
when using "long-intervals" using the same stimuli and sequentially monadic
ratings, the achieved statistically significant differences in response to
the two stimuli.

You "amps is amps" people seem to want to ignore this finding, which is
pretty earthshaking and has nothing to do with whether you think the
"ultrasonic" portion of this test was done correctly or not, since
presumable the same stimulus was used in the precursor test (although to be
fair this should have been better documented in the article rather than
treated as almost a passing reference). This finding alone, if
substantiated by others, would rule out much of the abx and possibly most of
the dbt's done to date.

And, Tom, before you say it, I know dbt'ng doesn't *have* to be done that
way, but the fact is most of it has been done that way.

Back to the main point; evaluating components is *not* hearing differences,
but evaluating how possible differences effect emotional and rhythmic
response from us as humans. There is a big difference. And the answer to
the "there have to be differences fist" response is....how do you not know
there aren't if the test itself tends to short circuit those responses.
This is why there have been requests for evidence of rigor in the testing
and for validation of the abx and abc/hr testing themselves versus other
forms of testing (for example the sequential proto-monadic used by Oohashi
et al which do purport to measure differences. it cannot just be assumed
away.

Nousaine

July 14th 03, 05:42 PM

"Harry Lavo" wrote;

>"Audio Guy" > wrote in message

...some snips.....

>> OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
>> this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
>> reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
>> that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
>> discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no
>> relevance to the discussion of the audible differences in audio
>> amplifiers, only sound.
>>
>
>Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
>brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music. And that is the
>primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
>engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether the
>music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is amiss,
>is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
>allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to try
>to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
>*objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub. It
>demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on. Let me give
>you a non-musical example that I use here before...about a year and a half
>ago, I think.
>
>Suppose you hear a split second of a car crash. That's all...half a second
>of indecipherable noise. You wouldn't even know what it was. However, if
>you heard a recording of street sounds, and auto approaching, a squeal of
>tires, and then the crash, you would know what you were hearing. And if you
>heard it through two different systems you could probably which one sounded
>"most real". However, if all your heard were two snippets of sound of the
>crash itself, my guess is your brain would be trying so hard to make sense
>of what you were hearing you couldn't evaluate anything in the way of which
>sounded most "real" because you didn't know what "real" was.

But, even then you'd still be unable to interpret that context unless you'd
heard a real crash on a real street. How many have except for a film or TV
show?

>Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
>scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing we
>call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally.

They do? Why does the natural sound of loons crying on a lake or a rainstorm or
the sound of lake water or a stream get second billing?

Further the work done by
>Oohashi et al (The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000, pp.
>3548-3558) indicated that this emotional response took place over time, as
>much as twenty seconds of time, from the time of the sound. Presumable this
>is the time it takes the brain to recognize and interpret the music as
>pleasurable, unpleasurable, rhythmically coherent or incoherent, etc.

"Presumable"? You're just making presumptions that you believe will undo
extant evidence that's uncomfortable for you.

>This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and determine
>its impact as "music". The factors affecting how we respond to music are
>apparently very subtle and "time-based" and "harmony-based" and not static.
>But a short burst comparison without much in the way of context for
>recognition, relaxation, and response (which is the way most short-interval
>testing is done) tends to short-circuit the process. This is the objection
>must "subjectivists" have to ABX'ng in practice and why they question "null
>results" that seem so at odds with so many people's otherwise fairly clear
>perceptions of differences.

No; you're just responding to the results IMO because your "fairly clear
perceptions of differences." can't be verified with listening bias controls
implemented.

>
>Oohashi et al indicate in the quoted article that they have confirmed this
>speculation. That is, they have used short-interval comparisons of music,
>and found "no difference" in ratings in line with accepted believe. But
>when using "long-intervals" using the same stimuli and sequentially monadic
>ratings, the achieved statistically significant differences in response to
>the two stimuli.
>
>You "amps is amps" people seem to want to ignore this finding, which is
>pretty earthshaking and has nothing to do with whether you think the
>"ultrasonic" portion of this test was done correctly or not, since
>presumable the same stimulus was used in the precursor test (although to be
>fair this should have been better documented in the article rather than
>treated as almost a passing reference). This finding alone, if
>substantiated by others, would rule out much of the abx and possibly most of
>the dbt's done to date.
>
>And, Tom, before you say it, I know dbt'ng doesn't *have* to be done that
>way, but the fact is most of it has been done that way.

Let me refer you to "Flying Blind" (Audio, 1997) which confirms that short
intervals are the optimal method for detecting difference. You'll have to find
a better passing reference Harry.

>
>Back to the main point; evaluating components is *not* hearing differences,
>but evaluating how possible differences effect emotional and rhythmic
>response from us as humans. There is a big difference. And the answer to
>the "there have to be differences fist" response is....how do you not know
>there aren't if the test itself tends to short circuit those responses.

Because the methods don't. Bias controls short-circuit non-sound and non-music
responses that have nothing to do with true stimulus differences.

>This is why there have been requests for evidence of rigor in the testing
>and for validation of the abx and abc/hr testing themselves versus other
>forms of testing (for example the sequential proto-monadic used by Oohashi
>et al which do purport to measure differences. it cannot just be assumed
>away.

That's right; wishin' and hopin' and presumin' don't make for confideden
results that you and all the proponents never been able to verify with even the
simplest of bias controls implemented, simple as putting a blanket over the
amplifiers.

[email protected]

July 14th 03, 05:43 PM

ludovic mirabel > wrote:

> Define "non-personally", "scientifically", please the "artistic
> qualities" that some virtuoso lack.

What for? Would your taunting be more amusing if it was more or less
transparent? Do you even have a point here that others can understand or care
to address?

> And don't rest there. Tackle the
> relevance of chirping crickets to your definition.

I never said anything about chirping crickets. Please be more careful who
you quote.

Audio Guy

July 14th 03, 05:43 PM

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > writes:
> "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> news:LzkQa.48647$GL4.13222@rwcrnsc53...
>> In article >,
>> (S888Wheel) writes:
>> >>>>Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
>> >>>>decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
>> >>>>is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
>> >>>>music. Is it or isn't it?"
>> >
>> > I said
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of
> sonic
>> >>> differences between amps.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was
> never an
>> > audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that
> fact is
>> > not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.
>>
>> OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
>> this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
>> reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
>> that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
>> discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no
>> relevance to the discussion of the audible differences in audio
>> amplifiers, only sound.
>>
>
> Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
> brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music.

You entirely miss my point, the mechanism of the delivery of music
via an audio system is audio, and nothing else. It's a point I'm
trying to get Elmir to acknowledge that I've asked and to agree or
disagree.

How about you, agree or disagree.

> And that is the
> primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
> engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether the
> music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is amiss,
> is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
> allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to try
> to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
> *objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub. It
> demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on. Let me give
> you a non-musical example that I use here before...about a year and a half
> ago, I think.
>
> Suppose you hear a split second of a car crash. That's all...half a second
> of indecipherable noise. You wouldn't even know what it was. However, if
> you heard a recording of street sounds, and auto approaching, a squeal of
> tires, and then the crash, you would know what you were hearing. And if you
> heard it through two different systems you could probably which one sounded
> "most real". However, if all your heard were two snippets of sound of the
> crash itself, my guess is your brain would be trying so hard to make sense
> of what you were hearing you couldn't evaluate anything in the way of which
> sounded most "real" because you didn't know what "real" was.

Here you go again, where is the requirement of only using a split
second for audio tests? No one on the DBT side has ever said that.

> Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
> scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing we
> call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally. Further the work done by
> Oohashi et al (The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000, pp.
> 3548-3558) indicated that this emotional response took place over time, as
> much as twenty seconds of time, from the time of the sound. Presumable this
> is the time it takes the brain to recognize and interpret the music as
> pleasurable, unpleasurable, rhythmically coherent or incoherent, etc.

Again who said you couldn't use 20 second audio selections in
performing DBTs? Please let us know.

> This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and determine
> its impact as "music".

Never said you could, that is you inserting something I never said.

> The factors affecting how we respond to music are
> apparently very subtle and "time-based" and "harmony-based" and not static.
> But a short burst comparison without much in the way of context for
> recognition, relaxation, and response (which is the way most short-interval
> testing is done) tends to short-circuit the process. This is the objection
> must "subjectivists" have to ABX'ng in practice and why they question "null
> results" that seem so at odds with so many people's otherwise fairly clear
> perceptions of differences.

Please get off the short burst stuff, it has never been a requirement.

> Oohashi et al indicate in the quoted article that they have confirmed this
> speculation. That is, they have used short-interval comparisons of music,
> and found "no difference" in ratings in line with accepted believe. But
> when using "long-intervals" using the same stimuli and sequentially monadic
> ratings, the achieved statistically significant differences in response to
> the two stimuli.
>
> You "amps is amps" people seem to want to ignore this finding, which is
> pretty earthshaking and has nothing to do with whether you think the
> "ultrasonic" portion of this test was done correctly or not, since
> presumable the same stimulus was used in the precursor test (although to be
> fair this should have been better documented in the article rather than
> treated as almost a passing reference). This finding alone, if
> substantiated by others, would rule out much of the abx and possibly most of
> the dbt's done to date.

ABX especially does not require short bursts, and typically the
control of the switching is in the hands of the testee, so they can
use as long an interval as they wish. Please explain how that
invalidates any previous tests.

And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
programmed to find differences when none exist. As I've mentioned
before, I made a change to my system, remarked to myself how big a
change it made, only to find out I hadn't really made the change. All
it takes is doing that one time to realize how easy it is to be
mistaken in one's perceptions. I believe many of those on the DBT side
have had the same revelation before and it helped convince them of the
need for controls if one wants to be sure, just as it did to me.

> And, Tom, before you say it, I know dbt'ng doesn't *have* to be done that
> way, but the fact is most of it has been done that way.

Only because those who use it find it's easiest to determine a
difference using short snippets. And yes, ABX tests have found
differences, they do not all have "no difference" reports.

> Back to the main point; evaluating components is *not* hearing differences,
> but evaluating how possible differences effect emotional and rhythmic
> response from us as humans. There is a big difference. And the answer to
> the "there have to be differences fist" response is....how do you not know
> there aren't if the test itself tends to short circuit those responses.
> This is why there have been requests for evidence of rigor in the testing
> and for validation of the abx and abc/hr testing themselves versus other
> forms of testing (for example the sequential proto-monadic used by Oohashi
> et al which do purport to measure differences. it cannot just be assumed
> away.

Please explain how the test "short circuits" the response since the
only thing you've mentioned is the use of short snippets, a point I
believe I've shown is not valid.

Bob Marcus

July 14th 03, 06:00 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message >...
> Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
> brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music. And that is the
> primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
> engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether the
> music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is amiss,
> is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
> allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to try
> to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
> *objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub. It
> demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on. Let me give
> you a non-musical example that I use here before...about a year and a half
> ago, I think.

Hmmm, I smell a bad analogy coming on...
>
> Suppose you hear a split second of a car crash. That's all...half a second
> of indecipherable noise. You wouldn't even know what it was. However, if
> you heard a recording of street sounds, and auto approaching, a squeal of
> tires, and then the crash, you would know what you were hearing. And if you
> heard it through two different systems you could probably which one sounded
> "most real".

Actually, you probably couldn't, unless one of the systems was
grotesquely bad. That's why ABX and ABC/hr tests NEVER ask subjects to
compare a sound to something they've remembered. ALL comparison sounds
are immediately available. And that's why this analogy is wrong.

> However, if all your heard were two snippets of sound of the
> crash itself, my guess is your brain would be trying so hard to make sense
> of what you were hearing you couldn't evaluate anything in the way of which
> sounded most "real" because you didn't know what "real" was.

Let's keep in mind this concern of Harry's about what sounds most
"real," because he stumbles over it later on.
>
> Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
> scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing we
> call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally. Further the work done by
> Oohashi et al (The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000, pp.
> 3548-3558) indicated that this emotional response took place over time, as
> much as twenty seconds of time, from the time of the sound.
>Presumable this
> is the time it takes the brain to recognize and interpret the music as
> pleasurable, unpleasurable, rhythmically coherent or incoherent, etc.

I think you're stepping a bit beyond Oohashi's findings here, Harry,
and you really don't need to to make your point.
>
> This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and determine
> its impact as "music". The factors affecting how we respond to music are
> apparently very subtle and "time-based" and "harmony-based" and not static.
> But a short burst comparison without much in the way of context for
> recognition, relaxation, and response (which is the way most short-interval
> testing is done) tends to short-circuit the process. This is the objection
> must "subjectivists" have to ABX'ng in practice and why they question "null
> results" that seem so at odds with so many people's otherwise fairly clear
> perceptions of differences.

Oohashi also says that the subjects were not consciously aware of the
difference, so it's a little hard to see the connection between his
results and subjectivist claims.
>
> Oohashi et al indicate in the quoted article that they have confirmed this
> speculation. That is, they have used short-interval comparisons of music,
> and found "no difference" in ratings in line with accepted believe. But
> when using "long-intervals" using the same stimuli and sequentially monadic
> ratings, the achieved statistically significant differences in response to
> the two stimuli.

I don't think so, Harry. What they did was to do ABX-type tests using
short snippets of the music they were using, and found no difference.
So far as I can see, however, they did not use short snippets in their
monadic ratings.
>
> You "amps is amps" people seem to want to ignore this finding, which is
> pretty earthshaking and has nothing to do with whether you think the
> "ultrasonic" portion of this test was done correctly or not, since
> presumable the same stimulus was used in the precursor test (although to be
> fair this should have been better documented in the article rather than
> treated as almost a passing reference). This finding alone, if
> substantiated by others, would rule out much of the abx and possibly most of
> the dbt's done to date.

Huge leaps here. First, as I just noted, they don't seem to have done
the key comparison, which is applying the same test to both long and
short snippets. (That's not a criticism of them, by the way. You're
the one who's trying to make more of this research than is really
there.)

Second, there are a few huge gaps in the theory here, as Oohashi & co.
concede. In particular, there's the little matter of how this section
of the brain gets its information, since the normal hearing mechanism
cannot supply it. Also, there's the little matter of the data. Where
is it?

Then, as I also noted, the relevance of this to the experience of
subjectivists, listening sighted, is open to serious question. If
anything, this study confirms the necessity of DBTs, potentially
challenging only their methodologies.

Finally, I would note that Oohashi provides absolutely no evidence
that his subjects could tell which of the two samples was closer to
"real." One might interpret his results to suggest that they found one
more appealing than the other, but even that is hard given the lack of
data. For that matter, they have not excluded the possibility that the
inclusion of ultra-high-frequency noise, as opposed to harmonic
information, might be responsible for their results, or cause similar
ones.

In short, I'd say this study is interesting, and opens up some
possibilities that need to be explored more fully. But as I've made
clear before, I'm no expert in this field, so I'd defer to the
opinions of those who are. I recommend you do the same, Harry.

bob

Nousaine

July 14th 03, 08:32 PM

(Audio Guy) wrote:

.....snips for relevant content only ......

"Harry Lavo" > writes:

>> And that is the
>> primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
>> engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether the
>> music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is amiss,
>> is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
>> allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to try
>> to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
>> *objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub. It
>> demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on.

But Music as an art form can be evaluated and interpreted without sound at all.
People who are truly interested in the Music can often appreciate same through
sheet music. One can appreciate the arrangement of the band before they play a
single note.

>> Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
>> scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing we
>> call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally.

Disregarding that Harry hasn't given us a reference for this assertion I think
there's an even more important issue here. To evaluate the sound quality
throughput of a given audio reproduction system the "music" can get in the way.
There are some programs that are so beautiful or so easy to portray that they
sound good on ANY system.

There are some programs to which a subject may have such a deep emotional
attachment that it interferes with him/her giving a response more closely
related to the program than the sound system.

That's one of the reasons that pink noise and test tones are often far more
sensitive to real differences in sound quality than music .... because they
have no 'content' other than pure sound. And, in the case of pink noise, cover
the entire audible spectrum all at once thereby greatly increasing human
sensitivity to the 'sound' and not other factors.

>And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
>between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
>programmed to find differences when none exist.

That is a major point. Give a listener the same sound twice and you'll get
differing responses a majority of the time. In uncontrolled listening you often
have no idea of whether the differences reported are due to the sound quality
or some other cause.

Steven Sullivan

July 14th 03, 08:32 PM

Bob Marcus > wrote:
> Actually, you probably couldn't, unless one of the systems was
> grotesquely bad. That's why ABX and ABC/hr tests NEVER ask subjects to
> compare a sound to something they've remembered. ALL comparison sounds
> are immediately available. And that's why this analogy is wrong.

Well, technically, you are still being asked to compare a sound to
something remembered, albeit recently heard and immediately available for
rehearing. ABX etc never ask subjects to compare a sound to something
that isn't still available for serial comparison...you can always
'refresh' your memory.

S888Wheel

July 14th 03, 09:47 PM

I said

>
>>>> Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was never
>>>an
>>>> audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that
>fact
>>>is
>>>> not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

>>>OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
>>>this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
>>>reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
>>>that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
>>>discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no
>>>relevance to the discussion of the
>audible differences in audio
>>>amplifiers, only sound.

I said

>> Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
>DVDs
>> with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
>> perception of music. Many people including myself prefer to listen in the
>dark
>> so as to not be distracted by the lack of performers in our sight. While
>> isolating the influences of other senses
>for the purpose of testing perception
>> of one sense may seem like an ideal, one cannot ignore the fact that we
>live
>> most of our lives using our senses in tandom and such isolation may have
>> unexpected effects.

>Please stay on subject, we haven't been discussing video or visual
>aspects, only audio. And I haven't been the one wanting to limit the
>discussion to just music, that's Elmir again. I think any sound is
>fair game for evaluating the performance of audio equipment and in
>fact can often illuminate the differences between them much better
>than music, one of the points that seems to
>vex Elmir in his highly
>repeated posting of the now famous "1.76 dB test".

This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is whether
sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or isn't
it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off topic.
Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of music
IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us insight
into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.

>
>And please explain if you prefer to listen in the dark how a blind
>test would affect one in a different manner.
>

I doubt my ability to discern differences in an ABX DBT would be adversly
affected by literal darkness. I don't know since I haven't done it but I see no
reason to think it would.

Harry Lavo

July 14th 03, 09:48 PM

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
news:l4BQa.59709$ye4.43301@sccrnsc01...
> "Harry Lavo" wrote;
>
> >"Audio Guy" > wrote in message
>
> ..some snips.....
>
> >> OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
> >> this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
> >> reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
> >> that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
> >> discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no
> >> relevance to the discussion of the audible differences in audio
> >> amplifiers, only sound.
> >>
> >
> >Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
> >brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music. And that is
the
> >primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
> >engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether the
> >music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is
amiss,
> >is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
> >allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to
try
> >to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
> >*objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub. It
> >demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on. Let me give
> >you a non-musical example that I use here before...about a year and a
half
> >ago, I think.
> >
> >Suppose you hear a split second of a car crash. That's all...half a
second
> >of indecipherable noise. You wouldn't even know what it was. However,
if
> >you heard a recording of street sounds, and auto approaching, a squeal of
> >tires, and then the crash, you would know what you were hearing. And if
you
> >heard it through two different systems you could probably which one
sounded
> >"most real". However, if all your heard were two snippets of sound of
the
> >crash itself, my guess is your brain would be trying so hard to make
sense
> >of what you were hearing you couldn't evaluate anything in the way of
which
> >sounded most "real" because you didn't know what "real" was.
>
> But, even then you'd still be unable to interpret that context unless
you'd
> heard a real crash on a real street. How many have except for a film or TV
> show?
>

Actually I've had two happen within 50 yards of where I was standing. Not a
happy sound.

> >Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
> >scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing
we
> >call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally.

>
> They do? Why does the natural sound of loons crying on a lake or a
rainstorm or
> the sound of lake water or a stream get second billing?
>

Yep, they do. And if you don't know this you haven't been following brain
research during the last 15 years very closely.

As for a loon, or a stream, they are very nice sounds but they are not
music. The brain seems hardwired for components of "music" based on much
research.

> Further the work done by
> >Oohashi et al (The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000,
pp.
> >3548-3558) indicated that this emotional response took place over time,
as
> >much as twenty seconds of time, from the time of the sound. Presumable
this
> >is the time it takes the brain to recognize and interpret the music as
> >pleasurable, unpleasurable, rhythmically coherent or incoherent, etc.
>
> "Presumable"? You're just making presumptions that you believe will undo
> extant evidence that's uncomfortable for you.
>

I say presumable(sic) because Oohashi et al speculated that this was the
reason for the delayed response, but it was only that..informed speculation.
They didn't have the exact response time or reasons for it pinned down. But
they did note it as fact.

> >This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and determine
> >its impact as "music". The factors affecting how we respond to music are
> >apparently very subtle and "time-based" and "harmony-based" and not
static.
> >But a short burst comparison without much in the way of context for
> >recognition, relaxation, and response (which is the way most
short-interval
> >testing is done) tends to short-circuit the process. This is the
objection
> >must "subjectivists" have to ABX'ng in practice and why they question
"null
> >results" that seem so at odds with so many people's otherwise fairly
clear
> >perceptions of differences.
>
> No; you're just responding to the results IMO because your "fairly clear
> perceptions of differences." can't be verified with listening bias
controls
> implemented.
>

Tom's Mantra: "no, you're just not haring what you want to hear". Nice that
you know my motivations, Tom. Do I presume to know your's. Seems to me
anybody who holds a point different from yours is always accused of being
dishonest. Think about it .... (deeply).

And then apologize.

> >
> >Oohashi et al indicate in the quoted article that they have confirmed
this
> >speculation. That is, they have used short-interval comparisons of
music,
> >and found "no difference" in ratings in line with accepted believe. But
> >when using "long-intervals" using the same stimuli and sequentially
monadic
> >ratings, the achieved statistically significant differences in response
to
> >the two stimuli.
> >
> >You "amps is amps" people seem to want to ignore this finding, which is
> >pretty earthshaking and has nothing to do with whether you think the
> >"ultrasonic" portion of this test was done correctly or not, since
> >presumable the same stimulus was used in the precursor test (although to
be
> >fair this should have been better documented in the article rather than
> >treated as almost a passing reference). This finding alone, if
> >substantiated by others, would rule out much of the abx and possibly most
of
> >the dbt's done to date.
> >
> >And, Tom, before you say it, I know dbt'ng doesn't *have* to be done that
> >way, but the fact is most of it has been done that way.
>
> Let me refer you to "Flying Blind" (Audio, 1997) which confirms that short
> intervals are the optimal method for detecting difference. You'll have to
find
> a better passing reference Harry.
>

Did I not say that it was the "accepted belief". Does scientific finding
stop when it confirms your opinion?
Then I quess the world would still be flat, wouldn't it? And the sun still
circling us?

> >
> >Back to the main point; evaluating components is *not* hearing
differences,
> >but evaluating how possible differences effect emotional and rhythmic
> >response from us as humans. There is a big difference. And the answer
to
> >the "there have to be differences fist" response is....how do you not
know
> >there aren't if the test itself tends to short circuit those responses.
>
> Because the methods don't. Bias controls short-circuit non-sound and
non-music
> responses that have nothing to do with true stimulus differences.
>

They do that but what else in the process? They may also substitute an
illegitimate measurement technique for a more legitmate technique. If so,
what does a null hypthesis prove....?

> >This is why there have been requests for evidence of rigor in the testing
> >and for validation of the abx and abc/hr testing themselves versus other
> >forms of testing (for example the sequential proto-monadic used by
Oohashi
> >et al which do purport to measure differences. it cannot just be assumed
> >away.
>
> That's right; wishin' and hopin' and presumin' don't make for confideden
> results that you and all the proponents never been able to verify with
even the
> simplest of bias controls implemented, simple as putting a blanket over
the
> amplifiers.
>

Once again he ducks the need to verify and support in a positive way his
chosen instrument!

Harry Lavo

July 14th 03, 10:06 PM

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
> (Audio Guy) wrote:
>
> ....snips for relevant content only ......
>
> "Harry Lavo" > writes:
>
> >> And that is the
> >> primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
> >> engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether
the
> >> music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is
amiss,
> >> is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
> >> allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to
try
> >> to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
> >> *objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub.
It
> >> demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on.
>
> But Music as an art form can be evaluated and interpreted without sound at
all.
> People who are truly interested in the Music can often appreciate same
through
> sheet music. One can appreciate the arrangement of the band before they
play a
> single note.

And what the hell does this have to do with evaluating components?

>
> >> Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
> >> scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing
we
> >> call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally.
>
> Disregarding that Harry hasn't given us a reference for this assertion I
think
> there's an even more important issue here. To evaluate the sound quality
> throughput of a given audio reproduction system the "music" can get in the
way.
> There are some programs that are so beautiful or so easy to portray that
they
> sound good on ANY system.
>
> There are some programs to which a subject may have such a deep emotional
> attachment that it interferes with him/her giving a response more closely
> related to the program than the sound system.
>
> That's one of the reasons that pink noise and test tones are often far
more
> sensitive to real differences in sound quality than music .... because
they
> have no 'content' other than pure sound. And, in the case of pink noise,
cover
> the entire audible spectrum all at once thereby greatly increasing human
> sensitivity to the 'sound' and not other factors.
>

I am sure most audiophiles use a series of musical recordings that highlight
different aspects that are meaningful to them in evaluating reproduction.
If "beatiful music" sounds good on everything, then that is not likely to be
chosen as a discriminating piece now, is it?

> >And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
> >between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
> >programmed to find differences when none exist.
>
> That is a major point. Give a listener the same sound twice and you'll get
> differing responses a majority of the time. In uncontrolled listening you
often
> have no idea of whether the differences reported are due to the sound
quality
> or some other cause.

Would you care to cite the articles documenting this, Tom, assuming that
there are some and that they have the necessary methodological rigor to
isolate true randomness from perceptual "noise"? And would you care to once
again review and absorb Chris's work on the "transient" nature of barely
audible artifacts. Why would you expect sighted listeing to be 100%
consistent when you don't even expect that in dbt'ng?

Harry Lavo

July 14th 03, 10:53 PM

"Bob Marcus" > wrote in message
news:blBQa.60322$H17.19111@sccrnsc02...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>...
> > Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
> > brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music. And that is
the
> > primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
> > engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether
the
> > music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is
amiss,
> > is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
> > allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to
try
> > to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
> > *objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub.
It
> > demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on. Let me
give
> > you a non-musical example that I use here before...about a year and a
half
> > ago, I think.
>
> Hmmm, I smell a bad analogy coming on...

Always at your service to amuse and please, sir............

> >
> > Suppose you hear a split second of a car crash. That's all...half a
second
> > of indecipherable noise. You wouldn't even know what it was. However,
if
> > you heard a recording of street sounds, and auto approaching, a squeal
of
> > tires, and then the crash, you would know what you were hearing. And if
you
> > heard it through two different systems you could probably which one
sounded
> > "most real".
>
> Actually, you probably couldn't, unless one of the systems was
> grotesquely bad. That's why ABX and ABC/hr tests NEVER ask subjects to
> compare a sound to something they've remembered. ALL comparison sounds
> are immediately available. And that's why this analogy is wrong.
>

Ever been 50 yards from a car crash. I have been, twice. Their are
elements of the sound you are not likely to forget (burned in by trauma, no
doubt, and also pretty unique among everyday sounds). Morever, these
elements are not likely to be handled well by many systems (dynamic
response, high frequency transients, low frequeny power). I suspect I could
make a judgement.

> > However, if all your heard were two snippets of sound of the
> > crash itself, my guess is your brain would be trying so hard to make
sense
> > of what you were hearing you couldn't evaluate anything in the way of
which
> > sounded most "real" because you didn't know what "real" was.
>
> Let's keep in mind this concern of Harry's about what sounds most
> "real," because he stumbles over it later on.

No, lets keep the focus on what this means; if the brain is trying hard to
make sense out of something other than intepresting the musical reproduction
"as music" then it is likely to botch the job of evaluating/identifying the
musical significance of what it is hearing. Like perhaps focusing on
"difference" and using relatively short excerpts, rather than more relaxed
monadic evaluation.

> >
> > Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
> > scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing
we
> > call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally. Further the work done
by
> > Oohashi et al (The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000,
pp.
> > 3548-3558) indicated that this emotional response took place over time,
as
> > much as twenty seconds of time, from the time of the sound.
> >Presumable this
> > is the time it takes the brain to recognize and interpret the music as
> > pleasurable, unpleasurable, rhythmically coherent or incoherent, etc.
>
> I think you're stepping a bit beyond Oohashi's findings here, Harry,
> and you really don't need to to make your point.

Oohashi himself made this same speculation. But the advances in scientific
investigation of human response to music are apparently real and documented.

> >
> > This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and
determine
> > its impact as "music". The factors affecting how we respond to music
are
> > apparently very subtle and "time-based" and "harmony-based" and not
static.
> > But a short burst comparison without much in the way of context for
> > recognition, relaxation, and response (which is the way most
short-interval
> > testing is done) tends to short-circuit the process. This is the
objection
> > must "subjectivists" have to ABX'ng in practice and why they question
"null
> > results" that seem so at odds with so many people's otherwise fairly
clear
> > perceptions of differences.
>
> Oohashi also says that the subjects were not consciously aware of the
> difference, so it's a little hard to see the connection between his
> results and subjectivist claims.
> >

Not at all. Subjectivists have all along stressed that fact that "test
anxiety" alone may interfere, and have argued that the best test is the
serial monadic approach, ie relaxing and listening to set pieces on
equipment in a familiar system, in familiar surrounds. Then doing the same
with an alternative piece of gear. Taking notes on both. Going back and
repeating, but in a relaxed fashion which still enjoying the music. Taking
careful note on the emotional responses (or lack thereof) and rythmic
responses (or lack thereof) elicited by the DUTs. And finally have a clear
preference emerge and 'reasons why" in musical terms. Very, very close to
what Ooashi et al did but they did it even better in that it was a blind
test and the subjects didn't know much of anything. And yet what emerged
was statistical significant results in favor of one variable.

> > Oohashi et al indicate in the quoted article that they have confirmed
this
> > speculation. That is, they have used short-interval comparisons of
music,
> > and found "no difference" in ratings in line with accepted believe. But
> > when using "long-intervals" using the same stimuli and sequentially
monadic
> > ratings, the achieved statistically significant differences in response
to
> > the two stimuli.
>
> I don't think so, Harry. What they did was to do ABX-type tests using
> short snippets of the music they were using, and found no difference.
> So far as I can see, however, they did not use short snippets in their
> monadic ratings.
> >

You are absolutely right...but that is my point. Most of the objections
raised in this forum have been to the heavily promoted use of abx testing
and the supporting claim that it is the most sensitive test for evaluation
and shows no differences in most cases in audio gear (speakers and
cartridges excepted). Subjectivists feel there are much better ways of
testing that focus more naturally and fully on musical evaluation and
believe that if differences in preference occur, the fact that there has to
be a difference in some factor of reproduction is a given. Not all
subjectivists here are anti-dbt. Most are anti-abx, it seems to me.

> > You "amps is amps" people seem to want to ignore this finding, which is
> > pretty earthshaking and has nothing to do with whether you think the
> > "ultrasonic" portion of this test was done correctly or not, since
> > presumable the same stimulus was used in the precursor test (although to
be
> > fair this should have been better documented in the article rather than
> > treated as almost a passing reference). This finding alone, if
> > substantiated by others, would rule out much of the abx and possibly
most of
> > the dbt's done to date.
>
> Huge leaps here. First, as I just noted, they don't seem to have done
> the key comparison, which is applying the same test to both long and
> short snippets. (That's not a criticism of them, by the way. You're
> the one who's trying to make more of this research than is really
> there.)
>

I agree from the standpoint of methodological rigor. However, in the real
world a comparison of blind protomonadic testing using full samples of
music, vs. one that apes a standard abx test with shorter snippets, and
which consequentially shows the former to give statistically significant
results of preference (and therefore difference) while the other shows the
accepted "null hypothesis" is highly significant. It suggests that critics
of abx testing "as practiced" appear to be more right than wrong.

> Second, there are a few huge gaps in the theory here, as Oohashi & co.
> concede. In particular, there's the little matter of how this section
> of the brain gets its information, since the normal hearing mechanism
> cannot supply it. Also, there's the little matter of the data. Where
> is it?
>

The summary tables are there, but not the individual results. However, the
statistics are so overwhelmingly significant that it is probably less
critical than if the results were marginal. I would guess that Oahashi et
al would provide the raw data to critics and other researchers if asked; my
impression is that most journal articles do not provide the raw data from
such research but instead provide relevant summary statistics as they have
done.

> Then, as I also noted, the relevance of this to the experience of
> subjectivists, listening sighted, is open to serious question. If
> anything, this study confirms the necessity of DBTs, potentially
> challenging only their methodologies.
>

It certainly was an excellent approach, IMO. I don't think you would find
many subjectivists objecting to this type of dbt'ng. It is, as noted, a
more rigorous approach to what many already do.

> Finally, I would note that Oohashi provides absolutely no evidence
> that his subjects could tell which of the two samples was closer to
> "real." One might interpret his results to suggest that they found one
> more appealing than the other, but even that is hard given the lack of
> data. For that matter, they have not excluded the possibility that the
> inclusion of ultra-high-frequency noise, as opposed to harmonic
> information, might be responsible for their results, or cause similar
> ones.
>

I won't dispute the fact that "real" was not the evaluative criteria here.
My focus on "real" is a) one part for accuracy (after all I was raised in a
"hi-fi" family), and 2) one part reproduction of a live musical event. The
assumption is that most of us listen to music to feel good, and we tend to
play the kinds of music that we have heard live most often, experiences we
usally have a "pleasure response" to. So for me, the "real-er" a sound is,
the more likely the music performed on my system will give me pleasure. I
do understand your point, but whether "real-ness" or "positive emotional
response" is the evaluative criteria, I believe the brain has an important
role to play that negates the "all we are measuring is sound differences"
simplistic approach to component evaluation.

> In short, I'd say this study is interesting, and opens up some
> possibilities that need to be explored more fully. But as I've made
> clear before, I'm no expert in this field, so I'd defer to the
> opinions of those who are. I recommend you do the same, Harry.
>
> bob
>

Thank you for your thoughtful critique, Bob.

S888Wheel

July 14th 03, 11:11 PM

I said

>
>> Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
>DVDs
>> with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
>> perception of music.
>

Steven said

>
>Indeed. It will tend to introduce error into our perceptions of audible
>difference. This is well-known.
>
>--

Really? Seeing the performance will introduce error into our perceptions of
audible idfference? I'd like to see something that supports this assertion.

Harry Lavo

July 14th 03, 11:14 PM

"Audio Guy" > wrote in message
news:%4BQa.59851$Ph3.6265@sccrnsc04...
> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > writes:
> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> > news:LzkQa.48647$GL4.13222@rwcrnsc53...
> >> In article >,
> >> (S888Wheel) writes:

>snip irrelevant to what followsL<

> > Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
> > brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music.
>
> You entirely miss my point, the mechanism of the delivery of music
> via an audio system is audio, and nothing else. It's a point I'm
> trying to get Elmir to acknowledge that I've asked and to agree or
> disagree.
>
> How about you, agree or disagree.
>

I don't know what "audio" is as you use it. I know what sound is. I know
what music is. I know what electricity is. I know what vibrations are.
And I know that components are designed to use those elements to deliver a
facsimile of music to our brains.

If this is what you mean by audio, then I agree.

If what your really mean is electrical output (of amps, wires, etc.) then I
disagree at least as conventionally measured and sometimes evaluated.

> > And that is the
> > primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
> > engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether
the
> > music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is
amiss,
> > is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
> > allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to
try
> > to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
> > *objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub.
It
> > demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on. Let me
give
> > you a non-musical example that I use here before...about a year and a
half
> > ago, I think.
> >
> > Suppose you hear a split second of a car crash. That's all...half a
second
> > of indecipherable noise. You wouldn't even know what it was. However,
if
> > you heard a recording of street sounds, and auto approaching, a squeal
of
> > tires, and then the crash, you would know what you were hearing. And if
you
> > heard it through two different systems you could probably which one
sounded
> > "most real". However, if all your heard were two snippets of sound of
the
> > crash itself, my guess is your brain would be trying so hard to make
sense
> > of what you were hearing you couldn't evaluate anything in the way of
which
> > sounded most "real" because you didn't know what "real" was.
>
> Here you go again, where is the requirement of only using a split
> second for audio tests? No one on the DBT side has ever said that.
>

See my notes below to Tom

> > Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
> > scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing
we
> > call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally. Further the work done
by
> > Oohashi et al (The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000,
pp.
> > 3548-3558) indicated that this emotional response took place over time,
as
> > much as twenty seconds of time, from the time of the sound. Presumable
this
> > is the time it takes the brain to recognize and interpret the music as
> > pleasurable, unpleasurable, rhythmically coherent or incoherent, etc.
>
> Again who said you couldn't use 20 second audio selections in
> performing DBTs? Please let us know.
>

You don't even understand what I'm referring to. Suggest you read the
Oohashi article.

> > This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and
determine
> > its impact as "music".
>
> Never said you could, that is you inserting something I never said.
>

Then why are you taking on Ludovic's suggestion that abx in particular is
not the best instrument for evaluation audio components. After all, that is
*all* he has ever really argued.

> > The factors affecting how we respond to music are
> > apparently very subtle and "time-based" and "harmony-based" and not
static.
> > But a short burst comparison without much in the way of context for
> > recognition, relaxation, and response (which is the way most
short-interval
> > testing is done) tends to short-circuit the process. This is the
objection
> > must "subjectivists" have to ABX'ng in practice and why they question
"null
> > results" that seem so at odds with so many people's otherwise fairly
clear
> > perceptions of differences.
>
> Please get off the short burst stuff, it has never been a requirement.
>

Again, read and understand first and then comment, thanks.

> > Oohashi et al indicate in the quoted article that they have confirmed
this
> > speculation. That is, they have used short-interval comparisons of
music,
> > and found "no difference" in ratings in line with accepted believe. But
> > when using "long-intervals" using the same stimuli and sequentially
monadic
> > ratings, the achieved statistically significant differences in response
to
> > the two stimuli.
> >
> > You "amps is amps" people seem to want to ignore this finding, which is
> > pretty earthshaking and has nothing to do with whether you think the
> > "ultrasonic" portion of this test was done correctly or not, since
> > presumable the same stimulus was used in the precursor test (although to
be
> > fair this should have been better documented in the article rather than
> > treated as almost a passing reference). This finding alone, if
> > substantiated by others, would rule out much of the abx and possibly
most of
> > the dbt's done to date.
>
> ABX especially does not require short bursts, and typically the
> control of the switching is in the hands of the testee, so they can
> use as long an interval as they wish. Please explain how that
> invalidates any previous tests.
>

And if you are intent on hearing differences, as opposed to evaluating music
reproduction, the technique tends to lead you in that direction.

> And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
> between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
> programmed to find differences when none exist. As I've mentioned
> before, I made a change to my system, remarked to myself how big a
> change it made, only to find out I hadn't really made the change. All
> it takes is doing that one time to realize how easy it is to be
> mistaken in one's perceptions. I believe many of those on the DBT side
> have had the same revelation before and it helped convince them of the
> need for controls if one wants to be sure, just as it did to me.
>

We've all done that...it doesn't mean that all instances of sighted
listening are invalid. That's the logical error you folks make. Your
boolean should should be as follows (and for some here it is):

sighted listening can sometime lead to false positive differences
I am using sighted listening
Therefore, it is possible that differences are due to factors other than
sound.

Instead, in this newsgroup many tend to use different logic. It tends to go:

signted listening can sometimes lead to false positive differences
I am using sighted listening
Therefore, almost certainly I am imagining any differences I hear (because
we know better and because what you think you hear can't be possible, etc
etc etc)

> > And, Tom, before you say it, I know dbt'ng doesn't *have* to be done
that
> > way, but the fact is most of it has been done that way.
>
> Only because those who use it find it's easiest to determine a
> difference using short snippets. And yes, ABX tests have found
> differences, they do not all have "no difference" reports.
>

Component evaluations of music reproduction? Documented and subject to a
rigorous methodological evaluation? If so, where? I'd feel a lot better
about the test which a goodly number of such results, as well as null
results. And, BTW, isn't that exactly what Ludovic and "Wheel" have been
requesting?

> > Back to the main point; evaluating components is *not* hearing
differences,
> > but evaluating how possible differences effect emotional and rhythmic
> > response from us as humans. There is a big difference. And the answer
to
> > the "there have to be differences fist" response is....how do you not
know
> > there aren't if the test itself tends to short circuit those responses.
> > This is why there have been requests for evidence of rigor in the
testing
> > and for validation of the abx and abc/hr testing themselves versus other
> > forms of testing (for example the sequential proto-monadic used by
Oohashi
> > et al which do purport to measure differences. it cannot just be
assumed
> > away.
>
> Please explain how the test "short circuits" the response since the
> only thing you've mentioned is the use of short snippets, a point I
> believe I've shown is not valid.
>

You've asserted it is not valid, without reading Oohashi et al to understand
the delay mechanism and alternative means of measurement when it comes to
evaluating music.

Nousaine

July 14th 03, 11:15 PM

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

>"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
>> (Audio Guy) wrote:
>>
>> ....snips for relevant content only ......
>>
>> "Harry Lavo" > writes:
>>
>> >> And that is the
>> >> primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
>> >> engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether
>the
>> >> music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is
>amiss,
>> >> is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
>> >> allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to
>try
>> >> to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
>> >> *objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub.
>It
>> >> demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on.
>>
>> But Music as an art form can be evaluated and interpreted without sound at
>all.
>> People who are truly interested in the Music can often appreciate same
>through
>> sheet music. One can appreciate the arrangement of the band before they
>play a
>> single note.
>
>And what the hell does this have to do with evaluating components?

You're the guy telling us about Music and context and interpretation. I agree,
test signals are far more sensitive even if they deliver subtle differences
that may NEVER be encountered with music programs.

>> >> Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
>> >> scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing
>we
>> >> call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally.
>>
>> Disregarding that Harry hasn't given us a reference for this assertion I
>think
>> there's an even more important issue here. To evaluate the sound quality
>> throughput of a given audio reproduction system the "music" can get in the
>way.
>> There are some programs that are so beautiful or so easy to portray that
>they
>> sound good on ANY system.
>>
>> There are some programs to which a subject may have such a deep emotional
>> attachment that it interferes with him/her giving a response more closely
>> related to the program than the sound system.
>>
>> That's one of the reasons that pink noise and test tones are often far
>more
>> sensitive to real differences in sound quality than music .... because
>they
>> have no 'content' other than pure sound. And, in the case of pink noise,
>cover
>> the entire audible spectrum all at once thereby greatly increasing human
>> sensitivity to the 'sound' and not other factors.
>>
>
>I am sure most audiophiles use a series of musical recordings that highlight
>different aspects that are meaningful to them in evaluating reproduction.

Some, but far from most. Few bother to use the same programs, in the same order
in evaluations that may have a referent that hasn't been heard in months or
years.

>If "beatiful music" sounds good on everything, then that is not likely to be
>chosen as a discriminating piece now, is it?

I've seen it used many times. I've also seen quite clever merchandising
techniques that use such.

>> >And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
>> >between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
>> >programmed to find differences when none exist.
>>
>> That is a major point. Give a listener the same sound twice and you'll get
>> differing responses a majority of the time. In uncontrolled listening you
>often
>> have no idea of whether the differences reported are due to the sound
>quality
>> or some other cause.
>
>Would you care to cite the articles documenting this, Tom, assuming that
>there are some and that they have the necessary methodological rigor to
>isolate true randomness from perceptual "noise"? And would you care to once
>again review and absorb Chris's work on the "transient" nature of barely
>audible artifacts. Why would you expect sighted listeing to be 100%
>consistent when you don't even expect that in dbt'ng?

But you have no way of knowing whether it's consistent. As for the former try
"Can You Trust Your Ears" (JAES and Stereo Review) and examine the results of
Same/Different protocols found in HFNRR and Stereophile listening tests.

Nousaine

July 14th 03, 11:16 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

>I said
>
>>
>>>>> Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was
>never
>>>>an
>>>>> audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that
>>fact
>>>>is
>>>>> not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.
>
>>>>OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
>>>>this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
>>>>reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
>>>>that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
>>>>discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no
>>>>relevance to the discussion of the
>>audible differences in audio
>>>>amplifiers, only sound.

Agreed. I wonder why why the amp sound zealots cry "Its all about the Music"
when it's really about the "sound" no matter what the program when evaluating
sound quality and realism of reproduction.

>I said
>
>>> Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
>>DVDs
>>> with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
>>> perception of music.

It also can positively influences the sense of performance-space acoustics.
Seeing the walls often adds greatly to the realism of reproduced performance.
But a large screen is always better.

That's also on eplace where the film guys have a leg up on us. They don't even
try to capture live sound on-set. They produce the soundtrack not with the idea
of taking you back to the space but only making you believe you've been taken
back. It doesn't have to BE real; it only has to make you think it is. The
picture helps here as well.

Many people including myself prefer to listen in the
>>dark
>>> so as to not be distracted by the lack of performers in our sight. While
>>> isolating the influences of other senses
>>for the purpose of testing perception
>>> of one sense may seem like an ideal, one cannot ignore the fact that we
>>live
>>> most of our lives using our senses in tandom and such isolation may have
>>> unexpected effects.
>
>>Please stay on subject, we haven't been discussing video or visual
>>aspects, only audio. And I haven't been the one wanting to limit the
>>discussion to just music, that's Elmir again. I think any sound is
>>fair game for evaluating the performance of audio equipment and in
>>fact can often illuminate the differences between them much better
>>than music, one of the points that seems to
>>vex Elmir in his highly
>>repeated posting of the now famous "1.76 dB test".
>
>This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is
>whether
>sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or
>isn't
>it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off
>topic.
>Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of music
>IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us
>insight
>into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.

It can also be evaluated from a score.

>>And please explain if you prefer to listen in the dark how a blind
>>test would affect one in a different manner.
>>
>
>I doubt my ability to discern differences in an ABX DBT would be adversly
>affected by literal darkness. I don't know since I haven't done it but I see
>no
>reason to think it would.

Agreed.

Steven Sullivan

July 15th 03, 12:22 AM

S888Wheel > wrote:
> I said

>>
>>> Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
>>DVDs
>>> with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
>>> perception of music.
>>

> Steven said

>>
>>Indeed. It will tend to introduce error into our perceptions of audible
>>difference. This is well-known.
>>
>>--

> Really? Seeing the performance will introduce error into our perceptions of
> audible idfference?

Yes, if the performance is being compared to another one.

> I'd like to see something that supports this assertion.

You accept the claim as true for component comparisons, yes?
Why not for performance comparisons, then?

Please read what I wrote again, carefully. I am referring to
determinination of audible *difference*. The principle is generally
true -- it applies whenever sounds are
compared.

In addition to *difference, sighted bias can also influence
which performance/component/treatment 'sounds better', as you
well know. This can occur even when there
is no objective reason to believe one would be 'better'
than the other. I could take two copies the same LP from the
same pressing run, slap an "MFSL" label on one and a generic
label on the other -- wanna bet which one the 'vinylphile'
would claim sounds better in a sighted comparison?

--
-S.

Steven Sullivan

July 15th 03, 12:50 AM

Harry Lavo > wrote:
> "Bob Marcus" > wrote in message
> news:blBQa.60322$H17.19111@sccrnsc02...
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >...
>> > Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
>> > brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music. And that is
> the
>> > primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
>> > engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether
> the
>> > music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is
> amiss,
>> > is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
>> > allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to
> try
>> > to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
>> > *objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub.
> It
>> > demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on. Let me
> give
>> > you a non-musical example that I use here before...about a year and a
> half
>> > ago, I think.
>>
>> Hmmm, I smell a bad analogy coming on...

> Always at your service to amuse and please, sir............

>> >
>> > Suppose you hear a split second of a car crash. That's all...half a
> second
>> > of indecipherable noise. You wouldn't even know what it was. However,
> if
>> > you heard a recording of street sounds, and auto approaching, a squeal
> of
>> > tires, and then the crash, you would know what you were hearing. And if
> you
>> > heard it through two different systems you could probably which one
> sounded
>> > "most real".
>>
>> Actually, you probably couldn't, unless one of the systems was
>> grotesquely bad. That's why ABX and ABC/hr tests NEVER ask subjects to
>> compare a sound to something they've remembered. ALL comparison sounds
>> are immediately available. And that's why this analogy is wrong.
>>

> Ever been 50 yards from a car crash. I have been, twice. Their are
> elements of the sound you are not likely to forget (burned in by trauma, no
> doubt, and also pretty unique among everyday sounds).

Studies indicate that trauma is not a particularly high-fidelity
'burner' of memories.

> No, lets keep the focus on what this means; if the brain is trying hard to
> make sense out of something other than intepresting the musical reproduction
> "as music" then it is likely to botch the job of evaluating/identifying the
> musical significance of what it is hearing. Like perhaps focusing on
> "difference" and using relatively short excerpts, rather than more relaxed
> monadic evaluation.

> Not at all. Subjectivists have all along stressed that fact that "test
> anxiety" alone may interfere, and have argued that the best test is the
> serial monadic approach, ie relaxing and listening to set pieces on
> equipment in a familiar system, in familiar surrounds.

Unless they add bias controls to that protocol, they're quite demosntrably
wrong about it being the 'best test', if best is defined as 'most likely
to lead to accurate perception of audible difference'.

> Then doing the same
> with an alternative piece of gear. Taking notes on both. Going back and
> repeating, but in a relaxed fashion which still enjoying the music. Taking
> careful note on the emotional responses (or lack thereof) and rythmic
> responses (or lack thereof) elicited by the DUTs. And finally have a clear
> preference emerge and 'reasons why" in musical terms. Very, very close to
> what Ooashi et al did but they did it even better in that it was a blind
> test and the subjects didn't know much of anything. And yet what emerged
> was statistical significant results in favor of one variable.

And that 'blind test' proviso makes *ALL THE DIFFERENCE*, Harry.
Your 'subjectivist approved' protocol has *no* provisions for
determining error.

> You are absolutely right...but that is my point. Most of the objections
> raised in this forum have been to the heavily promoted use of abx testing
> and the supporting claim that it is the most sensitive test for evaluation
> and shows no differences in most cases in audio gear (speakers and
> cartridges excepted). Subjectivists feel there are much better ways of
> testing that focus more naturally and fully on musical evaluation and
> believe that if differences in preference occur, the fact that there has to
> be a difference in some factor of reproduction is a given. Not all
> subjectivists here are anti-dbt. Most are anti-abx, it seems to me.

This assumes that ABX is inherently a short-interval *listening* protocol.
It's not. It's a quick-*switching* protocol. If subjectivists believe that
sighted perception of audible difference is more accurate when the listener
leaves a long interval between the end of A and the start of B or X, then
subjectivists need to prove *that*. Oohashi's paper doesn't.

Subjectivist belief that preferences difference has to reflect some difference
in some factor of reproduction, is falsified when 'reproduction' refers only
the the actual sounds. Because it's *quite* trivially easy to set up
a test where 'subjectivists' will form preferences for different presentations
of the SAME sounds.

It is demonstrably the case that 'preference' and 'perception of difference'
*can* have NO basis or relation to audible fact.

>> Second, there are a few huge gaps in the theory here, as Oohashi & co.
>> concede. In particular, there's the little matter of how this section
>> of the brain gets its information, since the normal hearing mechanism
>> cannot supply it. Also, there's the little matter of the data. Where
>> is it?
>>

> The summary tables are there, but not the individual results. However, the
> statistics are so overwhelmingly significant that it is probably less
> critical than if the results were marginal. I would guess that Oahashi et
> al would provide the raw data to critics and other researchers if asked; my
> impression is that most journal articles do not provide the raw data from
> such research but instead provide relevant summary statistics as they have
> done.

>> Then, as I also noted, the relevance of this to the experience of
>> subjectivists, listening sighted, is open to serious question. If
>> anything, this study confirms the necessity of DBTs, potentially
>> challenging only their methodologies.
>>

> It certainly was an excellent approach, IMO. I don't think you would find
> many subjectivists objecting to this type of dbt'ng. It is, as noted, a
> more rigorous approach to what many already do.

I think you would. I have seen many objectivists object to the idea of
controlled comparison, *period*, as somehow interfering with the 'truth'.

--
-S.

Steven Sullivan

July 15th 03, 01:00 AM

Harry Lavo > wrote:

> Yep, they do. And if you don't know this you haven't been following brain
> research during the last 15 years very closely.

Those who are interested might wnt to look at the July 1 issue
of NAture Neuroscience, whihc has six reviews of musical perception
from a scientific perspective:

Reviews: Focus on Music

The evolution of the music faculty: a comparative perspective pp 663 - 668
Marc D Hauser & Josh McDermott
doi:10.1038/nn1080

The developmental origins of musicality pp 669 - 673
Sandra E Trehub
doi:10.1038/nn1084
SUPPINFO

Language, music, syntax and the brain pp 674 - 681
Aniruddh D Patel
doi:10.1038/nn1082
SUPPINFO

Swinging in the brain: shared neural substrates for behaviors related to sequencing and music pp 682 - 687
Petr Janata & Scott T Grafton
doi:10.1038/nn1081
SUPPINFO

Modularity of music processing pp 688 - 691
Isabelle Peretz & Max Coltheart
doi:10.1038/nn1083

Absolute pitch: a model for understanding the influence of genes and development on neural and cognitive function pp 692 - 695
Robert J Zatorre
doi:10.1038/nn1085

Audio Guy

July 15th 03, 01:06 AM

In article <mFEQa.61160$ye4.42517@sccrnsc01>,
(S888Wheel) writes:
>
>>Please stay on subject, we haven't been discussing video or visual
>>aspects, only audio. And I haven't been the one wanting to limit the
>>discussion to just music, that's Elmir again. I think any sound is
>>fair game for evaluating the performance of audio equipment and in
>>fact can often illuminate the differences between them much better
>>than music, one of the points that seems to
>>vex Elmir in his highly
>>repeated posting of the now famous "1.76 dB test".
>
> This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is whether
> sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or isn't
> it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off topic.
> Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of music
> IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us insight
> into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.

OK, but how does that apply to the actual subject of the discussion:
audio reproduction devices? And do you feel that only music is the
only valid audio source for the evaluation of audio reproduction
devices?

>>
>>And please explain if you prefer to listen in the dark how a blind
>>test would affect one in a different manner.
>>
>
> I doubt my ability to discern differences in an ABX DBT would be adversly
> affected by literal darkness. I don't know since I haven't done it but I see no
> reason to think it would.

Thank you. Then you don't have any objection to the use of DBTs in
the testing of audio reproduction devices it seems.

Audio Guy

July 15th 03, 01:15 AM

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > writes:
> "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> news:%4BQa.59851$Ph3.6265@sccrnsc04...
>> In article >,
>> "Harry Lavo" > writes:
>> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
>> > news:LzkQa.48647$GL4.13222@rwcrnsc53...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> (S888Wheel) writes:
>
>>snip irrelevant to what followsL<
>
>> > Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
>> > brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music.
>>
>> You entirely miss my point, the mechanism of the delivery of music
>> via an audio system is audio, and nothing else. It's a point I'm
>> trying to get Elmir to acknowledge that I've asked and to agree or
>> disagree.
>>
>> How about you, agree or disagree.
>>
>
> I don't know what "audio" is as you use it. I know what sound is. I know
> what music is. I know what electricity is. I know what vibrations are.
> And I know that components are designed to use those elements to deliver a
> facsimile of music to our brains.
>
> If this is what you mean by audio, then I agree.

Yes, and I meant to say "via and audio systems is sound" above.

> If what your really mean is electrical output (of amps, wires, etc.) then I
> disagree at least as conventionally measured and sometimes evaluated.
>
>> > And that is the
>> > primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
>> > engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether
> the
>> > music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is
> amiss,
>> > is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
>> > allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to
> try
>> > to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
>> > *objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub.
> It
>> > demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on. Let me
> give
>> > you a non-musical example that I use here before...about a year and a
> half
>> > ago, I think.
>> >
>> > Suppose you hear a split second of a car crash. That's all...half a
> second
>> > of indecipherable noise. You wouldn't even know what it was. However,
> if
>> > you heard a recording of street sounds, and auto approaching, a squeal
> of
>> > tires, and then the crash, you would know what you were hearing. And if
> you
>> > heard it through two different systems you could probably which one
> sounded
>> > "most real". However, if all your heard were two snippets of sound of
> the
>> > crash itself, my guess is your brain would be trying so hard to make
> sense
>> > of what you were hearing you couldn't evaluate anything in the way of
> which
>> > sounded most "real" because you didn't know what "real" was.
>>
>> Here you go again, where is the requirement of only using a split
>> second for audio tests? No one on the DBT side has ever said that.
>>
>
> See my notes below to Tom
>
>> > Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
>> > scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing
> we
>> > call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally. Further the work done
> by
>> > Oohashi et al (The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000,
> pp.
>> > 3548-3558) indicated that this emotional response took place over time,
> as
>> > much as twenty seconds of time, from the time of the sound. Presumable
> this
>> > is the time it takes the brain to recognize and interpret the music as
>> > pleasurable, unpleasurable, rhythmically coherent or incoherent, etc.
>>
>> Again who said you couldn't use 20 second audio selections in
>> performing DBTs? Please let us know.
>>
>
> You don't even understand what I'm referring to. Suggest you read the
> Oohashi article.

Yes, I do, and I read it back when you first mentioned it, but you
don't want to accept the any ABX or DBT has the requirement of only
using short snippets, I guess it's because it would invalidate many
of your arguments.

>> > This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and
> determine
>> > its impact as "music".
>>
>> Never said you could, that is you inserting something I never said.
>>
>
> Then why are you taking on Ludovic's suggestion that abx in particular is
> not the best instrument for evaluation audio components. After all, that is
> *all* he has ever really argued.

Because I totally disagree with him, and ABX in particular is
perfectly suited and in fact were created specifically for that
purpose.

>> > The factors affecting how we respond to music are
>> > apparently very subtle and "time-based" and "harmony-based" and not
> static.
>> > But a short burst comparison without much in the way of context for
>> > recognition, relaxation, and response (which is the way most
> short-interval
>> > testing is done) tends to short-circuit the process. This is the
> objection
>> > must "subjectivists" have to ABX'ng in practice and why they question
> "null
>> > results" that seem so at odds with so many people's otherwise fairly
> clear
>> > perceptions of differences.
>>
>> Please get off the short burst stuff, it has never been a requirement.
>>
>
> Again, read and understand first and then comment, thanks.

I do and did understand, thank you. You don't seem to understand that
one can listen as long as one wants, days if desired, during an ABX
session to either of A, B, or X during the test before deciding if X
is A or B. If after days of listening to A and B, if one cannot
determine which one X is, than I doubt seriously there is a
difference, at least to you (the one taking the test).

>> > Oohashi et al indicate in the quoted article that they have confirmed
> this
>> > speculation. That is, they have used short-interval comparisons of
> music,
>> > and found "no difference" in ratings in line with accepted believe. But
>> > when using "long-intervals" using the same stimuli and sequentially
> monadic
>> > ratings, the achieved statistically significant differences in response
> to
>> > the two stimuli.
>> >
>> > You "amps is amps" people seem to want to ignore this finding, which is
>> > pretty earthshaking and has nothing to do with whether you think the
>> > "ultrasonic" portion of this test was done correctly or not, since
>> > presumable the same stimulus was used in the precursor test (although to
> be
>> > fair this should have been better documented in the article rather than
>> > treated as almost a passing reference). This finding alone, if
>> > substantiated by others, would rule out much of the abx and possibly
> most of
>> > the dbt's done to date.
>>
>> ABX especially does not require short bursts, and typically the
>> control of the switching is in the hands of the testee, so they can
>> use as long an interval as they wish. Please explain how that
>> invalidates any previous tests.
>>
>
> And if you are intent on hearing differences, as opposed to evaluating music
> reproduction, the technique tends to lead you in that direction.

For one component to be better than another there must be a
difference, how else could it happen? That's the whole point.

>> And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
>> between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
>> programmed to find differences when none exist. As I've mentioned
>> before, I made a change to my system, remarked to myself how big a
>> change it made, only to find out I hadn't really made the change. All
>> it takes is doing that one time to realize how easy it is to be
>> mistaken in one's perceptions. I believe many of those on the DBT side
>> have had the same revelation before and it helped convince them of the
>> need for controls if one wants to be sure, just as it did to me.
>>
>
> We've all done that...it doesn't mean that all instances of sighted
> listening are invalid.

Well then you didn't imagine a huge difference then, because that's
what convinced me, I thought I'd heard a very noticeable difference
when nothing at all had changed. As many of the DBT advocates have
mentioned, they were complete believers in the idea that every
component has it's own sound and that by just careful listening you
can determine which his better. But an eye opening event such as the
one I had occurs, and it dawns on you how easily one can be mistaken.

> That's the logical error you folks make. Your
> boolean should should be as follows (and for some here it is):
>
> sighted listening can sometime lead to false positive differences
> I am using sighted listening
> Therefore, it is possible that differences are due to factors other than
> sound.

No problem here.

> Instead, in this newsgroup many tend to use different logic. It tends to go:
>
> signted listening can sometimes lead to false positive differences
> I am using sighted listening
> Therefore, almost certainly I am imagining any differences I hear (because
> we know better and because what you think you hear can't be possible, etc
> etc etc)

Wrong, it's that it is very possible that I could be imaging a
difference that is not there, so controls are needed if you want to
be sure. If being sure is not a criteria, then do whatever you want.

>> > And, Tom, before you say it, I know dbt'ng doesn't *have* to be done
> that
>> > way, but the fact is most of it has been done that way.
>>
>> Only because those who use it find it's easiest to determine a
>> difference using short snippets. And yes, ABX tests have found
>> differences, they do not all have "no difference" reports.
>>
>
> Component evaluations of music reproduction? Documented and subject to a
> rigorous methodological evaluation? If so, where? I'd feel a lot better
> about the test which a goodly number of such results, as well as null
> results. And, BTW, isn't that exactly what Ludovic and "Wheel" have been
> requesting?

Not that I have, but Nousaine, JJ and others have reported them, and
JJ's in particular also included the sensitivity testing with probe
signals that Wheel has been asking for. But JJ's were not available
to the general public since they were proprietary with the exception
of those very few that were presented at AES conventions.

>> > Back to the main point; evaluating components is *not* hearing
> differences,
>> > but evaluating how possible differences effect emotional and rhythmic
>> > response from us as humans. There is a big difference. And the answer
> to
>> > the "there have to be differences fist" response is....how do you not
> know
>> > there aren't if the test itself tends to short circuit those responses.
>> > This is why there have been requests for evidence of rigor in the
> testing
>> > and for validation of the abx and abc/hr testing themselves versus other
>> > forms of testing (for example the sequential proto-monadic used by
> Oohashi
>> > et al which do purport to measure differences. it cannot just be
> assumed
>> > away.
>>
>> Please explain how the test "short circuits" the response since the
>> only thing you've mentioned is the use of short snippets, a point I
>> believe I've shown is not valid.
>>
>
> You've asserted it is not valid, without reading Oohashi et al to understand
> the delay mechanism and alternative means of measurement when it comes to
> evaluating music.

Since your main point seems to be that short snippets aren't any good
for evalutaing components, but they aren't a requirement at all, so
then please explain.

Harry Lavo

July 15th 03, 03:07 AM

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
news:tlHQa.62400$Ph3.6659@sccrnsc04...
> Harry Lavo > wrote:

>snip, no longer relevant to discussion below<

> Studies indicate that trauma is not a particularly high-fidelity
> 'burner' of memories.
>

Interesting. Do you have references i could pursue?

> > No, lets keep the focus on what this means; if the brain is trying hard
to
> > make sense out of something other than intepresting the musical
reproduction
> > "as music" then it is likely to botch the job of evaluating/identifying
the
> > musical significance of what it is hearing. Like perhaps focusing on
> > "difference" and using relatively short excerpts, rather than more
relaxed
> > monadic evaluation.
>
> > Not at all. Subjectivists have all along stressed that fact that "test
> > anxiety" alone may interfere, and have argued that the best test is the
> > serial monadic approach, ie relaxing and listening to set pieces on
> > equipment in a familiar system, in familiar surrounds.
>
> Unless they add bias controls to that protocol, they're quite demosntrably
> wrong about it being the 'best test', if best is defined as 'most likely
> to lead to accurate perception of audible difference'.

No, they simply feel that the biases that intrude are more than offset by
the biases excluded by eliminating a "comparative" setting, especially if we
are talking abx and looking for "differences" rather than listening to
music. And by repeatedly listening, then listening again and taking notes,
over a variety of moods, times, and musical pieces they are able to offset
many of the transitory influences.

>
> > Then doing the same
> > with an alternative piece of gear. Taking notes on both. Going back and
> > repeating, but in a relaxed fashion which still enjoying the music.
Taking
> > careful note on the emotional responses (or lack thereof) and rythmic
> > responses (or lack thereof) elicited by the DUTs. And finally have a
clear
> > preference emerge and 'reasons why" in musical terms. Very, very close
to
> > what Ooashi et al did but they did it even better in that it was a blind
> > test and the subjects didn't know much of anything. And yet what
emerged
> > was statistical significant results in favor of one variable.
>
> And that 'blind test' proviso makes *ALL THE DIFFERENCE*, Harry.
> Your 'subjectivist approved' protocol has *no* provisions for
> determining error.
>

If I could I would do it blind exactly as Ooahi did. But given that I can't
replicate that setting blind, I would for myself choose it sighted over
attempting to use abx to choose. I believe I'd get a better reading to make
a judgement on. You may be different.

> > You are absolutely right...but that is my point. Most of the objections
> > raised in this forum have been to the heavily promoted use of abx
testing
> > and the supporting claim that it is the most sensitive test for
evaluation
> > and shows no differences in most cases in audio gear (speakers and
> > cartridges excepted). Subjectivists feel there are much better ways of
> > testing that focus more naturally and fully on musical evaluation and
> > believe that if differences in preference occur, the fact that there has
to
> > be a difference in some factor of reproduction is a given. Not all
> > subjectivists here are anti-dbt. Most are anti-abx, it seems to me.
>
> This assumes that ABX is inherently a short-interval *listening* protocol.
> It's not. It's a quick-*switching* protocol. If subjectivists believe
that
> sighted perception of audible difference is more accurate when the
listener
> leaves a long interval between the end of A and the start of B or X, then
> subjectivists need to prove *that*. Oohashi's paper doesn't.
>

They don't believe you need a long interval between. It is not
quick-switching per se that is the problem. It is not letting the
evaluation be of a whole piece of music, paying attention to what the musice
"does to us" and rating it on that basis, rather than trying to determin if
x matches a, or x matches b...that matters. they believe that you have to
listen to the music and allow the music time to create the emotional
response in order to get a true evaluation. that is why "snippets" do not
work for music, even if they work in detecting articfacts.

> Subjectivist belief that preferences difference has to reflect some
difference
> in some factor of reproduction, is falsified when 'reproduction' refers
only
> the the actual sounds. Because it's *quite* trivially easy to set up
> a test where 'subjectivists' will form preferences for different
presentations
> of the SAME sounds.
>
> It is demonstrably the case that 'preference' and 'perception of
difference'
> *can* have NO basis or relation to audible fact.
>

Yes, but that doesn't mean when they do hear a difference that it is *not*
real. You are making an error of logic.

> >> Second, there are a few huge gaps in the theory here, as Oohashi & co.
> >> concede. In particular, there's the little matter of how this section
> >> of the brain gets its information, since the normal hearing mechanism
> >> cannot supply it. Also, there's the little matter of the data. Where
> >> is it?
> >>
>
> > The summary tables are there, but not the individual results. However,
the
> > statistics are so overwhelmingly significant that it is probably less
> > critical than if the results were marginal. I would guess that Oahashi
et
> > al would provide the raw data to critics and other researchers if asked;
my
> > impression is that most journal articles do not provide the raw data
from
> > such research but instead provide relevant summary statistics as they
have
> > done.
>
> >> Then, as I also noted, the relevance of this to the experience of
> >> subjectivists, listening sighted, is open to serious question. If
> >> anything, this study confirms the necessity of DBTs, potentially
> >> challenging only their methodologies.
> >>
>
> > It certainly was an excellent approach, IMO. I don't think you would
find
> > many subjectivists objecting to this type of dbt'ng. It is, as noted, a
> > more rigorous approach to what many already do.
>
> I think you would. I have seen many objectivists object to the idea of
> controlled comparison, *period*, as somehow interfering with the 'truth'.
>

Well, I've been a member of this group (and others) for a long time and I
have not heard many object to blind testing per se....but they do object to
tests that "get in the way" vs admittedly less than perfect sighted tests
that "get out of the way". The Ooashi et al tests are so "out of the way"
that they subjects hardly know there are tests going on. And if
"Objectivists United" wishes to fund a permanent testing facility as
sophisticated as what Ooashi et al set up, then I for one would be happy to
use it for all my auditioning choices. And I am sure I would not be alone.

S888Wheel

July 15th 03, 04:57 AM

>> I said
>
>>>
>>>> Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
>>>DVDs
>>>> with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
>>>> perception of music.
>>>

>
>> Steven said
>
>>>
>>>Indeed. It will tend to introduce error into our perceptions of audible
>>>difference. This is well-known.
>>>

I said

>
>> Really? Seeing the performance will introduce error into our perceptions of
>> audible idfference?

Steven said

>
>Yes, if the performance is being compared to another one.

How do you know? What do you base this claim on?

I said

>
>> I'd like to see something that supports this assertion.

Steven said

>
>You accept the claim as true for component comparisons, yes?
>Why not for performance comparisons, then?

This makes no sense in the context of my claim that seeing a performance while
hearing it matters in our perception of the music. If you have some knowledge
that watching playback of the permormance while comparing the sound of that
same playback obscures our ability to hear differences in components you are
just speculating. Hey maybe it's true but without a test of some sort you are
just speculating.

Steven said

>
>Please read what I wrote again, carefully. I am referring to
>determinination of audible *difference*. The principle is generally
>true -- it applies whenever sounds are
>compared.

Yeah, I thought it was an odd reply to my post regarding the effects of seeing
music performed while hearing it performed. But if you think seeing the
performance while hearing the performance during playback dulls our ability to
hear differences you might want to test that idea before claiming it is true.

Steven said

>In addition to *difference, sighted bias can also influence
>which performance/component/treatment 'sounds better', as you
>well know. This can occur even when there
>is no objective reason to believe one would be 'better'
>than the other.

OK we are talking apples and oranges. I'm not talking about seeing the
equipment perform. I am talking about seeing the musicians perform, be it live
or playback.

Steven said

> I could take two copies the same LP from the
>same pressing run, slap an "MFSL" label on one and a generic
>label on the other -- wanna bet which one the 'vinylphile'
>would claim sounds better in a sighted comparison?
>

You are welcome to try that with me. I will take your bet and your money. Keep
in mind though that different records from the same stampers can and often will
sound slightly to significantly different depending on how many pressings come
from those stampers.

S888Wheel

July 15th 03, 05:47 AM

Audioguy said

>
>>>Please stay on subject, we haven't been discussing video or visual
>>>aspects, only audio. And I haven't been the one wanting to limit the
>>>discussion to just music, that's Elmir again. I think any sound is
>>>fair game for evaluating the performance of audio equipment and in
>>>fact can often illuminate the differences between them much better
>>>than music, one of the points that seems to
>>>vex Elmir in his highly
>>>repeated posting of the now famous "1.76 dB test".

I said

>
>> This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is
>whether
>> sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or
>isn't
>> it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off
>topic.
>> Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of
>music
>
>> IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us
>insight
>> into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.

Audioguy said

>
>OK, but how does that apply to the actual subject of the discussion:
>audio reproduction devices? And do you feel that only music is the
>only valid audio source for the evaluation of audio reproduction
>devices?

It doesn't. Remeber I said the answer I gave was irrelevant to the issue of the
sound of components?

Audioguy said

>
>>>
>>>And please explain if you prefer to listen in the dark how a blind
>>>test would affect one in a different manner.

I said

>
>> I doubt my ability to discern differences in an ABX DBT would be adversly
>> affected by literal darkness. I don't know since I haven't done it but I
>see no
>> reason to think it would.

Audioguy said

>
>Thank you. Then you don't have any objection to the use of DBTs in
>the testing of audio reproduction devices it seems.
>

Not at all.

S888Wheel

July 15th 03, 08:10 AM

>>I said
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was
>>never
>>>>>an
>>>>>> audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that
>>>fact
>>>>>is
>>>>>> not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

Audioguy said

>
>>>>>OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
>>>>>this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
>>>>>reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
>>>>>that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
>>>>>discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no
>
>>>>>relevance to the discussion of the
>>>audible differences in audio
>>>>>amplifiers, only sound.
>

Tom said

>
>Agreed. I wonder why why the amp sound zealots cry "Its all about the Music"
>when it's really about the "sound" no matter what the program when evaluating
>sound quality and realism of reproduction.
>

Good lord why use this as an opportunity to take cheap shots at me. A question
was asked and I answered it. Do you disagree with my answer? My view on amps
are irrelevant to the question asked and the answer given. By the way, for some
of us it is all about the music. You cannot have music without sound. The
quality of sound affects our enjoyment of the music, at least for some of us.

>
>>I said
>>
>>>> Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
>>>DVDs
>>>> with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
>>>> perception of music.
>

Tom said

>
>It also can positively influences the sense of performance-space acoustics.
>Seeing the walls often adds greatly to the realism of reproduced performance.
>But a large screen is always better.
>

>
>That's also on eplace where the film guys have a leg up on us. They don't
>even
>try to capture live sound on-set. They produce the soundtrack not with the
>idea
>of taking you back to the space but only making you believe you've been taken
>back. It doesn't have to BE real; it only has to make you think it is. The
>picture helps here as well.

The sound guys on set do their best within the limitations of the situation to
get the most accurate sound of the actor's voices as possible. they have no
interest in getting ambient sound except for the sake of sonic continuity. The
ambient sound is often completely wrong since the sound of a set on a
soundstage is nothing like the sound of the space the film makers are trying to
fool you into believing is real. The sound guys on set have nothing to do with
the final soundtrack except only to deliver the recording of the dialogue and
enough of a guide track to allow the foley artists to create all the incidental
sounds. Movie soundtracks cannot be judged for realism anymore than the image
of the film can be judged for realism. Otherwise we would have people and
places constantly changing size and position as the editor chooses. What does a
person with a sixty foot head sound like when he or she talks? Movie goers are
aware of the stylized format of film and live with it's lack of realism. That
is the advantage filmmakers have over music recordists and music playback. It
does seem that the combination of sight and sound does help suspend disbelief
but I don't think film goers even ask the question "did that look or sound like
real life?" They may ask if a visual effect looked like something real caught
on film but I think that is as far as it goes. The unrealistic intrinsic
stylization of film is simply accepted by the film goers.

I said

> Many people including myself prefer to listen in the
>>>dark
>>>> so as to not be distracted by the lack of performers in our sight. While
>>>> isolating the influences of other senses
>>>for the purpose of testing perception
>>>> of one sense may seem like an ideal, one cannot ignore the fact that we
>>>live
>
>>>> most of our lives using our senses in tandom and such isolation may have
>>>> unexpected effects.
>>

Audioguy said

>>>Please stay on subject, we haven't been discussing video or visual
>>>aspects, only audio. And I haven't been the one wanting to limit the
>>>discussion to just music, that's Elmir again. I think any sound is
>>>fair game for evaluating the performance of audio equipment and in
>>>fact can often illuminate the differences between them much better
>>>than music, one of the points that seems
>to
>>>vex Elmir in his highly
>>>repeated posting of the now famous "1.76 dB test".
>>

I said

>>This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is
>>whether
>>sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or
>>isn't
>>it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off
>>topic.
>>Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of
>music
>>IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us
>>insight
>>into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.

Tom said

>
>It can also be evaluated from a score.

Nah. One can anticipate what it will sound like from reading the music and one
can evaluate that anticipation, but without the music being played you don't
have music. Sheet music is as much music as a blueprint is a finished building.
They both tell you what to do more or less and some skilled people can
speculate quite accurately on it's merits but there are no real merits when all
is said and done if there is no performance of the music written on the sheet
or a building incarnate. All of which is irrelevant to my point that seeing
performers play the music is another mechanism for the delivery of music.

Audioguy said

>
>>>And please explain if you prefer to listen in the dark how a blind
>>>test would affect one in a different manner.

I said

>
>>I doubt my ability to discern differences in an ABX DBT would be adversly
>>affected by literal darkness. I don't know since I haven't done it but I see
>>no
>>reason to think it would.

Tom said

>
>Agreed.
>

ludovic mirabel

July 16th 03, 04:08 AM

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<KIHQa.63015$H17.19512@sccrnsc02>...
> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > writes:
> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> > news:%4BQa.59851$Ph3.6265@sccrnsc04...
> >> In article >,
> >> "Harry Lavo" > writes:
> >> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
> >> > news:LzkQa.48647$GL4.13222@rwcrnsc53...
> >> >> In article >,
> >> >> (S888Wheel) writes:
>
I can't match Harry Lavo's erudite comments. I can add only, (as
an anecdote, because I read it in a newspaper aricle which did not
quote the source) this interesting report from Montreal.
A patient had a minor stroke with seemingly complete function
recovery: he could walk ,hear, understand and talk but he could no
longer sing, whistle or recognise a tune. The music computer in the
brain was gone.
Your ideas strike me as so, let's say, unusual that I cannot but ask
myself if I understand you correctly. But here is Nousaine saying
pretty much the same so you two must be serious. Apparently you think
that any kind of sound can be used to test differences between
components.
You're absolutely right. Anyone can do anything. It is a free country,
right?
If you're interested in how your system will render train whistles you
check the components by ABX for how they reproduce differences between
train whistles, ditto for cannon shots, ditto for MGM lion roar, ditto
for pink noises, ditto for music if you're interested in music.
Can you draw any conclusions from the pink noise performance about the
music performance? A hundred dollar question; you have to offer that
little thing called *experimental evidence* that that is the case. So
far the only evidence I have is to the contrary. You guessed it :the
famous Marcus Ovchain 1,76 db test which showed that most people
performed ABX much better when pink noise was played to them than when
they had to listen to music.
As for the positive outcomes of ABX component comparison I'd like to
see the day when people who like to be seen as scientists stop quoting
fantasies. The challenge to give a PRECISE reference to a listening
panel, comparing electrically comparable (roughly) components with a
final POSITIVE outcome conclusion by the test proctors, was repeated
by me at least a dozen time here , in RAHE. With no response or
barefaced claims that there are "many". Or urban legends about JJ.
etc.
No ,one responded because NO SUCH POSITIVE REPORTS EXIST. The majority
vote that the proctors (idiotically in my far from modest opinion)
take as vox populi, vox dei is always"They all sound the same". (Let
alone that no such tests, positive or negative have been published
since 1990).
You quote Nousaine: he unkindly contradicts you in the same thread
ridiculing "cable and amplifier sound" and denying any positives. As
for JJ.
I had extensive discussion with him, here in RAHE. No mention to
secret, nondisclosable comparisons- just once he mentioned his
recollections of a nonpublished test. Period.
Speakers? I suggested that energetic people organise a panel ABX
comparison of good full rtange speaker and bet that the majoority will
again have a NULL, NEGATIVE result because such is the nature of the
ABX beast ("How to get a positive ABX test?" thread. The challenge so
far was not taken up- not even by H_K who have facilities for dpeaker
moving etc.
I am sorry if I ssound impatient. I am. This very exchange has been
repeated here again and again- and every time one gets anecdotes from
people claiming to be scientists.
I'll leave aside the obvious problem of "testing" wildly different
individuals and ignoring the gifted monority- did you notice that
what makes outstanding performance outstanding is that it stand out
above the crowd?
I never thought that claim that the "test" when applied to the
generality of audiophiles of various ages, abilities, training,
musical experience etc. could produce any result other than NULL, ZERO
was anything more than a bad joke like astrology column in a
newspaper. But I can't help but feel compassion for such as Mr. Wheel
who appears genuinely to be searching for his Land of Oz only to find
perpetually that the Wizard is a fake. There ain't no "test" for
everybody. Cover up the brand names if you're worried and most will
have a better chance of getting something of signicance for them than
when performing mental ABX question and answer gymnastics.
Ludovic Mirabel

> >>snip irrelevant to what followsL<
>
> >> > Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
> >> > brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music.
> >>
> >> You entirely miss my point, the mechanism of the delivery of music
> >> via an audio system is audio, and nothing else. It's a point I'm
> >> trying to get Elmir to acknowledge that I've asked and to agree or
> >> disagree.
> >>
I agree dear man, I totally agree. And the delivery of speech is also
via "audio" ie sounds. Not much help if I deliver those sounds to a
native of Kalahari desert, His brain is not wired this way. And the
brain of a heavy metal fan is not wired for cellos either.

> >> How about you, agree or disagree.
> >>
> >
> > I don't know what "audio" is as you use it. I know what sound is. I know
> > what music is. I know what electricity is. I know what vibrations are.
> > And I know that components are designed to use those elements to deliver a
> > facsimile of music to our brains.
> >
> > If this is what you mean by audio, then I agree.
>
> Yes, and I meant to say "via and audio systems is sound" above.
>
> > If what your really mean is electrical output (of amps, wires, etc.) then I
> > disagree at least as conventionally measured and sometimes evaluated.
> >
> >> > And that is the
> >> > primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
> >> > engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether
> the
> >> > music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is
> amiss,
> >> > is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
> >> > allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to
> try
> >> > to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
> >> > *objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub.
> It
> >> > demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on. Let me
> give
> >> > you a non-musical example that I use here before...about a year and a
> half
> >> > ago, I think.
> >> >
> >> > Suppose you hear a split second of a car crash. That's all...half a
> second
> >> > of indecipherable noise. You wouldn't even know what it was. However,
> if
> >> > you heard a recording of street sounds, and auto approaching, a squeal
> of
> >> > tires, and then the crash, you would know what you were hearing. And if
> you
> >> > heard it through two different systems you could probably which one
> sounded
> >> > "most real". However, if all your heard were two snippets of sound of
> the
> >> > crash itself, my guess is your brain would be trying so hard to make
> sense
> >> > of what you were hearing you couldn't evaluate anything in the way of
> which
> >> > sounded most "real" because you didn't know what "real" was.
> >>
> >> Here you go again, where is the requirement of only using a split
> >> second for audio tests? No one on the DBT side has ever said that.
> >>
> >
> > See my notes below to Tom
> >
> >> > Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
> >> > scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing
> we
> >> > call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally. Further the work done
> by
> >> > Oohashi et al (The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000,
> pp.
> >> > 3548-3558) indicated that this emotional response took place over time,
> as
> >> > much as twenty seconds of time, from the time of the sound. Presumable
> this
> >> > is the time it takes the brain to recognize and interpret the music as
> >> > pleasurable, unpleasurable, rhythmically coherent or incoherent, etc.
> >>
> >> Again who said you couldn't use 20 second audio selections in
> >> performing DBTs? Please let us know.
> >>
> >
> > You don't even understand what I'm referring to. Suggest you read the
> > Oohashi article.
>
> Yes, I do, and I read it back when you first mentioned it, but you
> don't want to accept the any ABX or DBT has the requirement of only
> using short snippets, I guess it's because it would invalidate many
> of your arguments.
>
> >> > This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and
> determine
> >> > its impact as "music".
> >>
> >> Never said you could, that is you inserting something I never said.
> >>
> >
> > Then why are you taking on Ludovic's suggestion that abx in particular is
> > not the best instrument for evaluation audio components. After all, that is
> > *all* he has ever really argued.
>
> Because I totally disagree with him, and ABX in particular is
> perfectly suited and in fact were created specifically for that
> purpose.
>
> >> > The factors affecting how we respond to music are
> >> > apparently very subtle and "time-based" and "harmony-based" and not
> static.
> >> > But a short burst comparison without much in the way of context for
> >> > recognition, relaxation, and response (which is the way most
> short-interval
> >> > testing is done) tends to short-circuit the process. This is the
> objection
> >> > must "subjectivists" have to ABX'ng in practice and why they question
> "null
> >> > results" that seem so at odds with so many people's otherwise fairly
> clear
> >> > perceptions of differences.
> >>
> >> Please get off the short burst stuff, it has never been a requirement.
> >>
> >
> > Again, read and understand first and then comment, thanks.
>
> I do and did understand, thank you. You don't seem to understand that
> one can listen as long as one wants, days if desired, during an ABX
> session to either of A, B, or X during the test before deciding if X
> is A or B. If after days of listening to A and B, if one cannot
> determine which one X is, than I doubt seriously there is a
> difference, at least to you (the one taking the test).
>
> >> > Oohashi et al indicate in the quoted article that they have confirmed
> this
> >> > speculation. That is, they have used short-interval comparisons of
> music,
> >> > and found "no difference" in ratings in line with accepted believe. But
> >> > when using "long-intervals" using the same stimuli and sequentially
> monadic
> >> > ratings, the achieved statistically significant differences in response
> to
> >> > the two stimuli.
> >> >
> >> > You "amps is amps" people seem to want to ignore this finding, which is
> >> > pretty earthshaking and has nothing to do with whether you think the
> >> > "ultrasonic" portion of this test was done correctly or not, since
> >> > presumable the same stimulus was used in the precursor test (although to
> be
> >> > fair this should have been better documented in the article rather than
> >> > treated as almost a passing reference). This finding alone, if
> >> > substantiated by others, would rule out much of the abx and possibly
> most of
> >> > the dbt's done to date.
> >>
> >> ABX especially does not require short bursts, and typically the
> >> control of the switching is in the hands of the testee, so they can
> >> use as long an interval as they wish. Please explain how that
> >> invalidates any previous tests.
> >>
> >
> > And if you are intent on hearing differences, as opposed to evaluating music
> > reproduction, the technique tends to lead you in that direction.
>
> For one component to be better than another there must be a
> difference, how else could it happen? That's the whole point.
>
> >> And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
> >> between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
> >> programmed to find differences when none exist. As I've mentioned
> >> before, I made a change to my system, remarked to myself how big a
> >> change it made, only to find out I hadn't really made the change. All
> >> it takes is doing that one time to realize how easy it is to be
> >> mistaken in one's perceptions. I believe many of those on the DBT side
> >> have had the same revelation before and it helped convince them of the
> >> need for controls if one wants to be sure, just as it did to me.
> >>
> >
> > We've all done that...it doesn't mean that all instances of sighted
> > listening are invalid.
>
> Well then you didn't imagine a huge difference then, because that's
> what convinced me, I thought I'd heard a very noticeable difference
> when nothing at all had changed. As many of the DBT advocates have
> mentioned, they were complete believers in the idea that every
> component has it's own sound and that by just careful listening you
> can determine which his better. But an eye opening event such as the
> one I had occurs, and it dawns on you how easily one can be mistaken.
>
> > That's the logical error you folks make. Your
> > boolean should should be as follows (and for some here it is):
> >
> > sighted listening can sometime lead to false positive differences
> > I am using sighted listening
> > Therefore, it is possible that differences are due to factors other than
> > sound.
>
> No problem here.
>
> > Instead, in this newsgroup many tend to use different logic. It tends to go:
> >
> > signted listening can sometimes lead to false positive differences
> > I am using sighted listening
> > Therefore, almost certainly I am imagining any differences I hear (because
> > we know better and because what you think you hear can't be possible, etc
> > etc etc)
>
> Wrong, it's that it is very possible that I could be imaging a
> difference that is not there, so controls are needed if you want to
> be sure. If being sure is not a criteria, then do whatever you want.
>
> >> > And, Tom, before you say it, I know dbt'ng doesn't *have* to be done
> that
> >> > way, but the fact is most of it has been done that way.
> >>
> >> Only because those who use it find it's easiest to determine a
> >> difference using short snippets. And yes, ABX tests have found
> >> differences, they do not all have "no difference" reports.
> >>
> >
> > Component evaluations of music reproduction? Documented and subject to a
> > rigorous methodological evaluation? If so, where? I'd feel a lot better
> > about the test which a goodly number of such results, as well as null
> > results. And, BTW, isn't that exactly what Ludovic and "Wheel" have been
> > requesting?
>
> Not that I have, but Nousaine, JJ and others have reported them, and
> JJ's in particular also included the sensitivity testing with probe
> signals that Wheel has been asking for. But JJ's were not available
> to the general public since they were proprietary with the exception
> of those very few that were presented at AES conventions.
>
> >> > Back to the main point; evaluating components is *not* hearing
> differences,
> >> > but evaluating how possible differences effect emotional and rhythmic
> >> > response from us as humans. There is a big difference. And the answer
> to
> >> > the "there have to be differences fist" response is....how do you not
> know
> >> > there aren't if the test itself tends to short circuit those responses.
> >> > This is why there have been requests for evidence of rigor in the
> testing
> >> > and for validation of the abx and abc/hr testing themselves versus other
> >> > forms of testing (for example the sequential proto-monadic used by
> Oohashi
> >> > et al which do purport to measure differences. it cannot just be
> assumed
> >> > away.
> >>
> >> Please explain how the test "short circuits" the response since the
> >> only thing you've mentioned is the use of short snippets, a point I
> >> believe I've shown is not valid.
> >>
> >
> > You've asserted it is not valid, without reading Oohashi et al to understand
> > the delay mechanism and alternative means of measurement when it comes to
> > evaluating music.
>
> Since your main point seems to be that short snippets aren't any good
> for evalutaing components, but they aren't a requirement at all, so
> then please explain.

S888Wheel

July 16th 03, 05:47 AM

>>Tom said
>>
>>>
>>>Agreed. I wonder why why the amp sound zealots cry "Its all about the
>Music"
>>>when it's really about the "sound" no matter what the program when
>>evaluating
>>>sound quality and realism of reproduction.

I said

>>Good lord why use this as an opportunity to take cheap shots at me. A
>>question
>>was asked and I answered it. Do you disagree with my answer? My view on amps
>>are irrelevant to the question asked and the answer given. By the way, for
>>some
>>of us it is all about the music. You cannot have music without sound. The
>>quality of sound affects our enjoyment of the music, at least for some of
>us.

Tom said

>
>Sure, but why is the only 'sound' that counts music? There are plenty of
>other
>sources that are enjoyable and useful. Many where 'realism' is the only goal.
>

If you want to listen to sounds other than music on your stereo more power to
you. My stereo was aquired for listening to music. You did see the part where I
said 'some of us' didn't you?

Tom said

>>>That's also on eplace where the film guys have a leg up on us. They don't
>>>even
>>>try to capture live sound on-set. They produce the soundtrack not with the
>>>idea
>>>of taking you back to the space but only making you believe you've been
>>taken
>>>back. It doesn't have to BE real; it only has to make you think it is. The
>>>picture helps here as well.

I said

>
>>The sound guys on set do their best within the limitations of the situation
>>to
>>get the most accurate sound of the actor's voices as possible.

Tom said

>
>No they don't. The actual 'voices' you hear in the film are mostly ADR.
>

Yes they do regardless of how much ADR is used. The more accurate the guide
track the better an actor can recreate their pefromance.The goal always being
to avoid ADR as much as possible.

I said

> they have no
>>interest in getting ambient sound except for the sake of sonic continuity.
>>The
>>ambient sound is often completely wrong since the sound of a set on a
>>soundstage is nothing like the sound of the space the film makers are trying
>>to
>>fool you into believing is real.
>

Tom said

>
>That's right the fans that make the wind would often drown out the dialog
>completely. Those camera trolleys aren't silent either.

Dollies as we call the trolleys are pretty quite most of the time, fans are
terrible. Motion control rigs are very noisy. Crews are also pretty bad
sometimes. Footsteps are a huge problem much of the time.

I said

>
>The sound guys on set have nothing to do
>>with
>>the final soundtrack except only to deliver the recording of the dialogue
>and
>>enough of a guide track to allow the foley artists to create all the
>>incidental
>>sounds.

Tom said

>
>That's mostly right except the dialogue is usually done later in ADR.
>

The amount of ADR varies from show to show.

I said

>
> Movie soundtracks cannot be judged for realism anymore than the image
>>of the film can be judged for realism.
>

Tom said

>
>Sure they can. Some of them do a great job of taking you to a different place
>and making you suspend disbelief for a period.
>

Only within the context of a stulized format. A good book can do the same thing
with no soundtrack. No one confuses the movies with actual events, unless they
saw the first segment of one of the early demos of Showscan. that demo was
intended to fool the audience for the first 30 seconds or so.

Tom said

>
>Image not realistic? Why do they have those Oscars for Cimematography?

For the artistry of the photography. definitely not for the degree of realism.

I said

>
>Otherwise we would have people and
>>places constantly changing size and position as the editor chooses. What
>does
>>a
>>person with a sixty foot head sound like when he or she talks? Movie goers
>>are
>>aware of the stylized format of film and live with it's lack of realism.

Tom said

>
>Film is the single best medium for suspension of disbelief. It gives the most
>"real" impression of being taken to somewhere else.

It is one of the best mediums for a narrative but no one is fooled by film.
There are some good motion control flight simulators that use large format film
that take the illusion much further but even those don't fool anyone I know of
at all.

Tom said

>There are some concert
>films/soundtracks that do this pretty well too but as you say often the
>camera
>work is too frenetic to seem real-enough.

The format of film as we are acustomed to it is not geared toward realism. It
is geared towards comunicating the narative. moving in for close ups while
cutting back and forth between actors will prevent any illusion of the film
being real but it will do a better job of telling the story. the common break
up of real time is another stylized convention of film that we accept without
question. It is another obvious que that we are not watching actual events in
the flesh.

Tom said

>
>OTOH many movies take you there very effectively. I just got back from Banff
>near the place where Legends of the Fall was fimed. That film in image takes
>me
>there very effectively. The camera angles that I could never get in real life
>take me there in a way that could be described as better-than-real from a
>visual perspective.

It may take you there but only because you are acustomed to the convention of
film as a narrative medium. If someone were to ask an audience to pay attention
to the realism of a film, that is to say how well does the film fool you into
thinking it is an actual event incarnate taking place before your eyes and ears
they probably wouldn't even undersatnd what you were asking. The format is that
far removed from a recreation of a real event. And so it should be. Movies tell
stories they don't try to recreate a real event. That is what the state of the
art motion control rides are trying to do. I think they have a ways to go.

I said

>
>That
>>is the advantage filmmakers have over music recordists and music playback.
>It
>>does seem that the combination of sight and sound does help suspend
>disbelief
>>but I don't think film goers even ask the question "did that look or sound
>>like
>>real life?"

Tom said

>
>Of course not. That's the idea to take "you" there in a way that could never
>happen in real life. But, when it get the subject to suspend disbelief for
>the
>length of performance than its successful.
>

Yes, the same way a good book can take yo away.

Tom said

>
>If a 'realistic' feel weren't necessary than we'd not need a large screen, a
>darkened room and natural enveloping sound.

Large screens are great for impact but they don't make anything more realistic.
I sixty foot talking disembodied head is not more realistic than a thirty foot
talking disembodied head. It is more impressive sometimes.

I said

>
> They may ask if a visual effect looked like something real caught
>>on film but I think that is as far as it goes.
>

Tom said

>
>I don't think that's any different than a concert captured on tape and
>transcribed to disc.

Depends on the concert. If it is live unamplified music I would want the best
recreation of the original sound. If it is amplified I want the best recreation
of the studio recording.

I said

>
> The unrealistic intrinsic
>>stylization of film is simply accepted by the film goers.
>

Tom said

>
>And by people who listen to music at home?

If it was live unamplified music most audiophiles want to get as close to the
illusion of the real event as possible I believe.

Tom said

>IMO the art of either film or sound
>recordings are are enhanced when they seem real; even if that 'reality' is
>foley, ADR or any other kind of editing.
>

That is an interesting issue. Most foley sound is very far from the real sound
but is often more dramatic for impact. I think in certain elements of film
making the more realistic soemthing looks within the frame compared to
photography of something real does make for greater suspension of disbelief.

I said

>>>>This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is
>>>>whether
>>>>sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or
>>>>isn't
>>>>it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off
>>>>topic.
>>>>Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of
>>>music
>>>>IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us
>>>>insight
>>>>into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.
>>

>
>>Tom said
>>
>>>
>>>It can also be evaluated from a score.

I said

>
>>Nah. One can anticipate what it will sound like from reading the music and
>>one
>>can evaluate that anticipation, but without the music being played you don't
>>have music. Sheet music is as much music as a blueprint is a finished
>>building.

Tom said

>
>I like your analogy but I've seen true music lovers break into tears reading
>sheet music. But the idea that "music" as an artform can only be evaluated
>through sound is simply not true IMO. But its not a point that needs
>agrument.

They are very good at anticipating the music itself. yeah, experts can do an
amazing job of visualizing what a blue print will wrought. I didn't mean to
imply that some people can't do a great deal of worthwhile evaluation of what
the final product will be from the plans. But the evaluation that really
matters is of the final product.

I said

>>They both tell you what to do more or less and some skilled people can
>>speculate quite accurately on it's merits but there are no real merits when
>>all
>>is said and done if there is no performance of the music written on the
>sheet
>>or a building incarnate. All of which is irrelevant to my point that seeing
>>performers play the music is another
>mechanism for the delivery of music.
>

Tom said

>
>IMO 'seeing' the performance is more likely to give you the sense of "being
>at"
>the perfomance and which is why I like music DVDs and laser discs. And why
>film
>is often more adroit at giving a "realistic" experience than sound-only
>recodings.

I suppose this will depend on one's sensibilities and sensitivities. I do like
to see a musician perform the music. what I see them do says so much about the
music.

Audio Guy

July 16th 03, 07:45 AM

In article <yk3Ra.73381$ye4.49568@sccrnsc01>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<KIHQa.63015$H17.19512@sccrnsc02>...
>> In article >,
>> "Harry Lavo" > writes:
>> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
>> > news:%4BQa.59851$Ph3.6265@sccrnsc04...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> "Harry Lavo" > writes:
>> >> > "Audio Guy" > wrote in message
>> >> > news:LzkQa.48647$GL4.13222@rwcrnsc53...
>> >> >> In article >,
>> >> >> (S888Wheel) writes:
>>
> I can't match Harry Lavo's erudite comments. I can add only, (as
> an anecdote, because I read it in a newspaper aricle which did not
> quote the source) this interesting report from Montreal.
> A patient had a minor stroke with seemingly complete function
> recovery: he could walk ,hear, understand and talk but he could no
> longer sing, whistle or recognise a tune. The music computer in the
> brain was gone.

I have seen and read similar reports. What has that to do with the
SOUND of audio components? I would even venture that this person
might be better at recognizing differences since he isn't trying to
interpret the sounds as music.

> Your ideas strike me as so, let's say, unusual that I cannot but ask
> myself if I understand you correctly. But here is Nousaine saying
> pretty much the same so you two must be serious. Apparently you think
> that any kind of sound can be used to test differences between
> components.

Why not, that's what they are, devices to reproduce sound.

> You're absolutely right. Anyone can do anything. It is a free country,
> right?
> If you're interested in how your system will render train whistles you
> check the components by ABX for how they reproduce differences between
> train whistles, ditto for cannon shots, ditto for MGM lion roar, ditto
> for pink noises, ditto for music if you're interested in music.
> Can you draw any conclusions from the pink noise performance about the
> music performance?

No, because audio systems don't "perform" music, they reproduce sound.
If they "performed" music, you would just feed them sheet music and
out it would come, just as a musician who performs music does.

> A hundred dollar question; you have to offer that
> little thing called *experimental evidence* that that is the case. So
> far the only evidence I have is to the contrary. You guessed it :the
> famous Marcus Ovchain 1,76 db test which showed that most people
> performed ABX much better when pink noise was played to them than when
> they had to listen to music.

And why don't you accept Occam's Razor and realize that it shows that
music can be a poor choice for determining audio differences. that's
the conclusion I came to when I read the test report.

> As for the positive outcomes of ABX component comparison I'd like to
> see the day when people who like to be seen as scientists stop quoting
> fantasies. The challenge to give a PRECISE reference to a listening
> panel, comparing electrically comparable (roughly) components with a
> final POSITIVE outcome conclusion by the test proctors, was repeated
> by me at least a dozen time here , in RAHE. With no response or
> barefaced claims that there are "many". Or urban legends about JJ.
> etc.

Maybe because when they are roughly similar, you get a null response?
Again, Occam's Razor rears it's head.

> No ,one responded because NO SUCH POSITIVE REPORTS EXIST. The majority
> vote that the proctors (idiotically in my far from modest opinion)
> take as vox populi, vox dei is always"They all sound the same". (Let
> alone that no such tests, positive or negative have been published
> since 1990).
> You quote Nousaine: he unkindly contradicts you in the same thread
> ridiculing "cable and amplifier sound" and denying any positives. As
> for JJ.

And Pinkerton and Krueger have reported that they have had positives,
a fact you seem to keep overlooking.

> I had extensive discussion with him, here in RAHE. No mention to
> secret, nondisclosable comparisons- just once he mentioned his
> recollections of a nonpublished test. Period.

As I said, his tests were proprietary and could not be reported in
public. Have not worked for a company that had such confidentiality
agreements? I have, and they tend to enforce them strongly.

> Speakers? I suggested that energetic people organise a panel ABX
> comparison of good full rtange speaker and bet that the majoority will
> again have a NULL, NEGATIVE result because such is the nature of the
> ABX beast ("How to get a positive ABX test?" thread. The challenge so
> far was not taken up- not even by H_K who have facilities for dpeaker
> moving etc.
> I am sorry if I ssound impatient. I am. This very exchange has been
> repeated here again and again- and every time one gets anecdotes from
> people claiming to be scientists.
> I'll leave aside the obvious problem of "testing" wildly different
> individuals and ignoring the gifted monority- did you notice that
> what makes outstanding performance outstanding is that it stand out
> above the crowd?

Then please run a test and show us this person, everyone would just
love to see it. But gee, no one has yet, have they?

> I never thought that claim that the "test" when applied to the
> generality of audiophiles of various ages, abilities, training,
> musical experience etc. could produce any result other than NULL, ZERO
> was anything more than a bad joke like astrology column in a
> newspaper.

Speaking of things like astrology, you seam to have ignored my post
on 12 July:
From: (Audio Guy)
>Subject: Re: Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
>Message-ID: <k_YPa.45825$N7.5623@sccrnsc03>
>Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:05:52 GMT
>In article <rJXPa.45341$N7.5475@sccrnsc03>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> That is SCIENCE, kids. Not silly "personal opinions"
>
>OK, let's discuss SCIENCE. You have explained your training and
>experience in the medical field. What is your opinions on faith
>healer, witch doctors, and chiropractics? These "medical practioners"
>have millions of believers who disdain modern medicine and its
>proponents even though there exists many, many studies and tests that
>prove it's efficacy? To them modern medicine is "silly personal
>opinions". How do you answer those infidels?
>
>To those trained and experienced in the electronics field, your
>objections to audio DBTs smack of the much the same.

> But I can't help but feel compassion for such as Mr. Wheel
> who appears genuinely to be searching for his Land of Oz only to find
> perpetually that the Wizard is a fake. There ain't no "test" for
> everybody. Cover up the brand names if you're worried and most will
> have a better chance of getting something of signicance for them than
> when performing mental ABX question and answer gymnastics.

You really have no idea at all how an ABX test actually works, do
you? Because nothing you say above indicates that you have any clue
more than it's a DBT. My guess that the reason you post at such
length against the use of DBTs in audio is that you've tried it and
it came up null wane you were so sure of a difference.

And I notice you failed to address anything I posted below, either,
you just repeated all over again the same tired complaints. How about
furthering the discussion rather than just rehashing the same points?
How about answering some of the points I made below?

> Ludovic Mirabel
>
>> >>snip irrelevant to what followsL<
>>
>> >> > Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
>> >> > brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music.
>> >>
>> >> You entirely miss my point, the mechanism of the delivery of music
>> >> via an audio system is audio, and nothing else. It's a point I'm
>> >> trying to get Elmir to acknowledge that I've asked and to agree or
>> >> disagree.
>> >>
> I agree dear man, I totally agree. And the delivery of speech is also
> via "audio" ie sounds. Not much help if I deliver those sounds to a
> native of Kalahari desert, His brain is not wired this way. And the
> brain of a heavy metal fan is not wired for cellos either.
>
>> >> How about you, agree or disagree.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't know what "audio" is as you use it. I know what sound is. I know
>> > what music is. I know what electricity is. I know what vibrations are.
>> > And I know that components are designed to use those elements to deliver a
>> > facsimile of music to our brains.
>> >
>> > If this is what you mean by audio, then I agree.
>>
>> Yes, and I meant to say "via and audio systems is sound" above.
>>
>> > If what your really mean is electrical output (of amps, wires, etc.) then I
>> > disagree at least as conventionally measured and sometimes evaluated.
>> >
>> >> > And that is the
>> >> > primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
>> >> > engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether
>> the
>> >> > music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is
>> amiss,
>> >> > is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
>> >> > allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to
>> try
>> >> > to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
>> >> > *objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub.
>> It
>> >> > demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on. Let me
>> give
>> >> > you a non-musical example that I use here before...about a year and a
>> half
>> >> > ago, I think.
>> >> >
>> >> > Suppose you hear a split second of a car crash. That's all...half a
>> second
>> >> > of indecipherable noise. You wouldn't even know what it was. However,
>> if
>> >> > you heard a recording of street sounds, and auto approaching, a squeal
>> of
>> >> > tires, and then the crash, you would know what you were hearing. And if
>> you
>> >> > heard it through two different systems you could probably which one
>> sounded
>> >> > "most real". However, if all your heard were two snippets of sound of
>> the
>> >> > crash itself, my guess is your brain would be trying so hard to make
>> sense
>> >> > of what you were hearing you couldn't evaluate anything in the way of
>> which
>> >> > sounded most "real" because you didn't know what "real" was.
>> >>
>> >> Here you go again, where is the requirement of only using a split
>> >> second for audio tests? No one on the DBT side has ever said that.
>> >>
>> >
>> > See my notes below to Tom
>> >
>> >> > Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
>> >> > scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing
>> we
>> >> > call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally. Further the work done
>> by
>> >> > Oohashi et al (The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000,
>> pp.
>> >> > 3548-3558) indicated that this emotional response took place over time,
>> as
>> >> > much as twenty seconds of time, from the time of the sound. Presumable
>> this
>> >> > is the time it takes the brain to recognize and interpret the music as
>> >> > pleasurable, unpleasurable, rhythmically coherent or incoherent, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Again who said you couldn't use 20 second audio selections in
>> >> performing DBTs? Please let us know.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You don't even understand what I'm referring to. Suggest you read the
>> > Oohashi article.
>>
>> Yes, I do, and I read it back when you first mentioned it, but you
>> don't want to accept the any ABX or DBT has the requirement of only
>> using short snippets, I guess it's because it would invalidate many
>> of your arguments.
>>
>> >> > This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and
>> determine
>> >> > its impact as "music".
>> >>
>> >> Never said you could, that is you inserting something I never said.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Then why are you taking on Ludovic's suggestion that abx in particular is
>> > not the best instrument for evaluation audio components. After all, that is
>> > *all* he has ever really argued.
>>
>> Because I totally disagree with him, and ABX in particular is
>> perfectly suited and in fact were created specifically for that
>> purpose.
>>
>> >> > The factors affecting how we respond to music are
>> >> > apparently very subtle and "time-based" and "harmony-based" and not
>> static.
>> >> > But a short burst comparison without much in the way of context for
>> >> > recognition, relaxation, and response (which is the way most
>> short-interval
>> >> > testing is done) tends to short-circuit the process. This is the
>> objection
>> >> > must "subjectivists" have to ABX'ng in practice and why they question
>> "null
>> >> > results" that seem so at odds with so many people's otherwise fairly
>> clear
>> >> > perceptions of differences.
>> >>
>> >> Please get off the short burst stuff, it has never been a requirement.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Again, read and understand first and then comment, thanks.
>>
>> I do and did understand, thank you. You don't seem to understand that
>> one can listen as long as one wants, days if desired, during an ABX
>> session to either of A, B, or X during the test before deciding if X
>> is A or B. If after days of listening to A and B, if one cannot
>> determine which one X is, than I doubt seriously there is a
>> difference, at least to you (the one taking the test).
>>
>> >> > Oohashi et al indicate in the quoted article that they have confirmed
>> this
>> >> > speculation. That is, they have used short-interval comparisons of
>> music,
>> >> > and found "no difference" in ratings in line with accepted believe. But
>> >> > when using "long-intervals" using the same stimuli and sequentially
>> monadic
>> >> > ratings, the achieved statistically significant differences in response
>> to
>> >> > the two stimuli.
>> >> >
>> >> > You "amps is amps" people seem to want to ignore this finding, which is
>> >> > pretty earthshaking and has nothing to do with whether you think the
>> >> > "ultrasonic" portion of this test was done correctly or not, since
>> >> > presumable the same stimulus was used in the precursor test (although to
>> be
>> >> > fair this should have been better documented in the article rather than
>> >> > treated as almost a passing reference). This finding alone, if
>> >> > substantiated by others, would rule out much of the abx and possibly
>> most of
>> >> > the dbt's done to date.
>> >>
>> >> ABX especially does not require short bursts, and typically the
>> >> control of the switching is in the hands of the testee, so they can
>> >> use as long an interval as they wish. Please explain how that
>> >> invalidates any previous tests.
>> >>
>> >
>> > And if you are intent on hearing differences, as opposed to evaluating music
>> > reproduction, the technique tends to lead you in that direction.
>>
>> For one component to be better than another there must be a
>> difference, how else could it happen? That's the whole point.
>>
>> >> And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
>> >> between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
>> >> programmed to find differences when none exist. As I've mentioned
>> >> before, I made a change to my system, remarked to myself how big a
>> >> change it made, only to find out I hadn't really made the change. All
>> >> it takes is doing that one time to realize how easy it is to be
>> >> mistaken in one's perceptions. I believe many of those on the DBT side
>> >> have had the same revelation before and it helped convince them of the
>> >> need for controls if one wants to be sure, just as it did to me.
>> >>
>> >
>> > We've all done that...it doesn't mean that all instances of sighted
>> > listening are invalid.
>>
>> Well then you didn't imagine a huge difference then, because that's
>> what convinced me, I thought I'd heard a very noticeable difference
>> when nothing at all had changed. As many of the DBT advocates have
>> mentioned, they were complete believers in the idea that every
>> component has it's own sound and that by just careful listening you
>> can determine which his better. But an eye opening event such as the
>> one I had occurs, and it dawns on you how easily one can be mistaken.
>>
>> > That's the logical error you folks make. Your
>> > boolean should should be as follows (and for some here it is):
>> >
>> > sighted listening can sometime lead to false positive differences
>> > I am using sighted listening
>> > Therefore, it is possible that differences are due to factors other than
>> > sound.
>>
>> No problem here.
>>
>> > Instead, in this newsgroup many tend to use different logic. It tends to go:
>> >
>> > signted listening can sometimes lead to false positive differences
>> > I am using sighted listening
>> > Therefore, almost certainly I am imagining any differences I hear (because
>> > we know better and because what you think you hear can't be possible, etc
>> > etc etc)
>>
>> Wrong, it's that it is very possible that I could be imaging a
>> difference that is not there, so controls are needed if you want to
>> be sure. If being sure is not a criteria, then do whatever you want.
>>
>> >> > And, Tom, before you say it, I know dbt'ng doesn't *have* to be done
>> that
>> >> > way, but the fact is most of it has been done that way.
>> >>
>> >> Only because those who use it find it's easiest to determine a
>> >> difference using short snippets. And yes, ABX tests have found
>> >> differences, they do not all have "no difference" reports.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Component evaluations of music reproduction? Documented and subject to a
>> > rigorous methodological evaluation? If so, where? I'd feel a lot better
>> > about the test which a goodly number of such results, as well as null
>> > results. And, BTW, isn't that exactly what Ludovic and "Wheel" have been
>> > requesting?
>>
>> Not that I have, but Nousaine, JJ and others have reported them, and
>> JJ's in particular also included the sensitivity testing with probe
>> signals that Wheel has been asking for. But JJ's were not available
>> to the general public since they were proprietary with the exception
>> of those very few that were presented at AES conventions.
>>
>> >> > Back to the main point; evaluating components is *not* hearing
>> differences,
>> >> > but evaluating how possible differences effect emotional and rhythmic
>> >> > response from us as humans. There is a big difference. And the answer
>> to
>> >> > the "there have to be differences fist" response is....how do you not
>> know
>> >> > there aren't if the test itself tends to short circuit those responses.
>> >> > This is why there have been requests for evidence of rigor in the
>> testing
>> >> > and for validation of the abx and abc/hr testing themselves versus other
>> >> > forms of testing (for example the sequential proto-monadic used by
>> Oohashi
>> >> > et al which do purport to measure differences. it cannot just be
>> assumed
>> >> > away.
>> >>
>> >> Please explain how the test "short circuits" the response since the
>> >> only thing you've mentioned is the use of short snippets, a point I
>> >> believe I've shown is not valid.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You've asserted it is not valid, without reading Oohashi et al to understand
>> > the delay mechanism and alternative means of measurement when it comes to
>> > evaluating music.
>>
>> Since your main point seems to be that short snippets aren't any good
>> for evalutaing components, but they aren't a requirement at all, so
>> then please explain.
>

Audio Guy

July 19th 03, 07:18 PM

In article <aj4Sa.81577$OZ2.15301@rwcrnsc54>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message >...
>> Speaking of things like astrology, you seam to have ignored my post
>> on 12 July:
>> > (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> >> That is SCIENCE, kids. Not silly "personal opinions"
>> >
>> >OK, let's discuss SCIENCE. You have explained your training and
>> >experience in the medical field. What is your opinions on faith
>> >healer, witch doctors, and chiropractics? These "medical practioners"
>> >have millions of believers who disdain modern medicine and its
>> >proponents even though there exists many, many studies and tests that
>> >prove it's efficacy? To them modern medicine is "silly personal
>> >opinions". How do you answer those infidels?
>> >
> I tell them that their practices have just as much grounding as those
> of the DBTErs comparing components.

And that's because you have knowledge and training of the subject
matter and so are able to make such judgments. But you don't have
knowledge and training in the field of electronics and so have no more
ability to make the judgments so constantly make than a faith healer
can about modern medicine.

You are so quick to dismiss those who post here about neurology when
you find them to be incorrect about a subject you have training and
knowledge, but when someone who has the same amount of knowledge and
training in the field of electronics dismisses your layman's
"knowledge" of electronics, you badge them "pseudo scientists".

Why can't you see the analogy?

Steven Sullivan

July 19th 03, 11:18 PM

ludovic mirabel > wrote:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message >...
>> In article <yk3Ra.73381$ye4.49568@sccrnsc01>,
>> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> >
>>
>> > Your ideas strike me as so, let's say, unusual that I cannot but ask
>> > myself if I understand you correctly. But here is Nousaine saying
>> > pretty much the same so you two must be serious. Apparently you think
>> > that any kind of sound can be used to test differences between
>> > components.
>>
>> Why not, that's what they are, devices to reproduce sound.
>>
>> > You're absolutely right. Anyone can do anything. It is a free country,
>> > right?
>> > If you're interested in how your system will render train whistles you
>> > check the components by ABX for how they reproduce differences between
>> > train whistles, ditto for cannon shots, ditto for MGM lion roar, ditto
>> > for pink noises, ditto for music if you're interested in music.
>> > Can you draw any conclusions from the pink noise performance about the
>> > music performance?
>>
>> No, because audio systems don't "perform" music, they reproduce sound.
>> If they "performed" music, you would just feed them sheet music and
>> out it would come, just as a musician who performs music does.

> Bravo , you got me. They reproduce MUSIC.

Mine does movie soundtracks too!

I feel so special.

--
-S.

Stewart Pinkerton

July 22nd 03, 08:44 AM

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:29:04 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

>2) In a previous posting I denied your repeated claim that JJ. quoted
>mysterious nonpublishable industrial component tests. I said also that
>an anecdote was ALL he had for evidence that ABX does produce
>occasional positive results.
>You requoted that anecdote in full and added it to other similar
>anecdotes about Pinkerton and Krueger. And...? So what? Do you know
>what a reference is?: Name of the mag, author, year, month, page?

Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive ABX
results on several occasions, plus Arny's PCABX website is well-known
within this community, and is an excellent resource for those who wish
to know the *truth* about detecting sonic differences using
douyble-blind protocols, as opposed to your verbose denials.

>3) The discussion about what "sounds" to use in ABXing goes like this:
>a) we, consumers buy components to listen to music
>b) we Old Believers have a test to help you out.
>c) when we, O.Bs. do our test (seldom!) we find that the performance
>improves using an artefact called "pink noise" instead of music.

Yes, the above is all true.

>This leaves three possibilities: electronic components are designed
>for pink noise, our brains are designed for pink noise, our test
>stinks for assessing music reproduction by electronic components.

It also leaves the possibility that steady-state pink noise is quite
simply a more sensitive test signal for detecting small sonic
differences, which might go unnoticed with the much more varying sound
of music.

>No way could our test stink. We'd, Lord forbid, would have to drop it
>and stop boring the pants off everyone with "but it should be proved
>by controlled etc, etc....". So.... let's drop music..

Typical non-sequitur argument from you.

>4) You, like every other RAHE "scientist", failed to produce any
>creditable, positive, published with the necessary statistical detail
>etc ABX component comparison tests
>even though 30 years have gone by to get one.

No, many such results have been quoted, but you conveniently dismiss
them all for assorted spurious reasons, while offering *zero* evidence
for your own position.

>It is a basic research principle that a "test" with null outcomes,
>only, is a non-test (Mr. Nousaine please note).

No, it isn't a 'non-test'. It may provide much useful information for
future test design, despite the null outcome in that particular case.

Perish the thought that all those ultra-expensive 'audiophile' cables
actually *do* simply sound the same as cheap 'zipcord'............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Audio Guy

July 22nd 03, 06:44 PM

I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
times.

In article <QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<JXfSa.100369$H17.30160@sccrnsc02>...
>> In article <aj4Sa.81577$OZ2.15301@rwcrnsc54>,
>> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<Aw6Ra.62109
> 1)What have electronics, space exploration and Loch Ness Monster
> sightings to do with "Why DBTs don't deliver?" For your exclusive
> benefit I'll repeat: L.M. knows nothing about electronics. As a
> consumer of electronic products with special experience in *true*
> randomised DBTs as practiced in medical drug research he has something
> to contribute on the subject of comparing electronic products by a
> deconstructed "test" using the same prestigious, nonpatented name but
> little else in common with it AND with no success.
> I'll let psychiatrists explain how they alter Med. Research Ccil's of
> U.K. DBT design for their own purposes and with what success. I
> suppose you know, though.
> 2) In a previous posting I denied your repeated claim that JJ. quoted
> mysterious nonpublishable industrial component tests.

If they were proprietary, how would I quote them? JJ was a
researcher in the field of audio and mentioned many times that he
could not divulge details of that research other than he had many
positive DBT results.

> I said also that
> an anecdote was ALL he had for evidence that ABX does produce
> occasional positive results.
> You requoted that anecdote in full and added it to other similar
> anecdotes about Pinkerton and Krueger. And...? So what? Do you know
> what a reference is?: Name of the mag, author, year, month, page?

I referenced his postings perfectly correctly, while you shown many
times how not to do it.

> 3) The discussion about what "sounds" to use in ABXing goes like this:
> a) we, consumers buy components to listen to music
> b) we Old Believers have a test to help you out.
> c) when we, O.Bs. do our test (seldom!) we find that the performance
> improves using an artefact called "pink noise" instead of music.
> This leaves three possibilities: electronic components are designed
> for pink noise, our brains are designed for pink noise, our test
> stinks for assessing music reproduction by electronic components.

You missed the correct one, that electronic components are designed
to reproduce SOUND and that most music is a poor choice for
evaluating differences in audio components due to the variability of
frequencies and levels in most music.

> No way could our test stink. We'd, Lord forbid, would have to drop it
> and stop boring the pants off everyone with "but it should be proved
> by controlled etc, etc....". So.... let's drop music..
> 4) You, like every other RAHE "scientist", failed to produce any
> creditable, positive, published with the necessary statistical detail
> etc ABX component comparison tests
> even though 30 years have gone by to get one.

And you have failed to produce any creditable, negative, published
test that would indicate in any way why ABX or less specifically DBTs
are not applicable to the analysis of audio components. All you can
come up with is you don't agree with the outcomes, or that you
yourself are a poor at "ABXing".

> It is a basic research principle that a "test" with null outcomes,
> only, is a non-test (Mr. Nousaine please note).

Wrong, the results of any correctly performed test are useful tests
and provide valuable data.

> 5) Till you come up with some new, genuine evidence I'll let you carry
> on by yourself. I've been there 10 times before and I'm really not
> interested in more speculation and "ideas".

Since all that you posts fits that "criteria" exactly, I understand
your reluctance to continue.

> Ludovic Mirabel
> P.S. In case in desperation you quote Carlstrom 1983 website (like
> most in your camp have done). I've been there 10 times before as well.
> It is valueless as evidence and I'll just repeat my
> previous dissection of it, if required.
>
> >...
>> >> Speaking of things like astrology, you seam to have ignored my post
>> >> on 12 July:
>> >> > (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> >> >> That is SCIENCE, kids. Not silly "personal opinions"
>> >> >
>> >> >OK, let's discuss SCIENCE. You have explained your training and
>> >> >experience in the medical field. What is your opinions on faith
>> >> >healer, witch doctors, and chiropractics? These "medical practioners"
>> >> >have millions of believers who disdain modern medicine and its
>> >> >proponents even though there exists many, many studies and tests that
>> >> >prove it's efficacy? To them modern medicine is "silly personal
>> >> >opinions". How do you answer those infidels?
>> >> >
>> > I tell them that their practices have just as much grounding as those
>> > of the DBTErs comparing components.
>>
>> And that's because you have knowledge and training of the subject
>> matter and so are able to make such judgments. But you don't have
>> knowledge and training in the field of electronics and so have no more
>> ability to make the judgments so constantly make than a faith healer
>> can about modern medicine.
>>
>> You are so quick to dismiss those who post here about neurology when
>> you find them to be incorrect about a subject you have training and
>> knowledge, but when someone who has the same amount of knowledge and
>> training in the field of electronics dismisses your layman's
>> "knowledge" of electronics, you badge them "pseudo scientists".
>>
>> Why can't you see the analogy?
>

Richard D Pierce

July 22nd 03, 09:01 PM

In article <kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04>,
Audio Guy > wrote:
>In article <QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> blah blah blah blah
>I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
>and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
>same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
>times.

Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
deliver?"

Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
contrary to his point, misrepresentation of the views of others,
irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

ludovic mirabel

July 23rd 03, 08:08 PM

(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:<0KgTa.118670$ye4.86843@sccrnsc01>...
> In article <kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04>,
> Audio Guy > wrote:
> >In article <QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01>,
> > (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > blah blah blah blah
> >I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
> >and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
> >same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
> >times.
>
The text above is headed-"Ludovic Mirabel writes" but it contains not
one single word written by me. Not one.
The last four lines are by Mr. Audio Guy (This thread, July 22 )
The witty "blah blah blah..." line comes from Mr. Pierce's pen.
Note the artful compilation of three unrelated names under the
heading: "L. Mirabel writes".
This is a second such "mistake" within the last two weeks.
On July the 8th in this forum he attributed a sentence of a Mr. Marcus
to me and performed his song and dance routine about the horror of it
all, tearing his clothes and asking dramatically: (his own capitals)
"And precisely WHO said this. Please, if you will, QUOTE the
people who said this. Don't paraphrase, please QUOTE, so that we
may understand FROM THEM what THEY said, not from YOU what you
THINK they said".
When pointed to the source he dropped the hot brick but instead
offered another long, name calling missive, which I did not think
deserved a reply.
There were other similar doctorings of my text (and other purely
personal attacks) over the last two years. I offered requotes but the
offer was not taken up . The offer still stands.
The recurrent "mistakes" leave two possibilities: Either he's
suffering from severe dyslexia or this is his normal modus operandi in
a debate.
In this last case I'd be tempted to quote (text remembered but not
necessarily word for word accurate) Mary Mc Carthy writing about
Lillian Hellman's memoirs: "Every word in it is a lie including "and"
and "but".
Mr. Pierce goes on:
> Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
> deliver?"
>
> Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
> contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others,
> irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.

I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades. Except
that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the
audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors.
Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous
personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see
the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or
anyone else.
I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and
asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared
in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think
that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded
treatment or an answer to the problem.
Ludovic Mirabel

Audio Guy

July 23rd 03, 10:28 PM

In article <U2BTa.127706$N7.18608@sccrnsc03>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:<0KgTa.118670$ye4.86843@sccrnsc01>...
>> In article <kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04>,
>> Audio Guy > wrote:
>> >In article <QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01>,
>> > (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> > blah blah blah blah
>> >I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
>> >and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
>> >same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
>> >times.
>>
> The text above is headed-"Ludovic Mirabel writes" but it contains not
> one single word written by me. Not one.
> The last four lines are by Mr. Audio Guy (This thread, July 22 )
> The witty "blah blah blah..." line comes from Mr. Pierce's pen.
> Note the artful compilation of three unrelated names under the
> heading: "L. Mirabel writes".

To anyone who understands how quoted text appears in standard
newsgroup posting format, it would appear that everything after the
line with your name in it is attributed to me, not you since if it
was your text it would have an additional ">" character before it.
Please learn how newsgroup posting works before blaming people for
misquoting you. I assume Dick included the line with your name just
to show that I was talking about your post. The reason there is
nothing the from the post it references was that you truncated it
several posts before.

Audio Guy

July 23rd 03, 10:29 PM

One other thing, you also do a very poor job of referring to previous
posts, simply stating the date of the post is next to useless,
especially if the person referenced made several posts to the thread
during that day. Please include the Message-Id so that we who wish to
check your reference can do so without having to do an extensive
search. For someone who insists on such details on references to test
reports, it would be the least you could do. I'm surprised the
moderators allow such sloppy references.

In article <U2BTa.127706$N7.18608@sccrnsc03>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:<0KgTa.118670$ye4.86843@sccrnsc01>...
>> In article <kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04>,
>> Audio Guy > wrote:
>> >In article <QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01>,
>> > (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> > blah blah blah blah
>> >I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
>> >and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
>> >same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
>> >times.
>>
> The text above is headed-"Ludovic Mirabel writes" but it contains not
> one single word written by me. Not one.
> The last four lines are by Mr. Audio Guy (This thread, July 22 )
> The witty "blah blah blah..." line comes from Mr. Pierce's pen.
> Note the artful compilation of three unrelated names under the
> heading: "L. Mirabel writes".
> This is a second such "mistake" within the last two weeks.
> On July the 8th in this forum he attributed a sentence of a Mr. Marcus
> to me and performed his song and dance routine about the horror of it
> all, tearing his clothes and asking dramatically: (his own capitals)
> "And precisely WHO said this. Please, if you will, QUOTE the
> people who said this. Don't paraphrase, please QUOTE, so that we
> may understand FROM THEM what THEY said, not from YOU what you
> THINK they said".
> When pointed to the source he dropped the hot brick but instead
> offered another long, name calling missive, which I did not think
> deserved a reply.
> There were other similar doctorings of my text (and other purely
> personal attacks) over the last two years. I offered requotes but the
> offer was not taken up . The offer still stands.
> The recurrent "mistakes" leave two possibilities: Either he's
> suffering from severe dyslexia or this is his normal modus operandi in
> a debate.
> In this last case I'd be tempted to quote (text remembered but not
> necessarily word for word accurate) Mary Mc Carthy writing about
> Lillian Hellman's memoirs: "Every word in it is a lie including "and"
> and "but".
> Mr. Pierce goes on:
>> Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
>> deliver?"
>>
>> Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
>> contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others,
>> irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.
>
> I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades. Except
> that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the
> audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors.
> Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous
> personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see
> the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or
> anyone else.
> I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and
> asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared
> in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think
> that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded
> treatment or an answer to the problem.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>

Wylie Williams

July 25th 03, 05:29 PM

Wow! I've tried to follow the discussion, and so far I've come to these
conclusions:
1. Competent testing (DBT, ABX, etc.) would be wonderful for the world of
high end. Even though I believe that there are better and worse components,
even better and worse cables/wires, I also know that there is so much
puffery in advertising and personal bias toward the most exotic and
expensive components that unbaised reviews and comparisions are difficult to
find.
2. This competent testing is almost never performed on audio components.
3. If it were there would be endless arguments about test protocols, so
faith in the results would be centered in the persons conducting the tests.
4. Even if somehow there were a universally accpted testing system there are
so many components and so many new components that testing and cross
comparison would be a monumental task.
I conclude that there is no hope for this topic to have any effect
whatsoever on anybody's choice of high end components.
This is a very fine topic for whetting the debating skills of the
participants, but it almost seems to have reached it peak in its ability to
effect that end, as I think I detect the beginning of repititiousness in the
responses.

Wylie Williams

Richard D Pierce

July 25th 03, 06:36 PM

In article >,
Wylie Williams > wrote:
>Wow! I've tried to follow the discussion, and so far I've come to these
>conclusions:

Unfortunately, you missed the big one: that for selection of
components by individuals for their own use and enjoyment, ANY
method that suits THAT individual is 100% suited for THAT
individual.

The reason I bring this up is twofold:

1. Because there are some who insist that rigid blind testing is
REQUIRED for selection and, more insidiously,

2. because there are some who repeatedly insists that OTHERS
claim that selection of components for personal use requires
the use of rigid blind testing.

The latter we too often see raised as an invalid strawman
against the entire concept of rigid testing.

Note that this is but one common misrepresentation, untruth and
myth that many of those who are often both anti-science and
scitentifically illiterate use in their irrational and
misdirected campaigns.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Stewart Pinkerton

July 25th 03, 10:07 PM

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:59:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<BX5Ta.116804$ye4.86510@sccrnsc01>...
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:29:04 GMT, (ludovic
>> mirabel) wrote:
>>
>> >You requoted that anecdote in full and added it to other similar
>> >anecdotes about Pinkerton and Krueger. And...? So what? Do you know
>> >what a reference is?: Name of the mag, author, year, month, page?
>>
>> Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive ABX
>> results on several occasions, plus Arny's PCABX website is well-known
>> within this community, and is an excellent resource for those who wish
>> to know the *truth* about detecting sonic differences using
>> douyble-blind protocols, as opposed to your verbose denials.
>>
>Mr.Pinkerton I'm well aware of your RAHE postings. I said at least
>twice in the past that hearing the differences between amplifiers is
>the least I'd expect of a well-trained subjects like yourself. Why?
>Because there ARE differences between amplifiers audible to some
>listeners and you are one of them. Even when ABXing. Congratulations.

Please note that I have also posted several *negative* ABX results on
amplifiers. While many amps do sound different, many others sound the
same (to me, in my system yada yada).

This should not be a surprise to anyone familiar with the parlous
dearth of real design skills in the so-called 'high end'.

>As far from a peer-repeatable TEST as you can get.

No, my tests are eminently repeatable - that's the whole point of such
tests.

>That is why I'm asking for *references*. Reference means precise quote
>to a peer-reviewed published article with results of component
>comparisons.

Actually, a reference is simply something which refers to something
else, no more and no less. You keep changing the rules to exclude
every test with which you've been presented. It is however unlikely
that *any* test will confirm your prejudices.

>But that's too much to hope for, as you well know, so I'd settle for
>any publication with 10 or more panelists, decent statistical
>criteria, detailed tables of individual results etc.
>Why? Because all such published material hitherto (30 years
>experience) showed that most ABXed listeners hear no differences
>between anything and anything else. MOST but not ALL. It varies from
>individual to individual.

But only within well-defined boundaries. For example, *no one* has yet
demonstrated an ability to hear 'cable sound' under controlled
conditions, despite many vociferous claims under sighted conditions.

>But invariably the proctors' conclusion was in favour of majority.
>When one or two, exceptionally gifted performers heard difference
>between cables like Greenhill's "golden ear" this is discarded because
>it doesn't suit the dogma.

Absolute nonsense. *You* are the one who attempted to 'cherry pick'
results to suit your own agenda, as has been shown ad nauseam in this
forum.

>Till there is EXPERIMENTAL evidence that ABX does not interfere with
>some subjects ability to discern I'll hold to my opinion and you to
>yours.

I have reliable and repeatable evidence to back my opinion. Where's
yours?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Bob Marcus

July 26th 03, 08:40 AM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message >...
> Wow! I've tried to follow the discussion,

What a masochist! :-)

>and so far I've come to these
> conclusions:
> 1. Competent testing (DBT, ABX, etc.) would be wonderful for the world of
> high end. Even though I believe that there are better and worse components,
> even better and worse cables/wires, I also know that there is so much
> puffery in advertising and personal bias toward the most exotic and
> expensive components that unbaised reviews and comparisions are difficult to
> find.
> 2. This competent testing is almost never performed on audio components.
> 3. If it were there would be endless arguments about test protocols, so
> faith in the results would be centered in the persons conducting the tests.
> 4. Even if somehow there were a universally accpted testing system there are
> so many components and so many new components that testing and cross
> comparison would be a monumental task.
> I conclude that there is no hope for this topic to have any effect
> whatsoever on anybody's choice of high end components.

Don't be so sure. I started reading RAHE years ago because I wanted to
know what I should be listening for when comparing amplifiers. I
couldn't hear any real differences between them, and I wondered what I
was missing. I figured the folks here could shed some light on that.
Boy, did they!

There are two basic reasons why the testing you propose doesn't
happen. First, from a scientific point of view, it's old news.
Nobody's going to get tenure anywhere based on controlled comparisons
of Krell and Bryston amps. Second, it's not in anyone's financial
interest. Most audiophiles appear perfectly happy to ignore the
science and go on believing that "everything makes a difference." And
the industry is perfectly happy to feed that belief. Many of those who
doubt this credo, on the other hand, eventually reach the point where
we just assume the sonic similarity of many components, and
concentrate on the things that we know really make a difference.

bob

randyb

July 26th 03, 08:54 AM

(Nousaine) wrote in message >...
> (Audio Guy) wrote:
>
> I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
> >and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
> >same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
> >times.
> >
> >In article <QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01>,
> > (ludovic mirabel) writes
>
> ..snip remainder....
>
> It's interesting that the argument that ABX or ABC/hr style double blind
> testing is "not useful" for evaluating audio components fails to recognize that
> it is THE recognized test of choice for evaluating codec performance where the
> finding of often incredibly subtle defect is required.
>
> But, in the general context, I can agree that no listening test of any kind is
> required for modern amplifiers and wires. Even nominally competent models can
> be expected to be perfectly transparent in a normally reverberant environment.
>
> IOW enough controlled listening tests have been conducted that we should expect
> no sonic failures when the product is being used within design limits.

The quote below was posted in a fourm. I was curious your response as
to the validity of the statement?

"Every so often the AES does double blind a/b tests to prove to
themselves that there is no sonic difference between audio components.
Only about 2% can actually hear a difference, which they conclude is
statistically insignificant, and therefore supports their premise that
there is no difference. The interesting thing is, that when you take a
closer look at their data, that 2% are about 98% accurate, many can
actually identify the equipment being used (I'd venture to say that
less than 2 in 100 people can tell the differences in wine vintages).
"

ludovic mirabel

July 26th 03, 08:54 AM

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:36 GMT, (ludovic
> mirabel) wrote:
>
> (Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:<0KgTa.118670$ye4.86843@sccrnsc01>...
> >> In article <kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04>,
>
> Mr. Pierce goes on:
> >> Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
> >> deliver?"
> >>
> >> Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
> >> contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others,
> >> irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.
> >
> >I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades.
>
> Well now, that's the point, isn't it? Despite thousands of lines of
> posting, you actually have *never* produced a shred of evidence in
> support of your own position. You simply bluster and waffle about how
> bad ABX tests are, without noting that they are at least superior to
> *any* kind of sighted 'test'.
>
> > Except
> >that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the
> >audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors.
> >Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous
> >personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see
> >the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or
> >anyone else.
>
> Scurrilous personal attack? Hardly............
>
> Dick was simply pointing out the obvious: *you* created a scurrilous
> and unjustified thread title, then you failed to provide *any*
> evidence to back it up. Dick simply pointed out this anomaly, and
> suggested a logical remedy.
>
Just for the record. The thread was not started by me and the thread
title is not mine. Falsification/dyslexia is making disciples.

> > I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and
> >asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared
> >in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think
> >that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded
> >treatment or an answer to the problem.
>
> You don't *want* even-handed treatment. You want your own hand-waving
> and bluster to be accepted without complaint. That isn't going to
> happen. Keep making illogical and baseless claims, and they will
> continue to be exposed as such.

Mr. Pinkerton, complain all you want. Expose all you want
On the 23rd you posted such a complaint exposing my non- p.c. views in
civilised terms. You got a civilised answer today (25th)

This is not the subject at issue here.
The subject is not whether I am right or not but whether postings
containing personal invective AND NO OTHER SUBSTANCE should continue
to appear in RAHE.
Your today's text shows that once that is allowed it can not be
stopped. Especially if some indiciduals are given a licence to revert
to type.
Talk about hand-waving! Wouldn't you like a little censorship thrown
in?
Your tactics are effective. People with politically incorrect views
drop out of RAHE one by one rather than be subjected to a stream of
invective. They barely dare to send me a message of support by email.

For your information. I am sick to death of hearing about DBTs and
gladly would not say another word on the subject.
But having grown up with thought police- and worse- around me I'm
grateful that verbal bullying is the worst you can do.
And as long as I see the idiotic challenges to people, who point out
that ABX is geared towards a negative result, to "prove it"- how?- by
subjecting themselves to the ABX test - count on me to respond Mr.
Pinkerton
Ludovic Mirabel

S888Wheel

July 26th 03, 05:12 PM

<<
There are two basic reasons why the testing you propose doesn't
happen. First, from a scientific point of view, it's old news. >>

Really? Then there must be some old peer reviewed published tests on the
subject yes? From a scientific point of view it is unimortant. Too unimportant
to warrent valid scientific research. it isn't news at all from a scientific
point of view.

Stewart Pinkerton

July 26th 03, 09:26 PM

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:54:04 GMT, (randyb)
wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message >...
>> (Audio Guy) wrote:
>>
>> I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
>> >and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
>> >same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
>> >times.
>> >
>> >In article <QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01>,
>> > (ludovic mirabel) writes
>>
>> ..snip remainder....
>>
>> It's interesting that the argument that ABX or ABC/hr style double blind
>> testing is "not useful" for evaluating audio components fails to recognize that
>> it is THE recognized test of choice for evaluating codec performance where the
>> finding of often incredibly subtle defect is required.
>>
>> But, in the general context, I can agree that no listening test of any kind is
>> required for modern amplifiers and wires. Even nominally competent models can
>> be expected to be perfectly transparent in a normally reverberant environment.
>>
>> IOW enough controlled listening tests have been conducted that we should expect
>> no sonic failures when the product is being used within design limits.
>
>The quote below was posted in a fourm. I was curious your response as
>to the validity of the statement?
>
>"Every so often the AES does double blind a/b tests to prove to
>themselves that there is no sonic difference between audio components.
>Only about 2% can actually hear a difference, which they conclude is
>statistically insignificant, and therefore supports their premise that
>there is no difference. The interesting thing is, that when you take a
>closer look at their data, that 2% are about 98% accurate, many can
>actually identify the equipment being used (I'd venture to say that
>less than 2 in 100 people can tell the differences in wine vintages).
>"

I believe that this quote can be filed under 'bull****'. Firstly, the
AES does not conduct double-blind tests with any such predetermined
desire. Secondly, please specify *exactly* where such experimental
data is to be had. Finally, please note that it's a fundamental
property of statistics that you *can* flip a coin twenty times and
have it come up heads 16 times out of that twenty - it just doesn't
happen very often. If such a result occurs, then the correct thing to
do is to gather those 'golden ears' together and run the test series
again. You'll find that the second set of results will be very
different. Statistics 101.......

Note that the above applies to those common conditions where the UUTs
actually are sonically indistinguishable. Where there are *real* sonic
differences, such as for SETs, then results are pretty close to 100%
accurate for most listeners.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Bob Marcus

July 27th 03, 12:33 AM

(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
> <<
> There are two basic reasons why the testing you propose doesn't
> happen. First, from a scientific point of view, it's old news. >>
>
> Really? Then there must be some old peer reviewed published tests on the
> subject yes? From a scientific point of view it is unimortant. Too unimportant
> to warrent valid scientific research. it isn't news at all from a scientific
> point of view.

It's old news in the sense that the limitations of human hearing have
been extensively documented, and comparing the sound of two amplifiers
would not advance that knowledge in any way. Any comparison would, we
expect, merely confirm what we already know about humans' ability to
distinguish sounds.

Now, there are two circumstances that could change this:

1. Somebody could perform a properly controlled listening test that
produced an unexpected result, confirming an audible difference where
none was expected. That would set off an effort to determine the cause
of that difference.

2. Somebody could discover a heretofore unrecognized parameter of
amplifier performance. In that case, we'd want to examine whether this
parameter has an audible effect.

But don't hold your breath.

bob

S888Wheel

July 27th 03, 04:28 AM

Bob said

>
>> There are two basic reasons why the testing you propose doesn't
>> happen. First, from a scientific point of view, it's old news. >>
>>

I said

>> Really? Then there must be some old peer reviewed published tests on the
>> subject yes? From a scientific point of view it is unimortant. Too
>unimportant
>> to warrent valid scientific research. it isn't news at all from a
>scientific
>> point of view.

Bob said

>It's old news in the sense that the limitations of human hearing have
>been extensively documented, and comparing the sound of two amplifiers
>would not advance that knowledge in any way. Any comparison would, we
>expect, merely confirm what we
>already know about humans' ability to
>distinguish sounds.

Interesting. Did these tests that looked at human thresholds of hearing
consider all the current differences in measured performance of amplifiers?
Have we taken every measurable parameter of amplifier sound and compared it's
acoustic effect, using a sufficient variety of speakers, against the
established thresholds of human hearing? If so, do we have any published peer
reviewed papers documenting such tests since we are talking about old news from
a "scientific" perspective?

Bob said

>
>Now, there are two circumstances that could change this:
>

Change what? Given there were no cited Peer reviewed published papers
establishing a valid scientific point of view on the sound of amplifiers The
only thing I see that can be changed is the lack of a position that is what we
might call old news in the world of science.

Bob said

>1. Somebody could perform a properly controlled listening test that
>produced an unexpected result, confirming an audible difference where
>none was expected. That would set off an effort to determine the cause
>of that difference.

I think we need to have a body of evidence that scientists would recognize as
valid before we can talk about scientific beliefs being changed. Like I said,
it does not appear to be old news scientifically speaking as much as it seems
to be no news scientifically speaking.

Bob said

>
>2. Somebody could discover a heretofore unrecognized parameter of
>amplifier performance. In that case, we'd want to examine whether this
>parameter has an audible effect.
>

Well then I have to ask again. Have we taken every measurable parameter of
amplifier sound and compared it's acoustic effect, using a sufficient variety
of speakers, against the established thresholds of human hearing?

Bob said

>
>But don't hold your breath.
>

I won't.

Bob Marcus

July 27th 03, 04:55 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
> Bob said
>
> >It's old news in the sense that the limitations of human hearing have
> >been extensively documented, and comparing the sound of two amplifiers
> >would not advance that knowledge in any way. Any comparison would, we
> >expect, merely confirm what we
> >already know about humans' ability to
> >distinguish sounds.
>
> Interesting. Did these tests that looked at human thresholds of hearing
> consider all the current differences in measured performance of amplifiers?
> Have we taken every measurable parameter of amplifier sound and compared it's
> acoustic effect, using a sufficient variety of speakers, against the
> established thresholds of human hearing?

You are missing some really basic concepts here. Your ears cannot hear
amplifiers; they can only hear sounds. And yes, I think it's safe to
assume that the research on human hearing (which consists of more than
just listening tests, by the way) has looked at every aspect of sound
we know about.

So we can look at any measurable parameter of amplifier performance,
map its effect on the sound that the system will produce, and predict
whether that effect will be sufficient to be audible.

> If so, do we have any published peer
> reviewed papers documenting such tests since we are talking about old news from
> a "scientific" perspective?

Better. We have whole textbooks on psychoacoustics. Suggest you start
with one.
>
> Bob said
>
> >
> >Now, there are two circumstances that could change this:
> >
>
> Change what? Given there were no cited Peer reviewed published papers
> establishing a valid scientific point of view on the sound of amplifiers The
> only thing I see that can be changed is the lack of a position that is what we
> might call old news in the world of science.

See above. Amplifiers are just part of one means of producing sound.
Musical instruments also produce sound. So do fingernails on
chalkboards. Your hearing works the same way in all cases. That's why
it's utterly unnecessary to do extensive tests with amplifiers to know
how they will affect the sound of a system. We know how amplifiers
work, and we know how ears work, and we put two and two together.

>
> Bob said
>
> >1. Somebody could perform a properly controlled listening test that
> >produced an unexpected result, confirming an audible difference where
> >none was expected. That would set off an effort to determine the cause
> >of that difference.
>
> I think we need to have a body of evidence that scientists would recognize as
> valid before we can talk about scientific beliefs being changed. Like I said,
> it does not appear to be old news scientifically speaking as much as it seems
> to be no news scientifically speaking.

We do have a body of scientific evidence that real scientists regard
as valid. Audiophiles who remain willfully ignorant of this evidence
seem to be the only ones who deny its existence. Their loss.

bob

ludovic mirabel

July 27th 03, 07:14 PM

(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Wylie Williams > wrote:
> >Wow! I've tried to follow the discussion, and so far I've come to these
> >conclusions:
>
> Unfortunately, you missed the big one: that for selection of
> components by individuals for their own use and enjoyment, ANY
> method that suits THAT individual is 100% suited for THAT
> individual.
>
> The reason I bring this up is twofold:
>
> 1. Because there are some who insist that rigid blind testing is
> REQUIRED for selection and, more insidiously,
>
> 2. because there are some who repeatedly insists that OTHERS
> claim that selection of components for personal use requires
> the use of rigid blind testing.
>
> The latter we too often see raised as an invalid strawman
> against the entire concept of rigid testing.
>
> Note that this is but one common misrepresentation, untruth and
> myth that many of those who are often both anti-science and
> scitentifically illiterate use in their irrational and
> misdirected campaigns.

Let's follow into the Master's footsteps and ask sternly:
(Quoted from Mr. D. Pierce July 8, "Why DBTs do not deliver")
"And precisely WHO said this. Please, if you will, QUOTE the
people who said this. Don't paraphrase, please QUOTE, so that we
may understand FROM THEM what THEY said, not from YOU what you
THINK they said".
Who are those paranoid "some" who "repeatedly" "insist" that "OTHERS"
claim... And so on and on?
What "some", like for instance the undersigned "claim", is that
whenever an opinion ( underline OPINION) about certain components is
voiced one or another of the "others" will pipe out, of course as a
representative of Ms. Science, demanding a "controlled test" to
"prove" the said opinion.
If YOU don't then it is nice to hear the news- but I suggest you speak
for yourself.
Look at the message just below yours in the Google to see what one of
the "others" IS saying. Want more quotes? Plenty in any month.
As for myself I see stacks of material suggesting that any protocol
for "proving" what any one individual hears or does not hear, when
listening to a musical signal, is a tenuous hypothesis in bad need of
being proved. Most of the "controlled testees" opinions when
undergoing a "controlled test" are not worth the paper they are
written on. Still others are a joke sighted, single, double or triple
blind. Others, sighted or blinded, are sharp, and often validated by
past record, .
An opinion is an opinion is an opinion. Whose?- is all that matters .
Ludovic Mirabel

ludovic mirabel

July 27th 03, 11:00 PM

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
previous text below:

Quoting literally from the "objectivist" Greenhill text about his
"golden ears' (Greenhill's own words)performer is "cherry picking"?
Let's see who IS cherry picking.
And while we're at it let's see about my "changing the rules". For
over 2 years Mr. Pinkerton has been asked to give an author, mag.,
page, reference to a properly documented, independently proctored,
properly published with all the relevant statistical data, and
decent-sized panel, positive component comparison test. He found just
a SINGLE ONE for the 30 years of ABX existence.
Namely his own "research", proctored by who? You guessed it. By Mr.
Pinkerton, of course. Published where? Here on the RAHE-for an RAHE
"peer review".
And his peers have spoken up. Mr. Nousaine, the authority on ABX
disagrees; electrically competent amplifiers all sound the same to
him- his tests are negative. Mr. Krueger, the presumed inventor of ABX
after some waffling agrees with Nousaine and disagrees with Pinkerton.
And so does the last available panel review in the 1984 St. Review
Should you subscribe to Pinkerton "cherry picking" Mr. Pinkerton, just
because he shouts very loud about his "eminently repeatable" test?
Repeatable by whom? Not by Nousaine ,not by Krueger and not by anyone
else: not by audio mag panel reviews.,not by audio societies.
Talk about "absolute nonsense".

I have "no evidence" because I am not proposing a "test". You are. I
just observe that every ABX researcher insists that the subjects must
be selected and trained because some individuals do abysmally badly,
some exceptionally well and most fall into the "random guess" middle.
Outcome with an average "audiophile" panel? "They all sound the
same"and another null result.
It is up to the ABX proponents to show that an ABX result of an
ABX-inept subject, like myself is more valid (because it is ABXed)
than a result of a violinist listening to different amps for the
differences between them in reproducing violin music.
Nor do I have any evidence that the other side of the moon is not made
of green cheese, that the Sasquatch doesn't visit B.C. and that hand
waving and shouting loudly "absolute nonsense" is not exactly a
valuable contribution to a debate.
Ludovic Mirabel

> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:59:36 GMT, (ludovic
> mirabel) wrote:
> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<BX5Ta.116804$ye4.86510@sccrnsc01>...
> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:29:04 GMT, (ludovic
> >> mirabel) wrote:
> >>
> >> >You requoted that anecdote in full and added it to other similar
> >> >anecdotes about Pinkerton and Krueger. And...? So what? Do you know
> >> >what a reference is?: Name of the mag, author, year, month, page?
> >>
> >> Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive ABX
> >> results on several occasions, plus Arny's PCABX website is well-known
> >> within this community, and is an excellent resource for those who wish
> >> to know the *truth* about detecting sonic differences using
> >> douyble-blind protocols, as opposed to your verbose denials.
> >>
> >Mr.Pinkerton I'm well aware of your RAHE postings. I said at least
> >twice in the past that hearing the differences between amplifiers is
> >the least I'd expect of a well-trained subjects like yourself. Why?
> >Because there ARE differences between amplifiers audible to some
> >listeners and you are one of them. Even when ABXing. Congratulations.
>
> Please note that I have also posted several *negative* ABX results on
> amplifiers. While many amps do sound different, many others sound the
> same (to me, in my system yada yada).
>
> This should not be a surprise to anyone familiar with the parlous
> dearth of real design skills in the so-called 'high end'.
>
> >As far from a peer-repeatable TEST as you can get.
>
> No, my tests are eminently repeatable - that's the whole point of such
> tests.
>
> >That is why I'm asking for *references*. Reference means precise quote
> >to a peer-reviewed published article with results of component
> >comparisons.
>
> Actually, a reference is simply something which refers to something
> else, no more and no less. You keep changing the rules to exclude
> every test with which you've been presented. It is however unlikely
> that *any* test will confirm your prejudices.
>
> >But that's too much to hope for, as you well know, so I'd settle for
> >any publication with 10 or more panelists, decent statistical
> >criteria, detailed tables of individual results etc.
> >Why? Because all such published material hitherto (30 years
> >experience) showed that most ABXed listeners hear no differences
> >between anything and anything else. MOST but not ALL. It varies from
> >individual to individual.
>
> But only within well-defined boundaries. For example, *no one* has yet
> demonstrated an ability to hear 'cable sound' under controlled
> conditions, despite many vociferous claims under sighted conditions.
>
> >But invariably the proctors' conclusion was in favour of majority.
> >When one or two, exceptionally gifted performers heard difference
> >between cables like Greenhill's "golden ear" this is discarded because
> >it doesn't suit the dogma.
>
> Absolute nonsense. *You* are the one who attempted to 'cherry pick'
> results to suit your own agenda, as has been shown ad nauseam in this
> forum.
>

> >Till there is EXPERIMENTAL evidence that ABX does not interfere with
> >some subjects ability to discern I'll hold to my opinion and you to
> >yours.
>
> I have reliable and repeatable evidence to back my opinion. Where's
> yours?

Audio Guy

July 27th 03, 11:37 PM

In article <ctqUa.132328$OZ2.26337@rwcrnsc54>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<bforbp01hem@en
ews1.newsguy.com>...
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:36 GMT, (ludovic
>> mirabel) wrote:
>>
>> (Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:<0KgTa.118670$
ye4.86843@sccrnsc01>...
>> >> In article <kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04>,
>>
>> Mr. Pierce goes on:
>> >> Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
>> >> deliver?"
>> >>
>> >> Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
>> >> contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others,
>> >> irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.
>> >
>> >I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades.
>>
>> Well now, that's the point, isn't it? Despite thousands of lines of
>> posting, you actually have *never* produced a shred of evidence in
>> support of your own position. You simply bluster and waffle about how
>> bad ABX tests are, without noting that they are at least superior to
>> *any* kind of sighted 'test'.
>>
>> > Except
>> >that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the
>> >audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors.
>> >Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous
>> >personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see
>> >the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or
>> >anyone else.
>>
>> Scurrilous personal attack? Hardly............
>>
>> Dick was simply pointing out the obvious: *you* created a scurrilous
>> and unjustified thread title, then you failed to provide *any*
>> evidence to back it up. Dick simply pointed out this anomaly, and
>> suggested a logical remedy.
>>
> Just for the record. The thread was not started by me and the thread
> title is not mine. Falsification/dyslexia is making disciples.

True, but since you have seem to have posted more to this thread than
anyone else, I can understand his mistake.

>> > I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and
>> >asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared
>> >in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think
>> >that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded
>> >treatment or an answer to the problem.
>>
>> You don't *want* even-handed treatment. You want your own hand-waving
>> and bluster to be accepted without complaint. That isn't going to
>> happen. Keep making illogical and baseless claims, and they will
>> continue to be exposed as such.
>
> Mr. Pinkerton, complain all you want. Expose all you want
> On the 23rd you posted such a complaint exposing my non- p.c. views in
> civilised terms. You got a civilised answer today (25th)
>
> This is not the subject at issue here.
> The subject is not whether I am right or not but whether postings
> containing personal invective AND NO OTHER SUBSTANCE should continue
> to appear in RAHE.

It was commentary on your method of "debating" and IMHO totally
appropriate. It was not "personal invective" since it was about your
debating style and not about you. I guess he should follow your lead
and do as you do below and throw in "ABX" a couple of times since
that makes your post completely about audio and not just about
another author's comments.

> Your today's text shows that once that is allowed it can not be
> stopped. Especially if some indiciduals are given a licence to revert
> to type.
> Talk about hand-waving! Wouldn't you like a little censorship thrown
> in?

It seems your are the one advocating censorship, not him. You are the
one asking that his post should not have been accepted, he just
commented on how useless your posts are.

> Your tactics are effective. People with politically incorrect views
> drop out of RAHE one by one rather than be subjected to a stream of
> invective. They barely dare to send me a message of support by email.

And your tactics wouldn't cause someone to avoid reading the group
due to your continued repetition of the same tired argument over and
over again?

> For your information. I am sick to death of hearing about DBTs and
> gladly would not say another word on the subject.
> But having grown up with thought police- and worse- around me I'm
> grateful that verbal bullying is the worst you can do.

This explains a lot, you equate those who advocate blind testing of
audio components as "thought police".

> And as long as I see the idiotic challenges to people, who point out
> that ABX is geared towards a negative result, to "prove it"- how?- by
> subjecting themselves to the ABX test - count on me to respond Mr.
> Pinkerton

And as long as you continue to post "idiotic challenges" to the DBT
advocates to present test results that meet your constantly
escalating requirements for "acceptability", count on others and
myself to continue to respond to you.

Stewart Pinkerton

July 28th 03, 03:47 PM

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

>Nor do I have any evidence that the other side of the moon is not made
>of green cheese, that the Sasquatch doesn't visit B.C. and that hand
>waving and shouting loudly "absolute nonsense" is a valuable
>contribution to a debate.

As ever, you place the burden of evidence in entirely the wrong place.
There are many results of reasonably well conducted tests available,
which you choose to ignore. The wide engineering and scientific
community would suggest that most amps do sound the same, and that
*all* cables sound the same, so it is *you* who requires to provide
proof that they do not, rather than continually ranting against an
experimental technique which is used *every working day* by some of
the most respected names in high fidelity music reproduction.

As noted, why do you not *deliver* on all this ranting? Where is your
*proof* that ABX is not a valuable (even indispensible) tool?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Wylie Williams

July 28th 03, 03:49 PM

In an exchange Nousaine said

> Well if this is true why hasn't any manufacturer, enthusiast, wholesaler,
> retailer or other interested party provided a replicable, peer reviewed
> experiment that shows amplifers or wires have any of the sonic attributes
> ascribed to them?

I wouldn't dream of entering into the discussion of how to conduct such an
experiment, but let me suggest that the reason these experiments are not
being performed by manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers is that they
don't need to do that. In any business you spend money to make money. Only
academics and enthusiasts spend money without the profit goal. And we have
seen that the academic world ignores experiments to show sonic attributes of
audio components.

So it's up to the enthusiasts. However, if the debate in RAHE is any
predictor the results would just fuel even more debate, generating
sufficient confusion to obscure any potential benefit.

ludovic mirabel

July 29th 03, 06:14 AM

"Keith A. Hughes" > wrote in message >...
> Wylie Williams wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >... In any business you spend money to make money. Only
> > academics and enthusiasts spend money without the profit goal. And we have
> > seen that the academic world ignores experiments to show sonic attributes of
> > audio components.
>
> Well...the point is that, given the 'debate' in the high-end world
> about cable/amp/puck/etc. 'sound', having hard empirical evidence
> to support that *your* product *actually* provides a sonic
> improvement (or at least a reproducible sonic change that one may
> prefer or not) should provide a competitive advantage. Hence money
> spent on such testing would clearly fall under the general
> "marketing" category.
>
> > So it's up to the enthusiasts. However, if the debate in RAHE is any
> > predictor the results would just fuel even more debate, generating
> > sufficient confusion to obscure any potential benefit.
>
> Indeed, and such debate would only provide *more* exposure to the
> company whose results were published and debated (i.e., additional
> "free" advertising). *IF* the products perform as currently
> "claimed", what then is the downside? Surely the cost of such
> tests (bearing in mind they would use existing stock, and even
> existing employees, since removal of sighted bias also removes
> conflict of interest bias - as long as the company is honest at
> least) is negligible relative to the overall marketing budget?
>
> Keith Hughes

What about audio societies such Boston A.S.,Detroit A.S. ( isn't Mr.
Krueger a member?) that one knows have many DBT enthusiasts for
members.? This should not be beyond their scope. I know for instance
that two years ago The Washington State A.S. was engaged in preparing
such a session. But it seems the project either didn't pan out or the
results were not liked.
One way or the other without proper continuing test reports the
subject is rather academic and the evidence a matter of
conviction/faith rather than science, isn't it?
Ludovic Mirabel

Nousaine

July 29th 03, 06:43 AM

(randyb) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
>...
>> (Audio Guy) wrote:
>>
>> I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
>> >and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
>> >same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
>> >times.
>> >
>> >In article <QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01>,
>> > (ludovic mirabel) writes
>>
>> ..snip remainder....
>>
>> It's interesting that the argument that ABX or ABC/hr style double blind
>> testing is "not useful" for evaluating audio components fails to recognize
>that
>> it is THE recognized test of choice for evaluating codec performance where
>the
>> finding of often incredibly subtle defect is required.
>>
>> But, in the general context, I can agree that no listening test of any kind
>is
>> required for modern amplifiers and wires. Even nominally competent models
>can
>> be expected to be perfectly transparent in a normally reverberant
>environment.
>>
>> IOW enough controlled listening tests have been conducted that we should
>expect
>> no sonic failures when the product is being used within design limits.
>
>The quote below was posted in a fourm. I was curious your response as
>to the validity of the statement?
>
>"Every so often the AES does double blind a/b tests to prove to
>themselves that there is no sonic difference between audio components.
>Only about 2% can actually hear a difference, which they conclude is
>statistically insignificant, and therefore supports their premise that
>there is no difference. The interesting thing is, that when you take a
>closer look at their data, that 2% are about 98% accurate, many can
>actually identify the equipment being used (I'd venture to say that
>less than 2 in 100 people can tell the differences in wine vintages).
>"

To the best of my knowledge the AES has never conducted ant kind of test under
its banner. There have been presentations of kinds at conventions and an
occasional 'exhibit' (such as a cassette tape manufacturer comparing copiers of
their cassettes vs the cd sopurce) but those are not "AES" tests.

I've examined practically every blind listening test ever published and so far
none of them have discovered subjects at the tails of the distribution with
scores that were obscured by the total. That's the beauty of statistical
analysis; if there are high scoring individuals that occur at a rate greater
than those one would expect due to chance alone the overall results will be
statistically significant.

It is true that in one Stereophile test the administrator "declared" that a
score of 5 of 7 was somehow indicative of 'something' although it's not
statistically significant by itself and would be noticed from time to time when
the devices could not truly be identified by sound alone.

Of course, if enough subjects scored 5 of 7 THEN the overall test would have
significant results IF the devices were distinguishable by sound. But that's a
different thing.

Bob Marcus

July 29th 03, 06:45 AM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message >...
> In an exchange Nousaine said
>
> > Well if this is true why hasn't any manufacturer, enthusiast, wholesaler,
> > retailer or other interested party provided a replicable, peer reviewed
> > experiment that shows amplifers or wires have any of the sonic attributes
> > ascribed to them?
>
> I wouldn't dream of entering into the discussion of how to conduct such an
> experiment, but let me suggest that the reason these experiments are not
> being performed by manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers is that they
> don't need to do that. In any business you spend money to make money.

Very true. Such tests would risk killing the goose that laid the
golden ear.

> Only
> academics and enthusiasts spend money without the profit goal.

Lumping academics and enthusiasts in the same category is probably not
a wise thing to do . . .

> And we have
> seen that the academic world ignores experiments to show sonic attributes of
> audio components.

.. . .because then you wind up saying something nonsensical like this.
The academic world isn't ignoring anything. In the academic world,
these questions were asked and answered long ago.

It's the enthusiasts--some of them, at least--who are ignoring what's
already been learned on the subject.
>
> So it's up to the enthusiasts.

No, it's not up to them either, unless they'd like to try and refute
what the scientific community figured out way back when. Funny thing
though: All the people who carp about how science has it wrong never,
ever offer ANY solid counterevidence.

> However, if the debate in RAHE is any
> predictor the results would just fuel even more debate, generating
> sufficient confusion to obscure any potential benefit.

Given that the "most amps sound different" crowd hasn't deigned to
provide us with a single shred of repeatable evidence to back that up,
we can't really know how the "most amps sound the same" crowd would
react, now, can we?

bob

S888Wheel

July 29th 03, 08:01 AM

Wylie Williams said

>>... In any business you spend money to make money. Only
>> academics and enthusiasts spend money without the profit goal. And we have
>> seen that the academic world ignores experiments to show sonic attributes
>of
>> audio components.

Keith said

>Well...the point is that, given the 'debate' in the high-end world
>about cable/amp/puck/etc. 'sound', having hard empirical evidence
>to support that *your* product *actually* provides a sonic
>improvement (or at least a reproducible sonic change that one may
>
>prefer or not) should provide a competitive advantage. Hence money
>spent on such testing would clearly fall under the general
>"marketing" category.

Regardless of what I believe about audibility I think your position doesn't
hold water from an advertising POV. Those who laready believe the differences
exist are not interested in such tests. Those who do not are not likely to
believe claims of manufacturers of positive results. If I were in the business
of advertising that is what my position would be. companies that do use blind
testing don't seem to make it an advertising priority.

Wylie Williams said

>
>> So it's up to the enthusiasts. However, if the debate in RAHE is any
>> predictor the results would just fuel even more debate, generating
>> sufficient confusion to obscure any potential benefit.

Keith said

>Indeed, and such debate would only provide *more* exposure to the
>company whose results were published and debated (i.e., additional
>"free" advertising). *IF* the products perform as currently
>"claimed", what then is the downside?

The downside would be the effort and money it would take. again, those who
already believe in the differences don't need to be courted with such tests and
those who don't are not likely to take positive results at face value. Further
lets say for argument's sake that a manufacturer of an expensive amplifier
showed that it was sonically distinguishable from an inexpensive amp with DBTs.
How many of you will now buy that expensive amp? A part of advertising is
knowing who isn't a potential customer and not wasting time and money trying to
court their business.

Keith said

>Surely the cost of such
>tests (bearing in mind they would use existing stock, and even
>existing employees, since removal of sighted bias also removes
>conflict of interest bias - as long as the company is honest at
>least) is negligible relative to the overall marketing budget?

Sounds a bit like "Can't we all just get along?" The very people you suggest
will posibly be swayed by such tests are the same people who are likely not to
trust the honesty of manufacturers of expensive amps and the like. So, "as long
as the company is honest" is a matter that is not likely to be agreed upon.

I think one would need a disinterested party to conduct such tests for there to
be any chance of mutual trust of such tests. there in lies a problem.
Disinterested parties are...disinterested.

ludovic mirabel

July 30th 03, 08:24 AM

(Audio Guy) wrote in message >...
> And as long as you continue to post "idiotic challenges" to the DBT
> advocates to present test results that meet your constantly
> escalating requirements for "acceptability", count on others and
> myself to continue to respond to you.

I do hope you mean it and don't quit on me. I do need your penetrating
analysis of my character deficiencies that disable me from seeing the
true light. I do need your masterful, factual demonstration of ABX
infallibility as a scientific test, proved by JJ's recollections and
Pinkerton's private panel testing. That will teach me for my "
constantly escalating requirements" such as asking for one, single
reference to a published, proctored ABX comparison test on any
comparable components at all- with a positive outcome.
Do stick around.
Ludovic Mirabel

> In article <ctqUa.132328$OZ2.26337@rwcrnsc54>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<bforbp01hem@en
> ews1.newsguy.com>...
> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:36 GMT, (ludovic
> >> mirabel) wrote:
> >>
> >> (Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:<0KgTa.118670$
> ye4.86843@sccrnsc01>...
> >> >> In article <kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04>,
> >>
> >> Mr. Pierce goes on:
> >> >> Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
> >> >> deliver?"
> >> >>
> >> >> Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
> >> >> contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others,
> >> >> irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.
> >> >
> >> >I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades.
> >>
> >> Well now, that's the point, isn't it? Despite thousands of lines of
> >> posting, you actually have *never* produced a shred of evidence in
> >> support of your own position. You simply bluster and waffle about how
> >> bad ABX tests are, without noting that they are at least superior to
> >> *any* kind of sighted 'test'.
> >>
> >> > Except
> >> >that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the
> >> >audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors.
> >> >Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous
> >> >personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see
> >> >the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or
> >> >anyone else.
> >>
> >> Scurrilous personal attack? Hardly............
> >>
> >> Dick was simply pointing out the obvious: *you* created a scurrilous
> >> and unjustified thread title, then you failed to provide *any*
> >> evidence to back it up. Dick simply pointed out this anomaly, and
> >> suggested a logical remedy.
> >>
> > Just for the record. The thread was not started by me and the thread
> > title is not mine. Falsification/dyslexia is making disciples.
>
> True, but since you have seem to have posted more to this thread than
> anyone else, I can understand his mistake.
>
> >> > I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and
> >> >asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared
> >> >in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think
> >> >that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded
> >> >treatment or an answer to the problem.
> >>
> >> You don't *want* even-handed treatment. You want your own hand-waving
> >> and bluster to be accepted without complaint. That isn't going to
> >> happen. Keep making illogical and baseless claims, and they will
> >> continue to be exposed as such.
> >
> > Mr. Pinkerton, complain all you want. Expose all you want
> > On the 23rd you posted such a complaint exposing my non- p.c. views in
> > civilised terms. You got a civilised answer today (25th)
> >
> > This is not the subject at issue here.
> > The subject is not whether I am right or not but whether postings
> > containing personal invective AND NO OTHER SUBSTANCE should continue
> > to appear in RAHE.
>
> It was commentary on your method of "debating" and IMHO totally
> appropriate. It was not "personal invective" since it was about your
> debating style and not about you. I guess he should follow your lead
> and do as you do below and throw in "ABX" a couple of times since
> that makes your post completely about audio and not just about
> another author's comments.
>
> > Your today's text shows that once that is allowed it can not be
> > stopped. Especially if some indiciduals are given a licence to revert
> > to type.
> > Talk about hand-waving! Wouldn't you like a little censorship thrown
> > in?
>
> It seems your are the one advocating censorship, not him. You are the
> one asking that his post should not have been accepted, he just
> commented on how useless your posts are.
>
> > Your tactics are effective. People with politically incorrect views
> > drop out of RAHE one by one rather than be subjected to a stream of
> > invective. They barely dare to send me a message of support by email.
>
> And your tactics wouldn't cause someone to avoid reading the group
> due to your continued repetition of the same tired argument over and
> over again?
>
> > For your information. I am sick to death of hearing about DBTs and
> > gladly would not say another word on the subject.
> > But having grown up with thought police- and worse- around me I'm
> > grateful that verbal bullying is the worst you can do.
>
> This explains a lot, you equate those who advocate blind testing of
> audio components as "thought police".
>
> > And as long as I see the idiotic challenges to people, who point out
> > that ABX is geared towards a negative result, to "prove it"- how?- by
> > subjecting themselves to the ABX test - count on me to respond Mr.
> > Pinkerton
>

ludovic mirabel

July 30th 03, 08:27 AM

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
> mirabel) wrote:
>
> >Nor do I have any evidence that the other side of the moon is not made
> >of green cheese, that the Sasquatch doesn't visit B.C. and that hand
> >waving and shouting loudly "absolute nonsense" is a valuable
> >contribution to a debate.
>
> As ever, you place the burden of evidence in entirely the wrong place.
> There are many results of reasonably well conducted tests available,
> which you choose to ignore. The wide engineering and scientific
> community would suggest that most amps do sound the same,

We'll stop at this point to watch Mr. Pinkerton groping for a
life-line. The topic was: "Quote ANY published ABX component
comparison testing with a positive outcome".
Just 2 days ago he responded (loud and emphatic as ever)
>> Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive
ABX results on several occasions...
And what did he post? HIS DBT results confirming that SOME amplifiers
do sound different. to HIM using HIS ears, HIS ABX training level,
HIS musical experience.
Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"
A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"-
the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
REPEATABILITY.
So what do we do? Simple. It is no longer a FEW outstanding amps.
we're talking about in this audio.high-end forum. We're talking about
"MOST" .that "...the wide engineering and scientific community would
suggest do sound the same"
Talk about rediscovering America! We badly needed "..the wide
engineering nd scientific community" to "suggest" that H-K, Technics,
Sanyo, Citizen etc differ only in the degree of awfulness they
produce. Talk about changing the subject!
Cables? Mr. Pinkerton, it is not only cables that "do sound the same"
to the majority of panelists in ALL the published ABX component
comparison "testing"- with outcome invariably proclaimed to be
negative by the proctors- because like you they refused to "cherry
pick" between the good and the bad performers. (Unless, of course, it
is Mr. Pinkerton cherry picking himself) . It is amps., preamps, cd
players, dacs, distortion up to 2%, volume difference up to 1,75 db.
It is EVERYTHING ever ABX tested by an "audiophile" panel.
That is the nature of the "test" you have on offer. And for a note of
black humour you ask me to provide "proof" against it. You already
have. You showed/confirmed that the results of your "test" depend on
WHO is testing WHOM ,
Ludovic Mirabel
A note about "verbosity". In a different debating culture where people
respect each other enough to grant some basic assumptions, some
"givens" a lot of repetitive material could be spared. In RAHE they
wait in ambush to hook onto any incomplete or awkwardly worded
sentence. And you Mr. Pinkerton should know all about that.

> and that *all* cables sound the same, so it is *you* who requires to provide
> proof that they do not, rather than continually ranting against an
> experimental technique which is used *every working day* by some of
> the most respected names in high fidelity music reproduction.
>
Did you take a poll? My polling result is that even more "respected
names" couldn't care less.
> As noted, why do you not *deliver* on all this ranting? Where is your
> *proof* that ABX is not a valuable (even indispensible) tool?

Steven Sullivan

July 30th 03, 08:27 AM

Nousaine > wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge the AES has never conducted ant kind of test under
> its banner. There have been presentations of kinds at conventions and an
> occasional 'exhibit' (such as a cassette tape manufacturer comparing copiers of
> their cassettes vs the cd sopurce) but those are not "AES" tests.

> I've examined practically every blind listening test ever published and so far
> none of them have discovered subjects at the tails of the distribution with
> scores that were obscured by the total. That's the beauty of statistical
> analysis; if there are high scoring individuals that occur at a rate greater
> than those one would expect due to chance alone the overall results will be
> statistically significant.

But, as I've am asked periodically by irritated 'subjectivists', what if *one*
person consitently scores 99% correct and all the others score no better than chance?

Are you saying something like that's never occurred? Or that it would require more
than one such individual in a test, to conclude 'difference'?

> It is true that in one Stereophile test the administrator "declared" that a
> score of 5 of 7 was somehow indicative of 'something' although it's not
> statistically significant by itself and would be noticed from time to time when
> the devices could not truly be identified by sound alone.

> Of course, if enough subjects scored 5 of 7 THEN the overall test would have
> significant results IF the devices were distinguishable by sound. But that's a
> different thing.

--
-S.

Stewart Pinkerton

July 31st 03, 04:20 AM

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:27:20 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
>> mirabel) wrote:
>>
>> >Nor do I have any evidence that the other side of the moon is not made
>> >of green cheese, that the Sasquatch doesn't visit B.C. and that hand
>> >waving and shouting loudly "absolute nonsense" is a valuable
>> >contribution to a debate.
>>
>> As ever, you place the burden of evidence in entirely the wrong place.
>> There are many results of reasonably well conducted tests available,
>> which you choose to ignore. The wide engineering and scientific
>> community would suggest that most amps do sound the same,
>
>We'll stop at this point to watch Mr. Pinkerton groping for a
>life-line. The topic was: "Quote ANY published ABX component
>comparison testing with a positive outcome".

I did, my own, published right here on this forum. Please quote *any*
evidence you have which supports your own position.

>Just 2 days ago he responded (loud and emphatic as ever)
>>> Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive
>>>ABX results on several occasions...
>And what did he post? HIS DBT results confirming that SOME amplifiers
>do sound different. to HIM using HIS ears, HIS ABX training level,
>HIS musical experience.

Yes. And your point is?

>Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
>experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
>experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
>between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"
>A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"-
>the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
>REPEATABILITY.

Sure it's repeatable - but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and
Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got.
There's no inconsistency here - unless you are a Mirabel with an
agenda. Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate
to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic
differences.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Nousaine

July 31st 03, 04:35 AM

Steven Sullivan wrote:

>Nousaine > wrote:
>> To the best of my knowledge the AES has never conducted ant kind of test
>under
>> its banner. There have been presentations of kinds at conventions and an
>> occasional 'exhibit' (such as a cassette tape manufacturer comparing
>copiers of
>> their cassettes vs the cd sopurce) but those are not "AES" tests.
>
>> I've examined practically every blind listening test ever published and so
>far
>> none of them have discovered subjects at the tails of the distribution with
>> scores that were obscured by the total. That's the beauty of statistical
>> analysis; if there are high scoring individuals that occur at a rate
>greater
>> than those one would expect due to chance alone the overall results will be
>> statistically significant.
>
>But, as I've am asked periodically by irritated 'subjectivists', what if
>*one*
>person consitently scores 99% correct and all the others score no better than
>chance?
>
>Are you saying something like that's never occurred? Or that it would require
>more
>than one such individual in a test, to conclude 'difference'?

I've carefully investigated subjects who have taken part in more than one test
and have yet to find an individual who appears to have a Golden Ear.

But if "One" did appear that would do it for me. Because humans without hearing
damage fit within a reasonably small performance distribution finding one such
subject would surely mean there are more.

Nousaine

July 31st 03, 04:35 AM

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

>This has been an interesting exchange. Some see it as futile, others
>valiantly debate on.
>
>"Killing the goose" - Certainly it is not in the interests of the audio
>industry to have definitive tests, as some of the products are merely new,
>not different, and others may be different (even better) but not
>sufficiently better for everyone in every system to hear the difference. But
>as audiophiles (we are audiophiles, aren't we?) we should be more tolerant
>to those who are sensitive to small differences. I'm sure that not one of
>us is free from friends, acquaintances or relatives who think us very
>strange,at best, for this obsession.
>
>These tests have already been conducted? I am not in the scientific
>community, but it would be nice to see results written and available, but it
>might not be a good idea. Members of the scientific community have been
>known to turn on their own for love of quibbling.
>
>Has all this been proved before? Not for specific audio components, which
>is what I think is the issue. Imagine the time (money) required to make
>even a general survey that covered the major interconnects on the market.
>Let us say it proves that no interconnect under test is distinguishable
>from any other interconnect. There will always be a new wave of products
>claiming (truly and/or falsely) to be "new and improved". Extrapolate that
>to speaker wire. CD players, preamps, amplifiers, speakers. Then consider
>that combinations of components are considered to interact, and mentally
>calculate the time (money) required to do all the testing. Then visualize
>the debate over the results.
>
>Wylie Williams

You are describing the process of merchandising commodity grade products. Basic
electrical audio equipment such as amplifiers and accessories like wires are
sold in the same way that large companies promote and sell laundry detergent.

Some different perfume and color combines with "New, Improved" plus vague
performance claims like "Cleans Your Clothes Better" to help turn over product.

Arny Krueger

July 31st 03, 04:08 PM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
news:HU%Va.23635$uu5.3018@sccrnsc04

> How seldom on RAHE do we encounter the idea that audio
> systems are for the enjoyment of music. And that enjoyment resides in
> different places in each of us.

I don't think that the "different places" that the enjoyment of music
resides in properly falls outside the act of just listening to music.

The controversy about sighted versus blind listening tests finds the
proponents of sighted listening tests tacitly saying that a significant part
of their enjoyment of music falls outside the act of listening to music.
They have to see the equipment playing the music in order to differentiate
or properly appreciate their music listening experiences.

In contrast, the proponents of blind listening tests, in contrast are
tacitly saying that their enjoyment of music falls fully within the act of
listening to music. They have zero need to see the equipment playing the
music to differentiate and/or appreciate their music listening experiences.
In fact, they don't want to do anything but "just listen".

Harry Lavo

August 1st 03, 05:37 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
news:PhaWa.29049$uu5.3459@sccrnsc04...
> "Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
> news:HU%Va.23635$uu5.3018@sccrnsc04
>
> > How seldom on RAHE do we encounter the idea that audio
> > systems are for the enjoyment of music. And that enjoyment resides in
> > different places in each of us.
>
> I don't think that the "different places" that the enjoyment of music
> resides in properly falls outside the act of just listening to music.
>

Your continual obstinence in insisting that all subjective comments about
our hobby must be abx'd if they are to be taken seriously as more than "mere
preference" is what this is a reaction against. And he is right..it is a
hobby and there is much to enjoy, including sharing impressions of the
equipment we use.

> The controversy about sighted versus blind listening tests finds the
> proponents of sighted listening tests tacitly saying that a significant
part
> of their enjoyment of music falls outside the act of listening to music.
> They have to see the equipment playing the music in order to differentiate
> or properly appreciate their music listening experiences.
>

This is just bull****, Arnie, and you know it. This is what you and some
other objectivists here keep saying about us..it is what you want to
believe. You completely ignore all the practical problems of dbx'ng
components at home in a relaxed environment as well as some of the
advantages of proto-monadic testing in a known audio environment that we
raise here. You are the one with an "agenda", not us.

> In contrast, the proponents of blind listening tests, in contrast are
> tacitly saying that their enjoyment of music falls fully within the act of
> listening to music. They have zero need to see the equipment playing the
> music to differentiate and/or appreciate their music listening
experiences.
> In fact, they don't want to do anything but "just listen".
>

And you completely ignore the number of subjectivists who say they enjoy
most listening in the dark. Or those of us who close our eyes at a live
concert. As has been pointed out many times here, Arnie. The fact is music
is a subjective experience. There is no such objective thing as the sound
of music. There is sound. And after processing by the brain, there is
music. And enjoyment (or not) of that music is subject to any number of
inputs and developmental filters. So some people pay close attention to
rhythm. Others to high frequencies. Others to dimensionality. Others to
tonality. In assessing music reproduction. Through equipment. As part of
a hobby. And they don't necessarily give a rat's ass about comparing the
sound of two solid state amplifiers to determine minute differences. They
are more interested in what a casual insertion and evaluation into their
listening environment produces in the overall sonic gestalt that they value.
Why is that so hard for you to accept?

Wylie Williams

August 1st 03, 05:38 AM

Arny,
You are right, and both camps are right. Much of the enjoyment many
audiophiles get from their audio systems is visual and psychological/
emotional: the joy of owning great toys. And that is legitimate.
The pride of ownership of the new technology, the masculine joy of having
a beefy new component, the glow of the tube, the swing of the meter: all
these have great sway on many owners. I have no doubt that viewing an
impressive looking system would be conducive to believing that it sounds
great.
This is part of what I mean by referring to the "different places" the
enjoyment may reside. There are others: the love of overetched detail, the
EQ with the smily face settings, the Bose 901's cranked to max on a Radio
Shack receiver, etc. After all the audio system to most of us is a device to
create pleasure, not generate scientific datum. If yours pleases you you
have the right one. If it doesn't. it is not the right one, no matter how
well it tests.

Wylie Williams

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
news:PhaWa.29049$uu5.3459@sccrnsc04...
> "Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
> news:HU%Va.23635$uu5.3018@sccrnsc04
>
> > How seldom on RAHE do we encounter the idea that audio
> > systems are for the enjoyment of music. And that enjoyment resides in
> > different places in each of us.
>
> I don't think that the "different places" that the enjoyment of music
> resides in properly falls outside the act of just listening to music.
>
> The controversy about sighted versus blind listening tests finds the
> proponents of sighted listening tests tacitly saying that a significant
part
> of their enjoyment of music falls outside the act of listening to music.
> They have to see the equipment playing the music in order to differentiate
> or properly appreciate their music listening experiences.
>
> In contrast, the proponents of blind listening tests, in contrast are
> tacitly saying that their enjoyment of music falls fully within the act of
> listening to music. They have zero need to see the equipment playing the
> music to differentiate and/or appreciate their music listening
experiences.
> In fact, they don't want to do anything but "just listen".
>
>

Wylie Williams

August 1st 03, 03:44 PM

Keith,

You make a good point. If *you* could prove that *your* products were
superior to the others on the market to the satisfaction of the skeptics you
could open up that market, but I haven't heard of it being done by anyone.
As to why I can only speculate: is it that nobody feels their products
actually is superior? They don't think skeptics are enough of a market to
justify the time and trouble?

All we seem to know is that nobody is comparing components with DBTs. Or if
they are they are keeping the results very very quiet.

Wylie Williams

"Keith A. Hughes" > wrote in message
news:GX%Va.24355$o%2.14663@sccrnsc02...
> Wylie Williams wrote:
> >
> > This has been an interesting exchange. Some see it as futile, others
> > valiantly debate on.
> >
> > "Killing the goose" - Certainly it is not in the interests of the audio
> > industry to have definitive tests, ...
>
> <snip>
>
> This misses the point. I'm not claiming *anything* about being
> good for "the industry". Quite the contrary in fact. Marketing (by
> individuals) is for the express purpose of paring down "the
> industry", as much as possible, to just YOU.
>
> If *I* can provide evidence that *my* products sound different
> than the products produced by the rest of the industry (or more
> typically, by my direct competitors), then my marketing strategy
> is clear: There are two sonically distinguishable products (wires,
> s/s amps, etc. - makes no difference) out there, *Mine* and *All
> Others*. Having firmly established a dichotomy, I then need only
> make the pitch "Why waste your money on X, Y, or Z products that
> all have the same dull, lifeless sound, when for only a gazillion
> more, you can have My wonderful product preferred 10 to 1 by all
> my family and friends".
>
> Establishing the dichotomy is the only way to expand the market to
> the untapped crowd of cynics. Cynics typically want data, and if
> you can provide reasonable data to show difference, then you can
> make a case for better/worse preference, with concomitant impetus
> for experimentation (i.e. shopping) that currently does not exist.
> That is a competitive advantage - entry into an untapped
> demographic.
>
> Keith Hughes
>
>

Arny Krueger

August 1st 03, 03:45 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
news:b8mWa.37408$YN5.33241@sccrnsc01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> news:PhaWa.29049$uu5.3459@sccrnsc04...
>> "Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
>> news:HU%Va.23635$uu5.3018@sccrnsc04
>>
>>> How seldom on RAHE do we encounter the idea that audio
>>> systems are for the enjoyment of music. And that enjoyment resides
>>> in different places in each of us.
>>
>> I don't think that the "different places" that the enjoyment of music
>> resides in properly falls outside the act of just listening to music.

> Your continual obstinence in insisting that all subjective comments
> about our hobby must be abx'd if they are to be taken seriously as
> more than "mere preference" is what this is a reaction against.

Where did I say that all subjective comments must be ABX'd if they are taken
seriously?

I've always taken the following positions that contradict this claim:

(1) ABX is not the only valid form of DBT. In fact other forms of DBTs are
more valid when certain very common questions are being asked. My
www.pcabx.com web site proudly distributes non-ABX listening test management
software as well as ABX listening test management software. Therefore any
claims that I favor the use of only the ABX DBT listening test methodology
are clearly false.

(2) When the differences between sonic alternatives are generally agreed
upon to be large and clearly audible, particularly when this can be
demonstrated by some DBT listening test method, or technical test, then
there's no need for blind testing to support claims of most if not all kinds
of audible differences. For example my friends Clark and Nousaine are
proponents of a listening evaluation methodology called LTT which does not
include blinding the listener in any way. I have never criticized them for
this practice and I expect I never will. I also support the use of AES
standard 20, http://www.aes.org/standards/b_pub/aes20-1996.pdf which does
not include blinding the listener in any way.

Therefore we can see that Mr. Lavo is very poorly informed about my
activities and opinions, and might consider correcting himeself in this
matter.

> And he is right..it is a hobby and there is much to enjoy, including
> sharing impressions of the equipment we use.

Since when have I ever said that music shouldn't be enjoyed?

>> The controversy about sighted versus blind listening tests finds the
>> proponents of sighted listening tests tacitly saying that a
>> significant part of their enjoyment of music falls outside the act
>> of listening to music. They have to see the equipment playing the
>> music in order to differentiate or properly appreciate their music
>> listening experiences.

> This is just bull****, Arnie, and you know it.

I can't believe that inflamatory talk like this has passed moderation. I
decline to further respond to this kind of thing. Please comment further
when proper restraint can be exercised.

ludovic mirabel

August 1st 03, 03:57 PM

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<iW%Va.24701$YN5.23392@sccrnsc01>...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:27:20 GMT, (ludovic
> mirabel) wrote:
>
> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
> >> mirabel) wrote:
> >>
Snip previous discussion that underwent surgical treatment already
>
> >Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
> >experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
> >experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
> >between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"
> >A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"-
> >the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
> >REPEATABILITY.
>
> Sure it's repeatable - but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and
> Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got.
> There's no inconsistency here - unless you are a Mirabel with an
> agenda. Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate
> to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic
> differences.

I get it. It is after all possible to duplicate that one and one only
epoch-making positive ABX result of yours but.... only if one has the
same equipment as you do. So Mr. Nousaine pouring ridicule on the
"amplifier sound" has been making a mistake for the last was it 20 or
30 years. Mr. Nousaine didn't buy Apogee Duettes and Krell amplifier.
Had he done so he would hear how different the amplifiers sound and
recant his sins.
A little problem remains though. Let's say Nousaine does get your
equipment and still hears no "amplifier sound". You might say (in fact
you almost certainly would) that it is well known that speakers of the
same manufacture can differ, Nothing would remain but make a
collection for Nousaine to travel to your castle and listen there.
This "reproducible test" is beginning to run into money. And it does
seem to be somewhat limited in its usefulness for the average
audiophile peasantry that owns all kinds of Goodness knows what. Let
alone the problem of getting Apogees from an extinct manufacturer.
(One of these blood-sucking billionaire high-end designers who can be
exposed only by valiant ABXers)
Or have you just been kidding all these years?
Ludovic Mirabel
Sorry no "evidence" to give. Mr. Pinkerton, only opinions. How can I
convey to you (and others) that I don't believe any individual has a
"test" valid for other individuals for comparing components for their
musical qualities. You believe Duettes allow you to recognise
differences? Good for you. But not for me. You're sure your opinion is
better than mine? Everybody's opinion is better than everybody else's.
They are not testable. In no other sphere of life do people talk about
a "test" to compare differences- only in this little audio courtyard.
Why we should be so favoured God only knows.

Audio Guy

August 1st 03, 04:59 PM

In article <YoKVa.10282$Oz4.4141@rwcrnsc54>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message >...
>> And as long as you continue to post "idiotic challenges" to the DBT
>> advocates to present test results that meet your constantly
>> escalating requirements for "acceptability", count on others and
>> myself to continue to respond to you.

Note: This paragraph was created by taking Ludovic's paragraph quoted
at the end of this post and changing it from anti-DBT to pro-DBT. Due
to his continuing habit of not interspersing his new text with the
applicable quoted text it is likely most didn't get this.

> I do hope you mean it and don't quit on me. I do need your penetrating
> analysis of my character deficiencies that disable me from seeing the
> true light.

Mine are no more so than your typical comments, and I am not the one
who fails to place his new text after the appropriate quoted text so
that the flow of the discussion is obvious. Is there a reason you
almost always fail to do so? Methinks so.

> I do need your masterful, factual demonstration of ABX
> infallibility as a scientific test, proved by JJ's recollections and
> Pinkerton's private panel testing.

Both are much better evidence than your constant declarations of "I
am a poor ABXer, so ABX must be deficient". Pretty poor evidence on
your part I would say.

> That will teach me for my "
> constantly escalating requirements" such as asking for one, single
> reference to a published, proctored ABX comparison test on any
> comparable components at all- with a positive outcome.

They've been provided many times to you, but you refuse to investigate
them. Nousaine and others have mentions quite a few in the "Blindtest
question" thread. Have you looked at any of them?

> Do stick around.

Count on it.

> Ludovic Mirabel
>
>> In article <ctqUa.132328$OZ2.26337@rwcrnsc54>,
>> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> > (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<bforbp01hem@en
>> ews1.newsguy.com>...
>> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:36 GMT, (ludovic
>> >> mirabel) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> (Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:<0KgTa.118670$
>> ye4.86843@sccrnsc01>...
>> >> >> In article <kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04>,
>> >>
>> >> Mr. Pierce goes on:
>> >> >> Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
>> >> >> deliver?"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
>> >> >> contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others,
>> >> >> irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.
>> >> >
>> >> >I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades.
>> >>
>> >> Well now, that's the point, isn't it? Despite thousands of lines of
>> >> posting, you actually have *never* produced a shred of evidence in
>> >> support of your own position. You simply bluster and waffle about how
>> >> bad ABX tests are, without noting that they are at least superior to
>> >> *any* kind of sighted 'test'.
>> >>
>> >> > Except
>> >> >that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the
>> >> >audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors.
>> >> >Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous
>> >> >personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see
>> >> >the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or
>> >> >anyone else.
>> >>
>> >> Scurrilous personal attack? Hardly............
>> >>
>> >> Dick was simply pointing out the obvious: *you* created a scurrilous
>> >> and unjustified thread title, then you failed to provide *any*
>> >> evidence to back it up. Dick simply pointed out this anomaly, and
>> >> suggested a logical remedy.
>> >>
>> > Just for the record. The thread was not started by me and the thread
>> > title is not mine. Falsification/dyslexia is making disciples.
>>
>> True, but since you have seem to have posted more to this thread than
>> anyone else, I can understand his mistake.
>>
>> >> > I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and
>> >> >asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared
>> >> >in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think
>> >> >that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded
>> >> >treatment or an answer to the problem.
>> >>
>> >> You don't *want* even-handed treatment. You want your own hand-waving
>> >> and bluster to be accepted without complaint. That isn't going to
>> >> happen. Keep making illogical and baseless claims, and they will
>> >> continue to be exposed as such.
>> >
>> > Mr. Pinkerton, complain all you want. Expose all you want
>> > On the 23rd you posted such a complaint exposing my non- p.c. views in
>> > civilised terms. You got a civilised answer today (25th)
>> >
>> > This is not the subject at issue here.
>> > The subject is not whether I am right or not but whether postings
>> > containing personal invective AND NO OTHER SUBSTANCE should continue
>> > to appear in RAHE.
>>
>> It was commentary on your method of "debating" and IMHO totally
>> appropriate. It was not "personal invective" since it was about your
>> debating style and not about you. I guess he should follow your lead
>> and do as you do below and throw in "ABX" a couple of times since
>> that makes your post completely about audio and not just about
>> another author's comments.
>>
>> > Your today's text shows that once that is allowed it can not be
>> > stopped. Especially if some indiciduals are given a licence to revert
>> > to type.
>> > Talk about hand-waving! Wouldn't you like a little censorship thrown
>> > in?
>>
>> It seems your are the one advocating censorship, not him. You are the
>> one asking that his post should not have been accepted, he just
>> commented on how useless your posts are.
>>
>> > Your tactics are effective. People with politically incorrect views
>> > drop out of RAHE one by one rather than be subjected to a stream of
>> > invective. They barely dare to send me a message of support by email.
>>
>> And your tactics wouldn't cause someone to avoid reading the group
>> due to your continued repetition of the same tired argument over and
>> over again?
>>
>> > For your information. I am sick to death of hearing about DBTs and
>> > gladly would not say another word on the subject.
>> > But having grown up with thought police- and worse- around me I'm
>> > grateful that verbal bullying is the worst you can do.
>>
>> This explains a lot, you equate those who advocate blind testing of
>> audio components as "thought police".
>>
>> > And as long as I see the idiotic challenges to people, who point out
>> > that ABX is geared towards a negative result, to "prove it"- how?- by
>> > subjecting themselves to the ABX test - count on me to respond Mr.
>> > Pinkerton
>>
>

Wylie Williams

August 1st 03, 05:14 PM

Noussaine wrote
>
> You are describing the process of merchandising commodity grade products.
Basic
> electrical audio equipment such as amplifiers and accessories like wires
are
> sold in the same way that large companies promote and sell laundry
detergent.
>
> Some different perfume and color combines with "New, Improved" plus vague
> performance claims like "Cleans Your Clothes Better" to help turn over
product.
>
>
Well, it is a business for all manufacturers, large and small, and there
are only so many sales methods to choose from. Back as far as the days on
mono hi-fi I recall speakers were advertised as producing sound
indistinguishable from the real event, and amplifiers with distortion too
low to be detected.
It seems to me that the worst offenders in advertising claims are not
the makers of the commodity grade items, but some of the high end producers.
Some of the claims are little short of amazing, but I am sure that most of
us take them with the proverbial grain of salt.

Wylie Williams

P.S.- In the above I did not mention Bose at all. Bose is an exceptional
product and company in many ways.

Stewart Pinkerton

August 1st 03, 05:47 PM

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:59:55 GMT, (Audio Guy)
wrote:

>In article <YoKVa.10282$Oz4.4141@rwcrnsc54>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:

>> I do need your masterful, factual demonstration of ABX
>> infallibility as a scientific test, proved by JJ's recollections and
>> Pinkerton's private panel testing.
>
>Both are much better evidence than your constant declarations of "I
>am a poor ABXer, so ABX must be deficient". Pretty poor evidence on
>your part I would say.

Unfortunately, we only have Ludovic's word that he is a poor ABX'er.
He might actually be very good at it, but his problem is that he goes
into the test 'knowing' that things 'should' sound different, so when
they don't, he blames the test. Some of us actually *do* 'trust our
ears', and accept that, despite our previous prejudices, all cables
really do sound the same, and so do many amps.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

August 1st 03, 05:49 PM

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:57:41 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<iW%Va.24701$YN5.23392@sccrnsc01>...
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:27:20 GMT, (ludovic
>> mirabel) wrote:
>>
>> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
>> >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
>> >> mirabel) wrote:
>> >>
>Snip previous discussion that underwent surgical treatment already
>>
>> >Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
>> >experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
>> >experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
>> >between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"
>> >A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"-
>> >the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
>> >REPEATABILITY.
>>
>> Sure it's repeatable - but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and
>> Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got.
>> There's no inconsistency here - unless you are a Mirabel with an
>> agenda. Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate
>> to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic
>> differences.
>
>I get it. It is after all possible to duplicate that one and one only
>epoch-making positive ABX result of yours but.... only if one has the
>same equipment as you do.

Not epoch-making at all, as Arny has also posted lots of positive ABX
results. Indeed, he has a whole website full of them.

> So Mr. Nousaine pouring ridicule on the
>"amplifier sound" has been making a mistake for the last was it 20 or
>30 years.

Not what I said at all, as you well know.

> Mr. Nousaine didn't buy Apogee Duettes and Krell amplifier.

He also didn't compare the same amps that I did.

>Had he done so he would hear how different the amplifiers sound and
>recant his sins.

Note that the Audiolab 8000P and Hafler XL600 did *not* sound
different from the Krell. You really must abandon all this posturing,
and try to come up with some kind of rational defence for your
position.

>A little problem remains though. Let's say Nousaine does get your
>equipment and still hears no "amplifier sound". You might say (in fact
>you almost certainly would) that it is well known that speakers of the
>same manufacture can differ,

Not at all. I might simply accept that I have better hearing! :-)

However, I would be very surprised if Tom and I did not come up with
very similar results if taking part in the same tests. IME, human
hearing doesn't have anything like the variation that you guys try to
claim. Try the 'hearing tests' on Arny's website, and you'll find a
pretty sharp change from 'undectable' to '100% detectable' which is
consistent for most listeners. Heck, that's how JJ et al go about
*designing* all those nice codecs like AAC and MP3!

>Sorry no "evidence" to give. Mr. Pinkerton, only opinions. How can I
>convey to you (and others) that I don't believe any individual has a
>"test" valid for other individuals for comparing components for their
>musical qualities.

No, Ludovic, your problem is that *no* test will confirm your own
prejudices. Just because you *think* that two components should sound
different, doesn't mean that they actually do.

> You believe Duettes allow you to recognise
>differences?

So do lots of other speakers - where there is a *real* difference.
There is however *no* speaker which will allow you to hear the
difference between two 'audiophile' cables.......................

> Good for you. But not for me. You're sure your opinion is
>better than mine? Everybody's opinion is better than everybody else's.
>They are not testable.

Sure they are - you just don't like the results!

> In no other sphere of life do people talk about
>a "test" to compare differences- only in this little audio courtyard.

I take it that you have never heard of the pharmaceutical industry?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Keith A. Hughes

August 1st 03, 06:35 PM

Wylie Williams wrote:
>
> Keith,
>
> You make a good point. If *you* could prove that *your* products were
> superior to the others on the market to...

Now, now...that's not exactly what I said. You only have to
*prove* a difference. Once you establish the difference (not
currently accepted by 'skeptics', insofar as rocks, blocks, and
wires are concerned at least), you are free to wax rhapsodic about
the wonders of your product. You don't have to *prove* any
superiority, as at that point, the better/worse debate is strictly
one of individual preference.

> the satisfaction of the skeptics you
> could open up that market, but I haven't heard of it being done by anyone.
> As to why I can only speculate: is it that nobody feels their products
> actually is superior?

In the case of "high end" cables, I personally seriously doubt
(though claim no evidence in that regard) that most manufacturers
really believe any of their own hyperbole. So, certainly, they
have no incentive to do such testing. That's the crux of the
argument. *If* they were certain their cables were sonically
distinguishable from other high-end cables, then proving such
could confer a marketing advantage. Yet they have not.

> They don't think skeptics are enough of a market to
> justify the time and trouble?

While, again, claiming no numerical evidence, I suspect the
skeptics are the vast majority of the market. That is not to say,
however, that "skeptics" are immune from high pressure sales
tactics, and/or marketing technobabble, so I suspect that there is
considerable market penetration for a number of these products.
OTOH, verifiable evidence of the sonic differences of cables would
provide the already "experienced" sales force with a valuable,
persuasive, tool for pushing a *specific* product.

> All we seem to know is that nobody is comparing components with DBTs. Or if
> they are they are keeping the results very very quiet.

Well, the audiophiles I know personally are mostly like me. For
example, at a local HiFi Expo, I attended a cable demo put on by
Audioquest. In the demo, I was *clearly* able to distinguish
between Monster speaker cable, and the high end Audioquest cable.
The differences were not subtle either (ring a bell?). These
results were, however, inconsistent with my knowledge of
electrical theory and solid state physics. So, I did SBT's of
interconnects and cables, the same cables observed in the demo, at
home in my system. Under SBT conditions, I could distinguish no
differences...nada. And yes, I was surprised at how
comprehensively my expectations had affected my perceptions (damn!
*only* human I guess). So, I use the low end Audioquest speaker
cable (cause its flat) and Rat Shack gold interconnects (because
they're built better than the el cheapos).

However, the amplifier I use for my main system is a Meridian 557.
At $2400, it's not cheap, but not exorbitant either. Did I DBT it
with an equivalently rated, cheaper amp to see if perhaps a $1K
expenditure would have "sufficed"? No. Why? I don't care. I like
the way it looks, it's built very well, and does what I need it
to. I don't *need* to feel that it's superior to, or different
from, a Rotel for e.g., to justify my purchase. It meets my sonic
criteria, and other factors/features justify, for me, any
'additional' associated costs.

This is why I say that all the 'Audiophiles' I know personally
(and I suspect even two or three others) are like me; they buy
components *they* like, for a variety of reasons, and don't do any
SBT/DBT evaluations. They buy electronics based on the entirety of
their features, and usually the "coolest" one they can afford (it
*is* a hobby after all). They also don't waste money on exotic
cables and interconnects because a) they don't (in our
experiences) make any difference, and b) they're hidden away
(typically), so Pride of Ownership plays an insignificant role.

So, you do not see me posting 'requirements' for DBT'ing
components, as some people are fond of claiming that *we* skeptics
do, because *I* don't use DBT's, and I don't know anyone who
typically does (for selection of personal audio gear). Nor do I
make claims about the sonic performance of equipment that I have
no data to support. Were I to make such claims, then it would be
incumbent on me to perform a series of rigorous tests to support
my assertions. Such do I expect from others making claims that are
a) unpredicted, or unsupportable by current scientific
data/theory, and/or b) contradict commonly understood results or
methodologies.

Keith Hughes

Arny Krueger

August 2nd 03, 06:03 AM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
news:P8mWa.36590$Ho3.6492@sccrnsc03
>
> You are right, and both camps are right. Much of the enjoyment many
> audiophiles get from their audio systems is visual and psychological/
> emotional: the joy of owning great toys. And that is legitimate.

Of course. Their money, their time, their preferences.

I'm trying to suggest that part of the conflict is semantic. People who
confuse various kinds of experiences in their statements will of course not
always be properly understood.

> The pride of ownership of the new technology, the masculine joy of
> having a beefy new component, the glow of the tube, the swing of the
> meter: all these have great sway on many owners. I have no doubt that
> viewing an impressive looking system would be conducive to believing
> that it sounds great.

IME that's true for a time. Eventually the perception of the glitter becomes
routine, and sound quality issues may reassert themselves.

> This is part of what I mean by referring to the "different
> places" the enjoyment may reside. There are others: the love of
> overetched detail, the EQ with the smily face settings, the Bose
> 901's cranked to max on a Radio Shack receiver, etc. After all the
> audio system to most of us is a device to create pleasure, not
> generate scientific datum.

Exactly. However there are people, perhaps a great many people, for whom
sound quality in the narrow sense is of primary importance. There needs to
be some way that they can be communicated with.

>If yours pleases you have the right
> one. If it doesn't. it is not the right one, no matter how well it
> tests.

IME that isn't always cast in cement. The knowledge that performance is as
good as it can possibly be can also enhance the quality of the experience.

Nousaine

August 3rd 03, 05:50 AM

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

>"Nousaine" > wrote in message
et...
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> >Nousaine > wrote:
>> >> To the best of my knowledge the AES has never conducted any kind of
>test
>> >under
>> >> its banner. There have been presentations of kinds at conventions and
>an
>> >> occasional 'exhibit' (such as a cassette tape manufacturer comparing
>> >copiers of
>> >> their cassettes vs the cd source) but those are not "AES" tests.
>> >
>> >> I've examined practically every blind listening test ever published and
>so
>> >far
>> >> none of them have discovered subjects at the tails of the distribution
>with
>> >> scores that were obscured by the total. That's the beauty of
>statistical
>> >> analysis; if there are high scoring individuals that occur at a rate
>> >greater
>> >> than those one would expect due to chance alone the overall results
>will be
>> >> statistically significant.
>> >
>> >But, as I've am asked periodically by irritated 'subjectivists', what if
>> >*one*
>> >person consitently scores 99% correct and all the others score no better
>than
>> >chance?
>> >
>> >Are you saying something like that's never occurred? Or that it would
>require
>> >more
>> >than one such individual in a test, to conclude 'difference'?
>>
>> I've carefully investigated subjects who have taken part in more than one
>test
>> and have yet to find an individual who appears to have a Golden Ear.
>>
>
>How about describing how you went about the "careful investigation". Did
>you compare their performance on different tests? In absolute? Relative to
>the means? Did you combine the tests in some fashion? Did you interview the
>subjects? Inquiring minds want to know.

Yes I've watched the scoring of individuals across multiple tests both my
individual experiments, PSACS and SMWTMS to find individuals who scored
significantly when the overall results were null (found none), who appeared to
score more highly in different tests (no long term golden ears) and offered
retests for subjects who wanted them (few) or when I asked them or trial
extension for subjects who wanted them (one.)

A more interesting phenomenon is getting subjects to finish an experiment. When
strong proponents find they are unable to easily detect "clearly audible" when
nothing more than the pre-knowledge of the equipment playing is withheld they
sometimes want to quit.

Thus, I typically ask subjects to agree to complete at least 10 trials before
they begin and I pay them as well.

I have always asked if subjects wanted a retest. Few do. In one case I repeated
a test of wires using a different set of equipment where the subject claimed
there would be an obvious difference between cheap rcas and his designer
cables. Null there too.

I think that many subjectivists think that these tests are somehow designed to
'hide' differences when, in fact, they are intended to uncover audible (but,
ONLY audible) difference.

I'm a professional and a hard core enthusiast. I have no need to hide truly
audible difference. Why would I, or anybody, want to do that?

But I see no rational reason to insist others accept 'differences' that exist
only in the minds of people who can't show they have sonic cause.

I want to maximize the sonic quality and throughput of my systems with an
optimal deployment of resources. Why not?

Nousaine

August 3rd 03, 06:10 AM

"Keith A. Hughes" wrote:

...snippage of generally fully agreed on post; to specific point for
eleboration....

>
>Well, the audiophiles I know personally are mostly like me. For
>example, at a local HiFi Expo, I attended a cable demo put on by
>Audioquest. In the demo, I was *clearly* able to distinguish
>between Monster speaker cable, and the high end Audioquest cable.
>The differences were not subtle either (ring a bell?). These
>results were, however, inconsistent with my knowledge of
>electrical theory and solid state physics. So, I did SBT's of
>interconnects and cables, the same cables observed in the demo, at
>home in my system. Under SBT conditions, I could distinguish no
>differences...nada. And yes, I was surprised at how
>comprehensively my expectations had affected my perceptions (damn!
>*only* human I guess).

Many are not aware of the human and group dynamics and presentation bias that
enter demonstrations.

Let's start with presentaion methods. The normal technique is to present a
sonic experience; turn the gain all the way down and then make the next
presentation by readjutsing the volume control without verification of gain.

Because humans will report 'differences' when given two identical sound
presentation and will generally intepret small changes in level as changes in
quality it's easy to see how an effective presenter can easily manipulate (even
at the subconscious level) presentations to achieve a certain result.

And the hidden assumptions and group dynamics of demonstrations are often
apparent in these situations. For example, the presenter oftens tells the
audience what they're supposed to hear up front and then asks the audience:
"Which sounds better to you?" or "Which one did you like best?" or something
similar that carries with it the hidden assumption that there actually was a
true difference.

As for the audience; how many people at an audio event want to admit they
could hear a difference between two sound presentations? Be honest in your
answer.

What typically happens is that someone in the audience 'offers' a comment and
then others chip in. (I've actually seen audience 'plants' used)

Sometimes there'll be a 'difference' of opinion. Now the presenter might say
"Let's try it again with better material" and repeats the sequence. If he gets
the 'right' answer then the demo is complete.

If he doesn't then he often tries again with negotiation: "Well perhaps you
didn't hear the unhooded midrange but SURELY you heard the increased smoothness
in the lower treble!"

All of these dynamics are operating under the key question: "Which one did you
like better?" Once a person answers that question he has internally agreed
that they did sound different. It's an old and very effective sales technique.

Sometimes the audience will negotiate with each other. I once attended a Press
Event at the CES. Two sound presentations were given, the host asked "which one
was better?". The guy sitting next to me leaned over and said that he didn't
hear X but Y was obvious. I didn't hear either X or Y but I responded with
something that I just made up, call it Z.

By then the Host had readied the repeat. Afterwards the guy next to me now
admitted that he had indeed heard Y again but had also noted Z. He also seemed
a little peeved that I hadn't agreed to hear Y with him.

This kind of group dynamics happen all the time and afterward people will
report they actually 'heard' whatever effect was being pitched without
reservation. It's very effective and begins with the proper tense and phrasing
of that initial question with the hidden assumption of sonic difference where
no sonic cause was present.

ludovic mirabel

August 10th 03, 07:03 AM

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:57:41 GMT, (ludovic
> mirabel) wrote:
>
It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an
easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one
single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any
electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles.
Positive as judged by the reporting proctors. The reason being that
the MAJORITY of panelists consistently failed to hear differences
between any such components: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs.
As well as 1,75db volume difference between a thin and a thick cable,
up to 2% artefacted distortion. Nothing, nothing whatsoever was ever
different when ABXed by a panel of average audiophiles.
And the replies? "There are many such reports.." (The latest such from
a ,Mr. Audio Guy). No quote, no reference, nothing to look up and
verify. . Ah, there is also JJ. who said that once he and his, no
doubt ordinary, average audiophile friends heard differences between
something and something else but omitted to publish the results. This
is Science with a capital S and you'd better believe it.
Or else Mr. Pinkerton quoting himself and his own "panel" of his two
friends. Or reference to personal reports on Mr. Krueger's website-
which, on what, where- who knows? More Science.
Or when it is pointed out that the two most prominent ABXers, Krueger
and Nousaine emphatically deny that there are or could be differences
between ANY electrically comparable amplifiers Mr. Pinkerton explains
that their blindness is due to their not being fortunate enough to
have heard HIS stuff. This too is Science.
The experience is that of anyone trying to argue with a sectarian
zealot ringing your bell at 8am. on Sunday. In the end one feels: "Why
waste time?
Gentlemen you have a wonderful test. It is easily repeatable by any
audiophile contemplating a purchase. You have quoted abundant
convincing evidence in support. You win.
Ludovic Mirabel
Just one more dogma from the true faith:
Mr. Pinkerton truly believes that: "
> There is however *no* speaker which will allow you to hear the
> difference between two 'audiophile' cables.......................
And here is a little text quoted from Mr. Krueger. That is Mr. Krueger
as he was 3 years ago. Just as self- assured and accusing others of
lying as the true believers are still prone to do. I said:
" > There is abundant evidence to show that the audiences
> tested under the ABX procedure are unable to hear differences between
> components such as cables, interconnects, and amplifiers.
A.Krueger in "ABX-is it useful?" thread, message 2, on 14.9.2000
answered:
"Flase claim, actually two of them. There are published ABX tests that
have found reliable audible differences between cables and
amplifiers. Actually three flase claims because I wrote an article
about audible differences between interconnects that was submited to
Audio Magazine but not accepted."
I'll let Mr. Pinkerton and Mr. Krueger argue out what does each one
of them believe as of 2003, where lies the land of true dogma and
which is the land of the heretic as of what date.

And this little debating gem. I said:
> > In no other sphere of life do people talk about
> >a "test" to compare differences- only in this little audio courtyard.
Mr. Pinkerton answers:
> I take it that you have never heard of the pharmaceutical industry?
This rhetorical rabbit punch would not be worth a comment except that
it illustrates so beautifully what I had in mind when I was talking
about the RAHE debating style. Mr. Pinkerton knows perfectly well that
we're discussing differences /preferences in the sphere of sensory
experience: music, painting, wine tasting etc. Not testing drugs with
an objectively assessable outcome: does it work or not. But he can't
resist grabbing for dear life onto a missing qualifier.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<iW%Va.24701$YN5.23392@sccrnsc01>...
> >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:27:20 GMT, (ludovic
> >> mirabel) wrote:
> >>
> >> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> >> >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
> >> >> mirabel) wrote:
> >> >>
> Snip previous discussion that underwent surgical treatment already
>
> >> >Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
> >> >experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
> >> >experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
> >> >between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"
> >> >A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"-
> >> >the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
> >> >REPEATABILITY.
> >>
> >> Sure it's repeatable - but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and
> >> Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got.
> >> There's no inconsistency here - unless you are a Mirabel with an
> >> agenda. Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate
> >> to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic
> >> differences.
> >
> >I get it. It is after all possible to duplicate that one and one only
> >epoch-making positive ABX result of yours but.... only if one has the
> >same equipment as you do.
>
> Not epoch-making at all, as Arny has also posted lots of positive ABX
> results. Indeed, he has a whole website full of them.
>
> > So Mr. Nousaine pouring ridicule on the
> >"amplifier sound" has been making a mistake for the last was it 20 or
> >30 years.
>
> Not what I said at all, as you well know.
>
> > Mr. Nousaine didn't buy Apogee Duettes and Krell amplifier.
>
> He also didn't compare the same amps that I did.
>
> >Had he done so he would hear how different the amplifiers sound and
> >recant his sins.
>
> Note that the Audiolab 8000P and Hafler XL600 did *not* sound
> different from the Krell. You really must abandon all this posturing,
> and try to come up with some kind of rational defence for your
> position.
>
> >A little problem remains though. Let's say Nousaine does get your
> >equipment and still hears no "amplifier sound". You might say (in fact
> >you almost certainly would) that it is well known that speakers of the
> >same manufacture can differ,
>
> Not at all. I might simply accept that I have better hearing! :-)
>
> However, I would be very surprised if Tom and I did not come up with
> very similar results if taking part in the same tests. IME, human
> hearing doesn't have anything like the variation that you guys try to
> claim. Try the 'hearing tests' on Arny's website, and you'll find a
> pretty sharp change from 'undectable' to '100% detectable' which is
> consistent for most listeners. Heck, that's how JJ et al go about
> *designing* all those nice codecs like AAC and MP3!
>
> >Sorry no "evidence" to give. Mr. Pinkerton, only opinions. How can I
> >convey to you (and others) that I don't believe any individual has a
> >"test" valid for other individuals for comparing components for their
> >musical qualities.
>
> No, Ludovic, your problem is that *no* test will confirm your own
> prejudices. Just because you *think* that two components should sound
> different, doesn't mean that they actually do.
>
> > You believe Duettes allow you to recognise
> >differences?
>
> So do lots of other speakers - where there is a *real* difference.
> There is however *no* speaker which will allow you to hear the
> difference between two 'audiophile' cables.......................
>
> > Good for you. But not for me. You're sure your opinion is
> >better than mine? Everybody's opinion is better than everybody else's.
> >They are not testable.
>
> Sure they are - you just don't like the results!
>
> > In no other sphere of life do people talk about
> >a "test" to compare differences- only in this little audio courtyard.
>
> I take it that you have never heard of the pharmaceutical industry?

Stewart Pinkerton

August 10th 03, 03:35 PM

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:03:20 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

>Just one more dogma from the true faith:
>Mr. Pinkerton truly believes that: "
>> There is however *no* speaker which will allow you to hear the
>> difference between two 'audiophile' cables.......................

Not dogma, but an opinion backed by many DBTs. Do you have *one*
single shred of evidence to show that you or anyone else *can*
distinguish two 'audiophile' cables by sound alone?

If you do, then I'll give that person £1,000, as I have often stated
on uk.rec.audio.

>> >I said:
>> > In no other sphere of life do people talk about
>> >a "test" to compare differences- only in this little audio courtyard.
>Mr. Pinkerton answers:
>> I take it that you have never heard of the pharmaceutical industry?

>This rhetorical rabbit punch would not be worth a comment except that
>it illustrates so beautifully what I had in mind when I was talking
>about the RAHE debating style. Mr. Pinkerton knows perfectly well that
>we're discussing differences /preferences in the sphere of sensory
>experience: music, painting, wine tasting etc. Not testing drugs with
>an objectively assessable outcome: does it work or not. But he can't
>resist grabbing for dear life onto a missing qualifier.

No Ludovic, we're discussing *audible* differences, not *anything* to
do with painting or wine tasting. And we are indeed looking for an
objetive outcome - can you hear a difference, or not.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Audio Guy

August 10th 03, 07:07 PM

In article <IelZa.111458$YN5.76804@sccrnsc01>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
>
> It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an
> easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one
> single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any
> electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles.
> Positive as judged by the reporting proctors.

Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really
weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now
could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in
the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true.

Arny Krueger

August 10th 03, 07:28 PM

"ludovic mirabel" > wrote in message
news:IelZa.111458$YN5.76804@sccrnsc01
> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
> >...
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:57:41 GMT, (ludovic
>> mirabel) wrote:

> It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an
> easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one
> single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any
> electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles.

Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some Amplifiers Do
Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also reprinted in
Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United Kingdom, Dec 1982,
p. 37.

S888Wheel

August 11th 03, 06:03 AM

Ludovic said

<<
> It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an
> easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one
> single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any
> electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles.
> Positive as judged by the reporting proctors.

Audio Guy said

Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really
weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now
could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in
the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true.
>>

Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. Tom Nousaine has said numerous times
he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible
differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH Stewert
Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between what
I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed and
built amps.

Audio Guy

August 11th 03, 06:55 AM

In article >,
(S888Wheel) writes:
> Ludovic said
>
><<
>> It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an
>> easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one
>> single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any
>> electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles.
>> Positive as judged by the reporting proctors.
>
> Audio Guy said
>
> Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really
> weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now
> could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in
> the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true.
> >>
>
> Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. Tom Nousaine has said numerous times
> he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible
> differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH Stewert
> Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between what
> I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed and
> built amps.

I agree that there have been positive outcome tests, but Elmir seems
to think no tests performed so far have been able to show
differences. Your argument is with him, not me.

Howard Ferstler

August 11th 03, 04:54 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
> Ludovic said
>
> <<
> > It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an
> > easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one
> > single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any
> > electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles.
> > Positive as judged by the reporting proctors.
>
> Audio Guy said
>
> Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really
> weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now
> could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in
> the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true.
> >>
>
> Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. Tom Nousaine has said numerous times
> he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible
> differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH Stewert
> Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between what
> I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed and
> built amps.

Some time back, I had an ABX box "loaner" and I did a series of
comparisons with several different amps. (I wrote about some of these
comparisons for The Sensible Sound.) With both music and pink-noise
sources most sounded alike. The speakers used were usually Dunlavy
Cantatas (I had recently reviewed them for the magazine), with the
more expensive amps usually connected by Dunlavy LCR Ultra cables, and
with the cheaper amps connected with 16 AWG lamp cord, further putting
the cheaper amps at a theoretical disadvantage. In some earlier
sighted (but still very carefully level matched) comparisons I used
Waveform MC satellites and NHT ST4 speakers (both also previously
reviewed for the magazine), and I could still not hear any differences
- except with one amp.

That amp was inside of a JVC receiver that was getting a bit long of
tooth, and was running considerably hotter than I would have liked. I
could not hear any difference between it and any other amps with music
played at reasonable levels. However, I could hear a very slight
difference with pink noise. Obviously, the amp was either generating
enough spurrious distortion products to color that noise, or else its
frequency response was off somewhat. However, it was not screwed up
enough to impact the musical comparisons.

The other amps were all pretty much middle of the road in terms of
cost (some Yamaha DSP integrated units, an AudioSource Amp One, a
lower-priced Bryston unit that was also loaned to me, an Onkyo
receiver, etc.), although I did make use of some Sherbourn monoblocks
that had been sent to me to review. They sounded no different from the
other amps at any reasonable listening levels.

I concluded (at least for me, with my speakers, in my room) that it
was unlikely that any of the amps (save the JVC receiver) had any
audible distortion, simply because if they had any they would all have
to be identical distortions. That seemed unlikely, given that most
were built by different companies.

I am a bit longer of tooth than most of those who post here, but I do
think that even if some younger individuals could hear differences
with those amps (those other than the JVC, which even I could hear)
those differences would be considerably smaller than what some people
claim they here when they go to a showroom or when they bring a new
amp home and "compare" it to what they already have. In most cases,
they do not level match properly, and that shoots the whole comparison
to pieces. As far as I am concerned, precise level matching and the
ability to switch amps quickly is as important as, and possibly even
more important than, the DBT protocol.

Of course, no matter what anybody says about comparisons, what matters
is whether an individual can himself hear differences. Because of
this, it is very advisable for those who are really looking to see if
differences exist to do their comparing carefully level matched - and
if they think they will be biased towards one amp being a winner or
loser, they should try to do the comparing DBT style. The same
criteria should be used when comparing cables.

Incidentally, not long after doing the comparisons with the JVC
receiver, it incinerated itself in my living room. Took a while to get
rid of the smell.

Folks, I am on and off when it comes to participating in Usenet these
days, because our house is being turned upside down as a result of
some home-improvement modifications (about $80 grand worth, actually).
Consequently, if some are wondering where I went, I have went nowhere.
I just do not have a computer in operation quite a bit of the time.

Howard Ferstler

Stewart Pinkerton

August 12th 03, 03:17 AM

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:14:41 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>> Tom Nousaine has said numerous times
>>> he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible
>>> differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH Stewart
>>> Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between what
>>> I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed and
>>> built amps.

Actually, the MF and Rega designs were real dogs! :-)

>Audio Guy said
>
>>
>>I agree that there have been positive outcome tests, but Elmir seems
>>to think no tests performed so far have been able to show
>>differences. Your argument is with him, not me.
>
>Not really. Ludovic has been asking for published tests. Stewert hasn't
>published his tests.

They've been published on this and other Usenet fora several times.
Ludovic just likes to exclude tests which don't fit his prejudices.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

S888Wheel

August 12th 03, 03:18 AM

I said

>
>> Not really. Ludovic has been asking for published tests.
>

Arny said

>
>It's an effective way to quash most of the work that has been done, given
>that most audio magazine editors have a pretty good track record for not
>publishing articles that disagree with what makes money for them.
>

That shouldn't be an issue for academic publications such as the AESJ and other
potentially interested journals of similar stature. Publication in consumer
magazines would not really do much to support the merits of any tests IMO.

ludovic mirabel

August 12th 03, 05:52 AM

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<iRvZa.114292$Ho3.14571@sccrnsc03>...
> In article <IelZa.111458$YN5.76804@sccrnsc01>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> >
> > It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an
> > easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one
> > single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any
> > electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles.
> > Positive as judged by the reporting proctors.
>
Mr. Audio comments:
> Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really
> weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now
> could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in
> the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true.

Now this is an interesting hypothesis. Let's run with it for a while.
Suppose you're testing for the possibility of intelligent beings out
in the universe. Using the available tests all your results are
negative. This leaves two possibilities; 1) No beings as intelligent
as earthlings (???) exist out there, or 2) The tests available so far
stink.
Now let's get down to our cooncerns from on high. No differences
found by PANELS ABXing cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs.
Distortion not heard till greater than 2%. Volume difference of 1,75db
not heard.
Two possibilities as before: 1) There are no differences between
anything and anything "competently designed" in audio or 2) Yes, you
guessed it.
Actually this kind of thing is on page1 of introduction to
experimental science.
The point? A "test" which produces negatives only when used by the
majority of the target population, that it is supposed to serve, is
useless for the purpose. Even if a few here and there manage
performances out of ordinary.
Further, accepting the Audio Guy postulate means that Hafler,
Strickland, Manley, Meidtner, Paravicini are either deluded or
fraudulent. And so are the critics like Atkinson (an electronics eng.
I believe), J.G. Holt etc. And so are all those who believe that
audio. high-end has a meaning and a purpose. And it means that the
only clear thinkers, their ears and brains wonderfully vindicated,
are those who hear no differences ever. In truth they have some 99,5%
of the earth population on their side so they must be right.
Ludovic Mirabel

S888Wheel

August 12th 03, 06:05 AM

I said

>>>> Tom Nousaine has said numerous times
>>>> he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested
>audible
>>>> differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH
>Stewart
>>>> Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests
>between what
>>>> I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently
>designed and
>>>> built amps.

Stewert said

>
>Actually, the MF and Rega designs were real dogs! :-)

MF? Musical Fidelity? Some that sounded different were what you would call
competent and reasonably well built though yes?

>>Audio Guy said
>>
>>>
>>>I agree that there have been positive outcome tests, but Elmir seems
>>>to think no tests performed so far have been able to show
>>>differences. Your argument is with him, not me.

I said

>
>>Not really. Ludovic has been asking for published tests. Stewert hasn't
>>published his tests.
>

Stewert said

>
>They've been published on this and other Usenet fora several times.
>Ludovic just likes to exclude tests which don't fit his prejudices.

I didn't know you published them. Sorry for the error. I wonder why Tom
Nousaine insists that no such results have ever been published then. Maybe he
is limiting his definition of "published" To "dead tree" publishing? Tom?

Stewart Pinkerton

August 12th 03, 03:54 PM

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 05:05:10 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

>I said
>
>>>>> Tom Nousaine has said numerous times
>>>>> he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible
>>>>> differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH Stewart
>>>>> Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between what
>>>>> I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed and
>>>>> built amps.
>
>Stewart said
>>
>>Actually, the MF and Rega designs were real dogs! :-)
>
>MF? Musical Fidelity? Some that sounded different were what you would call
>competent and reasonably well built though yes?

Yes, there were (admittedly slight, but still statistically
significant) audible differences for instance between the Audiolab
8000P and 8000A models, both highly respected at the time.

Tom and I differ in this regard, although our opinions are generally
aligned on audio matters. We certainly agree about cables.

>>>Audio Guy said
>>>>
>>>>I agree that there have been positive outcome tests, but Elmir seems
>>>>to think no tests performed so far have been able to show
>>>>differences. Your argument is with him, not me.
>
>I said
>>
>>>Not really. Ludovic has been asking for published tests. Stewert hasn't
>>>published his tests.
>>
>Stewart said
>>
>>They've been published on this and other Usenet fora several times.
>>Ludovic just likes to exclude tests which don't fit his prejudices.
>
>I didn't know you published them. Sorry for the error. I wonder why Tom
>Nousaine insists that no such results have ever been published then. Maybe he
>is limiting his definition of "published" To "dead tree" publishing? Tom?

Ludovic also seems to regard Usenet as not 'proper' publishing,
despite the readership base for some audio newgroups being higher than
for several 'audiophile' magazines such as UHF, TAS and HiFi+.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

August 12th 03, 03:56 PM

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 04:53:06 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
>> Ludovic said:
>> <<
>> > It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an
>> > easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one
>> > single published positive outcome report of a comparison between
>> > any electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of
>> > audiophiles. Positive as judged by the reporting proctors.
>>
>> Audio Guy said
>>
>> Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really
>> weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now
>> could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in
>> the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true.
>> >>
>Mr. Wheel comments:
>> Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. Tom Nousaine has said
>> numerous times he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that
>> have suggested audible differences when comparing "competently"
>> designed and built amps.
>> OTOH Stewert Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of
>> his tests between what I suspect would be considered by most if not all
>> to be competently designed andbuilt amps.
>
>You are getting close to the nub of the argument. It is: " Is ABX a
>suitable method for comparing audio components?". . Nousaine, an ABX
>authority, a prolific writer, for many years on ABX "testing",
>affirms emphatically that no competently etc. etc....amplifiers
>"reliably" "tested" (ie using ABX) do or can sound different from each
>other.. But Pinkerton, also a prolific writer on the subject, and
>another super-trained and experienced authority DOES hear differences.

OTOH, I have no doubt whatever that I would find significant measured
differences between any two amplifiers which sounded different, e.g.
crossover distortion and HF IMD in the Yamaha AX-570 would explain the
slight brightness I observed.

I have *never* heard differences among cables, and a large pool of
money has for several years awaited anyone who can. It's still waiting
for someone to even try..............

>What does it say about ABX as a "test"? It says that two "experts"
>with different DNA and differently wired auditory cortex disagree
>diametrically on what the ABX tells them.

No, it simply says that we achieved different results in different
tests. It would be much more interesting if we had achieved different
results in the *same* test.

>If a "test" does not produce repeatable results when handled by two
>such experts what use is it to the great unwashed audiophile crowd?

Funny that *none* of this crowd have produced positive results among
their favourite toys when actually tested by *any* unsighted
method..................

>Pinkerton dodges the issue with a lame argument: :" Ah, if only he had
>MY amplifiers to test!".

Not quite what I said, and not any kind of 'dodge'.

> Nousaine keeps diplomatic silence: he
>committed himself in the past to "there is no amplifier sound"
>position and has nothing to add or alter- or do you Mr. Nousaine?
>As for myself I'm with Pinkerton.

No, you're not, since you refuse to acknowledge the importance of
unsighted testing.

> Of course there are differences
>between amplifiers and of course I still hear them blinded using my
>preferred method of simultaneous comparison-

You have never demonstrated this to be the case, and your test is
pathetically incompetent for several reasons, which have been
explained to you ad nauseam.

> but not any longer when
>using ABX. In that I reproduce the behaviour of the majorities in all
>of the reported component comparison by an audiophile PANEL. Most
>(but not all!!!)cannot hear differences between anything whatsoever
>and anything else.
>Why a PANEL? Simply because a "test" that its proponents claim is
>usable by its intended target population should result in at least
>one positive outcome by a substantial majority, not just a recounting
>of personal experiences as proof of positive tests.
>And what happens in fact? In fact Mirabel hears the differences. So
>does Pinkerton, To THEM the amplifiers sound different.

Only some of them..................

Mirabel however claims to hear that *everything* sounds different - as
it would using his fatally flawed 'test'.

>If you look up
>Mr Krueger's 10th of August posting you'll see that in the year of
>Grace 1982 they sounded different to him as well. Since? Who knows.
>On the other hand to Nousaine there are NO differences. In that he
>agrees with the majority of the ABX panelists tested by one of the ABX
>codevelopers Mr. Clark in the Â‘'83 Stereo Review.
>
> Do I claim my personal results as "evidence"? Of course not. I'm
>acquainted with the introductory textbook chapters on how to conduct
>the scientifically valid, reportable testing. I do not report personal
>opinions as anything else but opinions.

No, you persistantly *claim* that you *can* hear differences, even
though you have conducted no properly controlled trials.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Arny Krueger

August 12th 03, 04:00 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> I said
>
>>
>>> Not really. Ludovic has been asking for published tests.

> Arny said

>> It's an effective way to quash most of the work that has been done,
>> given that most audio magazine editors have a pretty good track
>> record for not publishing articles that disagree with what makes
>> money for them.

> That shouldn't be an issue for academic publications such as the AESJ
> and other potentially interested journals of similar stature.

It's not. At the AES the issue in question was settled years if not decades
ago in favor of DBTs.

Furthermore, AES publications are scientific, not commercial. Therefore
references to commercial products, if relevant, are deleted or concealed.

> Publication in consumer magazines would not really do much to support
> the merits of any tests IMO.

In the engineering/scientific community, the DBT issue has been settled for
years, if not decades in favor of DBTs.

Howard Ferstler

August 12th 03, 04:03 PM

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<So_Za.86586$cF.27790@rwcrnsc53>...
> (S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
> (S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
> > Ludovic said:
> > <<
> > > It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an
> > > easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one
> > > single published positive outcome report of a comparison between
> > > any electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of
> > > audiophiles. Positive as judged by the reporting proctors.
> >
> > Audio Guy said
> >
> > Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really
> > weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now
> > could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in
> > the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true.
> > >>
> Mr. Wheel comments:
> > Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. Tom Nousaine has said
> > numerous times he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that
> > have suggested audible differences when comparing "competently"
> > designed and built amps.
> > OTOH Stewert Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of
> > his tests between what I suspect would be considered by most if not all
> > to be competently designed andbuilt amps.

> You are getting close to the nub of the argument. It is: " Is ABX a
> suitable method for comparing audio components?". . Nousaine, an ABX
> authority, a prolific writer, for many years on ABX "testing",
> affirms emphatically that no competently etc. etc....amplifiers
> "reliably" "tested" (ie using ABX) do or can sound different from each
> other.. But Pinkerton, also a prolific writer on the subject, and
> another super-trained and experienced authority DOES hear differences.

Much would depend upon the speakers. Some speakers put real pressure
on amps that would normally have no problems with more "normal"
speakers. I believe that Mr. Pinkerton has some pretty demanding
speakers. With the more "normal" models I have worked with, I have
heard no differences, both with a level-matched ABX procedure and with
a non-blind series that still involved matching levels very closely.
And, no, you cannot match levels closely using an SPL meter, nor can
you do it globally. It has to be done one channel at a time,
preferably with a digital volt meter. Admittedly, you can do one
channel at a time by ear if you use a pink-noise source, but even that
has to be done with care.

> What does it say about ABX as a "test"? It says that two "experts"
> with different DNA and differently wired auditory cortex disagree
> diametrically on what the ABX tells them.

See above. A demanding speaker load could probably be the reason for
Mr. Pinkerton's situation. Also, I have compared a number of amps, and
although most sounded alike (at least at reasonable sound levels that
did not clip the smaller amps), one did sound different, at least with
pink noise. The difference was subtle, and not too long after I used
that amp for testing (it was within an aged JVC receiver) it
incinerated itself in my living room. In other words, the only amp
that sounded different was an amp that was in serious trouble.

> If a "test" does not produce repeatable results when handled by two
> such experts what use is it to the great unwashed audiophile crowd?

It gives members of that "crowd" guidelines, as well as an incentive
to go discover for themselves if what the sales people and high-end
magazine journalists are saying about profound differences in amp
performance are really all that audible. My take on the issue is that
those who are genuinely concerned about this issue will do their own
series of DBT comparisons. If they have problems with the DBT
protocol, they can at least do some crude single-blind testing. The
trick is to do the comparing with VERY precise level matching.
Quick-switching capabilities are also important, although the ability
to quick switch will not preclude the individual from doing the
comparisons slow. However, quick switching can offer up some rather
dramatic evidence about how amps mostly sound alike.

> Pinkerton dodges the issue with a lame argument: :" Ah, if only he had
> MY amplifiers to test!". Nousaine keeps diplomatic silence: he
> committed himself in the past to "there is no amplifier sound"
> position and has nothing to add or alter- or do you Mr. Nousaine?

Why should he? He and the people he has tested have heard no
differences. For them the issue is closed. I suggest that you do some
genuine DBT work yourself (remember to precisely level match) and come
to some conclusions of your own. For you, that approach is superior to
harping on assorted, supposedly sub-par DBT comparsions done by
others.

> As for myself I'm with Pinkerton. Of course there are differences
> between amplifiers and of course I still hear them blinded using my
> preferred method of simultaneous comparison- but not any longer when
> using ABX.

The DBT protocol employed by the ABX device is pretty foolproof. It
eliminates any ability on the part of the participant to have a
favored device "win" the face off. Your system seems overly complex,
compared to an ABX procedure that is straighforward as hell. You
cannot fool the ABX device, and it will not let you fool yourself,
either.

> In that I reproduce the behaviour of the majorities in all
> of the reported component comparison by an audiophile PANEL. Most
> (but not all!!!)cannot hear differences between anything whatsoever
> and anything else.
> Why a PANEL? Simply because a "test" that its proponents claim is
> usable by its intended target population should result in at least
> one positive outcome by a substantial majority, not just a recounting
> of personal experiences as proof of positive tests.

This makes no sense to me. What matters is if an individual can hear
differences. That individual need only satisfy himself that he can or
cannot hear performance contrasts. And the best way to be absolutely
sure of what he can or cannot hear is to do a level-matched DBT. That
way, he cannot fool either himself or anybody else. Of course, he may
simply not care about comparing closely, and he has a full right to
feel that way. But if he REALLY wants to know he might consider the
level-matched DBT approach.

> And what happens in fact? In fact Mirabel hears the differences. So
> does Pinkerton, To THEM the amplifiers sound different.

Well, as I noted, Pinkerton has some demanding speakers. And in my
situation I had an amp (receiver) that was in serious trouble. As for
you, did you really do the comparisons precisely level matched, with a
DBT protocol that kept you from pre-selecting a winner?

> If you look up
> Mr Krueger's 10th of August posting you'll see that in the year of
> Grace 1982 they sounded different to him as well. Since? Who knows.

Well, I have pointed out some reasons why amps might sound different.
Actually, when I did some of my comparing I deliberately mismatched
levels on one channel at a time in order to see what resulted. The
results were that the soundstaging changed from amp to amp, and I
believe this is one reason some individuals hear those kinds of
differences when comparing after doing global level matches with an
SPL meter. The global balancing with an SPL meter does not deal with
channel imbalances, and it does not match globally all that well,
either.

> On the other hand to Nousaine there are NO differences. In that he
> agrees with the majority of the ABX panelists tested by one of the ABX
> codevelopers Mr. Clark in the Â?'83 Stereo Review.

I am not sure what else you want. I mean, Nousaine, Clark, and the
people they worked with could not hear differences. For them, that is
all that matters. You may think that there were audible differences,
but for those people the differences were just not there. Perhaps they
have sub-par hearing by your standards, but that does not matter - for
them. What matters is that they were satisfied that there were no
audible differences.

> Do I claim my personal results as "evidence"? Of course not.

Really? From what I have read, I think you most definitely consider
your personal results as "evidence." Indeed, if that is the case and
you really did precisely level match and do the comparing DBT style,
then you have satisfied your requirements, just as Nousaine, Clark,
and their subjects satisfied theirs. If you did not do your comparing
with precise level matching and you did not do them blind, then I
think that Nousaine, Clark, Krueger, etc. have an evidential leg up on
you.

> I'm
> acquainted with the introductory textbook chapters on how to conduct
> the scientifically valid, reportable testing. I do not report personal
> opinions as anything else but opinions.

I have no problem with opinions. However, if someone is planning on
spending several grand on an amp and intends to do so on the word of a
hi-fi sales clerk or based upon the opinions of a high-end magazine
writer, or based upon your opinions here, I think they need to realize
that they may be spending more than they need to. Sure, they may get a
psychological kick out of having a super-duper amp on hand (just like
some people enjoy having a 350 horsepower car to commute through city
traffic), but the fact is that they could have gotten equal,
real-world performance for a lot less money.

Now, for some people the aura that surrounds a super amp (or any other
"super" product, such as super wires or a super car or a super
refrigerator) is often an end in itself. The ownership of such devices
makes one feel good (hell, even I feel good about my hardware), and
getting involved in an analysis of just what the product can actually
do in relation to cheaper versions can possibly undermine the
enjoyment of owning such a product. I suppose if someone has the spare
cash to easily afford a "super" product this is OK, although if some
clerk or product reviewer talks someone into spending critical money
on an overkill product that is not a good thing. At least I do not
consider it a good thing.

Anyway, for me, the squeaky wheel should get the grease, and rather
than spend big on an overkill amp, I would rather spend big on super
speakers, or a subwoofer, or a killer surround processor, or an HDTV
monitor, or extra recordings.

> But I guess that 99,5% of the earth's population would not hear any
> differences either under ABX and a few of them writing for RAHE would
> be quite vehement about THEIR experiences as a PROOF that the 0,5% of
> us are fraudulent or deluded.

Not necessarily. However, for that .5% to be taken seriously by guys
like me (and no doubt Misters Nousaine, Clark, and Krueger) they would
have to do some valid DBT work themselves. It is nice for that .5% to
think that they have some kind of superior hearing acuity (for some,
this may be as psychologically important as owning a "super" amp), but
for them to be taken seriously by the remaining 99.5%, some valid DBT
work would be a good idea. Heck, I should think that members of the
..5% group would be more interested in actually proving that they could
hear differences than the rest of us.

> And their steadfastly negative "test"
> would stand for "evidence".

It is for them. The question for me is: will that .5% group go forth
and prove to the rest of the world and to themselves that their golden
ears are truly golden? You probably believe that they do not need to,
and of course that is correct. However, do not expect me to take their
opinions about amp sound, or wire sound, or even speaker sound,
seriously.

> All it proves for certain is that this individual failed while using
> that particular type of question and answer "test". Others may or may
> not.

Right. And if those "others" want to validate their beliefs regarding
amp sound and their golden-eared abilities they can go do some DBT
work themselves. If they do not, they may happily enjoy the expensive
products they purchase and consider themselves blessed with superior
hearing - but skeptics like me will continue to roll our eyes.

> That it proves nothing else escapes the attention of some of
> the self- appointed RAHE scientists.who think that a collection of a
> anecdotes stands for evidence.

Actually, those who do casual listening (casual for me means without
careful level matching at the very least, with quick switching and the
DBT protocol called into play if differences are heard with the
initial comparisons) are playing with much more anecdotal evidence
than anybody who carefully level matches and goes on to do the
comparing DBT style. By your standards, the DBT work done by Nousaine,
Clark, Krueger, and even me is anecdotal in nature, simply because the
results have not been published in peer-reviewed journals and those
results do not agree with what you believe. On the other hand, your
"evidence" basically involves comparisons that are unrigorous in the
extreme. For me, amp comparisons are not a popularity contest.

> At least I can claim that my brain behaves like those of the great
> majority of the component comparison panelists. They too could not
> hear things when ABXing that they'd have no difficulty hearing
> normally without ABX earmuffs,

Why you think that doing a test blind causes hearing problems is
beyond me. That anybody would think that a sighted comparison, without
precise level matching is comparable in terms of rigor to even a quick
level-matched ABX series simply makes no sense to me. The DBT protocol
eliminates sight bias. Just what kind of "bias" do those sighted,
non-level-matched comparisons eliminate?

> like for instance 1,75db volume
> difference between a thick and a thin cable.

You keep talking about this 1.75 dB volume difference. I have compared
a lot of cables, and I never encountered this kind of contrast. The
cables being compared would have to have radically different lengths
and cross sections to generate level differences of that magnitude.
Yeah, I know you read about it in an article about ABX comparisons,
but why not do some comparing yourself to see if wires behave that
way.

Howard Ferstler

Audio Guy

August 12th 03, 04:35 PM

In article >,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<iRvZa.114292$Ho3.14571@sccrnsc03>...
>> In article <IelZa.111458$YN5.76804@sccrnsc01>,
>> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> >
>> > It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an
>> > easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one
>> > single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any
>> > electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles.
>> > Positive as judged by the reporting proctors.
>>
> Mr. Audio comments:
>> Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really
>> weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now
>> could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in
>> the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true.
>
> Now this is an interesting hypothesis. Let's run with it for a while.
> Suppose you're testing for the possibility of intelligent beings out
> in the universe. Using the available tests all your results are
> negative. This leaves two possibilities; 1) No beings as intelligent
> as earthlings (???) exist out there, or 2) The tests available so far
> stink.

Seems you have to make up tests to prove your point. Let's get real,
OK?

> Now let's get down to our cooncerns from on high. No differences
> found by PANELS ABXing cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs.
> Distortion not heard till greater than 2%. Volume difference of 1,75db
> not heard.

Here you go misinterpreting statistics again. What discipline were you
trained in again? Mine was in electronics including Random Signal
Analysis which is chock full of statistics.

> Two possibilities as before: 1) There are no differences between
> anything and anything "competently designed" in audio or 2) Yes, you
> guessed it.

Here you go again. The results just say no differences have yet to be
proven. Please refrain from hyperbole, it spoils all of your efforts.

> Actually this kind of thing is on page1 of introduction to
> experimental science.
> The point? A "test" which produces negatives only when used by the
> majority of the target population, that it is supposed to serve, is
> useless for the purpose.

Which science textbook have you been reading? A test that cannot
disprove gravity is useless?

> Even if a few here and there manage
> performances out of ordinary.
> Further, accepting the Audio Guy postulate means that Hafler,
> Strickland, Manley, Meidtner, Paravicini are either deluded or
> fraudulent.

Works for me, I've thought that of them for quite a while.

> And so are the critics like Atkinson (an electronics eng.
> I believe), J.G. Holt etc.

Yep, them too.

> And so are all those who believe that
> audio. high-end has a meaning and a purpose.

Not so, there is a lot of room for discussing the differences in
speakers and in sources such as CD vs. LP vs. SACD, etc. There are
also amps which are purposed designed to affect the sound such as
SETs.

> And it means that the
> only clear thinkers, their ears and brains wonderfully vindicated,
> are those who hear no differences ever. In truth they have some 99,5%
> of the earth population on their side so they must be right.

No it means that these 0.5% elites are likely mistaken and should take
a few DBTs to find out how elite they are.

Nousaine

August 13th 03, 05:01 AM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

>
>Ludovic said
>
><<
>> It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an
>> easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one
>> single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any
>> electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles.
>> Positive as judged by the reporting proctors.
>
>Audio Guy said
>
>Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really
>weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now
>could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in
>the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true.
> >>
>
>Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. Tom Nousaine has said numerous times
>he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible
>differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH
>Stewert
>Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between
>what
>I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed
>and
>built amps.

Stewart has 'reported' such but hasn't included enough documentation for
replication. So..... its an anecdote.

Give me a replicated controlled test.

ludovic mirabel

August 13th 03, 05:22 AM

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<4P7_a.88530$cF.27962@rwcrnsc53>...
> In article >,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<iRvZa.114292$Ho3.14571@sccrnsc03>...
> >> In article <IelZa.111458$YN5.76804@sccrnsc01>,
> >> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> >> >
> >> > It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an
> >> > easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one
> >> > single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any
> >> > electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles.
> >> > Positive as judged by the reporting proctors.
> >>
> Mr. Audio comments:
> >> Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really
> >> weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now
> >> could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in
> >> the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true.
> >
> > Now this is an interesting hypothesis. Let's run with it for a while.
> > Suppose you're testing for the possibility of intelligent beings out
> > in the universe. Using the available tests all your results are
> > negative. This leaves two possibilities; 1) No beings as intelligent
> > as earthlings (???) exist out there, or 2) The tests available so far
> > stink.
>
> Seems you have to make up tests to prove your point. Let's get real,
> OK?
>
Mr. A. Guy I'm not I'm making up tests". An astrophysicist called
Sagan ( amongst others)wrote a book about experimental search for
extraterrestrial intelligence. I'm sorry it didn't come to your
attention as yet
Since you appeared to have difficulty grasping that a "test" resulting
solely in negatives whenever tried by its target population is a bad
joke I felt that an analogy (analogy- similarity-resemblance etc)might
help. I'm sorry I failed.
Perhaps this will help: D.J. Carlstrom, ABX switch manufacturer in the
"official" ABX website (www.oakland.edu-djcarlst/abx_bino.htm) writes:
"Note that no matter what score is achieved, A=B cannot be proven.
That is the ABX Double Blind Comparator can *never* (his italics,
L.M.) be use to prove the two audio components sound the same....etc"
In other words negative ABX audiophile panel tests prove nothing and
positive ones do not exist.
This leaves the possibility that the "test" does not test. Hope you
can see that?
As for the rest of your message it speaks for itself. Loud and clear
Ludovic Mirabel

> > Now let's get down to our cooncerns from on high. No differences
> > found by PANELS ABXing cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs.
> > Distortion not heard till greater than 2%. Volume difference of 1,75db
> > not heard.
>
> Here you go misinterpreting statistics again. What discipline were you
> trained in again? Mine was in electronics including Random Signal
> Analysis which is chock full of statistics.
>
> > Two possibilities as before: 1) There are no differences between
> > anything and anything "competently designed" in audio or 2) Yes, you
> > guessed it.
>
> Here you go again. The results just say no differences have yet to be
> proven. Please refrain from hyperbole, it spoils all of your efforts.
>
> > Actually this kind of thing is on page1 of introduction to
> > experimental science.
> > The point? A "test" which produces negatives only when used by the
> > majority of the target population, that it is supposed to serve, is
> > useless for the purpose.
>
> Which science textbook have you been reading? A test that cannot
> disprove gravity is useless?
>
> > Even if a few here and there manage
> > performances out of ordinary.
> > Further, accepting the Audio Guy postulate means that Hafler,
> > Strickland, Manley, Meidtner, Paravicini are either deluded or
> > fraudulent.
>
> Works for me, I've thought that of them for quite a while.
>
> > And so are the critics like Atkinson (an electronics eng.
> > I believe), J.G. Holt etc.
>
> Yep, them too.
>
> > And so are all those who believe that
> > audio. high-end has a meaning and a purpose.
>
> Not so, there is a lot of room for discussing the differences in
> speakers and in sources such as CD vs. LP vs. SACD, etc. There are
> also amps which are purposed designed to affect the sound such as
> SETs.
>
> > And it means that the
> > only clear thinkers, their ears and brains wonderfully vindicated,
> > are those who hear no differences ever. In truth they have some 99,5%
> > of the earth population on their side so they must be right.
>
> No it means that these 0.5% elites are likely mistaken and should take
> a few DBTs to find out how elite they are.

S888Wheel

August 13th 03, 03:14 PM

>>Audio Guy said
>>
>>Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really
>>weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now
>>could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in
>>the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true.

I said

>>Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. Tom Nousaine has said numerous
>times
>>he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible
>>differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH
>>Stewert
>>Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between
>>what
>>I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed
>>and
>>built amps.

Tom said

>
>Stewart has 'reported' such but hasn't included enough documentation for
>replication. So..... its an anecdote.
>

I got the impression from Stewert that his reports were more than anecdotal. I
haven't seen the specific posts. Maybe Stewert can offer what you ask.

Tom said

>
>Give me a replicated controlled test.
>

Is this a mistake in words or a new requirement? You meant replicable didn't
you?

Stewart Pinkerton

August 13th 03, 03:14 PM

On 13 Aug 2003 04:01:50 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(S888Wheel) wrote:

>>Tom Nousaine has said numerous times
>>he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible
>>differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH Stewart
>>Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between what
>>I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed and
>>built amps.
>
>Stewart has 'reported' such but hasn't included enough documentation for
>replication. So..... its an anecdote.

I did in early reports (back in the days of 'The Sunshine Trials')
give full details of both the room and all the equipment used, also
the test methodology and number of trials. The 'reference' room and
equipment details are still on www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/ for anyone
who wants to replicate my tests.

I know that we differ on the expected outcome, but I can only report
my own findings.

>Give me a replicated controlled test.

Every time! :-)

BTW, my bad on the home-build speaker comparisons, I misremembered the
Celestion connection as being the sponsoring company, not just the
'reference' speaker.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Audio Guy

August 13th 03, 07:01 PM

In article >,
(S888Wheel) writes:
> I said
>
><<
>> Not really. Ludovic has been asking for published tests. Stewert hasn't
>> published his tests.
> >>
>
> Audio Guy said
>
><<
> Yes, he has, but your and Ludovic's definition of "published" is
> guarateed to disqualify any report short of winnign the Nobel prize.
> >>
>
> Nonsense. Are you claiming psychic abilities when speaking about my definition
> of "published" or are you just being presumptuous? In either case you are quite
> mistaken and you are misrepresenting me. Please stop.

Sorry, my mistake in lumping you in with Ludovic, I've reviewed your
posts on the subject and you haven't been asking for proof as he has.

> Audio Guy said
>
><<
> I have no arguement with Tom since the ones I'm referring to are
> Stewart's which used speakers that are a relatively difficult load
> so that amps that were not overdesigned to become detectable.
> >>
>
> If you are accepting Stewert's tests as valid then you do have an argument with
> Tom whether you realize it or not. Tom obviously does not recognize Stewert's
> tests since he claims no tests have produced any positive results.

Tom has posted on why he doesn't accept Stewart's results, I'll let
him explain it. I myself accept Stewart's results, but I'm not a
stickler on details myself.

S888Wheel

August 13th 03, 07:01 PM

Stewert said

>
>As has been noted before, you can't get published in a peer-reviewed
>technical magazine for pointing out the bleedin' obvious!

AESJ certainly has published at least one article that only argued the
superiority of DBTs over sighted tests. Isn't that in the catagory of "bleedin'
obvious!"??? There is no reason to my knowledge that the AESJ would not publish
reports of tests were anyone to try to do so. Can you think of any such reports
that were rejected by the AESJ on the grounds of excessive obviousness?

Arny Krueger

August 13th 03, 09:39 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
news:72v_a.137658$uu5.20442@sccrnsc04
> Stewert said
>
>>
>> As has been noted before, you can't get published in a peer-reviewed
>> technical magazine for pointing out the bleedin' obvious!
>
> AESJ certainly has published at least one article that only argued the
> superiority of DBTs over sighted tests. Isn't that in the category of
> "bleedin' obvious!"??? There is no reason to my knowledge that the
> AESJ would not publish reports of tests were anyone to try to do so.
> Can you think of any such reports that were rejected by the AESJ on
> the grounds of excessive obviousness?

AFAIK, the activities of the AES Journal Review board are not public.

Therefore nobody knows for sure other than the board members and they don't
talk about this a whole lot.

Arny Krueger

August 13th 03, 09:48 PM

"ludovic mirabel" > wrote in message
et

> (Howard Ferstler) wrote in message
> >...

>> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
>> news:<V1j_a.90652$cF.28602@rwcrnsc53>...

> You continue repeating your revealed truth about the only path to
> hi-fi heaven: level-matched DBTs.

Who said that the only path to hi-fi heaven is level-matched DBTs?

Google searching shows no hits.

Search of the AES papers database shows no hits.

I am forced to conclude that this is a straw man argument.

Steven Sullivan

August 13th 03, 10:21 PM

ludovic mirabel > wrote:
> (Howard Ferstler) wrote in message >...
> > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<V1j_a.90652$cF.28602@rwcrnsc53>...

> You continue repeating your revealed truth about the only path to
> hi-fi heaven: level-matched DBTs.

Nope: it's the best path to verifying audible difference.

That's not necessarily the same thing as ' the path to
hi-fi heaven'. People can and do define
'hi-fi' heaven by things other than *only* the sound of their
systems.

But if the question of whether component A *sounds* different
from component B is crucial to achieving hi-fi heaven, then
DBT would be the *best* way to satisfy that condition.

> You also continue to ignore any
> objections to this simplistic faith. That's why in the end one gives
> in- your eloquence wins.

Whereas your empty logorrhea and execrable post formatting
wore me out long ago.

<long snip>

-S.

S888Wheel

August 14th 03, 01:59 AM

>> Stewert said
>>
>>>
>>> As has been noted before, you can't get published in a peer-reviewed
>>> technical magazine for pointing out the bleedin' obvious!

I said

>> AESJ certainly has published at least one article that only argued the
>> superiority of DBTs over sighted tests. Isn't that in the category of
>> "bleedin' obvious!"??? There is no reason to my knowledge that the
>> AESJ would not publish reports of tests were anyone to try to do so.
>> Can you think of any such
>> Can you think of any such reports that were rejected by the AESJ on
>> the grounds of excessive obviousness?

Arny said

>
>AFAIK, the activities of the AES Journal Review board are not public.
>
>Therefore nobody knows for sure other than the board members and they don't
>talk about this a whole lot.
>

It is known for sure by certain people. If anyone has any claims that they have
submitted reports of such tests to the AESJ that were rejected for publication
on the grounds that it was simply too obvious for publication, then any such
person is invited to speak up. Till some one does it is nothing more than wild
speculation to claim that any such thing has happened.

Nousaine

August 14th 03, 03:23 AM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

>
>I said
>
><<
>> Not really. Ludovic has been asking for published tests. Stewert hasn't
>> published his tests.
> >>
>
>Audio Guy said
>
><<
>Yes, he has, but your and Ludovic's definition of "published" is
>guarateed to disqualify any report short of winnign the Nobel prize.
> >>
>
>Nonsense. Are you claiming psychic abilities when speaking about my
>definition
>of "published" or are you just being presumptuous? In either case you are
>quite
>mistaken and you are misrepresenting me. Please stop.
>
>Audio Guy said
>
><<
>I have no arguement with Tom since the ones I'm referring to are
>Stewart's which used speakers that are a relatively difficult load
>so that amps that were not overdesigned to become detectable.
> >>
>
>If you are accepting Stewert's tests as valid then you do have an argument
>with
>Tom whether you realize it or not. Tom obviously does not recognize Stewert's
>tests since he claims no tests have produced any positive results.

Please. I accept any and all "evidence." Stewart's experiments have not been
documented nor have they been replicated. The latter isn't his responsibility.
The former is.

Nousaine

August 14th 03, 03:27 PM

(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

...snips....

>Mr. A. Guy I'm not I'm making up tests". An astrophysicist called
>Sagan ( amongst others)wrote a book about experimental search for
>extraterrestrial intelligence. I'm sorry it didn't come to your
>attention as yet
>Since you appeared to have difficulty grasping that a "test" resulting
>solely in negatives whenever tried by its target population is a bad
>joke I felt that an analogy (analogy- similarity-resemblance etc)might
>help. I'm sorry I failed.
>Perhaps this will help: D.J. Carlstrom, ABX switch manufacturer in the
>"official" ABX website (www.oakland.edu-djcarlst/abx_bino.htm) writes:
>"Note that no matter what score is achieved, A=B cannot be proven.
>That is the ABX Double Blind Comparator can *never* (his italics,
>L.M.) be use to prove the two audio components sound the same....etc"
>In other words negative ABX audiophile panel tests prove nothing and
>positive ones do not exist.

>This leaves the possibility that the "test" does not test. Hope you
>can see that?

Isn't that funny. No one can ever "prove a negative". So what? We should then
ignore the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment that confirms
"amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias controls implemented.

NO One' Ever!!!!

And you want people to think that somehow every published experiment (even
those that seemed to stack the deck) is wrong and YOU are right?

Deliver some evidence to support your argument and then we can talk' actually
IF you deliver the evidence than we won't 'talk' I'll admit you were right.

Do it!!!!! Now !!!!!

S888Wheel

August 14th 03, 03:33 PM

Tom said

>
>>>Give me a replicated controlled test.
>>>

I said

>
>>
>>Is this a mistake in words or a new requirement? You meant replicable didn't
>>you?
>

Tom said

>
>Good one. But either works :)
>

There is a big difference. Many long term medical studies have not been
replicated but they are considered good scientific evidence becasue among other
things they are replicable. A lot of good evidence is not replicated and is
still good evidence.

Stewart Pinkerton

August 14th 03, 03:35 PM

On 14 Aug 2003 02:06:30 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>On 13 Aug 2003 04:01:50 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>>>Stewart has 'reported' such but hasn't included enough documentation for
>>>replication. So..... its an anecdote.
>>
>>I did in early reports (back in the days of 'The Sunshine Trials')
>>give full details of both the room and all the equipment used, also
>>the test methodology and number of trials.
>
>So why not do that again?

Because Google exists, and because this was simply done as part of a
buying decision, not specifically as a 'scientific' experiment. Hence,
I do know which models had statistically significant audible
differences (taken as >15 correct out of 20 level-matched
time-proximate trials), but I did not document the raw scores.

Level-matching was done via a 4-channel attenuator, and time-proximate
switching via a relay-controlled ABX switchbox of my own design (long
before I had heard of Arny/Clark's device).

>The 'reference' room and
>>equipment details are still on www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/ for anyone
>>who wants to replicate my tests.
>
>Can't do that from a description of your system. Because you haven't given us
>a way to examine the experiment it remains an anecdote. And there's nothing
>wrong with that but people like Mr Wheel keep bringing your tests as
>verification of something or other.

Perhaps because my test is better than some, but not as good as
others. Such is life.

>Maybe Ludovic will accept it as "proof." :)

Ludovic accepts nothing which does not fit his prejudices.

>>I know that we differ on the expected outcome, but I can only report
>>my own findings.
>
>We differ on nothing. Your experiment has not been documented nor replicated.
>Nothing wrong with that but it's just an anecdote.

So replicate it............

>>>Give me a replicated controlled test.
>>
>>Every time! :-)
>
>Sure:) But there were 23 other published experiments by 1990 that suggest your
>stated results may have been contaminated or wrong.

Anything is possible. Certainly, my insensitive 3-ohm large planar
speakers might reveal differences not apparent (or indeed existent) on
more conventional speakers. Note this does not make my results
'wrong', just inapplicable to a 90dB/w/m 8-ohm speaker.

>Again there's nothing inherently bad about anecdotal evidence. It just needs to
>be replicated.

So replicate it............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ludovic mirabel

August 14th 03, 10:40 PM

(Nousaine) wrote in message >...
> (ludovic mirabel) wrote:
>
> ..snips....
>
> >In other words negative ABX audiophile panel tests prove nothing and
> >positive ones do not exist.
> >This leaves the possibility that the "test" does not test. Hope you
> >can see that?
>

Mr. Nousaine comments.
> Isn't that funny. No one can ever "prove a negative". So what? We should then
> ignore the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment that confirms
> "amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias controls implemented.
> NO One' Ever!!!!
>
According to your ABX coworker L. Greenhill (Stereo Review August
1982) one of
his subjects did that very thing. So much for "NO one! Ever!!!!!" It
is your privilege to disagree with Greenhill- you two ABXers fight it
out.

> And you want people to think that somehow every published experiment (even
> those that seemed to stack the deck) is wrong and YOU are right?
> Deliver some evidence to support your argument and then we can talk' actually
> IF you deliver the evidence than we won't 'talk' I'll admit you were right.
> Do it!!!!! Now !!!!!

I do not like sheltering behind verbal quibbles ( a la e.g. Mr
Krueger in his posts above) but it depends on what you mean by "modest
bias controls"".
Example: if I tell you that some (not all-by definition) can
distinguish, blinded, a silver cable (say Kimber's) from zipcord using
full-range musical signal in a left-right protocol with random changes
of the cables from side to side you'll probably tell me that this is
not enough of bias control. Flawed or not, some (not all- by
definition) do work it.. I have, my wife had, 3 of my friends did.
Talking about flaws: there are DBTs and DBTs.
Drug research DBTs have a validation reference point: patients recover
or they don't, the Xray and lab changes return to normal or don't. AND
note there there is no possible way in which the METHOD, THE DBT
itself could influence the outcomes.
The DBTs in psychometric research work with a known introduced
artefact: eg. distortion as a validation reference point. You either
guess correctly or you don't.
The component comparison DBTs. have no verifiable end-point. They are
100% subjective. Anybody's guess is as good as anyone elses. AND no
evidence exists that the method itself does not interfere with
guessing- but a lot does go to reasonably suspect that it does.
Talking about flawed methods: I quoted repeatedly evidence culled from
the very ABX sources ( proctors of listening tests, Sean Olive in his
H-K
"listening room tests and others) that individuals' performances vary
wildly when ABXing. So that the final otcomes are decided by a
referundum with a majority vote, ignoring (ridiculously!) the few
outstanding performers. A comment from you would be of interest.
Yes it is all about audible sounds. From the train whistles through
codecs to the late quartets of Beethoven. A minor detail: it depends
who is listening.
So far neither I nor you have a method to measure that.
I realise that some people find the uncertainty very upsetting. They
feel that there ought to be a law about it or at least a formula in
their college textbook
Ludovic Mirabel

ludovic mirabel

August 14th 03, 11:10 PM

Steven Sullivan > wrote in message >...
> ludovic mirabel > wrote:
> > (Howard Ferstler) wrote in message >...
> > > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<V1j_a.90652$cF.28602@rwcrnsc53>...
>
> > You continue repeating your revealed truth about the only path to
> > hi-fi heaven: level-matched DBTs.
>
> Nope: it's the best path to verifying audible difference.
>
> That's not necessarily the same thing as ' the path to
> hi-fi heaven'. People can and do define
> 'hi-fi' heaven by things other than *only* the sound of their
> systems.
>
> But if the question of whether component A *sounds* different
> from component B is crucial to achieving hi-fi heaven, then
> DBT would be the *best* way to satisfy that condition.
>
> > You also continue to ignore any
> > objections to this simplistic faith. That's why in the end one gives
> > in- your eloquence wins.
>
> Whereas your empty logorrhea and execrable post formatting
> wore me out long ago.
>
> <long snip>
>
> -S.

Isn't it fortunate for me that not all the literary authorities of
your enviable standing share your views?
If they did I wouldn't be published and paid for it from the age of
14.
Of course I could try to please by imitation and instead of discussion
mouth a few more times the same tired, old articles of faith. I doubt
though that it would gain me readers or publishers.
Ludovic Mirabel

ludovic mirabel

August 14th 03, 11:10 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "ludovic mirabel" > wrote in message
> et
>
> > (Howard Ferstler) wrote in message
> > >...
>
> >> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
> >> news:<V1j_a.90652$cF.28602@rwcrnsc53>...
>
> > You continue repeating your revealed truth about the only path to
> > hi-fi heaven: level-matched DBTs.
>
> Who said that the only path to hi-fi heaven is level-matched DBTs?
>
> Google searching shows no hits.
>
> Search of the AES papers database shows no hits.
>
> I am forced to conclude that this is a straw man argument.

Apologies for forcing you to do that or anything else. And sorry that
my trifling attempt to be readable causes you to react like Queen
Victoria: "We're not amused". But thanks for what is trendily called
"a close reading".
No, this is not a quote. Just an attempt to summarise briefly in a
literate way what I read hundreds of times here in RAHE. Last time in
Mr. Ferstler posting , here, four days ago. Would you like me to send
it to you by email?
Ludovic Mirabel

ludovic mirabel

August 15th 03, 12:22 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message news:<j4v_a.137673$uu5.20434@sccrnsc04>...
> "ludovic mirabel" > wrote in message
> news:V1j_a.90652$cF.28602@rwcrnsc53
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > news:<1i7_a.128434$YN5.85971@sccrnsc01>...
>
Snip:
> >> It's not. At the AES the issue in question was settled years if not
> >> decades ago in favor of DBTs.

Yes, in favour of RESEARCH DBts. Not component comparison DBTs. Apples
and oranges Mr. Krueger. Not to be repetitive see my today's reply to
Mr Nousaine.

> >> Furthermore, AES publications are scientific, not commercial.
> >> Therefore references to commercial products, if relevant, are
> >> deleted or concealed.
> >>> Publication in consumer magazines would not really do much to
> >>> support the merits of any tests IMO.
> >> In the engineering/scientific community, the DBT issue has been
> >> settled for years, if not decades in favor of DBTs.
>
Snip my text:

> It's no secret that Ed Dell was trashing big piles of contributions to The
> Audio Amateur from SMWTMS members back in the day when we had illusions that
> he had an open mind.

What component comparison text did you submit to him and had it
rejected?

> Ditto for a cable audibility article that was submitted
> to Audio magazine in a similar timeframe.
>
Now this is an interesting one. You mentioned it a couple of years ago
("ABX- is it useful?" thread) as evidence that ABX is capable of
discovering positives AND between comparable interconnects at that..
Do you still believe it? Or did you repent your heresy and I lost an
invaluable testimony that these differences can be heard, even when
ABXing, by gifted and experienced people like yourself?
>
> > But all the other published listening tests ( and all of them had
> > more representative panels than Krueger, Clark, Greenhill) resulted
> > in loud ZILCH, negative, "they all sound the same" verdict by thumping
> > majorities.
>
> Actually, Clark had nothing at all to do with the
> Krueger/Greenhill/Carlstrom tests that were published in HFN.
>
Good point. I confused the members of the quartet quoting from memory.
I didn't reckon with a stickler for exactitude like you.

> > In addition if I understand your latest messages correctly you to no
> > longer believe that there are differences between electrically
> > comparable amplifiers.
>
> I don't know what "electrically comparable" means. Does it mean that both
> amplifiers plug into 120 VAC receptacles and work?
>
Better point still. Very, very clear answer. Perhaps you wouldn't mind
defining what kind of amplifiers are suitable for meaningful
comparison in your own words.
> > ABX tells you something different these days
> > from what it did 20 years ago?
>
> 20 years ago we heard differences between some equipment that we compared,
> and we still do.
>

Better and better. Which amplifiers did you compare then and which
modern amplifiers would sound different nowadays? Come to grips with
it . Surely you're not scared of Nousaine.
> > No experimental work exists to disprove that the ABX method itself is
> > not a problem for many of us.
>
> It's no secret that doing ABX tests takes some technical skill and some
> willingness to put forth a serious effort while listening. I've reduced
> these factors to a bare minimum with PCABX but that still doesn't help some
> people.
>
> > If it were not why would you be offering
> > training those who are not good at it.
>
> Is this a thesis that anything that requires training and practice is a bad
> thing? So much for most sports and most craft hobbies!
>
Mr. Krueger, Mr. Krueger! we're not talking about hobbies or sports.
We're talking about a TEST reproducible and repeatable by its target
subjects: average audio consumers interested in the reproduction of
MUSIC by the components they buy.
> > When do they pass?. What exam? How many are unteachable?
>
> Mostly the ones who are looking for vindication of their current beliefs at
> any cost.
>
> > When does a pupil know that he is now hearing all he should be hearing?
>
> Please see the PCABX "Training Room" web page.
>
> >What kind of a repeatable test it is that has so many qualifications.
>
> So much for most sports and most craft hobbies...
>
We're back to "sports and hobbies. You can't be serious".
>
> > Music is not "sounds"
>
> News to me.
>
Just for you I'll rephrase it: "Music is not just sounds". Like it
better?

> > -it is a highly structured product of selected, gifted brainpower.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > And it is not just "heard"- it is processed by other brains.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >All far beyond the JAES reach and intent.
>
> Easy to say, hard to prove. Be my guest. But proof by assertion and denial
> of clear evidence convinces nobody.
Till JAES engage in it, which you say they cannot do, the onus of
proof that your component comparison tests without any end-reference
point, ( and with unselected, untrained panel) are equivalent to their
tests- , ALWAYS with a validation reference point,- is of course on
you. I'm not holding my breath.
Ludovic Mirabel

Nousaine

August 15th 03, 02:59 AM

(ludovic mirabel) responds with a smoke screen reply

(Nousaine) wrote in message
>...
>> (ludovic mirabel) wrote:
>>
>> ..snips....
>>
>> >In other words negative ABX audiophile panel tests prove nothing and
>> >positive ones do not exist.
>> >This leaves the possibility that the "test" does not test. Hope you
>> >can see that?
>>
>
>Mr. Nousaine comments.
>> Isn't that funny. No one can ever "prove a negative". So what? We should
>then
>> ignore the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment that
>confirms
>> "amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias controls implemented.
>> NO One' Ever!!!!
>>
>According to your ABX coworker L. Greenhill (Stereo Review August
>1982) one of
>his subjects did that very thing.

No; sorry that wasn't the case, now was it?

So much for "NO one! Ever!!!!!" It
>is your privilege to disagree with Greenhill- you two ABXers fight it
>out.
>
>> And you want people to think that somehow every published experiment (even
>> those that seemed to stack the deck) is wrong and YOU are right?
>> Deliver some evidence to support your argument and then we can talk'
>actually
>> IF you deliver the evidence than we won't 'talk' I'll admit you were right.
>
>> Do it!!!!! Now !!!!!
>
>I do not like sheltering behind verbal quibbles ( a la e.g. Mr
>Krueger in his posts above) but it depends on what you mean by "modest
>bias controls"".

Hogwash Ludovic. IF you were right you or someone of your ilk would just
produce the experiment that shows this to be true.

You aren't right and that's why YOU or any other company or individual hasn't
delivered that experiment.

>Example: if I tell you that some (not all-by definition) can
>distinguish, blinded, a silver cable (say Kimber's) from zipcord using
>full-range musical signal in a left-right protocol with random changes
>of the cables from side to side you'll probably tell me that this is
>not enough of bias control. Flawed or not, some (not all- by
>definition) do work it.. I have, my wife had, 3 of my friends did.

OK publish the results and the details. Send me the cables and I'll be more
than happy to replicate your results.

>Talking about flaws: there are DBTs and DBTs.
>Drug research DBTs have a validation reference point: patients recover
>or they don't, the Xray and lab changes return to normal or don't. AND
>note there there is no possible way in which the METHOD, THE DBT
>itself could influence the outcomes.
>The DBTs in psychometric research work with a known introduced
>artefact: eg. distortion as a validation reference point. You either
>guess correctly or you don't.
>The component comparison DBTs. have no verifiable end-point. They are
>100% subjective. Anybody's guess is as good as anyone elses.

Oh christ; you are already making MY point. With cables people ARE guessing
because there AREN'T true sonic differences. AND YES; your guess is as good as
mine :)

AND no
>evidence exists that the method itself does not interfere with
>guessing-

Actually it promotes "guessing" where subjects can't hear a real difference.
OTOH it PROMOTES intense listening and attention to sound alone.

but a lot does go to reasonably suspect that it does.
>Talking about flawed methods: I quoted repeatedly evidence culled from
>the very ABX sources ( proctors of listening tests, Sean Olive in his
>H-K
>"listening room tests and others) that individuals' performances vary
>wildly when ABXing. So that the final otcomes are decided by a
>referundum with a majority vote, ignoring (ridiculously!) the few
>outstanding performers. A comment from you would be of interest.

I've examined every test I've ever conducted in excruciating detail to find
'subtle artifacts' that may only be audible to special listeners. So far I've
found No Golden Ears. How about you? What do your experiments tell us?

>Yes it is all about audible sounds. From the train whistles through
>codecs to the late quartets of Beethoven. A minor detail: it depends
>who is listening.
>So far neither I nor you have a method to measure that.
>I realise that some people find the uncertainty very upsetting. They
>feel that there ought to be a law about it or at least a formula in
>their college textbook
>Ludovic Mirabel

Actually you are reinterating ad infinitum the same questions that the
developers of the ABX protocol considered when developing the technique.

If you have some new evidence to contribute please put it on the table. Your
unending criticism of techniques that have been shown to be sonically valid
and reliable is simply a form of sour grapes because you don't like existing
evidence.

Bob Marcus

August 15th 03, 03:01 AM

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<slT_a.146770$uu5.22279@sccrnsc04>...
> (Nousaine) wrote in message >...
> > Isn't that funny. No one can ever "prove a negative". So what? We should then
> > ignore the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment that confirms
> > "amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias controls implemented.
> > NO One' Ever!!!!
> >
> According to your ABX coworker L. Greenhill (Stereo Review August
> 1982) one of
> his subjects did that very thing. So much for "NO one! Ever!!!!!" It
> is your privilege to disagree with Greenhill- you two ABXers fight it
> out.

Elsewhere today you tell us you are a published writer. Fiction a
specialty?

Anyone tempted to take Mirabel's assertion here at face value should
consult the original article and read for himself that Greenhill said
no such thing.

bob

Nousaine

August 15th 03, 04:16 AM

(S888Wheel)wrote:

...snips.......

>>
>>Please. I accept any and all "evidence." Stewart's experiments have not been
>>documented nor have they been replicated. The latter isn't his
>>responsibility.
>>The former is.
>
>The tests in the reports you sent me haven't been replicated either. Doesn't
>matter. What matters is if the are replicable. Stewert says he has documented
>his tests. I see no reason to think he is lying.

Oh for Christsakes' as of 1990 there had been been 2 dozen documented and
published bias controlled listening tests of power amplifiers that basicallt
showed that any device with flat response that wasn't hampered by operating
fault or high output impedance were sonically transparent....so why do we need
any more evidence on this matter???????

Nousaine

August 15th 03, 05:10 AM

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

>On 14 Aug 2003 02:06:30 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>>On 13 Aug 2003 04:01:50 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>>>>Stewart has 'reported' such but hasn't included enough documentation for
>>>>replication. So..... its an anecdote.
>>>
>>>I did in early reports (back in the days of 'The Sunshine Trials')
>>>give full details of both the room and all the equipment used, also
>>>the test methodology and number of trials.
>>
>>So why not do that again?
>
>Because Google exists, and because this was simply done as part of a
>buying decision, not specifically as a 'scientific' experiment. Hence,
>I do know which models had statistically significant audible
>differences (taken as >15 correct out of 20 level-matched
>time-proximate trials), but I did not document the raw scores.
>
>Level-matching was done via a 4-channel attenuator, and time-proximate
>switching via a relay-controlled ABX switchbox of my own design (long
>before I had heard of Arny/Clark's device).
>
>>The 'reference' room and
>>>equipment details are still on www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/ for anyone
>>>who wants to replicate my tests.
>>
>>Can't do that from a description of your system. Because you haven't given
>us
>>a way to examine the experiment it remains an anecdote. And there's nothing
>>wrong with that but people like Mr Wheel keep bringing your tests as
>>verification of something or other.
>
>Perhaps because my test is better than some, but not as good as
>others. Such is life.
>
>>Maybe Ludovic will accept it as "proof." :)
>
>Ludovic accepts nothing which does not fit his prejudices.
>
>>>I know that we differ on the expected outcome, but I can only report
>>>my own findings.
>>
>>We differ on nothing. Your experiment has not been documented nor
>replicated.
>>Nothing wrong with that but it's just an anecdote.
>
>So replicate it............

As I said it's pretty hard to do without details. Are you willing to supply an
amplifier for verification?

>
>>>>Give me a replicated controlled test.
>>>
>>>Every time! :-)
>>
>>Sure:) But there were 23 other published experiments by 1990 that suggest
>your
>>stated results may have been contaminated or wrong.
>
>Anything is possible. Certainly, my insensitive 3-ohm large planar
>speakers might reveal differences not apparent (or indeed existent) on
>more conventional speakers. Note this does not make my results
>'wrong', just inapplicable to a 90dB/w/m 8-ohm speaker.

OK so are you qualifying your results? Or do my low impedance speakers not
count? No matter either way; I'm just looking for quanitiable, verifiable
results.

Yours do not meet that criteria because they haven't been documented nor
replicated. I'm all for it;

But I can't replicate an 'unknown' experiment.

>
>>Again there's nothing inherently bad about anecdotal evidence. It just needs
>to
>>be replicated.
>
>So replicate it............

As above; tell me how:)

>--
>
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

S888Wheel

August 15th 03, 06:30 AM

Tom said

>>>Please. I accept any and all "evidence." Stewart's experiments have not
>been
>>>documented nor have they been replicated. The latter isn't his
>>>responsibility.
>>>The former is.

I said

>
>>The tests in the reports you sent me haven't been replicated either. Doesn't
>>matter. What matters is if the are replicable. Stewert says he has
>documented
>>his tests. I see no reason to think he is lying.
>

Tom said

>Oh for Christsakes' as of 1990 there had been been 2 dozen documented and
>published bias controlled listening tests of power amplifiers that basicallt
>showed that any device with flat response that wasn't hampered by operating
>fault or high output impedance
>were sonically transparent....so why do we need
>any more evidence on this matter???????
>

And this emotional outburst has what to do with my post? How many of those
tests were "replicated?" If that is the new criteria you are pushing for tests
to be valid then it seems you may have very little evidence on the issue at
all. that would be cause alone for more testing I would think. If you don't
want to test any more then don't.

Nousaine

August 15th 03, 03:34 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

>Tom said
>
>>>>Please. I accept any and all "evidence." Stewart's experiments have not
>>been
>>>>documented nor have they been replicated. The latter isn't his
>>>>responsibility.
>>>>The former is.
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>The tests in the reports you sent me haven't been replicated either.

Actualy they were all replications of each other. My point isn't that every
amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
Stewart.

That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
remain anecdotal.

>Doesn't
>>>matter. What matters is if the are replicable. Stewert says he has
>>documented
>>>his tests. I see no reason to think he is lying.
>>
>
>Tom said
>
>>Oh for Christsakes' as of 1990 there had been been 2 dozen documented and
>>published bias controlled listening tests of power amplifiers that basicallt
>>showed that any device with flat response that wasn't hampered by operating
>>fault or high output impedance
>>were sonically transparent....so why do we need
>>any more evidence on this matter???????
>>
>
>And this emotional outburst has what to do with my post? How many of those
>tests were "replicated?" If that is the new criteria you are pushing for
>tests
>to be valid then it seems you may have very little evidence on the issue at
>all. that would be cause alone for more testing I would think. If you don't
>want to test any more then don't.

What is so interesting is that you appear to be willing to accept anything that
appears to support your position without scrutiny.

You don't happen to be in the market for a bridge?

Howard Ferstler

August 15th 03, 05:09 PM

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message >...
> (Howard Ferstler) wrote in message >...
> > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<V1j_a.90652$cF.28602@rwcrnsc53>...
>
> You continue repeating your revealed truth about the only path to
> hi-fi heaven: level-matched DBTs.

I never said this. I only said (or at least implied) that if anyone
wants to be really sure about those supposed differences they would do
well to do some DBT work. They do not have to be on the spot and find
themselves shamed if they "fail" to hear differences. They can do the
work themselves with the help of someone who will not laugh at them if
they discover that their ears are not as golden as they previously
thought. Or, if they can get hold of an ABX device they can do the
comparing solo, with nobody around to laugh at them at all.
There is no doubt at all in my mind that some high-end journalists and
sales people have done this and discovered the embarrassing truth.
There is also no doubt in my mind that they kept the results quiet,
either because they would not let loose from their cherished and
long-held beliefs or else they realized what kind of financial issues
would result. How can you sell an expensive amp if it sounds no better
than a cheaper model? How can you laud the performance of an expensive
amp in a product review if it sounds no better than a cheaper model?

However, one need not know whether audible differences are truly
audible in order to be in "hi-fi heaven." The hobby can be a lot of
fun when it is simply supported by speculation. Speculation is often
more fun than knowing for sure, at least with some individuals. In
that case, go ahead and enjoy what you are doing. However, do not
expect to post material here about how ineffective the DBT protocol is
and not get any grief from other individuals. You might not like wht
the ABX Comparator can do, but that does not have any relationship at
all to the actual effectiveness of the device.

> You also continue to ignore any
> objections to this simplistic faith.

As best I can tell, your objections are that you simply do not like
the results that show up with certain ABX tests, or maybe any other
kind of level-matched DBT comparisons, either.

> That's why in the end one gives
> in- your eloquence wins.

My "eloquence" is not the issue. The issue is whether the ABX protocol
is as ineffective at doing what it is supposed to do as you claim.

> I will not enlarge on what was stated ad nauseam previously. Most
> people require ABX training- ask Krueger. Nobody knows how much, when
> the traininng is complete if ever, how many are not trainable.

Nobody requires any training. If the individual can or cannot hear
differences, then the test has done its job. Be the participant
blessed with the hearing acuity of a cat or borderline deaf, it has
done its job. Be they well trained or just a casual enthusiast, the
test has done its job. Sure, training is not a bad idea, because if
there are audible differences it will assist an individual in spotting
them. However, all the training in the world will do no good if the
differences are below the threshold of audibility.

> The
> research to show that ABX does not interfere with their perceptions
> does not exist.

Nonsense. How on earth would it interfere with their perceptions? What
you REALLY mean is that it interferes with their preconceptions.

> Even the supertrained professionals of Sean Olive's
> H-K. listening room varied from 30% correct answers to 80%- and much,
> much worse for the panelists in the Stereo Review and Audio listening
> tests.

What matters is if each individual can hear differences. Thirty
percent correct seems a bit weird, since guessing should only give
about fifty percent at best. Somebody would have to be screwing around
to only get 30 percent correct.

Olive is a very sharp guy. I find it hard to believe that he produced
a flawed test series. Do you have a site reference for that work he
did?

> And so on and on- as before.
> Your assertion that if an individual does not hear it with ABX he
> will not hear it ever, runs counter to evidence that you do not deign
> to consider.

Well, he may think he hears it during a sighted comparison, but I
would like to know just what a sighted test can do to improve listing
acuity, besides allowing the participant's preconceptions to declare a
"winner."

> Let me tell you something about the real-life "listening tests".
> You're familiar no doubt with a very low-tech instrument called
> stethoscope. At an early stage in the medical school introductory
> lessons to clinical medicine- ie. introductory lessons to train those
> who will one day hold life-death issues in their hands- it becomes
> apparent that a few hear more and most hear less. All of them using
> the same technology and all of them with young,undamaged ears.. Those
> who hear more assume that there is even more to hear when an
> instructor says so. So they practice. A few of those become
> cardiologists who had better hear heart murmurs inaudible to the
> generality of physicians. It is their responsibility to decide whether
> to direct the patient for surgery or hold off for a time.
> Now the interesting thing to observe was that some of the med.
> students who couldn't hear were quite aggressive about it and accused
> their colleagues and their teachers of fantasising.
> Till the technology supplied new tools. Phonocardiogram demonstrated
> not just two or 3 or 4 but 6 different heart sounds. We trained and
> some of us began hearing more. But not all- or else there would be no
> specialisties and no specialists more equal than the other
> specialists.
> Still later angiography and so on became an added investigative
> tool.
> And what would a competent cardiologist say if you came to him with
> an offer of "Listen to A. Next listen to B. Next listen to X and tell
> me if X is more like A or B"? I'll leave it to your imagination.

You are making a rather simple procedure (the ABX listening comparison
with audio gear) into something much more complex than it needs to be.
To compare listening to complex musical passages for enjoyment to
listening for very detailed heartbeat differences misses the point.
The fact is that with the ABX series you are doing something without
sight clues that can determine if previous sight clues were coloring
the perceptions. Why on earth would you say that a sighted comparison
would be preferable to doing comparisons blind, if what you are after
is information about audible differences? If you do them sighted there
is no way to prove to anybody (including yourself) whether or not the
sight info colored the results. The ABX protocol (or any other decent
DBT protocol) eliminates that wild-card variable.

> The truth is that psychometric DBTs have some resemblance to the
> true drug research DBTs. They operate with an artefact and the subject
> has to guess correctly. THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REFERENCE POINT.
> The DBTs. for comparing components are 100% subjective. Anybody's
> guess is as good as anyone else's.

I should hope so, given that the only result that really matters is
whether or not a given individual can hear differences. They can
publish the results of such a series in order to show that the
so-called "profound" differences that certain enthusiasts, certain
sales clerks, and certain journalists say exist are not really all
that "profound." However, the real bottom line is whether or not those
specific participants could hear differences. Whether they could or
could not, for them the test did its job.

If the results means that the participant can safely purchase a $500
amp instead of a $5000 amp, he should be happy. Yeah, I know that some
people want to spend that five grand, because for them doing so may be
a self-esteem and/or prestige issue. However, for a lot of us, saving
$4500 is a big deal.

> And since the outcome is decided on
> the basis of the majority vote and the majority is only averagely
> gifted/trained you get null after null.

While a "majority vote" may mean something if you are going to publish
the results of a large series, the bottom line is what each individual
encountered. If they could hear no differences and everybody else
could, for them the results still are that THEY could hear no
differences. That is all that should matter to THEM.

> Good for you if you're happy
> with it. But don't tell anyone else that you had a "controlled" with
> any validity for anybody.

You mean for anybody else. I'll do that. However, those other people
will at least begin to realize that all the hype some members of the
high end spout about so-called "profound" differences might just be
that: hype.

> Not even you.

Dead wrong. For me, the results are definitive. For anybody else
taking such a test the results will be definitive, too - for them.

> Because how would you know if
> you wouldn't do better without the ABX routines handicapping you?

How would they handicap? You either can hear those differences or you
cannot. Why are you making such a big deal out of a rather simple
process? How is preventing sight information a handicap? Oops, I
forgot. Sight clues allow you to turn the comparison into a popularity
contest, with a favored amp (or set of wires) always mysteriously
coming out on top.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

August 15th 03, 05:18 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
> >> Stewert said
> >>
> >>>
> >>> As has been noted before, you can't get published in a peer-reviewed
> >>> technical magazine for pointing out the bleedin' obvious!
>
> I said
>
> >> AESJ certainly has published at least one article that only argued the
> >> superiority of DBTs over sighted tests. Isn't that in the category of
> >> "bleedin' obvious!"??? There is no reason to my knowledge that the
> >> AESJ would not publish reports of tests were anyone to try to do so.
> >> Can you think of any such
> >> Can you think of any such reports that were rejected by the AESJ on
> >> the grounds of excessive obviousness?
>
> Arny said
>
> >
> >AFAIK, the activities of the AES Journal Review board are not public.
> >
> >Therefore nobody knows for sure other than the board members and they don't
> >talk about this a whole lot.
> >
>
> It is known for sure by certain people. If anyone has any claims that they have
> submitted reports of such tests to the AESJ that were rejected for publication
> on the grounds that it was simply too obvious for publication, then any such
> person is invited to speak up. Till some one does it is nothing more than wild
> speculation to claim that any such thing has happened.

Why are you so interested in what others have done or should be doing?
Why not just do a series of carefully level matched double blind, or
at least single blind comparisons yourself (it's not THAT hard) and
discover whether you can or cannot hear differences? After all, the
only thing that really matters is whether those differences are
audible to you, and you seem to be very, very interested in whether or
not differences between amps or between wires are audible. If someone
else did a definitive series of "no audible differences" comparisons
and had the results published in the JAES it still would not tell you
if you could have heard differences. Do some comparing yourself, in
order to satisfy you and not somebody else.

Howard Ferstler

Stewart Pinkerton

August 15th 03, 06:34 PM

On 15 Aug 2003 14:34:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>My point isn't that every
>amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
>been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
>Stewart.
>
>That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
>remain anecdotal.

So, how soon can you get here? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ludovic mirabel

August 15th 03, 09:02 PM

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message >...
> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<slT_a.146770$uu5.22279@sccrnsc04>...
> > (Nousaine) wrote in message >...
Nousaine said:
> > > Isn't that funny. No one can ever "prove a negative". So what? We should then
> > > ignore the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment that confirms
> > > "amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias controls implemented.
> > > NO One' Ever!!!!
> > >
I replied:
> > According to your ABX coworker L. Greenhill (Stereo Review August
> > 1982) one of
> > his subjects did that very thing. So much for "NO one! Ever!!!!!" It
> > is your privilege to disagree with Greenhill- you two ABXers fight it
> > out.
>
Marcus comments:
> Elsewhere today you tell us you are a published writer. Fiction a
> specialty?
>
> Anyone tempted to take Mirabel's assertion here at face value should
> consult the original article and read for himself that Greenhill said
> no such thing.
>
> bob

This is what Greenhill said reporting the outcome of his cable
comparison test: ("The Stereo Review, August 1982):
"Final significant conclusion one can draw is that at least one
genuine "golden ear" exists. Obviously certain listeners whether
through talent, training or experience can hear small differences
between components"
Do not think that this is only the first time this was quoted to Mr.
Marcus or that he made similar statement.
He developed a technique of referring you to source that is difficult
to track in the expectation (well justified in most cases) that
you'll not bother.
As he had done before he'll now probably fall silent for a few months
and then return with more of the same counting on short memories.
I'll let others find appropriate words..
Ludovic Mirabel

randyb

August 15th 03, 10:30 PM

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> On 15 Aug 2003 14:34:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
> >My point isn't that every
> >amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
> >been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
> >Stewart.
> >
> >That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
> >remain anecdotal.
>
> So, how soon can you get here? :-)

Ok, I have not been around this group that long, but I am pretty well
on the objective side of the fence. My question is that both you,
Stewart and Tom Nousaine seem to be objective, but apparently Stewart
has come up with a different set of results in a DBT. Could you both
elaborate without me searching the archives as to what was tested and
the results. Thanks.

S888Wheel

August 15th 03, 11:35 PM

Randy said

>
>Question:
>I define sight bias as being suggestible to the way a component (or
>wire or interconnect etc.) looks, how much the price tag is, what
>subjective magazines say, etc.
>Do you beleive there is such a thing as "sight bias"?

Yes.

Randy said

> If so, is it
>something that is limited to a small population, if not, why not?

No. Valid scientific studies have suggested it is not limmited to a small
population.

Randy said

> If
>you do beleive there is "sight bias", then who should have the
>"burden of proof" in proving audible differences in cables, amps, etc.

If one contends their claim is scientifically valid then the one making the
claim bears the burden of proof. That also goes for anyone making a claim of
inaudibility as well. If you are saying it is a scientifically valid claim then
you have to have the scientifically valid evidence to back it up. If you want
to make a global claim of this nature you better have the mountain of ecidence
that would be expected of such a claim.

Randy said

> How would you go about it?

Scientifically valid controled tests. Naturally.

Randy said

> Do you care?

Yeah.

Randy said

> If not, why "debate" Tom
>and others?

randyb

August 15th 03, 11:36 PM

S888Wheel

August 16th 03, 12:26 AM

>>Tom said
>>
>>>>>Please. I accept any and all "evidence." Stewart's experiments have not
>>>been
>>>>>documented nor have they been replicated. The latter isn't his
>>>>>responsibility.
>>>>>The former is.

>
>>I said
>>
>>>
>>>>The tests in the reports you sent me haven't been replicated either.

Tom said

>
>Actualy they were all replications of each other

No they weren't. The equipment, the rooms and the protocol were different in
each test. They certianly weren't replications fo each other.

> My point isn't that every
>amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
>been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
>Stewart.

Well. there goes the claim that no test produced an audible difference. If all
the tests in question have accurately reported the equipment, room and sound
sources used then they are all replicable. I think Stewert's tests fall under
that criteria.

Tom said

>
>That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
>remain anecdotal.
>

Sorry but this new criteria of tests having to be "replicated" to be more than
anecdotal is nonsense. You can make your own rules of evidence up as you go
along but you won't have any established scientific basis for your claims. As I
said before, many long term scientific tests have not been "replicated" but are
considered to be good, valid scientific tests.

I said

>>Doesn't
>>>>matter. What matters is if the are replicable. Stewert says he has
>>>documented
>>>>his tests. I see no reason to think he is lying.
>>>

>>Tom said
>>
>>>Oh for Christsakes' as of 1990 there had been been 2 dozen documented and
>>>published bias controlled listening tests of power amplifiers that
>basicallt
>>>showed that any device with flat response that wasn't hampered by
>operating
>>>fault or high output impedance
>>>were sonically transparent....so why do we need
>>>any more evidence on this matter???????
>>>

I said

>>And this emotional outburst has what to do with my post? How many of those
>>tests were "replicated?" If that is the new criteria you are pushing for
>>tests
>>to be valid then it seems you may have very little evidence on the issue at
>>all. that would be cause alone for more testing I would think. If you don't
>>want to test any more then don't.

Tom said

>
>What is so interesting is that you appear to be willing to accept anything
>that
>appears to support your position without scrutiny.

Then there is a problem with your perception.

Tom said

>
>You don't happen to be in the market for a bridge?
>

I'm not buying any bridges or your personal rules of evidence.

S888Wheel

August 16th 03, 02:23 AM

>> >> Stewert said
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> As has been noted before, you can't get published in a peer-reviewed
>> >>> technical magazine for pointing out the bleedin' obvious!

>> I said
>>
>> >> AESJ certainly has published at least one article that only argued the
>> >> superiority of DBTs over sighted tests. Isn't that in the category of
>> >> "bleedin' obvious!"??? There is no reason to my knowledge that the
>> >> AESJ would not publish reports of tests were anyone to try to do so.
>> >> Can you think of any such
>> >> Can you think of any such reports that were rejected by the AESJ on
>> >> the grounds of excessive obviousness?

>
>> Arny said
>>
>> >
>> >AFAIK, the activities of the AES Journal Review board are not public.

>
>> >Therefore nobody knows for sure other than the board members and they
>don't
>> >talk about this a whole lot.
>> >

I said

>> It is known for sure by certain people. If anyone has any claims that they
>have
>> submitted reports of such tests to the AESJ that were rejected for
>publication
>> on the grounds that it was simply too obvious for publication, then any
>such
>> person is invited to speak up. Till some one does it is nothing more than
>wild
>> speculation to claim that any such thing has happened.

Howard said

>
>Why are you so interested in what others have done or should be doing?

Why are you not? Why shouldn't I be? At the risk of aounding less than modest,
I am very good at what I do. What I do is not research in audio.

Howard said

>have done or should be doing?
>Why not just do a series of carefully level matched double blind, or
>at least single blind comparisons yourself (it's not THAT hard) and
>discover whether you can or cannot hear differences?

1. It is hard to do valid ABX DBTs
2. I don't have the time or the hardware
3. I'm not considering a purchase of any amplifier at this time.

Howard said

>After all, the
>only thing that really matters is whether those differences are
>audible to you,

Well, generally speaking, one could use this point to say there is no need to
bother with DBTs for amps. If one thinks they hear a difference and is happy
with what they think then that's it. Happy camper.

Howard said

> and you seem to be very, very interested in whether or
>not differences between amps or between wires are audible.

I am interested in it. It isn't very high on things to do list.

Howard said

>If someone
>else did a definitive series of "no audible differences" comparisons
>and had the results published in the JAES it still would not tell you
>if you could have heard differences.

That depends on the study. If amps all sound the same provided they are
"competently" designed and built and are operated within their power limmits
then a good, large scale scientific study could offer a very compelling
conclusion about whether or not I can possibly hear differences between such
amps IMO.

Howard said

> Do some comparing yourself, in
>order to satisfy you and not somebody else.

I did that years ago.

Stewart Pinkerton

August 16th 03, 03:51 PM

On 15 Aug 2003 21:30:28 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton)
>wrote:

>>On 15 Aug 2003 14:34:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>
>>>My point isn't that every
>>>amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
>>>been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
>>>Stewart.
>>>
>>>That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
>>>remain anecdotal.
>>
>>So, how soon can you get here? :-)

>That would be a god project now, wouldn't it. You going to be at the AES in New
>York or perhaps in Munich next year?

Sorry no, I never have time for such jaunts these days. OTOH, I'll
happily provide bed and board if you're in the English midlands
sometime.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

August 16th 03, 03:54 PM

On 15 Aug 2003 21:30:55 GMT, (randyb) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
>> On 15 Aug 2003 14:34:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>
>> >My point isn't that every
>> >amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
>> >been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
>> >Stewart.
>> >
>> >That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
>> >remain anecdotal.
>>
>> So, how soon can you get here? :-)
>
>Ok, I have not been around this group that long, but I am pretty well
>on the objective side of the fence. My question is that both you,
>Stewart and Tom Nousaine seem to be objective, but apparently Stewart
>has come up with a different set of results in a DBT. Could you both
>elaborate without me searching the archives as to what was tested and
>the results. Thanks.

We were burgled (grrr!) and I had to replace my TV sound system, so I
was in the market for a new amplifier. I had just purchased my Apogee
Duetta Signatures and Krell KSA-50mkII amp, so I had a good
'reference' amp and a tough speaker load with exceptional clarity and
'openness'. I had also settled on Tannoy 633 speakers for the TV
system (in my view, you buy speakers you like, then you buy an amp
which can drive them).

I assembled a 4-pole switch-box with relay connections, and a 3-way
switch enabling me to select A, B or 'X', with X being set by a hidden
toggle switch on the relay box. The 'X' switch had a central 'off'
position, so that each reset used two clicks of the switch. I also
made up a 4-channel attenuator, enabling me to set the gains of each
channel of a pair of stereo amps to be matched within +/- 0.1dB.

Next, I entered negotiations with some local hi-fi dealers, and over a
period of a couple of weeks or so, I was able to borrow a pair of
Denon POA6600 monoblocks, a Hafler XL600, an Arcam Xeta One, a Yamaha
2090, a Yamaha AX-570, A Rega Elex, A Musical Fidelity E600, an
Audiolab 8000A, and an Audiolab 8000P.

I set up a series of 20 trials of each amp, with my wife doing the
switching. She flipped a coin 20 times, and noted on a score sheet
whether it was heads or tails. She set the 'X' switch to A for heads
and B for tails after each test. I'd satisfy myself as to the identity
of X and mark it on a score sheet, my wife would enter the room, reset
the identity of 'X' and leave the room while I conducted the next
test.

The end result was that the Denons (fave rave reviews in all the rags
at the time) and the Rega were instantly tossed for rough treble, the
MF was instantly tossed for a 'veiled' sound with recessed treble, the
Yamaha 2090 and Arcam were tossed for slightly bright treble, while
the remaining amps were too close to call. Retesting of the Audiolab
8000A revealed a *slight* veiling of the sound, but it just crept into
the '16 out of 20' target score, while the Yamaha AX-570, the cheapest
amp on test, was a real surprise. I got 15/20 correct, but only
revealed by a slight treble brightness on viloin solos. The Hafler and
the Audiolab 8000P were sonically identical to the Krell, no better
than 12/20 on original or retest. The Hafler, probably the best
all-rounder as it was very powerful as well as quiet and sonically
impeccable, was rejected on the grounds of its horrendously noisy
cooling fan, leaving the Audiolab 8000P as the 'winner'.

Truth to tell, on the Tannoy speakers I couldn't hear any significant
deterioration with the AX-570, but I liked the compact size and 'less
is more' approach of the Audiolab, so I stumped up the extra, and it's
still serving me well after about 8 years, as is the venerable Krell.
I should perhaps mention that I'd actually traded in an older 8000P
against the Krell when I bought the Duettas, as the Audiolab got
*very* hot after playing some heavy rock music through these
insensitive 3-ohm monsters. The Krell didn't put out any more power,
but being designed to play continuously into 1 one-ohm load, it wasn't
at all bothered about driving the Apogees.

As a bizarre aside to the above, I published these test results just a
few weeks before the notorious 'Sunshine Trials', where a very vocal
(sadly now deceased) 'audiophile' dealer failed to distinguish his
favourite exotic Pass Labs Aleph 1.2 monoblocs from an old integrated
Yamaha amp (an A-700, IIRC), on his own reference sound system. Steve
Maki and Tom Nousaine proctored this test, and Tom was later accused
of bringing in the Yamaha as a 'ringer', in view of the exceptional
performance of the AX-570 in my own tests. Obviously a gross cheat,
eh, sneaking in a good-sounding $500 integrated amp to beat up a
$12,000 pair of 'designer label' power amps!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Wylie Williams

August 16th 03, 05:56 PM

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote
> We were burgled (grrr!) and I had to replace my TV sound system, so I
> was in the market for a new amplifier. I had just purchased my Apogee
> Duetta Signatures and Krell KSA-50mkII amp, so I had a good
> 'reference' amp and a tough speaker load with exceptional clarity and
> 'openness'. I had also settled on Tannoy 633 speakers for the TV
> system (in my view, you buy speakers you like, then you buy an amp
> which can drive them).
>
> I assembled a 4-pole switch-box with relay connections, and a 3-way
> switch enabling me to select A, B or 'X', with X being set by a hidden
> toggle switch on the relay box. The 'X' switch had a central 'off'
> position, so that each reset used two clicks of the switch. I also
> made up a 4-channel attenuator, enabling me to set the gains of each
> channel of a pair of stereo amps to be matched within +/- 0.1dB.
>
> Next, I entered negotiations with some local hi-fi dealers, and over a
> period of a couple of weeks or so, I was able to borrow a pair of
> Denon POA6600 monoblocks, a Hafler XL600, an Arcam Xeta One, a Yamaha
> 2090, a Yamaha AX-570, A Rega Elex, A Musical Fidelity E600, an
> Audiolab 8000A, and an Audiolab 8000P.
>
> I set up a series of 20 trials of each amp, with my wife doing the
> switching. She flipped a coin 20 times, and noted on a score sheet
> whether it was heads or tails. She set the 'X' switch to A for heads
> and B for tails after each test. I'd satisfy myself as to the identity
> of X and mark it on a score sheet, my wife would enter the room, reset
> the identity of 'X' and leave the room while I conducted the next
> test.
>
> The end result was that the Denons (fave rave reviews in all the rags
> at the time) and the Rega were instantly tossed for rough treble, the
> MF was instantly tossed for a 'veiled' sound with recessed treble, the
> Yamaha 2090 and Arcam were tossed for slightly bright treble, while
> the remaining amps were too close to call. Retesting of the Audiolab
> 8000A revealed a *slight* veiling of the sound, but it just crept into
> the '16 out of 20' target score, while the Yamaha AX-570, the cheapest
> amp on test, was a real surprise. I got 15/20 correct, but only
> revealed by a slight treble brightness on viloin solos. The Hafler and
> the Audiolab 8000P were sonically identical to the Krell, no better
> than 12/20 on original or retest. The Hafler, probably the best
> all-rounder as it was very powerful as well as quiet and sonically
> impeccable, was rejected on the grounds of its horrendously noisy
> cooling fan, leaving the Audiolab 8000P as the 'winner'.
>
> Truth to tell, on the Tannoy speakers I couldn't hear any significant
> deterioration with the AX-570, but I liked the compact size and 'less
> is more' approach of the Audiolab, so I stumped up the extra, and it's
> still serving me well after about 8 years, as is the venerable Krell.
> I should perhaps mention that I'd actually traded in an older 8000P
> against the Krell when I bought the Duettas, as the Audiolab got
> *very* hot after playing some heavy rock music through these
> insensitive 3-ohm monsters. The Krell didn't put out any more power,
> but being designed to play continuously into 1 one-ohm load, it wasn't
> at all bothered about driving the Apogees.
>
> As a bizarre aside to the above, I published these test results just a
> few weeks before the notorious 'Sunshine Trials', where a very vocal
> (sadly now deceased) 'audiophile' dealer failed to distinguish his
> favourite exotic Pass Labs Aleph 1.2 monoblocs from an old integrated
> Yamaha amp (an A-700, IIRC), on his own reference sound system. Steve
> Maki and Tom Nousaine proctored this test, and Tom was later accused
> of bringing in the Yamaha as a 'ringer', in view of the exceptional
> performance of the AX-570 in my own tests. Obviously a gross cheat,
> eh, sneaking in a good-sounding $500 integrated amp to beat up a
> $12,000 pair of 'designer label' power amps!
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Thank you, Mr. Pinkerton. This is the first post I have seen on
testing on RAHE that was specific to the point of usefulness.. It shows
that excellent products can be had at moderate prices, and that a number of
higher priced products may be noticeasbly inferior.
Your project was a large expenditure of time and energy, which many of
us are not willing to undertake unless we are in the market for a component.
But as a hobbist I would like to regularly read about the results of such
tests in hopes that something truly better turned up in the world of high
end. It makes me wonder why reveiwers for the audiophile magazines don't do
ABX testing. If it were true that "all amps sound alike" reviewers would
not want to publicize that fact because they are in the business of writing
about differences. But there are diffrences so that reasoning is out, and
their jobs are secure.

Wylie Williams.

ludovic mirabel

August 17th 03, 12:34 AM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message news:<fnt%a.127470$cF.34056@rwcrnsc53>...
> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote
> > We were burgled (grrr!) and I had to replace my TV sound system, so I
> > was in the market for a new amplifier. I had just purchased my Apogee
> > Duetta Signatures and Krell KSA-50mkII amp, so I had a good
> > 'reference' amp and a tough speaker load with exceptional clarity and
> > 'openness'. I had also settled on Tannoy 633 speakers for the TV
> > system (in my view, you buy speakers you like, then you buy an amp
> > which can drive them).
> >
> > I assembled a 4-pole switch-box with relay connections, and a 3-way
> > switch enabling me to select A, B or 'X', with X being set by a hidden
> > toggle switch on the relay box. The 'X' switch had a central 'off'
> > position, so that each reset used two clicks of the switch. I also
> > made up a 4-channel attenuator, enabling me to set the gains of each
> > channel of a pair of stereo amps to be matched within +/- 0.1dB.
> >
> > Next, I entered negotiations with some local hi-fi dealers, and over a
> > period of a couple of weeks or so, I was able to borrow a pair of
> > Denon POA6600 monoblocks, a Hafler XL600, an Arcam Xeta One, a Yamaha
> > 2090, a Yamaha AX-570, A Rega Elex, A Musical Fidelity E600, an
> > Audiolab 8000A, and an Audiolab 8000P.
> >
> > I set up a series of 20 trials of each amp, with my wife doing the
> > switching. She flipped a coin 20 times, and noted on a score sheet
> > whether it was heads or tails. She set the 'X' switch to A for heads
> > and B for tails after each test. I'd satisfy myself as to the identity
> > of X and mark it on a score sheet, my wife would enter the room, reset
> > the identity of 'X' and leave the room while I conducted the next
> > test.
> >
> > The end result was that the Denons (fave rave reviews in all the rags
> > at the time) and the Rega were instantly tossed for rough treble, the
> > MF was instantly tossed for a 'veiled' sound with recessed treble, the
> > Yamaha 2090 and Arcam were tossed for slightly bright treble, while
> > the remaining amps were too close to call. Retesting of the Audiolab
> > 8000A revealed a *slight* veiling of the sound, but it just crept into
> > the '16 out of 20' target score, while the Yamaha AX-570, the cheapest
> > amp on test, was a real surprise. I got 15/20 correct, but only
> > revealed by a slight treble brightness on viloin solos. The Hafler and
> > the Audiolab 8000P were sonically identical to the Krell, no better
> > than 12/20 on original or retest. The Hafler, probably the best
> > all-rounder as it was very powerful as well as quiet and sonically
> > impeccable, was rejected on the grounds of its horrendously noisy
> > cooling fan, leaving the Audiolab 8000P as the 'winner'.
> >
> > Truth to tell, on the Tannoy speakers I couldn't hear any significant
> > deterioration with the AX-570, but I liked the compact size and 'less
> > is more' approach of the Audiolab, so I stumped up the extra, and it's
> > still serving me well after about 8 years, as is the venerable Krell.
> > I should perhaps mention that I'd actually traded in an older 8000P
> > against the Krell when I bought the Duettas, as the Audiolab got
> > *very* hot after playing some heavy rock music through these
> > insensitive 3-ohm monsters. The Krell didn't put out any more power,
> > but being designed to play continuously into 1 one-ohm load, it wasn't
> > at all bothered about driving the Apogees.
> >
> > As a bizarre aside to the above, I published these test results just a
> > few weeks before the notorious 'Sunshine Trials', where a very vocal
> > (sadly now deceased) 'audiophile' dealer failed to distinguish his
> > favourite exotic Pass Labs Aleph 1.2 monoblocs from an old integrated
> > Yamaha amp (an A-700, IIRC), on his own reference sound system. Steve
> > Maki and Tom Nousaine proctored this test, and Tom was later accused
> > of bringing in the Yamaha as a 'ringer', in view of the exceptional
> > performance of the AX-570 in my own tests. Obviously a gross cheat,
> > eh, sneaking in a good-sounding $500 integrated amp to beat up a
> > $12,000 pair of 'designer label' power amps!
> > --
> >
> > Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>
> Thank you, Mr. Pinkerton. This is the first post I have seen on
> testing on RAHE that was specific to the point of usefulness.. It shows
> that excellent products can be had at moderate prices, and that a number of
> higher priced products may be noticeasbly inferior.
> Your project was a large expenditure of time and energy, which many of
> us are not willing to undertake unless we are in the market for a component.
> But as a hobbist I would like to regularly read about the results of such
> tests in hopes that something truly better turned up in the world of high
> end. It makes me wonder why reveiwers for the audiophile magazines don't do
> ABX testing. If it were true that "all amps sound alike" reviewers would
> not want to publicize that fact because they are in the business of writing
> about differences. But there are diffrences so that reasoning is out, and
> their jobs are secure.
>
> Wylie Williams.

I would restrain enthusiasm Mr. Williams if I were you. Mr.
Pinkertons results nwere achieved with his set of musical experience
and preferences, his exposure , his ancillary equipment and above all
his ears and his temporal lobes of the brain.
There is very little likelihood that your results would be anywhere
like his. Look at the record of fivergencies between the participating
individuals in all the "listening tests" available so far.
Only your switch would be identical. Nothing else.
If you're buying I'd redo it all with your own physical and
psychological resources first. You may like whatever Mr. Pinkerton
does or you may not.
Ludovic Mirabel

ludovic mirabel

August 17th 03, 01:57 AM

(Nousaine) wrote in message >...
> (S888Wheel)wrote:
>
> ..snips.......
>
> >>
> >>Please. I accept any and all "evidence." Stewart's experiments have not been
> >>documented nor have they been replicated. The latter isn't his
> >>responsibility.
> >>The former is.
> >
> >The tests in the reports you sent me haven't been replicated either. Doesn't
> >matter. What matters is if the are replicable. Stewert says he has documented
> >his tests. I see no reason to think he is lying.
>
> Oh for Christsakes' as of 1990 there had been been 2 dozen documented and
> published bias controlled listening tests of power amplifiers that basicallt
> showed that any device with flat response that wasn't hampered by operating
> fault or high output impedance were sonically transparent....so why do we need
> any more evidence on this matter???????

I reviewed two extensive relevant bibliographies published in RAHE by
Mtry Craft and Klaus Rampelman. There was one only (1) published panel
ABX "listening test" in the Stereo Review 1982- of course with a
negative result. Mr' Krueger and his two supertrained ABX codevelopers
published one, too supposedly positive but hardly representative of
the average audiophile crowd.
If you have "2 dozen" please give references (Mag, author, year,
month, page) to a few of them to begin with.
You surely are too responsible to join those who said one ane and all
that they had "many" , "numerous" and when pressed against the wall
kept silent. As for Oakland comparisons of 10 watt DIY Heathkit
against 400 watt Dynaco surely you'll not bring up that one again.(
you did once) It was funny ha ha "positive" anyway. They could tell
the difference, believe it or not.
Ludovic Mirabel

Stewart Pinkerton

August 17th 03, 04:05 PM

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:56:43 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
> wrote:

> Your project was a large expenditure of time and energy, which many of
>us are not willing to undertake unless we are in the market for a component.
>But as a hobbist I would like to regularly read about the results of such
>tests in hopes that something truly better turned up in the world of high
>end. It makes me wonder why reveiwers for the audiophile magazines don't do
>ABX testing. If it were true that "all amps sound alike" reviewers would
>not want to publicize that fact because they are in the business of writing
>about differences. But there are diffrences so that reasoning is out, and
>their jobs are secure.

Unfortunately, while there are still many poorly designed amps on sale
at very high prices (almost all of the single-ended triode variety),
there is also a huge raft of very competent designs which I am
reasonably sure would *not* show audible differences in a
level-matched DBT. This would rather cut the rug from under such
'golden eared' reviewers as Martin Colloms and his bizarre points
scoring system, so you're unlikely to see DBTs in the audio ragazines
any time soon.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

August 17th 03, 04:06 PM

On 16 Aug 2003 17:18:15 GMT, "Dennis Moore" >
wrote:

>Okay Stewart, you detailed how you selected for a new amp to
>use on Tannoy speakers. You tell how in blind testing some had
>rough treble or veiled recessed sound etc. And how you found a
>couple affordable amps that were indistinguishable from the Krell.
>
>So do you have any idea what about the discernibly different
>amps was responsible for the difference in perceptible sound?

Since the tests were done for the express purpose of making a purchase
decision, I did not do any follow-up testing on the rejects.

>I am pretty sure on basic thd, frequency response etc. that most
>of those amps would have tested below known levels of
>audibility especially with fairly easy loads like the Tannoy.

I suspect that the MF unit would have shown a drooping treble, it
really was noticeably 'dull' in sound. I also suspect that the Rega
and the two AV amps would have shown excessive HF IMD and/or crossover
distortion, as these are typical culprits causing rough or bright
treble.

>As some people here have asked many times, what objective
>specification(s) would have made it possible for you to reject
>those other amps without needing a blind test?

For myself, I'd consider it unlikely that I could hear differences
among amps which met the following criteria:

1) Full-power 19/20kHz IMD below -90dB

2) No harmonic distortion above -90dB, from 10Hz to 20kHz
fundamentals, driving full power into a 4-ohm load, with all artifacts
descending smoothly below the noise floor as the output power is
reduced.

3) The ability to drive a 2-ohm load at an output power at least 3
times higher than full power into an 8-ohm load.

Others may have different criteria, and it's certainly possible that
an amp which had noticeably higher THD (but of a benign low-order
nature) would also be sonically impeccable.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ludovic mirabel

August 17th 03, 07:24 PM

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:<mJf%a.121814$cF.33270@rwcrnsc53>...
>
> And while we're at it, let us note that the man who insists that we
> have provided no evidence that anyone can distinguish audio components
> using ABX nonetheless claims (wrongly, as we see) that this subject
> did so distinguish them? What's the appropriate word for that?
>
> bob

We'll start right here. I'm supposed to "insist " that "we" "have
provided no evidence that ANYONE (my capitals L.M.) can distinguish
audio components using ABX...etc.
My first reaction to the attribution to ME of these stupid beliefs
is outrage. Why should I or indeed anyone be forced to straighten out
boringly and for the nth time someone's travesty?

For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
when ABxing.
4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
perversion of "testing".
Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
years against myself and Harry Lavo that Greenhill was perfectly
right basing his conclusions on the
incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
honesty)- called a true "golden ear".
Today Marcus chooses to attribute to me the exact opposite of what I
argued for: a strange assertion that NO ONE "..can distinguish the
audio componments using ABX"

But then another possibility occurs. Maybe he is not just bent on
winning any which way. Maybe he really *believes* the nonsense he is
voicing loudly..
This is not the first time either- he's a repeater. Look at
the clever-clever but very transparent way he goes about obfuscating
the sense of clear and *emphatic* Greenhill's own words.

Surely he couldn't believe that he convinces anyone ...unless he
managed to convince himself first. Perhaps he is no Macchiavelli.
Perhaps he is simply unable to grasp the meaning of a simple text.
This possibility would be in keeping with his stance throughout. His
sending people who know more about the subject than he does for
refresher courses he did so send me, Harry Lavo and some others), his
preaching about what "we" (ie. Marcus) say is the truth about
everything under the sun: electronics, psychometrics, statistics. When
it is quite obvious that eg. he never got beyond the first two
chapters of something like "Introduction to statistics for lawyers"
and misunderstood those to boot.
Would he otherwise talk about statistical "double humps" when
discussing a panel of eleven (yes 11) listeners or insist that it is
OK to add up all the random (50/50) correct guesses of all the eleven
panelists, good performers' results pulling up the bad ones to get a
group "positive" result to his liking? Thus obfuscating what really
mattered: that a few did hear and most did not.
Or quote a recognition of gross electrical difference between cables
as a "positive Marcus- Ovchain 1,75 db test"
It is a chore to have to restate the same every few months. And
just as productive.
Ludovic Mirabel

> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<0%a%a.152106$uu5.23006@sccrnsc04>...
> > (Bob Marcus) wrote in message >...
> > > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<slT_a.146770$uu5.22279@sccrnsc04>...
> > > > (Nousaine) wrote in message >...
> Nousaine said:
> > > > > Isn't that funny. No one can ever "prove a negative". So what? We should then
> > > > > ignore the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment that confirms
> > > > > "amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias controls implemented.
> > > > > NO One' Ever!!!!
> > > > >
> I replied:
> > > > According to your ABX coworker L. Greenhill (Stereo Review August
> > > > 1982) one of
> > > > his subjects did that very thing. So much for "NO one! Ever!!!!!" It
> > > > is your privilege to disagree with Greenhill- you two ABXers fight it
> > > > out.
> > >
> Marcus comments:
> > > Elsewhere today you tell us you are a published writer. Fiction a
> > > specialty?
> > >
> > > Anyone tempted to take Mirabel's assertion here at face value should
> > > consult the original article and read for himself that Greenhill said
> > > no such thing.
> > >
> > > bob
> >
> > This is what Greenhill said reporting the outcome of his cable
> > comparison test: ("The Stereo Review, August 1982):
> > "Final significant conclusion one can draw is that at least one
> > genuine "golden ear" exists. Obviously certain listeners whether
> > through talent, training or experience can hear small differences
> > between components"
>
> Well, yes, obviously. The question is, how small? And here was
> Greenhill's answer:
>
> "So what do our fifty hours of testing, scoring, comparing, and
> listening to speaker cables amount to? Only that 16-gauge lamp cord
> and Monster Cable are indistinguishable from each other with music . .
> . This project was unable to validate the sonic benefits claimed for
> exotic speaker cables over common 16-gauge zip cord."
>
> > Do not think that this is only the first time this was quoted to Mr.
> > Marcus or that he made similar statement.
>
> Nope. I point out your fanciful misinterpretation every time you make
> it.
>
> > He developed a technique of referring you to source that is difficult
> > to track in the expectation (well justified in most cases) that
> > you'll not bother.
>
> I'd be happy to e-mail the article to anyone who asks.
>
> > As he had done before he'll now probably fall silent for a few months
> > and then return with more of the same counting on short memories.
> > I'll let others find appropriate words..
> > Ludovic Mirabel

Wylie Williams

August 17th 03, 10:42 PM

> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:56:43 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
> > wrote:
>
> > Your project was a large expenditure of time and energy, which many
of
> >us are not willing to undertake unless we are in the market for a
component.
> >But as a hobbist I would like to regularly read about the results of such
> >tests in hopes that something truly better turned up in the world of high
> >end. It makes me wonder why reveiwers for the audiophile magazines don't
do
> >ABX testing. If it were true that "all amps sound alike" reviewers would
> >not want to publicize that fact because they are in the business of
writing
> >about differences. But there are diffrences so that reasoning is out, and
> >their jobs are secure.

"Stewart Pinkerton" > replied in message
...>
> Unfortunately, while there are still many poorly designed amps on sale
> at very high prices (almost all of the single-ended triode variety),
> there is also a huge raft of very competent designs which I am
> reasonably sure would *not* show audible differences in a
> level-matched DBT. This would rather cut the rug from under such
> 'golden eared' reviewers as Martin Colloms and his bizarre points
> scoring system, so you're unlikely to see DBTs in the audio ragazines
> any time soon.

The problem I have in deciding if I should upgrade my systems's amp is
that I only have access to amps that are reviewed by magazines as being very
fine (Parasound and HALO). As I read it on RAHE these magazine reviews may
not be at all reliable. I may not have been unfortunate enough to have ever
had a well designed amp in my system, and even if I were to borrow a few I
have no idea that they would be amps from the limited group of "competent
designs". I have listened mostly to Parasound and HALO, with side trips to
YBA, and HK Citation 1, but RAHE experts tell me that there is no way to
find out if these are good guys or bad guys. The only way is to gather a
bunch of amps and do ABX tests for myself. But I don't even know the
identity of amps can be used as reference example of good amps. RAHE tells
me they exist, but nobody can make their fingers hit those keys to name
brands and models.
This leads to a secondary but related point - Given the number of
participants who assure the group repeatedly that they are truly experts,
what is most surprising is how little specific information they post. Any
nunber of people are willing to go into endless detail about why someone
else does not really understand DBT, ABX, cables, wires, jitter, how stupid
audio designers are. etc. etc. etc., but the one post of yours describing
your personal tests of several years ago was the first one that gave
specifics. Naturally it has been questioned.
What can explain the absence of helpful specifics on RAHE? Is there a
code of "Don't ask - Don't tell"?

Wylie Williams

Audio Guy

August 17th 03, 11:09 PM

In article <fLP%a.137308$cF.38433@rwcrnsc53>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
>
> For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
> differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
> audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
> two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
> posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
> Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
> when ABxing.
> 4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
> untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
> hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
> perversion of "testing".

Pleas explain why this is a "perversion of "testing"". If there are
those who can hear differences using ABX and those who do not, why
jump to the conclusion that ABX is hampering those who do not? Why
wouldn't the logical explanation be that they just can't hear the
differences at all?

> Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
> years against myself and Harry Lavo that Greenhill was perfectly
> right basing his conclusions on the
> incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
> unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
> honesty)- called a true "golden ear".

You keep ignoring the statistical evidence, without a retest it is
impossible to know if if there was a true "golden ear" since the
results fit within the curve of possible random guesses.

> Today Marcus chooses to attribute to me the exact opposite of what I
> argued for: a strange assertion that NO ONE "..can distinguish the
> audio componments using ABX"
>
> But then another possibility occurs. Maybe he is not just bent on
> winning any which way. Maybe he really *believes* the nonsense he is
> voicing loudly..

Look who's talking, if the shoe fits...

> This is not the first time either- he's a repeater. Look at
> the clever-clever but very transparent way he goes about obfuscating
> the sense of clear and *emphatic* Greenhill's own words.

Again, look who's talking...

> Surely he couldn't believe that he convinces anyone ...unless he
> managed to convince himself first. Perhaps he is no Macchiavelli.
> Perhaps he is simply unable to grasp the meaning of a simple text.
> This possibility would be in keeping with his stance throughout.

You keep describimg your own approach and misunderstandings of the
subject matter, not Bob's.

> His
> sending people who know more about the subject than he does for
> refresher courses he did so send me, Harry Lavo and some others),

I'm not sure who else you are referring to here but yourself and
Harry, but you have shown you have little understanding of the topic.

> his
> preaching about what "we" (ie. Marcus) say is the truth about
> everything under the sun: electronics, psychometrics, statistics. When
> it is quite obvious that eg. he never got beyond the first two
> chapters of something like "Introduction to statistics for lawyers"
> and misunderstood those to boot.

Again, he has shown a much greater understanding of those topics than
you.

> Would he otherwise talk about statistical "double humps" when
> discussing a panel of eleven (yes 11) listeners or insist that it is
> OK to add up all the random (50/50) correct guesses of all the eleven
> panelists, good performers' results pulling up the bad ones to get a
> group "positive" result to his liking? Thus obfuscating what really
> mattered: that a few did hear and most did not.

The only one who continues to obfuscate here is you whith your
extremee misinterpretations fo statistics.

> Or quote a recognition of gross electrical difference between cables
> as a "positive Marcus- Ovchain 1,75 db test"

That phrase is your Frankenstein creation, not anyone else's.

> It is a chore to have to restate the same every few months. And
> just as productive.

Yes, I do wonder why I bother restating myself to counter your overly
wordy verbiage that can't seem to get the the point. It is a chore.

Bob Marcus

August 18th 03, 12:57 AM

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<fLP%a.137308$cF.38433@rwcrnsc53>...
> (Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:<mJf%a.121814$cF.33270@rwcrnsc53>...
> >
> > And while we're at it, let us note that the man who insists that we
> > have provided no evidence that anyone can distinguish audio components
> > using ABX nonetheless claims (wrongly, as we see) that this subject
> > did so distinguish them? What's the appropriate word for that?
> >
> > bob
>
> We'll start right here. I'm supposed to "insist " that "we" "have
> provided no evidence that ANYONE (my capitals L.M.) can distinguish
> audio components using ABX...etc.
> My first reaction to the attribution to ME of these stupid beliefs
> is outrage. Why should I or indeed anyone be forced to straighten out
> boringly and for the nth time someone's travesty?
>
> For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
> differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
> audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
> two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
> posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
> Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
> when ABxing.
> 4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
> untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
> hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
> perversion of "testing".

"Ignoring the minority who DO have fewer and less severe colds after
megadosing vitamin C is a perversion of testing."

See how silly that argument is? So stop using it.

> Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
> years against myself and Harry Lavo

Don't hide behind Harry. He may fudge his statistics on occasion, but
he basically knows what he's talking about.

> that Greenhill was perfectly
> right basing his conclusions on the
> incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
> unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
> honesty)- called a true "golden ear".

Who could hear what, that no one else in the test could hear? Nothing.

> Today Marcus chooses to attribute to me the exact opposite of what I
> argued for: a strange assertion that NO ONE "..can distinguish the
> audio componments using ABX"
>
> But then another possibility occurs. Maybe he is not just bent on
> winning any which way.

Who's trying to win anything? I'm just correcting your mistatements,
and referring people to the original source for confirmation.

> Maybe he really *believes* the nonsense he is
> voicing loudly..
> This is not the first time either- he's a repeater. Look at
> the clever-clever but very transparent way he goes about obfuscating
> the sense of clear and *emphatic* Greenhill's own words.

You mean the part where I quoted him verbatim? Yes, that's a clever
tool of obfuscation.
>
> Surely he couldn't believe that he convinces anyone ...unless he
> managed to convince himself first. Perhaps he is no Macchiavelli.
> Perhaps he is simply unable to grasp the meaning of a simple text.

Ah...no, I shouldn't, too easy.

> This possibility would be in keeping with his stance throughout. His
> sending people who know more about the subject than he does for
> refresher courses he did so send me, Harry Lavo and some others), his
> preaching about what "we" (ie. Marcus) say is the truth about
> everything under the sun: electronics, psychometrics, statistics. When
> it is quite obvious that eg. he never got beyond the first two
> chapters of something like "Introduction to statistics for lawyers"
> and misunderstood those to boot.
> Would he otherwise talk about statistical "double humps" when
> discussing a panel of eleven (yes 11) listeners

Jeez, how many years has it taken you to notice this? Of course, it
was your "interpretation" of Greenhill's data that required a double
hump. So you're the one who has some explaining to do.

> or insist that it is
> OK to add up all the random (50/50) correct guesses of all the eleven
> panelists, good performers' results pulling up the bad ones to get a
> group "positive" result to his liking? Thus obfuscating what really
> mattered: that a few did hear and most did not.

Yet again, Mr. Mirabel tries to prove the null hypothesis. How many
chapters of "Introduction to Statistics" did he get through?

> Or quote a recognition of gross electrical difference between cables
> as a "positive Marcus- Ovchain 1,75 db test"
> It is a chore to have to restate the same every few months. And
> just as productive.

Then spare us.

bob

ludovic mirabel

August 18th 03, 03:53 AM

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<92T%a.171246$o%2.76310@sccrnsc02>...
> In article <fLP%a.137308$cF.38433@rwcrnsc53>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> >
> > For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
> > differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
> > audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
> > two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
> > posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
> > Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
> > when ABxing.
> > 4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
> > untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
> > hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
> > perversion of "testing".
>
> Pleas explain why this is a "perversion of "testing"". If there are
> those who can hear differences using ABX and those who do not, why
> jump to the conclusion that ABX is hampering those who do not? Why
> wouldn't the logical explanation be that they just can't hear the
> differences at all?
>
My prose makes you suffer- I won't inflict it on you. Just read the
postings over the last two weeks
> > Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
> > years against myself and Harry Lavo that Greenhill was perfectly
> > right basing his conclusions on the
> > incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
> > unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
> > honesty)- called a true "golden ear".
>
> You keep ignoring the statistical evidence, without a retest it is
> impossible to know if if there was a true "golden ear" since the
> results fit within the curve of possible random guesses.
>
Take it up with Greenhill who is well, alive and writing for the
"Stereophile. Match your knowledge of statistics against his. I'm only
quoting .
For the rest of your missive all I can say is "Poor Marcus- with
friends like these....".
Ludovic Mirabel

> > Today Marcus chooses to attribute to me the exact opposite of what I
> > argued for: a strange assertion that NO ONE "..can distinguish the
> > audio componments using ABX"
> >
> > But then another possibility occurs. Maybe he is not just bent on
> > winning any which way. Maybe he really *believes* the nonsense he is
> > voicing loudly..
>
> Look who's talking, if the shoe fits...
>
> > This is not the first time either- he's a repeater. Look at
> > the clever-clever but very transparent way he goes about obfuscating
> > the sense of clear and *emphatic* Greenhill's own words.
>
> Again, look who's talking...
>
> > Surely he couldn't believe that he convinces anyone ...unless he
> > managed to convince himself first. Perhaps he is no Macchiavelli.
> > Perhaps he is simply unable to grasp the meaning of a simple text.
> > This possibility would be in keeping with his stance throughout.
>
> You keep describimg your own approach and misunderstandings of the
> subject matter, not Bob's.
>
> > His
> > sending people who know more about the subject than he does for
> > refresher courses he did so send me, Harry Lavo and some others),
>
> I'm not sure who else you are referring to here but yourself and
> Harry, but you have shown you have little understanding of the topic.
>
> > his
> > preaching about what "we" (ie. Marcus) say is the truth about
> > everything under the sun: electronics, psychometrics, statistics. When
> > it is quite obvious that eg. he never got beyond the first two
> > chapters of something like "Introduction to statistics for lawyers"
> > and misunderstood those to boot.
>
> Again, he has shown a much greater understanding of those topics than
> you.
>
> > Would he otherwise talk about statistical "double humps" when
> > discussing a panel of eleven (yes 11) listeners or insist that it is
> > OK to add up all the random (50/50) correct guesses of all the eleven
> > panelists, good performers' results pulling up the bad ones to get a
> > group "positive" result to his liking? Thus obfuscating what really
> > mattered: that a few did hear and most did not.
>
> The only one who continues to obfuscate here is you whith your
> extremee misinterpretations fo statistics.
>
> > Or quote a recognition of gross electrical difference between cables
> > as a "positive Marcus- Ovchain 1,75 db test"
>
> That phrase is your Frankenstein creation, not anyone else's.
>
> > It is a chore to have to restate the same every few months. And
> > just as productive.
>
> Yes, I do wonder why I bother restating myself to counter your overly
> wordy verbiage that can't seem to get the the point. It is a chore.

Nousaine

August 18th 03, 05:09 AM

chung wrote:

>Wylie Williams wrote:
>
>> The problem I have in deciding if I should upgrade my systems's amp is
>> that I only have access to amps that are reviewed by magazines as being
>very
>> fine (Parasound and HALO). As I read it on RAHE these magazine reviews may
>> not be at all reliable. I may not have been unfortunate enough to have ever
>> had a well designed amp in my system, and even if I were to borrow a few I
>> have no idea that they would be amps from the limited group of "competent
>> designs". I have listened mostly to Parasound and HALO, with side trips to
>> YBA, and HK Citation 1, but RAHE experts tell me that there is no way to
>> find out if these are good guys or bad guys. The only way is to gather a
>> bunch of amps and do ABX tests for myself. But I don't even know the
>> identity of amps can be used as reference example of good amps. RAHE
>tells
>> me they exist, but nobody can make their fingers hit those keys to name
>> brands and models.
>> This leads to a secondary but related point - Given the number of
>> participants who assure the group repeatedly that they are truly experts,
>> what is most surprising is how little specific information they post.

Let me reference you to The Proceedings of the AES 1990 Conference "The Sound
of Audio" which has an analysis and reference list to 23 controlled tests of
power ampliifers; the March 1997 issue of Audio Magazine; the June 1999 Sound &
Vision; the September 1995 issue of Sound & Vision (Canada) for specific
details of controlled listening comparisons.

Any
>> nunber of people are willing to go into endless detail about why someone
>> else does not really understand DBT, ABX, cables, wires, jitter, how stupid
>> audio designers are. etc. etc. etc., but the one post of yours describing
>> your personal tests of several years ago was the first one that gave
>> specifics.

I've listed specifics a number of times. You may be 'new' but specifics are
common. Follow www.pcabx.com to the smwtms site results.

Naturally it has been questioned.
>> What can explain the absence of helpful specifics on RAHE? Is there
>a
>> code of "Don't ask - Don't tell"?
>>
>> Wylie Williams

You want specifics: in 1995 I publlished results in the Canadian Sound & Vision
where hard-core audiophiles were unable to distiniguish zip cord speaker cable
from their audiophile cables in their personal reference systems; I've also
witnessed a audio salon owner fail to reliably identify his kilobuck ampliifers
from a garden variety integrated amplifier in his personal reference system
(not once but twice.)

In 1998 I conducted a 'series-tweak' experiment where I asked 10 audio
enthusiasts to identify a fully-tweaked system (vacumn tube pre-amp, outboard
DAC, Bryston amp, audiophile interconnects and networked audiophile speaker
cables, special cable dress with resonance-absorbers) with a definitely Geak
system (1976 $99 Heathkit preamp, $200 used-Parasound amp, 16 guage car-audio
zip cord speaker cables with a 25-foot length on one channel and 6-feet on the
other with the long run wrapped around the power leads for the electronics and
junk-box interconnects) and not one was able to reliably tell them apart in
single listener sessions.

Need MORE details?

>>
>
>Was there something that you did not like about your amp?
>
>I can tell you how I chose my amp. I was looking for one that can
>deliver 200W continuously into 8 ohms, and 400W continuously into 4
>ohms. I also wanted it to be stable driving into 2 ohms, if not 1 ohm. I
>wanted it to be solid-state because of reliability and quick power-up,
>and I wanted to limit the cost to less than $4K in 1990 dollars.
>
>I listened to several well-known ones, and I had trouble telling them
>apart when the levels are matched.

OK; finally someone who will admit this.

I finally picked the Aragon 4004 Mk2
>because (a) it sounded the same as several models a lot more expensive,
>(b) the layout and the construction looked clean to me, and (c) the
>specs matched what I need. I have been very happy with the selection.

Perfectly reasonable selection criteria.

>Yes, there might be others that would do the job equally well, I am
>sure, but once I bought it, I have really not worried about the choice.

No problemo .... as the new California Gov might say.

>In the past, when I had test equipment and huge resistive loads
>available to me, I also liked to measure amplifiers. I have not checked
>the Aragon on the bench that thoroughly, though, since I could not
>locate a 2-ohm load and I am too lazy to build one.

Do you have any interesting stories about when you did 'like' to measure
amplifiers?

Bob Marcus

August 18th 03, 06:23 AM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message >...
> > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:56:43 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Your project was a large expenditure of time and energy, which many
> of
> > >us are not willing to undertake unless we are in the market for a
> component.
> > >But as a hobbist I would like to regularly read about the results of such
> > >tests in hopes that something truly better turned up in the world of high
> > >end. It makes me wonder why reveiwers for the audiophile magazines don't
> do
> > >ABX testing. If it were true that "all amps sound alike" reviewers would
> > >not want to publicize that fact because they are in the business of
> writing
> > >about differences. But there are diffrences so that reasoning is out, and
> > >their jobs are secure.
>
> "Stewart Pinkerton" > replied in message
> ...>
> > Unfortunately, while there are still many poorly designed amps on sale
> > at very high prices (almost all of the single-ended triode variety),
> > there is also a huge raft of very competent designs which I am
> > reasonably sure would *not* show audible differences in a
> > level-matched DBT. This would rather cut the rug from under such
> > 'golden eared' reviewers as Martin Colloms and his bizarre points
> > scoring system, so you're unlikely to see DBTs in the audio ragazines
> > any time soon.
>
> The problem I have in deciding if I should upgrade my systems's amp is
> that I only have access to amps that are reviewed by magazines as being very
> fine (Parasound and HALO). As I read it on RAHE these magazine reviews may
> not be at all reliable. I may not have been unfortunate enough to have ever
> had a well designed amp in my system, and even if I were to borrow a few I
> have no idea that they would be amps from the limited group of "competent
> designs". I have listened mostly to Parasound and HALO, with side trips to
> YBA, and HK Citation 1, but RAHE experts tell me that there is no way to
> find out if these are good guys or bad guys. The only way is to gather a
> bunch of amps and do ABX tests for myself. But I don't even know the
> identity of amps can be used as reference example of good amps. RAHE tells
> me they exist, but nobody can make their fingers hit those keys to name
> brands and models.
> This leads to a secondary but related point - Given the number of
> participants who assure the group repeatedly that they are truly experts,
> what is most surprising is how little specific information they post. Any
> nunber of people are willing to go into endless detail about why someone
> else does not really understand DBT, ABX, cables, wires, jitter, how stupid
> audio designers are. etc. etc. etc., but the one post of yours describing
> your personal tests of several years ago was the first one that gave
> specifics. Naturally it has been questioned.
> What can explain the absence of helpful specifics on RAHE? Is there a
> code of "Don't ask - Don't tell"?
>
> Wylie Williams

I feel your pain, Wylie, but do you know how many amps there are? I'd
guess most folks here bought their amps some time ago, and are not
constantly upgrading, for obvious reasons. So there's not much reason
for them to be constantly testing new amps.

Fortunately, there's a way for you to get a handle on all of this--do
some
ABX tests comparing the amps you have available to you. If you keep
getting negative results, then you can pretty much assume that you
can't hear a difference between them, at least in the system in which
you'll be using them. (And if they're all the same, they're almost
certainly all "competent." After all, what would be the odds that a
bunch of incompetent amps would all be incompetent in the same way?)

If you get any positive results, well, report back here, and perhaps
some of the experts can offer an explanation as to why, and which amp
might be the underperforming one.

bob

chung

August 18th 03, 06:26 AM

Nousaine wrote:

>
>>In the past, when I had test equipment and huge resistive loads
>>available to me, I also liked to measure amplifiers. I have not checked
>>the Aragon on the bench that thoroughly, though, since I could not
>>locate a 2-ohm load and I am too lazy to build one.
>
> Do you have any interesting stories about when you did 'like' to measure
> amplifiers?
>

One unusual amp that I measured was the Carver receiver which had a
"magnetic" amplifier. When driving an 8 ohm load continuously at near
spec'ed power, the amp will make a fairly loud noise as if a transformer
was humming. It was pretty unnerving. IIRC, it did not meet its THD
specs. Also, I noticed a pretty bad design error on that receiver. If
you have a line level source connected to one of its inputs, and the
receiver is powered off while that source is active, the analog switch
at the receiver input will clamp that drive signal to about a diode drop
of ground. This causes tremendous distortion as well as dc shifts at the
output of the driving source which could be driving another receiver/amp.

Nousaine

August 18th 03, 06:26 AM

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:

>On 15 Aug 2003 21:30:55 GMT, (randyb) wrote:
>
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
>...
>>> On 15 Aug 2003 14:34:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>>
>>> >My point isn't that every
>>> >amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests
>had
>>> >been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed
>by
>>> >Stewart.
>>> >
>>> >That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated
>they
>>> >remain anecdotal.
>>>
>>> So, how soon can you get here? :-)
>>
>>Ok, I have not been around this group that long, but I am pretty well
>>on the objective side of the fence. My question is that both you,
>>Stewart and Tom Nousaine seem to be objective, but apparently Stewart
>>has come up with a different set of results in a DBT. Could you both
>>elaborate without me searching the archives as to what was tested and
>>the results. Thanks.
>
>We were burgled (grrr!) and I had to replace my TV sound system, so I
>was in the market for a new amplifier. I had just purchased my Apogee
>Duetta Signatures and Krell KSA-50mkII amp, so I had a good
>'reference' amp and a tough speaker load with exceptional clarity and
>'openness'. I had also settled on Tannoy 633 speakers for the TV
>system (in my view, you buy speakers you like, then you buy an amp
>which can drive them).
>
>I assembled a 4-pole switch-box with relay connections, and a 3-way
>switch enabling me to select A, B or 'X', with X being set by a hidden
>toggle switch on the relay box. The 'X' switch had a central 'off'
>position, so that each reset used two clicks of the switch. I also
>made up a 4-channel attenuator, enabling me to set the gains of each
>channel of a pair of stereo amps to be matched within +/- 0.1dB.
>
>Next, I entered negotiations with some local hi-fi dealers, and over a
>period of a couple of weeks or so, I was able to borrow a pair of
>Denon POA6600 monoblocks, a Hafler XL600, an Arcam Xeta One, a Yamaha
>2090, a Yamaha AX-570, A Rega Elex, A Musical Fidelity E600, an
>Audiolab 8000A, and an Audiolab 8000P.
>
>I set up a series of 20 trials of each amp, with my wife doing the
>switching. She flipped a coin 20 times, and noted on a score sheet
>whether it was heads or tails. She set the 'X' switch to A for heads
>and B for tails after each test. I'd satisfy myself as to the identity
>of X and mark it on a score sheet, my wife would enter the room, reset
>the identity of 'X' and leave the room while I conducted the next
>test.

To we terminally tweaky/freaky we'd have you leave the room when the switch was
made as well. 20 trials is a good number.

>
>The end result was that the Denons (fave rave reviews in all the rags
>at the time) and the Rega were instantly tossed for rough treble, the
>MF was instantly tossed for a 'veiled' sound with recessed treble, the
>Yamaha 2090 and Arcam were tossed for slightly bright treble, while
>the remaining amps were too close to call.

So you have results for all these comparisons? The next obvious question is
what was the reference for any given device? Krell? What was the reference
"toss'' point for the *******, as it were :)

But it seems that you didn't confirm frequency response into the load either.
Not a critical issue but one that I generally care for by checking level match
at 100, 1000 and 10,000 Hz.

Retesting of the Audiolab
>8000A revealed a *slight* veiling of the sound, but it just crept into
>the '16 out of 20' target score, while the Yamaha AX-570, the cheapest
>amp on test, was a real surprise. I got 15/20 correct, but only
>revealed by a slight treble brightness on viloin solos. The Hafler and
>the Audiolab 8000P were sonically identical to the Krell, no better
>than 12/20 on original or retest. The Hafler, probably the best
>all-rounder as it was very powerful as well as quiet and sonically
>impeccable, was rejected on the grounds of its horrendously noisy
>cooling fan,

This is a REAL reason for rejection and needs no corollary tests. But if it
was sonically impeccable (I would guess that would be transparent to whatever
amplifier which was the comparative reference?) and could be placed in a sealed
cabinet or adjacent room it would then be acceptable.

leaving the Audiolab 8000P as the 'winner'.

Interesting that a sonically impeccable product gets rejected for having a
noisy fan :) Good reason. Better than most.

>Truth to tell, on the Tannoy speakers I couldn't hear any significant
>deterioration with the AX-570, but I liked the compact size and 'less
>is more' approach of the Audiolab, so I stumped up the extra, and it's
>still serving me well after about 8 years, as is the venerable Krell.
>I should perhaps mention that I'd actually traded in an older 8000P
>against the Krell when I bought the Duettas, as the Audiolab got
>*very* hot after playing some heavy rock music through these
>insensitive 3-ohm monsters. The Krell didn't put out any more power,
>but being designed to play continuously into 1 one-ohm load, it wasn't
>at all bothered about driving the Apogees.
>
>As a bizarre aside to the above, I published these test results just a
>few weeks before the notorious 'Sunshine Trials', where a very vocal
>(sadly now deceased) 'audiophile' dealer failed to distinguish his
>favourite exotic Pass Labs Aleph 1.2 monoblocs from an old integrated
>Yamaha amp (an A-700, IIRC), on his own reference sound system. Steve
>Maki and Tom Nousaine proctored this test, and Tom was later accused
>of bringing in the Yamaha as a 'ringer', in view of the exceptional
>performance of the AX-570 in my own tests. Obviously a gross cheat,
>eh, sneaking in a good-sounding $500 integrated amp to beat up a
>$12,000 pair of 'designer label' power amps!
>--
>
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I have a bunch of "ringers"! At most price levels and even ages.

Nousaine

August 18th 03, 06:27 AM

(randyb) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
>...
>> On 15 Aug 2003 14:34:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>
>> >My point isn't that every
>> >amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests
>had
>> >been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
>> >Stewart.
>> >
>> >That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
>> >remain anecdotal.
>>
>> So, how soon can you get here? :-)
>
>Ok, I have not been around this group that long, but I am pretty well
>on the objective side of the fence. My question is that both you,
>Stewart and Tom Nousaine seem to be objective, but apparently Stewart
>has come up with a different set of results in a DBT. Could you both
>elaborate without me searching the archives as to what was tested and
>the results. Thanks.

Stewart has posted results that have not been corroborated by the other couple
dozen published controlled listening tests of power amplifiers. There are a
couple reasons that his results may not be extrapolatable. He used a speaker
load that is not widely distributed in the populace and he employed a family
member as proctor. Neither of those conditions necessarily denote
contamination but I don't consider the results as more than anecdotal only
because no other source has replicated them.

Doesn't mean they are wrong but they remain un-duplicated. That's where we
are.

But one should also note that if you fully accept his data and analysis it
tends to confirm that even IF there is an 'amp' sound it's price invariant. So
you don't pad your results by "buying-up" and the features of the product are
likely to be more important to purchase decisions as sound quality.

Nousaine

August 18th 03, 03:21 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

>>Tom said
>>>
>>>>>>Please. I accept any and all "evidence." Stewart's experiments have not
>>>>been
>>>>>>documented nor have they been replicated. The latter isn't his
>>>>>>responsibility.
>>>>>>The former is.
>
>>
>>>I said
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The tests in the reports you sent me haven't been replicated either.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>Actualy they were all replications of each other
>
>No they weren't. The equipment, the rooms and the protocol were different in
>each test. They certianly weren't replications fo each other.
>
>> My point isn't that every
>>amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
>>been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
>>Stewart.
>
>Well. there goes the claim that no test produced an audible difference. If
>all
>the tests in question have accurately reported the equipment, room and sound
>sources used then they are all replicable. I think Stewert's tests fall under
>that criteria.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
>>remain anecdotal.
>>
>
>Sorry but this new criteria of tests having to be "replicated" to be more
>than
>anecdotal is nonsense. You can make your own rules of evidence up as you go
>along but you won't have any established scientific basis for your claims. As
>I
>said before, many long term scientific tests have not been "replicated" but
>are
>considered to be good, valid scientific tests.
>
>I said
>
>>>Doesn't
>>>>>matter. What matters is if the are replicable. Stewert says he has
>>>>documented
>>>>>his tests. I see no reason to think he is lying.
>>>>
>
>>>Tom said
>>>
>>>>Oh for Christsakes' as of 1990 there had been been 2 dozen documented and
>>>>published bias controlled listening tests of power amplifiers that
>>basicallt
>>>>showed that any device with flat response that wasn't hampered by
>>operating
>>>>fault or high output impedance
>>>>were sonically transparent....so why do we need
>>>>any more evidence on this matter???????
>>>>
>
>I said
>
>>>And this emotional outburst has what to do with my post? How many of those
>>>tests were "replicated?" If that is the new criteria you are pushing for
>>>tests
>>>to be valid then it seems you may have very little evidence on the issue at
>>>all. that would be cause alone for more testing I would think. If you don't
>>>want to test any more then don't.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>What is so interesting is that you appear to be willing to accept anything
>>that
>>appears to support your position without scrutiny.
>
>Then there is a problem with your perception.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>You don't happen to be in the market for a bridge?
>>
>
>I'm not buying any bridges or your personal rules of evidence.

That's fair enough; but neither you nor any interested party nor Stewart has
delivered a smoking gun on amp or wire sound.

IF these 'differences' truly existed than there would have been clear
verification by now. This is not a new question nor is in soluable.

You are reduced to 'searching' for evidence, any evidence, that seems to
support your position. But you just can't seem to find it and are reduced to
championing anecdotes that look attractive to you.

Good fishing.

Nousaine

August 18th 03, 03:23 PM

chung wrote:

...all snipped...

Thanks for the feedback. Fun stuff; unless you bought one, I guess.

Stewart Pinkerton

August 18th 03, 03:23 PM

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:24:11 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

> For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
> differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
> audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
> two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
>posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
>Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
>when ABxing.

I am neither a talented nor a super-trained listener (whatever these
expressions are supposed to mean). I'm simply an experienced
audiophile, and one who's discovered (the hard way!) that *sighted*
listening is useless for distinguishing subtle sonic differences. Far
from Ludovic's risible claim that ABX somehow 'desensitises' the ear,
I've found that it is a much *more* sensitive test for subtle but
*real* sonic difference, than anything else I've tried in forty years
of audiophilia.

Unfortunately for Ludovic, there is *no* test which will reliably and
repeatably show sonic differences among 'audiophile' cables, because
they simply do not exist.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

August 18th 03, 03:24 PM

On 17 Aug 2003 21:42:27 GMT, "Wylie Williams" >
wrote:

>I have listened mostly to Parasound and HALO, with side trips to
>YBA, and HK Citation 1, but RAHE experts tell me that there is no way to
>find out if these are good guys or bad guys.

I'd award them white hats, although avoid the YBA 'blue laser' CD
players like the plague!

> The only way is to gather a
>bunch of amps and do ABX tests for myself. But I don't even know the
>identity of amps can be used as reference example of good amps. RAHE tells
>me they exist, but nobody can make their fingers hit those keys to name
>brands and models.

As you should be aware, I have already stated that I used an old Krell
KSA50 mkII as a reference, and found that the Hafler XL-600 (that
would also include the XL-280) and Audiolab 8000P were sonically
identical to it, even on a very tough speaker load. You could no doubt
also include the Yamaha AX-592, the Roksan Caspian, and the Meridian
551. I am relianbly informed by an impeccable source who won't be
drawn into 'naming names' for professional reasons, that the Hafler
Transnova series is also of impeccable sound quality. Designing a
top-class 60-100 watt amp ain't rocket science in the 21st Century!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

August 18th 03, 03:26 PM

On 18 Aug 2003 05:26:49 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton)
>wrote:

>>I set up a series of 20 trials of each amp, with my wife doing the
>>switching. She flipped a coin 20 times, and noted on a score sheet
>>whether it was heads or tails. She set the 'X' switch to A for heads
>>and B for tails after each test. I'd satisfy myself as to the identity
>>of X and mark it on a score sheet, my wife would enter the room, reset
>>the identity of 'X' and leave the room while I conducted the next
>>test.
>
>To we terminally tweaky/freaky we'd have you leave the room when the switch was
>made as well. 20 trials is a good number.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I turned my back when I called her in
and turned back when she closed the door, to minimise interaction.
There's only one door to that room, so leaving would not IMHO have
improved isolation.

>>The end result was that the Denons (fave rave reviews in all the rags
>>at the time) and the Rega were instantly tossed for rough treble, the
>>MF was instantly tossed for a 'veiled' sound with recessed treble, the
>>Yamaha 2090 and Arcam were tossed for slightly bright treble, while
>>the remaining amps were too close to call.
>
>So you have results for all these comparisons? The next obvious question is
>what was the reference for any given device? Krell? What was the reference
>"toss'' point for the *******, as it were :)

I don't have the raw scores, but I recall that the the first-round
'*******' were 20/20 - it wasn't that subtle!

The Krell was A for the first round, and B for the second round, and a
score of 15/20 was considered to be significant. The Yamaha AX-570 was
absolutely borderline, and I'm pretty sure that it would have been
indistinguishable on the Tannoys.

>But it seems that you didn't confirm frequency response into the load either.
>Not a critical issue but one that I generally care for by checking level match
>at 100, 1000 and 10,000 Hz.

Agreed that I level-matched at 1kHz only, although I'd previously
checked the Krell as flat from 10Hz to 30kHz. This was part of a
buying decision, so it would have been a waste of time to run checks
on droopy or rising treble for the '*******', as they would still be
tossed!

>>The Hafler, probably the best
>>all-rounder as it was very powerful as well as quiet and sonically
>>impeccable, was rejected on the grounds of its horrendously noisy
>>cooling fan,
>
>This is a REAL reason for rejection and needs no corollary tests. But if it
>was sonically impeccable (I would guess that would be transparent to whatever
>amplifier which was the comparative reference?)

Yes, that would be my definition.

> and could be placed in a sealed
>cabinet or adjacent room it would then be acceptable.

Unfortunately, the wall behind the TV system is an exterior wall (and
13" thick!). Plus of course the Audiolab does the job just fine, and
100 W/channel is more than adequate for these 90dB/w/m speakers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Don Pearce

August 18th 03, 05:27 PM

On 18 Aug 2003 14:23:47 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:24:11 GMT, (ludovic
>mirabel) wrote:
>
>> For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
>> differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
>> audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
>> two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
>>posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
>>Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
>>when ABxing.
>
>I am neither a talented nor a super-trained listener (whatever these
>expressions are supposed to mean). I'm simply an experienced
>audiophile, and one who's discovered (the hard way!) that *sighted*
>listening is useless for distinguishing subtle sonic differences. Far
>from Ludovic's risible claim that ABX somehow 'desensitises' the ear,
>I've found that it is a much *more* sensitive test for subtle but
>*real* sonic difference, than anything else I've tried in forty years
>of audiophilia.
>
>Unfortunately for Ludovic, there is *no* test which will reliably and
>repeatably show sonic differences among 'audiophile' cables, because
>they simply do not exist.

Stewart. The claim that blind testing desensitises the listener is
easily tested and disposed of. Simply organise an apparently sighted
test, in which the components are apparently swapped visibly, but
which in fact are really swapped to a proper blind protocol.

The subject now has none of the psychological pressures of a blind
test, and should identify with no problem that the differences in
sound do not correlate with the swapped components.

Of course, there is always the chance that the subject would simply
identify the better sound in accordance with what he believed he was
seeing - but that wouldn't happen,now would it?

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

S888Wheel

August 18th 03, 05:29 PM

>>>Tom said
>>>>
>>>>>>>Please. I accept any and all "evidence." Stewart's experiments have not
>>>>>been
>>>>>>>documented nor have they been replicated. The latter isn't his
>>>>>>>responsibility.
>>>>>>>The former is.
>>
>>>
>>>>I said
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The tests in the reports you sent me haven't been replicated either.
>>
>>Tom said
>>
>>>
>>>Actualy they were all replications of each other
>>

I said

>>No they weren't. The equipment, the rooms and the protocol were different in
>>each test. They certianly weren't replications fo each other.
>>

Tom said

>>> My point isn't that every
>>>amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
>>>been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
>>>Stewart.
>>

I said

>>Well. there goes the claim that no test produced an audible difference. If
>>all
>>the tests in question have accurately reported the equipment, room and sound
>>sources used then they are all replicable. I think Stewert's tests fall
>under
>>that criteria.
>>
>>Tom said
>>
>>>
>>>That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
>>>remain anecdotal.
>>>
>>

I said

>>Sorry but this new criteria of tests having to be "replicated" to be more
>>than
>>anecdotal is nonsense. You can make your own rules of evidence up as you go
>>along but you won't have any established scientific basis for your claims.
>As
>>I
>>said before, many long term scientific tests have not been "replicated" but
>>are
>>considered to be good, valid scientific tests.
>>
>>I said
>>
>>>>Doesn't
>>>>>>matter. What matters is if the are replicable. Stewert says he has
>>>>>documented
>>>>>>his tests. I see no reason to think he is lying.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>Tom said
>>>>
>>>>>Oh for Christsakes' as of 1990 there had been been 2 dozen documented and
>>>>>published bias controlled listening tests of power amplifiers that
>>>basicallt
>>>>>showed that any device with flat response that wasn't hampered by
>>>operating
>>>>>fault or high output impedance
>>>>>were sonically transparent....so why do we need
>>>>>any more evidence on this matter???????
>>>>>
>>
>>I said
>>
>>>>And this emotional outburst has what to do with my post? How many of those
>>>>tests were "replicated?" If that is the new criteria you are pushing for
>>>>tests
>>>>to be valid then it seems you may have very little evidence on the issue
>at
>>>>all. that would be cause alone for more testing I would think. If you
>don't
>>>>want to test any more then don't.
>>
>>Tom said
>>
>>>
>>>What is so interesting is that you appear to be willing to accept anything
>>>that
>>>appears to support your position without scrutiny.
>>
>>Then there is a problem with your perception.
>>
>>Tom said
>>
>>>
>>>You don't happen to be in the market for a bridge?
>>>
>>

I said

>>I'm not buying any bridges or your personal rules of evidence.
>
>

Tom said

>That's fair enough; but neither you nor any interested party nor Stewart has
>delivered a smoking gun on amp or wire sound.
>
>IF these 'differences' truly existed than there would have been clear
>verification by now. This is not a new question nor is in soluable.
>

If you always choose not to accept evidence of positive tests on the grounds of
"uniqueness" of the results, those results will retain their "uniqueness" every
time they are presented in a new test. Discounting any test on the grounds of
the results is very unscientific. That is a choice you have made. Not me.

Tom said

>You are reduced to 'searching' for evidence, any evidence, that seems to
>support your position. But you just can't seem to find it and are reduced to
>championing anecdotes that look attractive to you.
>

Nope. I haven't rejected any test on the grounds that the results were
unexpected or unique. That is what you are doing. The fact of the matter is the
question is usually to broad and black and white. When one asks the broad
question "do all amplifiers sound the same?" There are lots of variables beyond
the amps in this question.

>Good fishing.
>
>
>

I see you already have your big fish story.

Nousaine

August 18th 03, 05:44 PM

(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
>...
>> (S888Wheel)wrote:
>>
>> ..snips.......
>>
>> >>
>> >>Please. I accept any and all "evidence." Stewart's experiments have not
>been
>> >>documented nor have they been replicated. The latter isn't his
>> >>responsibility.
>> >>The former is.
>> >
>> >The tests in the reports you sent me haven't been replicated either.
>Doesn't
>> >matter. What matters is if the are replicable. Stewert says he has
>documented
>> >his tests. I see no reason to think he is lying.
>>
>> Oh for Christsakes' as of 1990 there had been been 2 dozen documented and
>> published bias controlled listening tests of power amplifiers that
>basicallt
>> showed that any device with flat response that wasn't hampered by operating
>> fault or high output impedance were sonically transparent....so why do we
>need
>> any more evidence on this matter???????
>
>I reviewed two extensive relevant bibliographies published in RAHE by
>Mtry Craft and Klaus Rampelman. There was one only (1) published panel
>ABX "listening test" in the Stereo Review 1982- of course with a
>negative result. Mr' Krueger and his two supertrained ABX codevelopers
> published one, too supposedly positive but hardly representative of
>the average audiophile crowd.
>If you have "2 dozen" please give references (Mag, author, year,
>month, page) to a few of them to begin with.
>You surely are too responsible to join those who said one ane and all
>that they had "many" , "numerous" and when pressed against the wall
>kept silent. As for Oakland comparisons of 10 watt DIY Heathkit
>against 400 watt Dynaco surely you'll not bring up that one again.(
>you did once) It was funny ha ha "positive" anyway. They could tell
>the difference, believe it or not.
>Ludovic Mirabel

If you obtain a copy of the Proceedings from the AES 1990 Conference "The Sounf
of Audio" you'll find my paper which provides a listing of 23 blind tests of
power amplifiers that had been published prior to that time.

Audio Guy

August 18th 03, 06:34 PM

In article <7dX%a.173729$o%2.82204@sccrnsc02>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<92T%a.171246$o%2.76310@sccrnsc02>...
>> In article <fLP%a.137308$cF.38433@rwcrnsc53>,
>> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> >
>> > For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
>> > differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
>> > audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
>> > two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
>> > posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
>> > Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
>> > when ABxing.
>> > 4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
>> > untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
>> > hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
>> > perversion of "testing".
>>
>> Pleas explain why this is a "perversion of "testing"". If there are
>> those who can hear differences using ABX and those who do not, why
>> jump to the conclusion that ABX is hampering those who do not? Why
>> wouldn't the logical explanation be that they just can't hear the
>> differences at all?
>>
> My prose makes you suffer- I won't inflict it on you. Just read the
> postings over the last two weeks

I have, and I have yet to find any useful explanations or any shred of
understanding of the topic at all in any of them, while it is obvious
you have decided to avoid responding to quite few of mine which
explain quite well how and where you are mistaken in your often
excessive "prose".

>> > Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
>> > years against myself and Harry Lavo that Greenhill was perfectly
>> > right basing his conclusions on the
>> > incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
>> > unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
>> > honesty)- called a true "golden ear".
>>
>> You keep ignoring the statistical evidence, without a retest it is
>> impossible to know if if there was a true "golden ear" since the
>> results fit within the curve of possible random guesses.
>>
> Take it up with Greenhill who is well, alive and writing for the
> "Stereophile. Match your knowledge of statistics against his. I'm only
> quoting .

Bob has demonstrated quite well on his own how your "interpretations"
of Greenhill's comments are misinterpretations.

> For the rest of your missive all I can say is "Poor Marcus- with
> friends like these....".

Let's keep such personal comments out of the group, OK?

Steven Sullivan

August 18th 03, 07:25 PM

S888Wheel > wrote:
> >>>Tom said
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Please. I accept any and all "evidence." Stewart's experiments have not
> >>>>>been
> >>>>>>>documented nor have they been replicated. The latter isn't his
> >>>>>>>responsibility.
> >>>>>>>The former is.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>I said
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The tests in the reports you sent me haven't been replicated either.
> >>
> >>Tom said
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Actualy they were all replications of each other
> >>

> I said

You know, you probably don't need to do this 'I said/Other person said' stuff.
Most if not all newsreaders audtomatically apply some sort of distingishing marks
for nested quotes. Nor do you have to quote the entire exchange just to respond
to a few lines of it near the end.

--
-S.

randyb

August 18th 03, 09:35 PM

(Nousaine) wrote in message >...
> chung wrote:
>
> ..all snipped...
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Fun stuff; unless you bought one, I guess.

I appreciate all the information. I believe that while the results of
Tom's studies may be subject to debate, my mind is made up-the burden
of proof is on the side that says they need their eyes to hear
differences. Not to say that differences may not exist, just that I
am not going to take someone's word for it because he/she says it is
so. Why should I?

ludovic mirabel

August 18th 03, 10:59 PM

Don Pearce > wrote in message >...
> On 18 Aug 2003 14:23:47 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:24:11 GMT, (ludovic
> >mirabel) wrote:
> >
> >> For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
> >> differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
> >> audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
> >> two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
> >>posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
> >>Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
> >>when ABxing.
> >
> >I am neither a talented nor a super-trained listener (whatever these
> >expressions are supposed to mean). I'm simply an experienced
> >audiophile, and one who's discovered (the hard way!) that *sighted*
> >listening is useless for distinguishing subtle sonic differences. Far
> >from Ludovic's risible claim that ABX somehow 'desensitises' the ear,
> >I've found that it is a much *more* sensitive test for subtle but
> >*real* sonic difference, than anything else I've tried in forty years
> >of audiophilia.
> >
> >Unfortunately for Ludovic, there is *no* test which will reliably and
> >repeatably show sonic differences among 'audiophile' cables, because
> >they simply do not exist.
>
> Stewart. The claim that blind testing desensitises the listener is
> easily tested and disposed of. Simply organise an apparently sighted
> test, in which the components are apparently swapped visibly, but
> which in fact are really swapped to a proper blind protocol.
>
> The subject now has none of the psychological pressures of a blind
> test, and should identify with no problem that the differences in
> sound do not correlate with the swapped components.
>
> Of course, there is always the chance that the subject would simply
> identify the better sound in accordance with what he believed he was
> seeing - but that wouldn't happen,now would it?
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Mr. Pearce, I do not know who "claims that blind tests desensitise the
listener". It certainly is not myself.
Since I do not expect you to read and recall all I had ever said
let me assure you that I always maintained that it would be against
common sense to deny that sighted bias exists. It certainly is a very
powerful factor in this North-American setting. I believe also that
some are more affected by it than the others but that it is a sensible
precaution for everyone to at least have the brand names covered.
All I say is that the ABX protocol, specifically, MAY BE a hurdle for
many. I listed my rasons many times- the main one being that the panel
listening tests to whatever under the audio sun result in a negastive
outcome by a thumping majority.
I proposed a slightly different "test"= in quotation marks because I
see no reason to believe that the individual perceptions of the audio
component differences can be "tested" by one universally acceptable
method. No more than wines, pianos, violins, or human voices.
Using B&W or H-K facilities collect an average audiophile panel and
get them to
ABX music reproduced by dfferent, reputable full range speakers. My
guess is that you'd get a "No difference " majority verdict. And
speakers do sound
different . Don't they?
Ludovic Mirabel

ludovic mirabel

August 18th 03, 11:01 PM

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:24:11 GMT, (ludovic
> mirabel) wrote:
>
> > For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
> > differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
> > audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
> > two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
> >posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
> >Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
> >when ABxing.
>
> I am neither a talented nor a super-trained listener (whatever these
> expressions are supposed to mean). I'm simply an experienced
> audiophile, and one who's discovered (the hard way!) that *sighted*
> listening is useless for distinguishing subtle sonic differences. Far
> from Ludovic's risible claim that ABX somehow 'desensitises' the ear,
> I've found that it is a much *more* sensitive test for subtle but
> *real* sonic difference, than anything else I've tried in forty years
> of audiophilia.
>
> Unfortunately for Ludovic, there is *no* test which will reliably and
> repeatably show sonic differences among 'audiophile' cables, because
> they simply do not exist.

Sorry for trying too hard to be nice. I accept it: you're just an
"experienced audiophile" like any other participant in "Stereo Review"
amp. listening test most of whom (but not all) could not hear any
differences between the amps they listened to and just like another
simple "experienced audiophile " Nousaine whom you can not convince
that any comparable amplifiers whatsoever could EVER sound different
and just like that other simple "experienced audiophile" Krueger who
heard once-Lord knows what he can or can not hear these days-
differences between amplifiers that were not on your approved listing.
Of course- if only all of them had your room and your Krell and your,
thick at the waist, Apogees!
No doubt they'd see the light.
As for your favourite topics "cables" and "tests" I understand
that you decreed that there must be a "test" somewhere out there, and
you also decided what constitutes a "test". Correct me if I'm wrong,
so far it is ABX or its variant. You certainly have a fatwa out about
my favourite anti-bias protocol left-right with random changes.
Anything else you'd accept in your "test" canon?
For that matter any other audio components that differ other than
the amps.?
Ludovic Mirabel

ludovic mirabel

August 19th 03, 02:02 AM

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<G680b.182959$uu5.34042@sccrnsc04>...
>
> >> You keep ignoring the statistical evidence, without a retest it is
> >> impossible to know if if there was a true "golden ear" since the
> >> results fit within the curve of possible random guesses.
> >>
I answered:
> > Take it up with Greenhill who is well, alive and writing for the
> > "Stereophile. Match your knowledge of statistics against his. I'm only
> > quoting .
>
He commented:
> Bob has demonstrated quite well on his own how your "interpretations"
> of Greenhill's comments are misinterpretations.

So let's have no interpreting. Just poor Greenhill's own words, word
for word and literally and Marcus own words, word for word and
literally.

Marcus first:
> Anyone tempted to take Mirabel's assertion here at face value should
> consult the original article and read for himself that Greenhill said
> no such thing.
>
> bob

This is what Greenhill said reporting the outcome of his cable
comparison test: ("The Stereo Review, August 1982):
"Final significant conclusion one can draw is that at least one
genuine "golden ear" exists. Obviously certain listeners whether
through talent, training or experience can hear small differences
between components"

Further Mr. A.Guy reproaches me:
> I have, and I have yet to find any useful explanations or any shred of
> understanding of the topic at all in any of them, while it is obvious
> you have decided to avoid responding to quite few of mine which
> explain quite well how and where you are mistaken in your often
> excessive "prose".

Here follows a collection of those exposures of my mistakes as
presented by Mr. A. Guy in his previous postings:
"Again, look who's talking..."
"Look who's talking, if the shoe fits..."

"...but you have shown you have little understanding of the topic."

"Again, he has shown a much greater understanding of those topics than
You"
"That phrase is your Frankenstein creation, not anyone else's."

"Yes, I do wonder why I bother restating myself to counter your overly
wordy verbiage that can't seem to get the the point. It is a chore."

Mr. A. Guy surely you did not expect little me to cope with the
arguments of such conclusive pertinence and brilliancy. You forgot to
say that I'm cross-eyed, hump-backed and a failure with ladies.
But you added a final touch of humour:
>
"> Let's keep such personal comments out of the group, OK?"

Ludovic Mirabel

> In article <7dX%a.173729$o%2.82204@sccrnsc02>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<92T%a.171246$o%2.76310@sccrnsc02>...
> >> In article <fLP%a.137308$cF.38433@rwcrnsc53>,
> >> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> >> >
> >> > For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
> >> > differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
> >> > audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
> >> > two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
> >> > posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
> >> > Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
> >> > when ABxing.
> >> > 4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
> >> > untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
> >> > hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
> >> > perversion of "testing".
> >>
> >> Pleas explain why this is a "perversion of "testing"". If there are
> >> those who can hear differences using ABX and those who do not, why
> >> jump to the conclusion that ABX is hampering those who do not? Why
> >> wouldn't the logical explanation be that they just can't hear the
> >> differences at all?
> >>
> > My prose makes you suffer- I won't inflict it on you. Just read the
> > postings over the last two weeks
>
> I have, and I have yet to find any useful explanations or any shred of
> understanding of the topic at all in any of them, while it is obvious
> you have decided to avoid responding to quite few of mine which
> explain quite well how and where you are mistaken in your often
> excessive "prose".
>
> >> > Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
> >> > years against myself and Harry Lavo that Greenhill was perfectly
> >> > right basing his conclusions on the
> >> > incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
> >> > unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
> >> > honesty)- called a true "golden ear".
> >>
> >> You keep ignoring the statistical evidence, without a retest it is
> >> impossible to know if if there was a true "golden ear" since the
> >> results fit within the curve of possible random guesses.
> >>
> > Take it up with Greenhill who is well, alive and writing for the
> > "Stereophile. Match your knowledge of statistics against his. I'm only
> > quoting .
>
> Bob has demonstrated quite well on his own how your "interpretations"
> of Greenhill's comments are misinterpretations.

Audio Guy

August 19th 03, 03:59 AM

In article <t%b0b.184348$uu5.34906@sccrnsc04>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

>
> Mr. Pearce, I do not know who "claims that blind tests desensitise the
> listener". It certainly is not myself.
..

> All I say is that the ABX protocol, specifically, MAY BE a hurdle for
> many. I listed my rasons many times- the main one being that the panel
> listening tests to whatever under the audio sun result in a negastive
> outcome by a thumping majority.

OK, if it doesn't "desensitise the listener", then what is your
explanation what the "hurdle" is? Your only defense so far is that
the ABX results don't agree with the results of sighted tests. You
need some thing more than that to prove your point. You certainly
won't accept the possibility that there weren't any differences in
the test run so far, even if it is the most likely explanation.

Nousaine

August 19th 03, 05:47 AM

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:

>On 18 Aug 2003 05:26:49 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
(Stewart Pinkerton)
>>wrote:
>
>>>I set up a series of 20 trials of each amp, with my wife doing the
>>>switching. She flipped a coin 20 times, and noted on a score sheet
>>>whether it was heads or tails. She set the 'X' switch to A for heads
>>>and B for tails after each test. I'd satisfy myself as to the identity
>>>of X and mark it on a score sheet, my wife would enter the room, reset
>>>the identity of 'X' and leave the room while I conducted the next
>>>test.
>>
>>To we terminally tweaky/freaky we'd have you leave the room when the switch
>was
>>made as well. 20 trials is a good number.
>
>Sorry, I forgot to mention that I turned my back when I called her in
>and turned back when she closed the door, to minimise interaction.
>There's only one door to that room, so leaving would not IMHO have
>improved isolation.

In "To Tweak or Not" I had the subject leave the room when systems were
switched and Ieft the room during listening but kept sight of the subject
through a doorway at the top of a staircase.

Both "system hooked up" and subject scores were recorded on cards and dropped
in a slotted box after each trial. Subjects were encouraged to verify hook-up
after each trial. There were only a few that ever bothered.

I'm just elaborating for the lurkers at how setting up and conducting a
controlled listening test isn't the arduous task it's often made out to be.

>
>>>The end result was that the Denons (fave rave reviews in all the rags
>>>at the time) and the Rega were instantly tossed for rough treble, the
>>>MF was instantly tossed for a 'veiled' sound with recessed treble, the
>>>Yamaha 2090 and Arcam were tossed for slightly bright treble, while
>>>the remaining amps were too close to call.
>>
>>So you have results for all these comparisons? The next obvious question is
>>what was the reference for any given device? Krell? What was the reference
>>"toss'' point for the *******, as it were :)
>
>I don't have the raw scores, but I recall that the the first-round
>'*******' were 20/20 - it wasn't that subtle!
>
>The Krell was A for the first round, and B for the second round, and a
>score of 15/20 was considered to be significant. The Yamaha AX-570 was
>absolutely borderline, and I'm pretty sure that it would have been
>indistinguishable on the Tannoys.
>
>>But it seems that you didn't confirm frequency response into the load
>either.
>>Not a critical issue but one that I generally care for by checking level
>match
>>at 100, 1000 and 10,000 Hz.
>
>Agreed that I level-matched at 1kHz only, although I'd previously
>checked the Krell as flat from 10Hz to 30kHz. This was part of a
>buying decision, so it would have been a waste of time to run checks
>on droopy or rising treble for the '*******', as they would still be
>tossed!

IMO a quick frequency response test is a faster way to toss the ******* than a
20 trial controlled listening test. :)

Also I've never found a moderately competent amplifier that had significant
operating errors into even to the weird loads some of my enthusiast
speaker-builder friends have cooked up. Maybe amplifiers work under stricter
rules of conduct in midwest America :)

But do you have some impedance data on your speakers? If you have a load that
tends to introduce errors in low output impedance amplifiers it would be great
to define it.

>>>The Hafler, probably the best
>>>all-rounder as it was very powerful as well as quiet and sonically
>>>impeccable, was rejected on the grounds of its horrendously noisy
>>>cooling fan,
>>
>>This is a REAL reason for rejection and needs no corollary tests. But if it
>>was sonically impeccable (I would guess that would be transparent to
>whatever
>>amplifier which was the comparative reference?)
>
>Yes, that would be my definition.
>
>> and could be placed in a sealed
>>cabinet or adjacent room it would then be acceptable.
>
>Unfortunately, the wall behind the TV system is an exterior wall (and
>13" thick!). Plus of course the Audiolab does the job just fine, and
>100 W/channel is more than adequate for these 90dB/w/m speakers.
>--
>
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Oh sure. It might not be acceptable in that application but could be successful
in others.

BTW I have the world's worst sounding amplifier in my possession the Fidek FPA
3002. It has a noisy fan and transformer that excite the cover panels and
sounds horrible just being turned on and not playing music. It sounds
marginally better with dynamic program material because the music masks the
acoustic sound coming from the amplifier.

No; I don't own this piece. It's a tosser without measurement or listening test
with music material :)

Bob Marcus

August 19th 03, 05:57 AM

(Mkuller) wrote in message news:<BXb0b.183627$YN5.135766@sccrnsc01>...
> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
> :>
> >> 4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
> >> untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
> >> hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
> >> perversion of "testing".
> >
>
> > (Bob Marcus)
> >Date: 8/17/03 4:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> wrote:>
> >"Ignoring the minority who DO have fewer and less severe colds after
> >megadosing vitamin C is a perversion of testing."
> >
> >See how silly that argument is? So stop using it.
> >
>
> Bob, your analogy comparing DBTs to medical research is wrongheaded.

No, just inexact, as all analogies seem to turn out to be. (Perhaps
RAHE should ban them.) I meant to give Mr. Mirabel an example of the
kind of cherry-picking and selection bias he practices.

> If one
> person in the Greenhill group, or any other group reliably identifies a
> difference - then it proves a difference exists!

Granted. Although Mr. Mirabel cannot point to a single case in which
this occurred (absent willful misreading, of course).

> The fact that the others or a
> vast majority are not able to reliably identify it under THAT test and THOSE
> test conditions means next to nothing. It's a null - 0 - meaningless.
>
> So why aren't there any blind tests published which show differences?

Except for Greenhill's five, and Arny's old article. Let's be fair,
Mike. There have been a few.

> (1) Blind testing seems to filter out subtle audible differences. Even the
> experts agree that music is not a very sensitive source and it is the only
> meaningful one to audiophiles.

True, but if it's not a sensitive source for blind tests, then it's
not a sensitive source for sighted tests either. (Unless you have some
theory for how your ear-brain mechanism works differently when you
know which cable is connected.)

> (2) The only people who care about blind testing are the "debunkers" who are
> trying to show "there are no differences" to the unwashed audiophile masses
> (most of whom couldn't care less)

And just why do you think anyone is "trying" to show this? What have
any of us to gain by it?

bob

Nousaine

August 19th 03, 05:58 AM

(S888Wheel) wrote:

....snips.....

>Tom said
>
>
>>That's fair enough; but neither you nor any interested party nor Stewart has
>>delivered a smoking gun on amp or wire sound.
>>
>>IF these 'differences' truly existed than there would have been clear
>>verification by now. This is not a new question nor is in soluable.
>>
>
>
>If you always choose not to accept evidence of positive tests on the grounds
>of
>"uniqueness" of the results, those results will retain their "uniqueness"
>every
>time they are presented in a new test.

No they won't. If they get replicated then they become the new standard. But
"cold fusion" remains unique. Do we have to accept it for that reason? But
events and experiments that remain 'unique' do so for a reason.

Discounting any test on the grounds of
>the results is very unscientific. That is a choice you have made. Not me.

Ok then you tell me; if Stewart's experiment is taken at face value it says
that a wide variety of modern amplifiers are sonically indistingushable and
those that aren't are "*******" does it not? The corollary becomes: amplifiers
sonically transparent to a $$$ Krell are available at far less cost.

IF you want to cling to the amp-sound theory this experiment and the conclusion
by the experimentor says that IF an amplifier can be identified by sound alone
it is DEFICIENT.

>
>Tom said
>
>
>>You are reduced to 'searching' for evidence, any evidence, that seems to
>>support your position. But you just can't seem to find it and are reduced to
>>championing anecdotes that look attractive to you.
>>
>
>Nope. I haven't rejected any test on the grounds that the results were
>unexpected or unique. That is what you are doing. The fact of the matter is
>the
>question is usually to broad and black and white. When one asks the broad
>question "do all amplifiers sound the same?" There are lots of variables
>beyond
>the amps in this question.

You mean the personal bias of people like you; or the features (lack of fan)
required of others.

But no one has ever said that all amplifiers sound the same. My position is
that modern amplifiers nominally competent for a given load will sound like a
straight wire with gain.

>>Good fishing.
>>
>
>I see you already have your big fish story.

Like my amplifier sounds just like yours? What a boastful position. Let's race.

Stewart Pinkerton

August 19th 03, 03:39 PM

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:55:45 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

>If one
>person in the Greenhill group, or any other group reliably identifies a
>difference - then it proves a difference exists!

That would be true - HOWEVER, that's not what happened in the
Greenhill tests, except in the fertile imagination of Ludovic Mirabel.

> The fact that the others or a
>vast majority are not able to reliably identify it under THAT test and THOSE
>test conditions means next to nothing. It's a null - 0 - meaningless.

So is the one statistically significant result - unless it can be
repeated. You think that the same subject would get the same results
in a retest? If he did, then that *would* be good evidence, but if you
look at the basic stats of the situation, he could have got those
results (as part of that larger group), by tossing coins. Same thing
happened in the TAG McLaren tests.

>So why aren't there any blind tests published which show differences?

There are.

> (1) Blind testing seems to filter out subtle audible differences. Even the
>experts agree that music is not a very sensitive source and it is the only
>meaningful one to audiophiles.

No, *any* source which shows differences is meaningful to audiophiles
(castanets, pink noise, violin solo, whatever). Blind testing in fact
*reveals* subtle audible differences which would otherwise be swamped
by sighted bias. Unfortunately for some here, there is *no* test which
will reliably and repeatably reveal differences which do not exist in
the physical world, such as 'cable sound'.

> (2) The only people who care about blind testing are the "debunkers" who are
>trying to show "there are no differences" to the unwashed audiophile masses
>(most of whom couldn't care less)

Nope, people who care about blind testing want to *reveal* what really
sounds different. This does of course also show what is mere snake
oil, but that's reality for you...............

Note that *no* reliable and repeatable test has *ever* shown that
there are sonic differences among 'audiophile' cables. Not one, not
ever.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

August 19th 03, 03:40 PM

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:59:53 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

>Mr. Pearce, I do not know who "claims that blind tests desensitise the
>listener". It certainly is not myself.

That would be Mike Kuller, this very day, among others............

Of course, you *are* the one who started the thread entitled 'why does
ABX not deliver', to which this thread is a rebuttal.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

August 19th 03, 03:40 PM

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 04:47:56 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>IMO a quick frequency response test is a faster way to toss the ******* than a
>20 trial controlled listening test. :)

Not if you are only interested in how they sound........... :-)

>Also I've never found a moderately competent amplifier that had significant
>operating errors into even to the weird loads some of my enthusiast
>speaker-builder friends have cooked up. Maybe amplifiers work under stricter
>rules of conduct in midwest America :)
>
>But do you have some impedance data on your speakers? If you have a load that
>tends to introduce errors in low output impedance amplifiers it would be great
>to define it.

They're a fairly flat 3 to 3.5 ohms across most of the audio band,
with a slight hump to 6 or 7 ohms in the octave centred on 800Hz. It's
a first-order crossover, so that's fairly typical.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Bob Marcus

August 19th 03, 03:50 PM

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<0He0b.184753$Ho3.25747@sccrnsc03>...
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<G680b.182959$uu5.34042@sccrnsc04>...
> >
> > Bob has demonstrated quite well on his own how your "interpretations"
> > of Greenhill's comments are misinterpretations.
>
> So let's have no interpreting. Just poor Greenhill's own words, word
> for word and literally and Marcus own words, word for word and
> literally.
>
> Marcus first:
> > Anyone tempted to take Mirabel's assertion here at face value should
> > consult the original article and read for himself that Greenhill said
> > no such thing.
> >
> > bob
>
> This is what Greenhill said reporting the outcome of his cable
> comparison test: ("The Stereo Review, August 1982):
> "Final significant conclusion one can draw is that at least one
> genuine "golden ear" exists. Obviously certain listeners whether
> through talent, training or experience can hear small differences
> between components"
>
Apparently the only way you can argue your case is to juxtapose my
words with something I was not responding to (and which did not even
appear in the post you pulled my comment from). A rather pitiful act
of desperation, I'd say.

bob

ludovic mirabel

August 19th 03, 07:44 PM

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:<tcX%a.173930$Ho3.23369@sccrnsc03>...

Let me first of all say that I truly appreciate your text. It is
what I believe a discussion should be: with serious content,
courteously written- not clowning for the audience, picking on single
words to score points and listing your opponent's personal
deficiences. I also do not doubt your good faith and considerable
investment of time and money in this subject. But...
> Ludovic has posted earlier that he though that past controlled listening
> research had "hidden" positive scoring subjects with overall null results and
> that I had been avoiding him about that issue. I recently responded but my post
> was rejected. So hereÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â€ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â™s a straight reply to the "hidden audibility" claim.
>
> First, there have been no hidden positive subject scoring in any research that
> IÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â€ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â™ve been able to note. In spite of the repeat claims that the Greenhill wire
> test had high scoring individuals whose results were concealed by averaging
> there is no data that either confirms or suggests this conclusion. This has
> been covered quite extensively in this newsgroup and in recent threads.
>
Let me shift the emphasis. It is not on individuals ( such as
Greenhill's own "golden ear"). It is on the indisputable fact that the
individual performances in the reported tests vary enormously,
Example: Your witness Sean Olive's results in his "listening room" pdf
(www.revelspeakers.- address quoted from memory). One of his
supertrained professionals' was scoring around 30% , a few 50% or
thereabouts, most reached (how many repeats?), significant 70% or
more.
Greenhill: all scored brillianly ( almost all were 100%
correct) recognising 1.75db. volume difference between a thick and a
thin cable- as long as the pink noise was played.
The same people failed to recognise (within Greenhill's statistical
validity criteria- ie had much lower "correct" scores) the same volume
difference once music replaced pink noise.
You or others said that it only proves that pink noise is a better
"test" signal. Sorry: doesn't wash with me. The subject is
reproduction of MUSIC by audio components- not pink noise. in fact
saying that ABX performs better with pink noise than music, amounts to
saying that ABX is an inappropriate test for assessing MUSICAL
reproduction differences between components.
Is a "test" that has such variable individual results an appropriate
test for audiophile use? How can you be certain that the failure of
most of your subjects to recognise differences was not due to the
nature of your test?
Especially as you must agree that training in ABXing improves
individual results. How does an audiophile know if he had enough
training?

> Next; of the tests I have personally designed, proctored or have been a subject
> there has been no cadre of ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â€ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â˜those who hearÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â€ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â™ compared to the general subject
> population. IOW there has never been an experiment where a few significant
> scoring individuals were concealed by the average. Indeed with a reasonably
> sized sample often a single significant result would be enough to make the
> overall results positive.
>
> Of the tests IÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â€ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â™ve designed and conducted subject count has varied from 1 to
> 31 with sample sizes ranging from 10 to 431. Programs were selected by subjects
> in the ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â€ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â˜challengeÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â€Ã ƒÂ‚Ã‚Â™ experiments where subjects had claimed to already have
> confirmed differences. Otherwise programs were selected from a collection of 63
> musical and voice selections (including many with acoustical instrumentation)
> that had been chosen because they represent specific reproduction challenges to
> audio systems.
>
> Every experiment was extensively examined for internal significance. Most of
> them allowed subjects to extend the test with more trials to improve scores.
> This was seldom asked for and no individual improved his score enough to attain
> significance with additional trials OR a repeat of the entire experiment.
> There were NO individual significant scores in any experiment that wasn't
> significant overall.
>
I'd have to know what you played to them, what were their ages
and sex, their ABX training, their musical interests and exposure- a
thousand details- before I could say that you ruled out with
significant validity the possibility that you missed that rare bird
who was not only a great listener but also a great ABX performer. ONE
is enough. It is not about pleasing the crowd. It is about "high-end".
Something like Mr. Pinkerton- an ABX upholder whom you did not
convince that there are no differences between amps. Nor , of course
did he convince you.
> However in the case of Flying Blind (Audio Magazine) a subject who was unable
> to discern whether a given program contained a confirmed audible level of
> distortion in 16 weeks of long term listening was able to reliably identify
> same with a 6 second segment of that program using the ABX technique.
>
> But any ofd this notwithstanding I'm still not fully understanding why some
> individual, some company or some 3rd party has ever been able to confirm "amp"
> and "wire" sound under any set of conditions with even modest listening bias
> controls implemented.
>
> Even IF someone was withholding the Truth why hasn't someone else willfully or
> even by accident confirmed it? If these 'differences' are so evident that
> people like Ludovic are so certain of their existence WHY hasn't some party,
> interested or otherwise, stumbled across the body instead of just the rumors?
>
> It just doesn't seem likely that people as smart as Earl Geddes, Floyd Toole,
> David Clark, David Rich, Sean Olive, Stan Lip****z, John Vanderkooy, Dan
> Shanefiled, Rich Cabot, John Eargle, Dick Pierce, et al would have ALL
> overlooked even the minutest of evidence of true audibility.

All your notables to the best of my knowledge did not report
component comparisons- where there is NO OBJECTIVE END-POINT- but
rather reasearch about perception of KNOWN induced artefact-is the
answer right or not. Usually by selected, trained audiences at that.
Apples and oranges.
Ludovic Mirabel