PDA

View Full Version : Re: science vs. pseudo-science


ludovic mirabel
September 7th 03, 03:51 AM
wrote in message >...
> Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the
> discussions here that seem to go on forever:
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
>
> I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been
> participating in these endless discussions over the years.

I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and
condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share
with the readers:
" Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating
directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These
fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and
conclusions."

"...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you
do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A
distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are
well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they
are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of
biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of
physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience...
.... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small
amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not
professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the
scientific enterprise -- yet
think of themselves as "scientists."

Contrasting science and literature:
" Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through
scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous
standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the
general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication
verification, no demand for accuracy and precision."

Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
audio components?
Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?
I wonder.
Ludovic Mirabel

Nousaine
September 8th 03, 02:42 AM
(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

wrote in message
>...
>> Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the
>> discussions here that seem to go on forever:
>>
>> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
>>
>> I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been
>> participating in these endless discussions over the years.
>
> I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and
>condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share
>with the readers:
> " Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
>Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating
>directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These
>fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and
>conclusions."
>
> "...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you
>do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A
>distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are
>well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they
>are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of
>biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of
>physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience...
>... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small
>amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not
>professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the
>scientific enterprise -- yet
>think of themselves as "scientists."
>
> Contrasting science and literature:
> " Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through
>scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous
>standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the
>general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication
>verification, no demand for accuracy and precision."
>
> Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
>researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
>TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
>audio components?

But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or
otherwise?

>Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
>expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?
>I wonder.
>Ludovic Mirabel

Folks like Mirabel continue to 'wonder' why some interested party has never
confirmed the high-end claims about bits,amp and wire sound.

I 'wonder' too.

ludovic mirabel
September 8th 03, 08:32 PM
(Nousaine) wrote in message news:<S7R6b.385366$o%2.173822@sccrnsc02>...
> (ludovic mirabel) wrote:

> ( see below for previous discussion)
> > Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
> >researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
> >TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
> >audio components?
>
Nousaine:
> But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or
> otherwise?
>
> >Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
> >expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?
> >I wonder.
> >Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Folks like Mirabel continue to 'wonder' why some interested party has never
> confirmed the high-end claims about bits,amp and wire sound.
>
> I 'wonder' too.

Dear Mr. Nousaine. I have no idea what "claims". you're
referring to and how exactly you want them "confirmed".
I have my likes and dislikes in wires,amps, photographic
techniques, reproductions of paintings, clarinets, pianos, wines and
cheeses. I can try to convey my likes more or less convincingly. I do
not expect others to share them- in fact I'm certain that 99% of
humanity simply couldn't care less and - a secret- neither do I. If
you know of anyone saying that he has a "scientific" provable claim
on these matters, I'm with you, he has to prove it. And so do you.
I do not believe that any way to *confirm* or to negate my
preferences exists. In fact it never ceases to amaze me that in this
one and only area of preferences, opinions, tastes , likes and
dislikes people search for *confirmation*. Sighted bias is bad- no one
has a patented , researched *confirmed* cure for it equally usable by
everyone.
Like with photographic techniques and painting reproductions
so with audio. You and I like it or not, we are on our own with oour
tastes and our brains such as they are.
Ludovic Mirabel

> wrote in message
> >...
> >> Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the
> >> discussions here that seem to go on forever:
> >>
> >> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
> >>
> >> I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been
> >> participating in these endless discussions over the years.
> >
> > I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and
> >condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share
> >with the readers:
> > " Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
> >Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating
> >directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These
> >fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and
> >conclusions."
> >
> > "...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you
> >do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A
> >distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are
> >well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they
> >are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of
> >biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of
> >physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience...
> >... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small
> >amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not
> >professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the
> >scientific enterprise -- yet
> >think of themselves as "scientists."
> >
> > Contrasting science and literature:
> > " Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through
> >scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous
> >standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the
> >general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication
> >verification, no demand for accuracy and precision."
> >

> wrote in message
> >...
> >> Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the
> >> discussions here that seem to go on forever:
> >>
> >> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
> >>
> >> I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been
> >> participating in these endless discussions over the years.
> >
> > I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and
> >condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share
> >with the readers:
> > " Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
> >Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating
> >directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These
> >fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and
> >conclusions."
> >
> > "...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you
> >do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A
> >distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are
> >well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they
> >are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of
> >biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of
> >physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience...
> >... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small
> >amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not
> >professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the
> >scientific enterprise -- yet
> >think of themselves as "scientists."
> >
> > Contrasting science and literature:
> > " Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through
> >scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous
> >standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the
> >general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication
> >verification, no demand for accuracy and precision."
> >
> > Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
> >researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
> >TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
> >audio components?
>
> But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or
> otherwise?
>
> >Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
> >expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?
> >I wonder.
> >Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Folks like Mirabel continue to 'wonder' why some interested party has never
> confirmed the high-end claims about bits,amp and wire sound.
>
> I 'wonder' too.

S888Wheel
September 8th 03, 08:34 PM
Tom said

<<
But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or
otherwise? >>

They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
ABX or otherwise.

September 8th 03, 09:49 PM
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
news:<u2x6b.282041$Oz4.74308@rwcrnsc54>...
> Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
> researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
> TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
> audio components?
> Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
> expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?

When I read the article the first things that came to mind were some
of the more ridiculous claims regarding cables (signal or A/C),
magnetic pucks, green pens for CDs, etc.

However, the ABX issue did come to mind and clearly qualifies as one
of the areas of endless debate here.

Steven Sullivan
September 8th 03, 10:10 PM
S888Wheel > wrote:
> Tom said

> <<
> But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or
> otherwise? >>

> They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
> ABX or otherwise.

Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good
way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?

--
-S.

Nousaine
September 9th 03, 01:34 AM
(S888Wheel) wrote:

>
>Tom said
>
><<
>But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX
>or
>otherwise? >>
>
>They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
>ABX or otherwise.

OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as
relevant as the lack of verification of same.

Rally on :)

S888Wheel
September 9th 03, 03:59 AM
Steven said

<<
Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good
way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?
>>

I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that
DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was
valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my
opinion.

S888Wheel
September 9th 03, 04:47 PM
<<
>Tom said
>
><<
>But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX
>or
>otherwise? >> >>

I said


<<
>They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
>ABX or otherwise. >>

Tom said


<<
OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as
relevant as the lack of verification of same.
>>


No I am not suggesting that. I thought this kind of stuff wasn't going to pass
on RAHE any more. Too bad that you would attack me with this kind of a post. I
was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the
subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have
never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that real
scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up empty.

Steven Sullivan
September 9th 03, 04:58 PM
S888Wheel > wrote:
> Steven said

> <<
> Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good
> way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?
> >>

> I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that
> DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was
> valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my
> opinion.


Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature)
psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine
what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols.
DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades.


In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with
1) claiming that's been a mistake
2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio
is 'special'


Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming.







--
-S.

Stewart Pinkerton
September 9th 03, 06:33 PM
On 9 Sep 2003 15:47:07 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

><<
>>Tom said
>><<
>>But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX
>>or
>>otherwise? >> >>
>
>I said

>>They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
>>ABX or otherwise. >>
>
>Tom said
><<
>OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as
>relevant as the lack of verification of same.
> >>
>
>No I am not suggesting that. I thought this kind of stuff wasn't going to pass
>on RAHE any more. Too bad that you would attack me with this kind of a post. I
>was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the
>subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have
>never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that real
>scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up empty.

Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
sound' and came up empty. There are many applications which are *much*
more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

S888Wheel
September 9th 03, 06:33 PM
<< > Steven said

> <<
> Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a
good
> way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?
> >> >>

I said

<<
> I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that
> DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was
> valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my
> opinion.
>>

Steven said

<<

Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature)
psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine
what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols.
DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades.
>>

I don't have a problem with using DB protocols in scientific research. I would
have a problem if it weren't used in scientific research.

Steven said

<<

In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with
1) claiming that's been a mistake
2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio
is 'special'

>>

I disagree. What we are all left with is a complete absence of such tests being
done on amplifiers and cables that have gone through the same peer review
proccess that the psychoacoustic research you are refering to has been through.
That was the point. Subjectivists and objectvists are left with no position
suported by science as science is described in the original article about
science vs. psuedoscience. At home you may or may not do good careful work. If
it is good enough for peer review one can submit it for peer review and get it
published. If it isn't then it is anecdotal and of no scientific interest. So
home audio isn't special it's just anecdotal until peer reviewed and published
in a peer reviewed journal. I think certain objectivists are claiming that ABX
DBTs are "special" when they claim the ones that have never been through the
peer review proccess in a scientific journal are evidence of a scientific fact
about the audibility or lack of audibility in certain audio components when
used for playback.

Steven said

<<
Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming.

>>

Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Now if one were to point to half
of that truth and say that an absence of evidence that amps sound different is
evidence that they sound the same or visa versa with a total absence of
evidence one would be making a an intelectually dishonest argument IMO.

Nousaine
September 9th 03, 06:33 PM
(S888Wheel) wrote:

><<
>>Tom said
>>
>><<
>>But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX
>>or
>>otherwise? >> >>
>
>I said
>
>
><<
>>They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire
>sound
>>ABX or otherwise. >>
>
>Tom said
>
>
><<
>OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as
>relevant as the lack of verification of same.
> >>
>
>
>No I am not suggesting that. I thought this kind of stuff wasn't going to
>pass
>on RAHE any more. Too bad that you would attack me with this kind of a post.
>I
>was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the
>subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have
>never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that
>real
>scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up empty.

That's probably right and qualified scientists, engineers and enthusiasts have
examined the 'existance' of amp/wire sound that is not related to area where
audibility has been verified and calibrated (level, response, overload) and
came up empty as well.

ludovic mirabel
September 9th 03, 06:34 PM
wrote in message >...
> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
> news:<u2x6b.282041$Oz4.74308@rwcrnsc54>...
> > Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
> > researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
> > TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
> > audio components?
> > Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
> > expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?
>
> When I read the article the first things that came to mind were some
> of the more ridiculous claims regarding cables (signal or A/C),
> magnetic pucks, green pens for CDs, etc.
>
> However, the ABX issue did come to mind and clearly qualifies as one
> of the areas of endless debate here.

Let me first note that in 3 years I have seen green felt
pens, magnetic cones, Shaktis whatever mentioned frequently on RAHE.
Never, but never by anyone SUPPORTING it. Always but always by someone
fighting its imaginary supporters- and brilliantly winning the debate
(reference Don Quijote vs. windmills)

I listened to green-inked cds. and heard no difference . I
listened to silver, triple-platted interconnects with teflon
insulation and heard clear difference from zipcord , easily
reinforced to ME by the left-right with random changes protocol. This
does not mean that others will hear it too.
I'm not in a position to say that the green pen and
magnetic puck people are deluded. There is no way of checking what
their brains perceive. Many people like wines that I think are awful.
Certainly not by subjecting them to a DBT. A DBT for
comparable AUDIO COMPONENT comparison, applicable to everyone with
normal hearing, is NOT a researched, peer reviewed technique- Mr
Nousaine, Mr. Sullivan please note. (Some hope!) And Mr Wheel, please
note: no, it is not a "valid claim". It is an extraordinary claim due
for experimental validation. Long overdue in fact-
some 30 years.
The answer , Mr. Nousaine to your asking for "proof" of
sighted perception is that by this time you should have grasped that
individual perceptions about differences between comparable audio
components are neither provable or diprovable. They are OPINIONS.
I can not recall anyone "claiming" to have such
"proofs". But they abound in your postings. If anyone were silly
enough to say it he has an exact counterpart in the DBT "I have a
foolproof disproof" mythmakers.
I'll repeat: come up with references to peer-reviewed
research about comparing comparable components by ABX and we'll talk
again.
Ludovic Mirabel

Steven Sullivan
September 9th 03, 11:05 PM
S888Wheel > wrote:
> << > Steven said

> > <<
> > Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a
> good
> > way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?
> > >> >>

> I said

> <<
> > I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that
> > DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was
> > valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my
> > opinion.
> >>

> Steven said

> <<

> Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature)
> psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine
> what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols.
> DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades.
> >>

> I don't have a problem with using DB protocols in scientific research. I would
> have a problem if it weren't used in scientific research.

> Steven said

> <<

> In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with
> 1) claiming that's been a mistake
> 2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio
> is 'special'

> >>

> I disagree. What we are all left with is a complete absence of such tests being
> done on amplifiers and cables that have gone through the same peer review
> proccess that the psychoacoustic research you are refering to has been through.
> That was the point.

But it's not like there's *no* information about *hearing* or about
the physical properties of amps and cables. There's *plenty* of
both, in fact. And these data all point to there being *no likely
audible difference* between such devices when they are made properly
and operating within their deesigned limits.

Scientists would consider 'cable tests' to be a reinvention of the wheel.
It's should be *audiophile magazines* and *audio engineers*
who run such tests. And the AES has in fact touched upon the matter.

And of course, there are plenty of non-peer reviewed, but still
credible, results from work using controlled comparison
protocols, such as conducted by Nousaine, Clark
and Greenhill.



> Subjectivists and objectvists are left with no position
> suported by science as science is described in the original article about
> science vs. psuedoscience.
> At home you may or may not do good careful work. If
> it is good enough for peer review one can submit it for peer review and get it
> published.

What journal would publish an article about tests of cable audible differences?

> If it isn't then it is anecdotal and of no scientific interest. So
> home audio isn't special it's just anecdotal until peer reviewed and published
> in a peer reviewed journal.

That's one criterion. But unlike sighted comparison results,
resutls derived from tests using accepted sceintific protocols
*do* have science behind them...whether they have been peer-reviewed
or not.


> I think certain objectivists are claiming that ABX
> DBTs are "special" when they claim the ones that have never been through the
> peer review proccess in a scientific journal are evidence of a scientific fact
> about the audibility or lack of audibility in certain audio components when
> used for playback.


Wel, then, let's not make a fetish of peer review.
"Peer review' is used as a means to check the methods and logic behind
the conclusions. The article on pseudoscience does not stipulate that
the only scientific claims are those which have been published
in scientific journals. Scientific claims are those made from
scientific methods and reasoning, period. You, or I, or anyone who *understands*
scientific methodology and logic, can 'peer review' the claims
in Nousaine et al....or the claims of 'subjectivsits'. Guess
who's methods are more *scientific*?

>

Steven said

> <<
> Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming.

> >>

> Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post.

No, Scott, you can't be agreeing, because the 'either claim' I was
referring to, were the two claims of *subjectivists* I cited : that either science
has been wrong about the power of DBTs, or that home audio
constitutes a 'special case' -- that certain audio components either
do not reveal their real charms under DBT. You have outlined yet a a third
position, that certain compoennts *might* reveal real audible differences under
DBT, if only we'd do DBT. That belief is *inherent * in the objectivist
position too! The difference is that the existing data from work conducted
via accepted scientific procedures -- taht is, wa century's worht of what
we know about
the phsyical properties of cables, and amps, and about hearing,
*as well as* the existing DBT resutls -- DOES IN FACT indicate that
such difference are *unlikely* to occur under normal design and operation
conditions.








--
-S.

Nousaine
September 10th 03, 12:01 AM
(S888Wheel) wrote:



>
> Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Now if one were to point
> to
> half
> of that truth and say that an absence of evidence that amps sound
> different
> is
> evidence that they sound the same or visa versa with a total absence of
> evidence one would be making a an intelectually dishonest argument IMO.

This argument is similar to one saying that the lack of peer reviewed
evidence
that paranormal activity exists or doesn't exist should carry the same
weight.

The reason that there are no published tests showing that researchers
didn't
see an Alien Abduction is that it's not news. Who cares?

What the Abduction Proponents need to do is prove that extraordinary
claim and
the lack of opposing "proof' of non-existence is simply a smokescreen
for the
lackof evidence supporting the claim.

This "lack of evidence either way" (BTW there is plenty of contrary
evidence
but because it hasn't appeared in the JAES Scott rejects it as not of
interest)
argument is such.

IF amp/wire sound extant of known audibility effects (level, freq
response,
overload) does exist it should have been relatively easy for a
proponent to
have conducted a replicable and reviewed experiment showing such to be
true.

S888Wheel
September 10th 03, 01:35 AM
<< Steven said

> > <<
> > Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a
> good
> > way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?
> > >> >> >>

<<
> I said

> <<
> > I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that
> > DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was
> > valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my
> > opinion.
> >> >>

<<

> Steven said

> <<

> Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature)
> psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine
> what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols.
> DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades.
> >> >>

I said

<<

> I don't have a problem with using DB protocols in scientific research. I
would
> have a problem if it weren't used in scientific research.
>>

<<
> Steven said

> <<

> In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with
> 1) claiming that's been a mistake
> 2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio
> is 'special' >>

I said

<<

> I disagree. What we are all left with is a complete absence of such tests
being
> done on amplifiers and cables that have gone through the same peer review
> proccess that the psychoacoustic research you are refering to has been
through.
> That was the point. >>

Steven said

<<

But it's not like there's *no* information about *hearing* or about
the physical properties of amps and cables. There's *plenty* of
both, in fact. And these data all point to there being *no likely
audible difference* between such devices when they are made properly
and operating within their deesigned limits.
>>

I have seen this said before. I haven't seen it demonstrated. maybe you could
do this? Cite the specific known properties of human hearing and the specific
known properties of amplifiers and cables and show that it suggests all the
known distortions of amps and cables are inaudible in any playback system. That
is probably a lot to ask but if you believe this I would think you could do
this or point to some literature demonstrating this.

Steven said

<<
Scientists would consider 'cable tests' to be a reinvention of the wheel. >>

I have heard this argument before as well. It strikes me as an unfounded
assertion until someone can cite a peer review group rejecting such test based
on their excessive obviousness. i have asked for any citations of this before
with no citations being offered.

Steven said

<< It's should be *audiophile magazines* and *audio engineers*
who run such tests. And the AES has in fact touched upon the matter. >>

They should run such tests if they choose to. No one is obligated to do so. If
they want the tests to be scientifically valid then they should publish them in
a peer reviewed scientific journal. the scientific community doesn't make any
exceptions for any other claims to my knowledge. I can't see why anything in
audio should be exempt from the protocols of the scientific community. If one
wants to say something is supported by science it must actually be supported by
science. I don't think that is such a radical position.

Steven said

<<

And of course, there are plenty of non-peer reviewed, but still
credible, results from work using controlled comparison
protocols, such as conducted by Nousaine, Clark
and Greenhill. >>

Credibility is often quite subjective. Non-peer reviewed comaprisons remain
anecdotal.

I said

<<

> Subjectivists and objectvists are left with no position
> suported by science as science is described in the original article about
> science vs. psuedoscience.
> At home you may or may not do good careful work. If
> it is good enough for peer review one can submit it for peer review and get
it
> published. >>

Steven said

<<

What journal would publish an article about tests of cable audible differences?
>>

I would suspect that the AESJ would publish good tests on the subject. They
have published articles advocating such tests. I think in light of that fact it
would be far fetched to think they would publish such articles and reject the
very tests advocated in such articles.

I said

<<
> If it isn't then it is anecdotal and of no scientific interest. So
> home audio isn't special it's just anecdotal until peer reviewed and
published
> in a peer reviewed journal. >>

Steven said

<<
That's one criterion. But unlike sighted comparison results,
resutls derived from tests using accepted sceintific protocols
*do* have science behind them...whether they have been peer-reviewed
or not. >>

Maybe they do maybe they don't. It is not hard to do bad DBTs or even
fraudulant ones. That is part of what peer review is all about, To weed out the
garbage. To assume that just because someone claims to have done DBTs doesn't
make the claimed tests valid. There is a lot more to good testing than just
making them double blind. Also no one I know of is saying that peer review is
the arbitrator of truth only that it is the protocol of science as a dicipline.
No doubt some things that go through peer review and get published turn out to
be bogus and somethings that are never reviewed are actually right on the
money. But that wasn't the issue. the issue was tests of the audibility of amps
and cables that have undergone peer review. It seems none have. In such case
the reasonable conclusion is one cannot make any claims of scientific validity
one way or another unless you can successfully corolate all the scientifically
accepted data on human hearing to all the scientifically accepted data on
amplifier performance in playback and demonstrate that there should be no
audible differences in amps with any real world speaker. You would have to show
that every possible distortion of an amplifier has been propperly testsed for
audibility in any real world application of playback. Sounds like a lot of work
to me.

I said

<<

> I think certain objectivists are claiming that ABX
> DBTs are "special" when they claim the ones that have never been through the
> peer review proccess in a scientific journal are evidence of a scientific
fact
> about the audibility or lack of audibility in certain audio components when
> used for playback.
>>

Steven said

<<
Wel, then, let's not make a fetish of peer review. >>

I don't see how holding allegedly "scientifically supported" claims in audio to
the same standards of peer review that the scientific world holds all other
allegedly scientifically supported claims becomes a peer review "fetish."

Steven said

<< "Peer review' is used as a means to check the methods and logic behind
the conclusions. The article on pseudoscience does not stipulate that
the only scientific claims are those which have been published
in scientific journals. >>

It certainly implies it.

Steven said

<< Scientific claims are those made from
scientific methods and reasoning, period. You, or I, or anyone who
*understands*
scientific methodology and logic, can 'peer review' the claims
in Nousaine et al....or the claims of 'subjectivsits'. Guess
who's methods are more *scientific >>

Any group of people can get together and call something scientific. The
creationists have done this. I have seen an extremely unscientific DBTs
published in an audio journal. It remains anecdotal until published in a peer
reviewed scientific journal.

<<

Steven said

> <<
> Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming.
>>

I said

<<

> Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post.
>>

Steven said

<<
No, Scott, you can't be agreeing, because the 'either claim' I was
referring to, were the two claims of *subjectivists* I cited : that either
science
has been wrong about the power of DBTs, or that home audio
constitutes a 'special case' -- that certain audio components either
do not reveal their real charms under DBT. >>

You are right. i missunderstood the reference. I don't agree with that either
or scenario. All one has to do is show a classic case of really bad DBTs or
even a fraudulant one to show that it isn't an either or propostion.

Steven said

<< You have outlined yet a a third
position, that certain compoennts *might* reveal real audible differences under
DBT, if only we'd do DBT. That belief is *inherent * in the objectivist
position too! The difference is that the existing data from work conducted
via accepted scientific procedures -- taht is, wa century's worht of what
we know about
the phsyical properties of cables, and amps, and about hearing,
*as well as* the existing DBT resutls -- DOES IN FACT indicate that
such difference are *unlikely* to occur under normal design and operation
conditions.

>>

I think you are exagerating the merits of the existing anecdotal evidence. I
think the results of all the anecdotal DBTs are not so clear cut as you make
them out to be.

S888Wheel
September 10th 03, 02:22 AM
<<
><<
>>Tom said
>><<
>>But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX
>>or
>>otherwise? >> >> >>

<<
>I said

>>They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
>>ABX or otherwise. >>
> >>

<<
>Tom said
><<
>OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as
>relevant as the lack of verification of same.
> >>
> >>

I said

<<
>No I am not suggesting that. I thought this kind of stuff wasn't going to pass
>on RAHE any more. Too bad that you would attack me with this kind of a post. I
>was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the
>subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have
>never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that
real
>scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up empty.
>>

Stewert said

<<
Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
sound' and came up empty. >>

Could you cite the specific peer reviewed published tests? I would be
interested in reading them.

Stewert said

<< There are many applications which are *much*
more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.
-- >>

I don't see how this point supports the position that all cables sound the
same. I can identify a person by the sound of their voice over the phone. I can
even tell my twin brothers apart on the phone. My phone is not a high fidelity
player. Just because submarines can be heard and identified over long distances
using ordinary cable doesn't in and of itself prove that the cable is
transparent just as my ability to tell my twin brothers apart over the phone
doesn't prove the phone is transparent.

ludovic mirabel
September 10th 03, 02:54 AM
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...

Quoting Mr. Wheel:
> > I was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the
> >subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have
> >never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that
> > real scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up
> > empty.
>
Mr. Pinkerton:
> Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
> sound' and came up empty

A reference to the LISTENING cable comparison test by "real
scientists"
please. Mag, author, volume, page.
Aren't you tired yet of quoting the anonymous "real
scientists" that license all and sundry to speak for them? Everybody
else is. It is wearing thin , you know

> There are many applications which are *much*
> more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
> we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
> identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
> 'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
> wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.

I suppose that was what you used in your amp comparisons. And I
thought you bothered with DBT. Are the systems "we have" recommended
for use only by whomever Mr. Pinkerton happens to disagree with?
You impose match-levelling to 0.1 db. on the contestants in
your famous ABX prize for telling difference between a cable and a
cable. But you tell me that 6db signal to noise ratio is not enough
when it comes to my way of comparing components. If I do I won't
discover "subtle" differences. Define "subtle". Is subtle whatever
Mr. Pinkerton can't hear?

Talk about "real scientists".
Ludovic Mirabel

Dennis Moore
September 10th 03, 04:36 PM
"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

>
> Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
> sound' and came up empty. There are many applications which are *much*
> more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
> we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
> identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
> 'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
> wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>

Stewart, I doubt the system used to listen to submarines is
using only ordinary copper wire. I bet some or all of it is
mil-spec wire of most likely silver plated or silver coated copper
in teflon insulation. One system used silver plated steel alloy
for the desired impedance and toughness. I am not saying
that validates subjectivists idea about silver or other conductors.
But it also doesn't validate the idea that any kind of old copper
is used because it is good enough.

Dennis

S888Wheel
September 10th 03, 04:39 PM
I said

<<
>
> Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Now if one were to point
> to
> half
> of that truth and say that an absence of evidence that amps sound
> different
> is
> evidence that they sound the same or visa versa with a total absence of
> evidence one would be making a an intelectually dishonest argument IMO.
>>


Tom said

<<
This argument is similar to one saying that the lack of peer reviewed
evidence
that paranormal activity exists or doesn't exist should carry the same
weight. >>


No it is not. Analogies to highly inflamatory subjects is nothing but
insulting. claiming that different amplifiers may sound different is not a
claim of paranormal phenomenon per se. Further more, many scientific
investigations into claims of the paranormal have been conducted and published
so the analogy is entirely flawed.

Tom said

<<
The reason that there are no published tests showing that researchers
didn't
see an Alien Abduction is that it's not news. Who cares?
>>


Why would you assume that no such published papers investigating claims of
alien abductions? Are you sure that there are no published investigations on
such things? There certainly are plenty of published investigations on claims
of paranormal activity. They found nothing paranormal. By the way, one would
not do a "test" to see if there are people being abducted by aliens anymore
than one would do a "test" to find fossils or cosmic phenomenon or new species
or many other things that amount to valid scientific evidence. It is ridiculous
to mix the collection of evidence in the field, which involves going out and
finding evidence, with lab experiments which wrought data through an entirely
different proccess.

Tom said



<<
What the Abduction Proponents need to do is prove that extraordinary
claim and
the lack of opposing "proof' of non-existence is simply a smokescreen
for the
lackof evidence supporting the claim. >>


There isn't a lack of opposing evidence in the case of claims of alien
abduction and I am pretty sure it has been investigated by scientists. Further
more, your assertion that claims of amplifier sound are extraordinary is
nothing more than that as far as I can see.

Tom said

<<
This "lack of evidence either way" (BTW there is plenty of contrary
evidence
but because it hasn't appeared in the JAES Scott rejects it as not of
interest)
argument is such. >>


The analogy is flawed as I pointed out above. The facts are misrepresented.
There is no contrary evidence that has been cited that can be considered
scientifically valid. And you have misrepresented my position. I have never
claimed that the anecdotal evidence was of no interest. I simply and correctly
pointed out the fact that it is anecdotal.


Tom said


<<
IF amp/wire sound extant of known audibility effects (level, freq
response,
overload) does exist it should have been relatively easy for a
proponent to
have conducted a replicable and reviewed experiment showing such to be
true.
>>


If amplifiers and cables have no sound of their own it should be reletively
simple to prove and publish in the AESJ or another interested scientific
journal. It seems this hasen't happened. In all the years of debate and all the
anecdotal tests done to promote this belief no one has taken it upon themsleves
to not only do the tests but to put them up for peer review and publication in
a scientific journal such as the AESJ which would have an obvious interest.
Without it your claim lacks scientific support.

Nancy Eilers-Hughes
September 10th 03, 04:42 PM
<snip>

> Non-peer reviewed comaprisons remain
> anecdotal.

Sorry, but while you continually make this assertion, it is simply
incorrect. Data gathered using strictly defined and executed
protocols, evaluated within the constraints of the specified
methodologies, are *not* anecdotal (one definition of which is "2
: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually
unscientific observers <anecdotal evidence>"). You may choose to
accept it, or refute it (have you evidence with which to do so)
but it remains valid data within the bounds and constraints of the
protocol methodology used.

For example, using *your* definition of anecdotal, all the sterile
pharmaceuticals and medical devices currently used are
developed, validated, approved, and marketed based solely on
anecdotal (i.e. unscientific) data. These data are not published,
much less peer reviewed (they are all proprietary after all). When
audited by FDA, they stand or fall on their merits (applicability,
sufficiency, rigor, results, and documentation).

So, if *you* want to stipulate that peer review is *your* minimum
criterion for acceptability, feel free. But please, let's quit
mischaracterizing everything that is not peer reviewed as
"anecdotal", it is simply an insufficient criterion for such
determination.

<snip>

Keith Hughes

S888Wheel
September 10th 03, 05:43 PM
Stewert said

>> There are many applications which are *much*
>> more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
>> we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
>> identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
>> 'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
>> wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.
>

Ludovic said

> I suppose that was what you used in your amp comparisons. And I
>thought you bothered with DBT. Are the systems "we have" recommended
>for use only by whomever Mr. Pinkerton happens to disagree with?

I don't think this at all fair to Stewert who has described his DBTs of
amplifiers in detail. While I don't think his point per se proves that cables
are transparent I don't think it warrents an unfair attack on the work he did
in selecting his amplifiers.

Stewart Pinkerton
September 10th 03, 06:26 PM
On 10 Sep 2003 15:36:07 GMT, "Dennis Moore" >
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

>>
>> Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
>> sound' and came up empty. There are many applications which are *much*
>> more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
>> we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
>> identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
>> 'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
>> wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.

>Stewart, I doubt the system used to listen to submarines is
>using only ordinary copper wire. I bet some or all of it is
>mil-spec wire of most likely silver plated or silver coated copper
>in teflon insulation.

What do you think MIL-spec wire *is*? It's ordinary stranded copper
wire, generally silver-plated and Teflon-coated for ease of cable
harness assembly, absolutely *not* for any electrical reason. Indeed,
I use a thin solid-core version of that standard MIL-spec hookup wire
in my own speaker cable, just because I had it available and it made
up to a usefully high resistance.

>One system used silver plated steel alloy
>for the desired impedance and toughness.

That sounds more like an RF cable, but whatever. It would certainly be
used for good engineering reasons, not the utter bull**** that passes
for 'electrical theory' in high-end cable companies.

> I am not saying
>that validates subjectivists idea about silver or other conductors.
>But it also doesn't validate the idea that any kind of old copper
>is used because it is good enough.

What do you mean by 'any old kind of copper'? The silver plating is
there because of the Teflon, and the Teflon is there because it's
slippery. There are no 'magical mystical' cable constructions or
variable gauge stranding, there are no mysterious alloys or 'six
nines' copper purity, there's no 'single crystal' drawing, it's just
absolutely ordinary stranded copper wire.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

S888Wheel
September 10th 03, 07:15 PM
I said

<<

> Non-peer reviewed comaprisons remain
> anecdotal. >>


Keith said


<<

Sorry, but while you continually make this assertion, it is simply
incorrect. Data gathered using strictly defined and executed
protocols, evaluated within the constraints of the specified
methodologies, are *not* anecdotal (one definition of which is "2
: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually
unscientific observers <anecdotal evidence>"). You may choose to
accept it, or refute it (have you evidence with which to do so)
but it remains valid data within the bounds and constraints of the
protocol methodology used.

For example, using *your* definition of anecdotal, all the sterile
pharmaceuticals and medical devices currently used are
developed, validated, approved, and marketed based solely on
anecdotal (i.e. unscientific) data. These data are not published,
much less peer reviewed (they are all proprietary after all). When
audited by FDA, they stand or fall on their merits (applicability,
sufficiency, rigor, results, and documentation).

So, if *you* want to stipulate that peer review is *your* minimum
criterion for acceptability, feel free. But please, let's quit
mischaracterizing everything that is not peer reviewed as
"anecdotal", it is simply an insufficient criterion for such
determination.

<snip>

Keith Hughes



>>

This would be true if you choose to ignore the scientific research very early
on that investigated sterilization. The science behind sterilization had
already been established. So protocols based on existing scientific knowledge
that you have cited are really nothing more than a straw man. I am not saying
that manufacturers, doctors, engineers or any practicioners need to publish
their day to day protocols for their protocols to be scientifically valid. The
fact is I am not challenging the protocols of DBTs. I am merely pointing out
that without peer review they lack scientific validity. Do you really think
every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because some
one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted by
Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20 tests.
He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal
evidence.

Dennis Moore
September 10th 03, 07:31 PM
"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On 10 Sep 2003 15:36:07 GMT, "Dennis Moore" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
> >> sound' and came up empty. There are many applications which are *much*
> >> more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
> >> we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
> >> identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
> >> 'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
> >> wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.
>
> >Stewart, I doubt the system used to listen to submarines is
> >using only ordinary copper wire. I bet some or all of it is
> >mil-spec wire of most likely silver plated or silver coated copper
> >in teflon insulation.
>
> What do you think MIL-spec wire *is*? It's ordinary stranded copper
> wire, generally silver-plated and Teflon-coated for ease of cable
> harness assembly, absolutely *not* for any electrical reason. Indeed,
> I use a thin solid-core version of that standard MIL-spec hookup wire
> in my own speaker cable, just because I had it available and it made
> up to a usefully high resistance.
>
> >One system used silver plated steel alloy
> >for the desired impedance and toughness.
>
> That sounds more like an RF cable, but whatever. It would certainly be
> used for good engineering reasons, not the utter bull**** that passes
> for 'electrical theory' in high-end cable companies.
>
> > I am not saying
> >that validates subjectivists idea about silver or other conductors.
> >But it also doesn't validate the idea that any kind of old copper
> >is used because it is good enough.
>
> What do you mean by 'any old kind of copper'? The silver plating is
> there because of the Teflon, and the Teflon is there because it's
> slippery. There are no 'magical mystical' cable constructions or
> variable gauge stranding, there are no mysterious alloys or 'six
> nines' copper purity, there's no 'single crystal' drawing, it's just
> absolutely ordinary stranded copper wire.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>

That makes lots of sense Stewart. It is just plain old copper.
Other than of course it being silver plated. So other than not
being just plain copper it is of course plain copper. All you need
is plain copper of course unless you need something else like
silver plating. Yep, makes real good sense.

Dennis

Steven Sullivan
September 10th 03, 09:06 PM
S888Wheel > wrote:
> I said

> <<

> > Non-peer reviewed comaprisons remain
> > anecdotal. >>


> Keith said


> <<

> Sorry, but while you continually make this assertion, it is simply
> incorrect. Data gathered using strictly defined and executed
> protocols, evaluated within the constraints of the specified
> methodologies, are *not* anecdotal (one definition of which is "2
> : based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually
> unscientific observers <anecdotal evidence>"). You may choose to
> accept it, or refute it (have you evidence with which to do so)
> but it remains valid data within the bounds and constraints of the
> protocol methodology used.

> For example, using *your* definition of anecdotal, all the sterile
> pharmaceuticals and medical devices currently used are
> developed, validated, approved, and marketed based solely on
> anecdotal (i.e. unscientific) data. These data are not published,
> much less peer reviewed (they are all proprietary after all). When
> audited by FDA, they stand or fall on their merits (applicability,
> sufficiency, rigor, results, and documentation).

> So, if *you* want to stipulate that peer review is *your* minimum
> criterion for acceptability, feel free. But please, let's quit
> mischaracterizing everything that is not peer reviewed as
> "anecdotal", it is simply an insufficient criterion for such
> determination.

> <snip>

> Keith Hughes



> >>

> This would be true if you choose to ignore the scientific research very early
> on that investigated sterilization. The science behind sterilization had
> already been established. So protocols based on existing scientific knowledge
> that you have cited are really nothing more than a straw man. I am not saying
> that manufacturers, doctors, engineers or any practicioners need to publish
> their day to day protocols for their protocols to be scientifically valid.


And that's *exactly* the point that's being made to you. Psychoacoustics is
an old enough science to have its own textbooks. Therein you will find the
'classic' data (and the references) for studies on human hearing and perception.
Similarly, cable technology was pretty much worked out by the end of the 60's.
Its 'findings' are now part of standard textbooks too.

Yet you keep askign for citations.
So, what's keeping you from going back to those 'ur-texts'? I *know* you've
been directed to them before.


> The
> fact is I am not challenging the protocols of DBTs. I am merely pointing out
> that without peer review they lack scientific validity. Do you really think
> every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because some
> one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted by
> Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20 tests.
> He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal
> evidence.


And then when his claims were tested in a better-controlled DBT , with
other poeple observing the procedure and the results...what happened?

One of the poeple who conducted the better-controlled DBT was Tom
Nousaine, whose own 'anecdotes' you seem to find so suspect.




--
-S.

Dave Platt
September 10th 03, 10:45 PM
In article >,
Mike Gilmour > wrote:

>Lets not advertise DuPont wares too much. Teflon is the trade name for PTFE
>or polytetrafluoroethylene, often used in cables for military avionic &
>marine applications requiring exceptional thermal stability. PTFE melts at
>328 deg C. This AFAIK is the main reason though I do appreciate the
>advantages in ease of harness assembly but does the elevated cost of PTFE
>coated cables justify this reason alone?

I suspect part of the cost is "what the market will bear". The PFTE
almost certainly adds some cost during manufacture due to the higher
temperatures needed to apply/extrude it. Compliance to a formal
mil-spec rating (e.g. MIL-W-16878-E for much of the wire of this sort
I've bought) certainly adds cost (probably paperwork, tracking,
testing, and so forth).

I believe I've read that this wire is normally silverplated because
the high temperatures used in applying the PFTE would otherwise cause
the surface of the copper to oxidize, making the wire difficult to
solder and (I suppose) perhaps compromising the quality of crimped
connections to the wire. Normal tinning processes can't be used due
to the high temperatures.

I agree with you that thermal stability is probably the biggest
advantage to using this sort of wire. Darned embarrassing if your
multimillion-dollar jet fighter, MX missile, etc. fails in flight
because the PVC insulation on a cheap wire melts through and the
whole system shorts out.

I've come to like using this wire for homebrew projects, because I
don't have to worry about burning through it if I happen to touch it
with my soldering iron while working on a nearby part. Also, the
insulation doesn't "shrink back" away from the solder junction. It's
expensive if ordered new from (e.g.) Alpha or Belden or etc., but is
commonly available in surplus here in the Silicon Valley.

--
Dave Platt > AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Nousaine
September 11th 03, 12:15 AM
(S888Wheel) wrote:

>Do you really think
>every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because
>some
>one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted
>by
>Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20
>tests.
>He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal
>evidence.

Of course not. I replicated that experiment at Zipser's place. It was clear
that he, his wife and a 3rd party were unable to reliably identify his
expensive amplifier(s) from an inexpensive intergrated amplifier with even
modest bias contnrols applied. (Single or double blind.)

And....so what? Do YOU have some interesting data to bring to the table?

But, given the Zipser experiment why do you continue to argue so hard defending
amp sound when you have 'no' reliable positive evidence?

In my personal opinion I think that these long arduous 'arguments' come from an
internal need of a few individuals to confirm past decisions on audibility
which may have been compromised by non-sonic bias. It might be called cognitive
dissonance.

Nousaine
September 11th 03, 01:14 AM
(S888Wheel) wrote:

>I said
>
><<
>>
>> Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Now if one were to point
>> to
>> half
>> of that truth and say that an absence of evidence that amps sound
>> different
>> is
>> evidence that they sound the same or visa versa with a total absence of
>> evidence one would be making a an intelectually dishonest argument IMO.
> >>
>
>
>Tom said
>
><<
>This argument is similar to one saying that the lack of peer reviewed
>evidence
>that paranormal activity exists or doesn't exist should carry the same
>weight. >>
>
>
>No it is not. Analogies to highly inflamatory subjects is nothing but
>insulting. claiming that different amplifiers may sound different is not a
>claim of paranormal phenomenon per se.

It's an extraordinary claim that has not been verified by any bias controlled
experiment. There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.

So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity. It doesn't fit with present
experimental evidence. If it did then we wouldn't be arguing about it.

Further more, many scientific
>investigations into claims of the paranormal have been conducted and
>published
>so the analogy is entirely flawed.

In peer-reviewed journals?

>
>Tom said
>
><<
>The reason that there are no published tests showing that researchers
>didn't
>see an Alien Abduction is that it's not news. Who cares?
> >>
>
>
>Why would you assume that no such published papers investigating claims of
>alien abductions? Are you sure that there are no published investigations on
>such things?

Do you have a reference to a peer-reviewed experiment on Alien Abductions to
report?

There certainly are plenty of published investigations on claims
>of paranormal activity. They found nothing paranormal.

Isn't that surprising? Do you have some peer-reviewed references? That's
what's happened with amp sound; people have searched for it (me included) and
not found same.

By the way, one would
>not do a "test" to see if there are people being abducted by aliens anymore
>than one would do a "test" to find fossils or cosmic phenomenon or new
>species
>or many other things that amount to valid scientific evidence. It is
>ridiculous
>to mix the collection of evidence in the field, which involves going out and
>finding evidence, with lab experiments which wrought data through an entirely
>different proccess.

Why? Are extraordinary claims based outside the Lab free from scrutiny? I think
any extraordinary claim needs to be validated by the people MAKING the claim.
The burden of proof on amp/wire sound needs to come from the Proponents. Those
of us who have attempted to verfiy same haven't been able to do so. It's YOUR
turn now.

>
>Tom said
>
>
>
><<
>What the Abduction Proponents need to do is prove that extraordinary
>claim and
>the lack of opposing "proof' of non-existence is simply a smokescreen
>for the
>lackof evidence supporting the claim. >>
>
>
>There isn't a lack of opposing evidence in the case of claims of alien
>abduction and I am pretty sure it has been investigated by scientists.
>Further
>more, your assertion that claims of amplifier sound are extraordinary is
>nothing more than that as far as I can see.
>
>Tom said
>
><<
>This "lack of evidence either way" (BTW there is plenty of contrary
>evidence
>but because it hasn't appeared in the JAES Scott rejects it as not of
>interest)
>argument is such. >>
>
>
>The analogy is flawed as I pointed out above. The facts are misrepresented.
>There is no contrary evidence that has been cited that can be considered
>scientifically valid.

'Sez you. How are you qualified to comment?

And you have misrepresented my position. I have never
>claimed that the anecdotal evidence was of no interest. I simply and
>correctly
>pointed out the fact that it is anecdotal.
>
>
>Tom said
>
>
><<
>IF amp/wire sound extant of known audibility effects (level, freq
>response,
>overload) does exist it should have been relatively easy for a
>proponent to
>have conducted a replicable and reviewed experiment showing such to be
>true.
> >>
>
>
>If amplifiers and cables have no sound of their own it should be reletively
>simple to prove and publish in the AESJ or another interested scientific
>journal. It seems this hasen't happened. In all the years of debate and all
>the
>anecdotal tests done to promote this belief no one has taken it upon
>themsleves
>to not only do the tests but to put them up for peer review and publication
>in
>a scientific journal such as the AESJ which would have an obvious interest.
>Without it your claim lacks scientific support.

So why hasn't some interested party (designer, owner, seller, manufacturer)
been able to do so? It's simply NOT my responsibility to prove YOUR case. I've
tried in every reasonable fashion.

Your position not only lacks 'scientific support' it even LACKS anecdotal
support by your own standards.

Let me offer an opportunity to YOU. Supply an amplifier that has a sound-of-its
own and I'll measure it and if its found to be nominally competent I'll recruit
and pay 10 subjects to verify your claim under bias controlled conditions.
You'll only have to pay shipping both ways.

Alternately I'll come to your place and conduct such an experiment and supply
my own amplifier and all equipment required for a bias controlled test. In the
latter case IF you are not able to reliably identify that amplifier (assumig it
meets the competency test) 9 times out of 10 in a controlled listening test you
will reimburse my flight costs. If you can I'll pay you $100.

We will then agree that the results will be publicly available and submitted to
the JAES as a Convention paper and offered for publication.

Stewart Pinkerton
September 11th 03, 04:18 PM
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:13:32 GMT, "Mike Gilmour"
> wrote:

>Lets not advertise DuPont wares too much. Teflon is the trade name for PTFE
>or polytetrafluoroethylene, often used in cables for military avionic &
>marine applications requiring exceptional thermal stability. PTFE melts at
>328 deg C. This AFAIK is the main reason though I do appreciate the
>advantages in ease of harness assembly but does the elevated cost of PTFE
>coated cables justify this reason alone?

Yes. I worked in the defence industry for about twenty years, and one
of the main reasons for the use of PTFE in cable insulation is not
that it withstands high temperatures (although this is a useful
property), but that if one wire in a harness burns out or breaks, it
can readily be replaced by pulling through another wire. No other
insulation material will allow this, although several others have even
higher thermal ratings. The other main reason for the use of PTFE is
that, for a given voltage and current rating, PTFE gives the smallest
overall wire diameter, leading to more compact cable harnesses. In
complex military equipment which is required to fit into small spaces
in fighting vehicles, this combination of properties easily justifies
the small additional cost. It also strips very cleanly for crimping
with minimal 'pullback', which is nice.

BTW, I generally refer to it as 'Teflon' because that's the best-known
name for PTFE, and many of our American cousins might not recognise
the generic term.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton
September 11th 03, 04:19 PM
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:11:10 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>So far no one has delivered a replicable, documented experiment on wire sound.
>No one, even staunch proponents, has been able to show an ability to 'hear'
>wires with bias controls as simple as a blanket covering terminals to prevent
>non-sonic attributes from clouding the results. Why not?

Is that a serious question? :-)

>As for Mr Pinkerton's experiment all he has to do is produce documentation
>shwoing that the units he claimed were sonically identifiable had nominally
>competent performance.

I have never claimed this, in fact I am certain that it would be very
easy to track down significant measured differences among the
identifiable amplifiers, particularly in terms of treble droop and
high levels of IMD or switching distortion.

>OR another experiment thay confirms his results. Maybe YOU should do that.
>
>Or let me give you the high-end reverse take on it. Even IF that experiment
>were accepted at face value all it would have "proven" was that differences
>were audible under those conditions in that system. Without some kind of
>replication it cannot be extrapolated to any other circumstance under the
>high-end rules.
>
>At best it suggests that speaker load may be unusual.
>
>I tell you what. I'll conduct a DBT with an amplifier supplied by you and one
>supplied by Pinkerton. You each pay shipping to/from and I'll conduct the
>experiment, solicit and pay the subjects. We will agree in advance that all
>information will be publicly shared and that I'll submit those in a paper to an
>AES Convention.

Surely someone in your area has an old Krell, from the days before
plateau biasing? Failing that, I'll nominate one of your Brystons as
sonically transparent.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Leonard
September 14th 03, 06:47 PM
Ref: Dividing lines between science and pseudo-science...

mrclem..

As one reads about new breakthroughs in Science or any other
discipline or human endeavor, one begins to see that when
a scientist stumbles into newer and more logical theory
he becomes the point of ridicule by many of his fellow
Scientist. There is a tendency to not accept the new
concept..why?...it is outside of the "lines" of previous
and current thinking. A particularly devastating aspect
of the "hard-line Objectivist" mentality.

New concepts and ideas tend to be ridiculed by this
ultra-conservative mindset. However, in this day and
age with new concepts and breakthroughs there is a
"ray" of hope that new principles and concepts are
being accepted with less ridicule. (This is particularly
true in the world of Astronomy.)

Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a
certain element within his realm of work. Granted he
did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a
more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open
the mind to greater horizons.

The point of all this is to be very leary of accusing
a new principle of having elements of quackery or pseudo-science
when indeed it is outside the lines of currently accepted
thinking. So many great breakthroughs have had to suffer
through this element of ridicule...always, coming from that
element in our society that has everything clearly defined
within a set of lines that define the "real" world to them.
Never accepting that most knowledge is still outside the
"lines" or borders of the known!

It is almost as if we have a mindset within our midst that
is very, very fearful that new breakthroughs will somehow
shatter the current thinking that they have based their
very being on! To them,it is a fearful thing that should be
"nipped in the bud"..dangerous, these new concepts and ideas.
Put them down..less worry..let the Universe stay as I
conceive it to be. Perhaps, a weakness of our very being!!
Certain Institutions in the past have thrived on this mentality.

Square one: we've got to continue moving those mental
lines or barriers forever outward...develope a willingness
to maintain an open mind...always, keep an open mind! The
volume of new knowledge and concepts to be discovered
makes the known knowledge a miniscule drop in the bucket.

Enough, I meander on...this horse has been beat to death in
the past!!

Leonard..
__________________________________________________ _______________________

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 04:16:38 +0000, mrclem wrote:

> Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the
> discussions here that seem to go on forever:
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
>
> I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been
> participating in these endless discussions over the years.

S888Wheel
September 15th 03, 12:05 AM
I said

>>Do you really think
>>every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because
>>some
>>one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted
>>by
>>Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20
>>tests.
>>He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal
>>evidence.

Tom said

>Of course not. I replicated that experiment at Zipser's place. It was clear
>that he, his wife and a 3rd party were unable to reliably identify his
>expensive amplifier(s) from an inexpensive intergrated amplifier with even
>modest bias contnrols applied. (Single or double blind.)

>
>And....so what? Do YOU have some interesting data to bring to the table?
>

Not at the moment.

Tom said

>
>But, given the Zipser experiment why do you continue to argue so hard
>defending
>amp sound when you have 'no' reliable positive evidence?

This is a straw man. I haven't been arguing amp sound, I have been arguing
scientific validity of any opinions either way when it comes to amp sound. Yes,
i think that amps that I have compared in my home on my system have sounded
different. I have made no claims that those opinions are supported by science.

Tom said

>
>In my personal opinion I think that these long arduous 'arguments' come from
>an
>internal need of a few individuals to confirm past decisions on audibility
>which may have been compromised by non-sonic bias. It might be called
>cognitive
>dissonance.

You are entitled to your opinions. In my opinion claiming valid scientific
support of one's beliefs in the absence of scientifically valid data is a
misrepresentation of legitimate science.

S888Wheel
September 15th 03, 04:09 PM
Steven said

>
>And that's *exactly* the point that's being made to you. Psychoacoustics is
>an old enough science to have its own textbooks.

I have never said otherwise about psychoacoustics.

Steven said

> Therein you will find the
>'classic' data (and the references) for studies on human hearing and
>perception.

I know that.

Steven said

>Similarly, cable technology was pretty much worked out by the end of the
>60's.
>Its 'findings' are now part of standard textbooks too.

That's all nice and well but it doesn't prove anything until you take every
known threshold of human hearing and test it to every known distortion in
amplifiers and cables when being used in every possible playback
configuaration. (This is not to say that I think every possible system must be
tested but every real world product that pushes the extremes of conditions
would need to be included in the scope of things.)

Steven said

>
>Yet you keep askign for citations.
>So, what's keeping you from going back to those 'ur-texts'? I *know* you've
>been directed to them before.

What is keeping those who believe that the proof of inaudibility is proven in
such texts from making the citations I ask for? This sounds like a classic case
of "I say it's so and the science agrees with me and you have to go prove it
for me." Those who make the assertions must do the work of proving those
assertions.

I said

>> The
>> fact is I am not challenging the protocols of DBTs. I am merely pointing
>out
>> that without peer review they lack scientific validity. Do you really think
>> every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because
>some
>> one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted
>by
>> Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20
>tests.
>> He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal
>> evidence.
>

Steven said

>
>And then when his claims were tested in a better-controlled DBT , with
>other poeple observing the procedure and the results...what happened?

Which just shows that there is more to a test being valid then it simply being
double blind. So how is quality control guaged? It is my understanding that the
peer review proccess is the litmus test for scientific acceptability. All tests
that are not peer reviewed are anecdotal. So I have been told by my friends who
happen to be scientists or graduate students at Cal Tech. Are they wrong?

Steven said

>
>One of the poeple who conducted the better-controlled DBT was Tom
>Nousaine, whose own 'anecdotes' you seem to find so suspect.

I did find one of his tests painfully flawed, but even then I did not reject
the data. I just don't think it proves a global scientific fact about audio.

September 15th 03, 04:10 PM
Leonard > wrote:

> Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a
> certain element within his realm of work. Granted he
> did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a
> more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open
> the mind to greater horizons.


Can you be specific and name this vague 'certain element' you speak of?
If it's so certain, that should be an easy job.

Keep in mind that Einstein employed a full time professional logician
working in his office when he was at Princeton working on the Unified
Field Theory. Could it be that such rigor has something to do with that
theory not yet being shown to be really workable?

Compare that to high end audio where perverse delight is taken in denying
even the most simple of logic.

Nousaine
September 15th 03, 04:11 PM
(S888Wheel) wrote:



>
>I said
>
>>>Do you really think
>>>every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because
>>>some
>>>one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted
>>>by
>>>Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20
>>>tests.
>>>He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal
>>>evidence.
>
>Tom said
>
>>Of course not. I replicated that experiment at Zipser's place. It was clear
>>that he, his wife and a 3rd party were unable to reliably identify his
>>expensive amplifier(s) from an inexpensive intergrated amplifier with even
>>modest bias contnrols applied. (Single or double blind.)
>
>>
>>And....so what? Do YOU have some interesting data to bring to the table?
>>
>
>Not at the moment.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>But, given the Zipser experiment why do you continue to argue so hard
>>defending
>>amp sound when you have 'no' reliable positive evidence?
>
>This is a straw man. I haven't been arguing amp sound, I have been arguing
>scientific validity of any opinions either way when it comes to amp sound.
>Yes,
>i think that amps that I have compared in my home on my system have sounded
>different. I have made no claims that those opinions are supported by
>science.
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>In my personal opinion I think that these long arduous 'arguments' come from
>>an
>>internal need of a few individuals to confirm past decisions on audibility
>>which may have been compromised by non-sonic bias. It might be called
>>cognitive
>>dissonance.
>
>You are entitled to your opinions. In my opinion claiming valid scientific
>support of one's beliefs in the absence of scientifically valid data is a
>misrepresentation of legitimate science.

I'd say that claiming 'amp' sound exists in the absence of any data that shows
this to be true and then arguing that all the extant evidence is irrelevant
shows a lack of a reasonable agrument on any basis.

BTW I'll tell Dr Toole that his 1976 Audio Scene of Canada report of
experiments conducted at the Canada NRC lacks scientific validity. I'm sure
he's been waiting on your blessing. :)

Nousaine
September 16th 03, 01:04 AM
(S888Wheel) wrote:

...snip to specific content.....

>Steven said

>>Similarly, cable technology was pretty much worked out by the end of the
>>60's.
>>Its 'findings' are now part of standard textbooks too.
>
>That's all nice and well but it doesn't prove anything until you take every
>known threshold of human hearing and test it to every known distortion in
>amplifiers and cables when being used in every possible playback
>configuaration. (This is not to say that I think every possible system must
>be
>tested but every real world product that pushes the extremes of conditions
>would need to be included in the scope of things.)

This line of argument is common in the high-end scheme of things. Because any
given experiment hasn't included every possible condition in the world we
should feel free to ignore it when we don't like the result.

This tries to establish a hurdle that no one could EVER clear. Therefore, in
spite of no confirming evidence, there will never be enough contradictory
evidence to put down whatever claim I make.

Likewise even one positive result like that recently reported about cd players
means that EVERY player ever made sounds different from all other players. And
any evidence to the contrary must be disregarded even when the positive was
single blind and had not confirmed synch.

As Michaell Schermer says with myths the evidence never gets any better. In
spite of decades of experimental attempts to uncover amp/cable sound outside
those causes well-known the evidence is always right around the corner or was
produced but not understood by even professionals in the field according to the
proponents but none of them (even the "professionals" have never been able to
deliver a smoking gun.)

S888Wheel
September 16th 03, 01:05 AM
<<
Leonard > wrote:

> Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a
> certain element within his realm of work. Granted he
> did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a
> more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open
> the mind to greater horizons. >>

jjnunes said

<<
Can you be specific and name this vague 'certain element' you speak of?
If it's so certain, that should be an easy job.
>>

That certain element was most of the the theoretical physicists of the day if
we are talking about special relativity. From 1905 when special relativity was
published to 1908 when Planck, Maxwlell and Lorentz jump on board with Einstein
on special relativity, the theory wasn't given much credability by most
physicists.

September 16th 03, 03:10 AM
S888Wheel > wrote:
> <<
> Leonard > wrote:

>> Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a
>> certain element within his realm of work. Granted he
>> did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a
>> more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open
>> the mind to greater horizons. >>

> jjnunes said

> <<
> Can you be specific and name this vague 'certain element' you speak of?
> If it's so certain, that should be an easy job.
> >>

> That certain element was most of the the theoretical physicists of the day if
> we are talking about special relativity. From 1905 when special relativity was
> published to 1908 when Planck, Maxwlell and Lorentz jump on board with Einstein
> on special relativity, the theory wasn't given much credability by most
> physicists.

I've read that Planck jumped on board right away, the others took longer.

But to get back on topic, how does it follow that high end audio is on the
verge of such a thing as was implied by the other poster? In here we have
Mirabel proudly holding forth that the scientists here are the quacks brazenly
through the holes in his own arguments. It's the subjectivists that are citing
old tossed theories, (Raedecker's advocation of chochlear amplifiers comes
to mind) Most don't bother to even check out the important authors that have
been cited here. (Moore, Yost, Fletcher, etc) These seminal texts have been
informally cited many times, yet they complain that they haven't, which just
shows willful ignorance and/or lack of interest. Yet they argue that they
have some magical gift of listening which deternimes some products are 'better'
than others and this should just be accepted as 'authority'. (usually citing
magazine writers and editors better known for manipulating internal politics
rather than any real contribution of knowledge)

JJ quit contributing pretty much because it's like talking tp a brick wall.

No, it doesn't follow. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite.

Richard D Pierce
September 16th 03, 04:35 AM
In article >,
S888Wheel > wrote:
>That certain element was most of the the theoretical physicists
>of the day if we are talking about special relativity. From
>1905 when special relativity was published to 1908 when Planck,
>Maxwlell and Lorentz jump on board with Einstein on special
>relativity, the theory wasn't given much credability by most
>physicists.

Is that so, Mr. Wheel? Nobody took relativity seriously until
Maxwell jumped on board in 1908.

That's REAL interesting, considering that the the good Mr.
Maxwell died in November of 1879.

And, most assuredly, the popular press did not give relativity
much credibility. But, that makes sense, because real physics
and real science is not done in the popular press.

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

S888Wheel
September 16th 03, 03:36 PM
<<
>Steven said

>>Similarly, cable technology was pretty much worked out by the end of the
>>60's.
>>Its 'findings' are now part of standard textbooks too.
> >>


I said

<<
>That's all nice and well but it doesn't prove anything until you take every
>known threshold of human hearing and test it to every known distortion in
>amplifiers and cables when being used in every possible playback
>configuaration. (This is not to say that I think every possible system must
>be
>tested but every real world product that pushes the extremes of conditions
>would need to be included in the scope of things.)
>>


Tom said

<<
This line of argument is common in the high-end scheme of things. Because any
given experiment hasn't included every possible condition in the world we
should feel free to ignore it when we don't like the result.
>>


That is not what was being discussed. the question was about deriving global
conclusions of the audibility of amps in playback simply by using what we know
about human thresholds of hearing and measured distortion in amps. hence your
point is a straw man. There was no discussion of any given experiments.

Tom said

<<
This tries to establish a hurdle that no one could EVER clear. >>


Not at all. It simply sets up a reasonable condition for drawing global
conclusions about the audibility of amplifiers and wires in any playback system
that is strictly deducted from the scientifically valid data on human hearing
thresholds and the data on amplifier and wire distortions.

Tom said

<< Therefore, in
spite of no confirming evidence, there will never be enough contradictory
evidence to put down whatever claim I make.
>>


Why? Is it so hard to apply the known thresholds of human hearing to the
measured performance of the most extreme designs of amplifiers or cables when
using the most sensitive and revealing speakers of the commonly used designs?
If you want to make global claims of audibility simply by using the data on
human thresholds of hearing and the measured performance of components don't
you have to, at the very least, use the extremes of various designs of
amplifiers and wires with the most sensitive and revealing of speakers of each
commercially available genre? i was very clear in stating one does not have to
use every possible variation of every possible playback system. If one wants to
draw any global conclusions using this specific angle to the question one has
to consider the many extreme possibilities of amp/ wire / speaker combinations.
then one has to consider every measurable distortion and then apply it to the
known data of human thresholds of hearing. Maybe that is whay this isn't the
best way to attack the issue.

Tom said

<<
Likewise even one positive result like that recently reported about cd players
means that EVERY player ever made sounds different from all other players. And
any evidence to the contrary must be disregarded even when the positive was
single blind and had not confirmed synch.
>>


Straw man arguement. I never made any such claims about CD players.

Tom said

<<
As Michaell Schermer says with myths the evidence never gets any better. >>


The evidence certainly gets better than the two dozen articles you cite as
conclusive scientifically valid proof about the audibility of amps and wires
when scientists are drawing conclusions and calling them factual.


Tom said

<< In
spite of decades of experimental attempts to uncover amp/cable sound outside
those causes well-known the evidence is always right around the corner or was
produced but not understood by even professionals in the field according to the
proponents but none of them (even the "professionals" have never been able to
deliver a smoking gun.)
>>


And in all those decades no one ever bothered to put together a test for peer
reviewed publication. The decades of testing don't amount to much when you
look at it in through perspective of real scientific investigation.

Stewart Pinkerton
September 16th 03, 03:37 PM
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:05:10 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

><<
>Leonard > wrote:
>
>> Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a
>> certain element within his realm of work. Granted he
>> did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a
>> more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open
>> the mind to greater horizons. >>
>
>jjnunes said
>
><<
>Can you be specific and name this vague 'certain element' you speak of?
>If it's so certain, that should be an easy job.
> >>
>
>That certain element was most of the the theoretical physicists of the day if
>we are talking about special relativity. From 1905 when special relativity was
>published to 1908 when Planck, Maxwlell and Lorentz jump on board with Einstein
>on special relativity, the theory wasn't given much credability by most
>physicists.

Always discriminate between healthy skepticism and 'accusations of
quackery'. Scientists are always open to new ideas which deconstruct
old theories (after all, that's how you become famous!), but they
demand *proof*. That's not unreasonable, now is it?

As it happens, I am closely involved with a company which is
introducing ground-breaking new science to two very established
industries - electric motors and refrigeration. There is huge
resistance from 'the establishment', which thinks that these very
mature technologies cannot be improved, but the *proof* is
indisputable, so we are gradually making headway. This is how 'new
science' works.

Compare and contrast with Leonard's vague handwaving that there may be
some mystical mysterious forces in the Universe about which we know
nothing, so we should just ignore the available *evidence* that all
cables do in fact sound the same.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ludovic mirabel
September 16th 03, 07:36 PM
wrote in message >...
> Snip, see below:

> But to get back on topic, how does it follow that high end audio is on the
> verge of such a thing as was implied by the other poster? In here we have
> Mirabel proudly holding forth that the scientists here are the quacks brazenly
> through the holes in his own arguments. It's the subjectivists that are citing
> old tossed theories, (Raedecker's advocation of chochlear amplifiers comes
> to mind) Most don't bother to even check out the important authors that have
> been cited here. (Moore, Yost, Fletcher, etc) These seminal texts have been
> informally cited many times, yet they complain that they haven't, which just
> shows willful ignorance and/or lack of interest. Yet they argue that they
> have some magical gift of listening which deternimes some products are 'better'
> than others and this should just be accepted as 'authority'. (usually citing
> magazine writers and editors better known for manipulating internal politics
> rather than any real contribution of knowledge)
>
> JJ quit contributing pretty much because it's like talking tp a brick wall.
>
> No, it doesn't follow. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite.

Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time.
I hear that I "proudly" call the "scientists here" quacks.
I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
occupied
scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said decisive word about a test
for comparing music reproduction characteristics of audio components.
You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in RAHE. And that,
presumably,
those worthies support your point of view- whatever it is.

Please be so kind and:
1)Name the "scientists here" that I called "quacks". Names of the
"scientists" and dates for my name-calling, please
2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows already what it
is not.
3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least give
references customary in scientific debates Name, Title , Year, Page.
You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said something
to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
follows!) that you won't
throw your pearls bero swine.
It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?
You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote
this.?
Ludovic Mirabel

S888Wheel
September 16th 03, 08:06 PM
I said

<< >That certain element was most of the the theoretical physicists
>of the day if we are talking about special relativity. From
>1905 when special relativity was published to 1908 when Planck,
>Maxwlell and Lorentz jump on board with Einstein on special
>relativity, the theory wasn't given much credability by most
>physicists. >>

Dick said

<<

Is that so, Mr. Wheel? Nobody took relativity seriously until
Maxwell jumped on board in 1908.
>>

Gosh did I say "nobody"? I don't think so.

Dick said

<<
That's REAL interesting, considering that the the good Mr.
Maxwell died in November of 1879.
>>

In that case i must be getting names mixed up. I was going from memory. Thank
you for the correction.

Dick said

<<
And, most assuredly, the popular press did not give relativity
much credibility. But, that makes sense, because real physics
and real science is not done in the popular press.
>>

That's true but i don't see how that relates to anything I said.

September 16th 03, 11:44 PM
ludovic mirabel > wrote:

> I hear that I "proudly" call the "scientists here" quacks.

People are a literalists, (and not) when it suits them. We both are human
beings. Of course you never do this do you? (cough)

I apologize for the literal interpretation, but not a metaphorical one.


> I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
> occupied
> scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said decisive word about a test
> for comparing music reproduction characteristics of audio components.
> You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in RAHE. And that,
> presumably,
> those worthies support your point of view- whatever it is.

Which only shows that you haven't even considered the trajectory of the
evidence. Those are some of the starting points for seeing that.


> Please be so kind and:
> 1)Name the "scientists here" that I called "quacks". Names of the
> "scientists" and dates for my name-calling, please

See above.


> 2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows already what it
> is not.

When a subtle difference is in dispute, a well executed abx test is the best
known way to really verify if it's audible by the sound alone. It is not needed
in any way for determination of pleasure or preference in ANYTHING. Most audiophiles
don't care about them, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, except when they
claim that they don't work for the purpose stated above.



> 3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least give
> references customary in scientific debates Name, Title , Year, Page.
> You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said something
> to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
> follows!) that you won't
> throw your pearls bero swine.
> It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?

If you use them out of context, certainly. I have confidence in you,
so it only makes sense not to give you encouragement. The spector
of you doing that to said authors is not a pretty picture. Besides,
you've long ago dismissed those far more qualified than I to guide you.


> You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote
> this.?

Why the question? You likely will anyway. Make sure you take it out of
context to be consistent. I would hate to be a blemish on your record.

S888Wheel
September 17th 03, 08:09 PM
>>I said
>>
>><<
>>>
>>> Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Now if one were to point
>>> to
>>> half
>>> of that truth and say that an absence of evidence that amps sound
>>> different
>>> is
>>> evidence that they sound the same or visa versa with a total absence of
>>> evidence one would be making a an
>intelectually dishonest argument IMO.
>> >>

>
>>Tom said
>>
>><<
>>This argument is similar to one saying that the lack of peer reviewed
>>evidence
>>that paranormal activity exists or doesn't exist should carry the same
>>weight. >>

I said

>
>>No it is not. Analogies to highly inflamatory subjects is nothing but
>>insulting. claiming that different amplifiers may sound different is not a
>>claim of paranormal phenomenon per se.
>

Tom said

>
>It's an extraordinary claim that has not been verified by any bias controlled
>experiment.

It is not an extraordinary claim and it has been observed in bias controled
tests.


Tom said

> There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
>fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.

There has been no replication of the tests you have cited either. Further more
no one is saying that differences between amps are inexpicable.


Tom said

>
>So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity.

Yes you are. You are saying that claims of audible distortion in amps is a
claim of the paranormal. IMO it is a completely unreasonable rhetorical claim
meant as a campaign for an agenda rather than a logical claim based of
established facts.

Tom said

> It doesn't fit with present
>experimental evidence.

No. It doesn't fit with some anecdotal exerimental evidence. You are still
picking and choosing your evidence hear and placing far greater wieght on that
anecdotal evidence than it is due.

Tom said

> If it did then we wouldn't be arguing about it.

If we body of scientifically valid evidence that suggested there was no audible
differences between amps in any real world applications I wouldn't be arguing
about the scientific validity of your claim.


I said

>
> Further more, many scientific
>>investigations into claims of the paranormal have been conducted and
>>published
>>so the analogy is entirely flawed.

Tom said

>
>In peer-reviewed journals?
>

In some cases.

>
>>
>>Tom said
>>
>><<
>>The reason that there are no published tests showing that researchers
>>didn't
>>see an Alien Abduction is that it's not news. Who cares?

I said

>
>>Why would you assume that no such published papers investigating claims of
>>alien abductions? Are you sure that there are no published investigations on
>>such things?

Tom said

>
>Do you have a reference to a peer-reviewed experiment on Alien Abductions to
>report?
>

Yes.

J Abnorm Psychol. 2002 Aug;111(3):455-61.

Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens.

Clancy SA, McNally RJ, Schacter DL, Lenzenweger MF, Pitman RK.

I said

>
>There certainly are plenty of published investigations on claims
>>of paranormal activity. They found nothing paranormal.

Tom said

>
>
>Isn't that surprising? Do you have some peer-reviewed references?

I can find them if you like. Just as I found the one above on alien abductions.

Tom said

>That's
>what's happened with amp sound; people have searched for it (me included) and
>not found same.

No, what happened is no one has published any tests in the AESJ. Articles have
been published supporting the use of bias controled tests when comparing amps
and the like so it is hard to say the AESJ is completely disinterested in the
results of such tests. Yes it would pobably be very uninteresting to go out
looking for bigfoot, find nothing and then publish that you found nothing. When
one does scientifically valid tests on amplifier sound one never finds nothing.
They find the amps to be indistinguishable or distinguishable. Either way,
there is data to report that can be seen as valuable to audio engineers. In all
those tests on human thresholds of hearing they do reprot what is inaudible do
they not?

I said

> By the way, one would
>>not do a "test" to see if there are people being abducted by aliens anymore
>>than one would do a "test" to find fossils or cosmic phenomenon or new
>>species
>>or many other things that amount to valid scientific evidence. It is
>>ridiculous
>>to mix the collection of evidence in the field, which involves going out and
>>finding evidence, with lab experiments which wrought data through an
>entirely
>>different proccess.

Tom said

>
>Why? Are extraordinary claims based outside the Lab free from scrutiny?

Straw man argument. I never said they were free from scrutiny.


Tom said

> I think
>any extraordinary claim needs to be validated by the people MAKING the claim.

You are wrong. the validation should come from propper scientific
investigation. Most people who stumble upon interesting new data in the field
are not qualified to make claims much less validate them.

Tom said

>
>The burden of proof on amp/wire sound needs to come from the Proponents.
>Those
>of us who have attempted to verfiy same haven't been able to do so. It's YOUR
>turn now.

No, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming their position on the matter is
supported by science. I have made no such claims. You have. You have the burden
of proof.


>
>>Tom said
>>

>
>><<
>>What the Abduction Proponents need to do is prove that extraordinary
>>claim and
>>the lack of opposing "proof' of non-existence is simply a smokescreen
>>for the
>>lackof evidence supporting the claim. >>
>>

I said

>
>>There isn't a lack of opposing evidence in the case of claims of alien
>>abduction and I am pretty sure it has been investigated by scientists.
>>Further
>>more, your assertion that claims of amplifier sound are extraordinary is
>>nothing more than that as far as I can see.
>>

>>Tom said
>>
>><<
>>This "lack of evidence either way" (BTW there is plenty of contrary
>>evidence
>>but because it hasn't appeared in the JAES Scott rejects it as not of
>>interest)
>>argument is such. >>

I said

>
>>The analogy is flawed as I pointed out above. The facts are misrepresented.
>>There is no contrary evidence that has been cited that can be considered
>>scientifically valid.

Tom said

>
>'Sez you. How are you qualified to comment?
>


My qualifications have no bearing on the validity of my claims. This isn't
about me, it is about the scientific validity of your claims on amplifier
sound. Attacking the qualifications of your opponent is nothing more than a
debate trick and does nothing to advance the debate.

I said

>
> And you have misrepresented my position. I have never
>>claimed that the anecdotal evidence was of no interest. I simply and
>>correctly
>>pointed out the fact that it is anecdotal.
>>

>>Tom said
>>
>>
>><<
>>IF amp/wire sound extant of known audibility effects (level, freq
>>response,
>>overload) does exist it should have been relatively easy for a
>>proponent to
>>have conducted a replicable and
>reviewed experiment showing such to be
>>true.
>> >>

I said

>
>>If amplifiers and cables have no sound of their own it should be reletively
>>simple to prove and publish in the AESJ or another interested scientific
>>journal. It seems this hasen't happened. In all the years of debate and all
>>the
>>anecdotal tests done to promote this belief no one has taken it upon
>>themsleves
>
>>to not only do the tests but to put them up for peer review and publication
>>in
>>a scientific journal such as the AESJ which would have an obvious interest.
>>Without it your claim lacks scientific support.

Tom said

>
>So why hasn't some interested party (designer, owner, seller, manufacturer)
>been able to do so?

Why haven't you been able to do so for your position? Maybe it is an unfair
question. Maybe choosing not to do so soesn't prove an inherent inability.

Tom said

>It's simply NOT my responsibility to prove YOUR case.

It is not the responsibility of any manufacturer to prove your case either. My
case is proven. My case, if you have forgotten, is that there is no
scientifically valid evidence upon which one can make claims one way or another
that are supported by science. Your case is the one in dire need of valid
scientific support. Support you claim already exists but support you fail to
demonstrate.

Tom said

>
>Your position not only lacks 'scientific support' it even LACKS anecdotal
>support by your own standards.
>

My position that there is a lack of scientifically valid evidence to make any
claims one way or another that are scientifically supported lacks scientific
support? Prove it. Show us the mountain of scientifically valid evidence that
proves your position. By the way, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to
support my anecdotal position.


Tom said

>
>Let me offer an opportunity to YOU. Supply an amplifier that has a
>sound-of-its
>own and I'll measure it and if its found to be nominally competent I'll
>recruit
>and pay 10 subjects to verify your claim under bias controlled conditions.
>You'll only have to pay shipping both ways.

I am not going to ship my amp to you. Tell you what, publish your findings on
amplifier sound in the AESJ and I will concede that your position has valid
scientific support.

Tom said

>Alternately I'll come to your place and conduct such an experiment and supply
>my own amplifier and all equipment required for a bias controlled test. In
>the
>latter case IF you are not able to reliably identify that amplifier (assumig
>it
>meets the competency test) 9 times out of 10 in a controlled listening test
>you
>will reimburse my flight costs. If you can I'll pay you $100.

Why? All you have to do is declare my amp incompetent. Lets be specific. I went
from a Yamaha rack system reciever to an Audio Research SP 10/ Audio Research D
115 MkII system. You can decide for yourself whether or not those components
are competent at home. I can supply you with the specs.If you want to test the
Audio Research components against the Yamaha reciever using my playback system
then lets do it. And lets use scientifically accepted standards of probability
as a standard for a positive result. If you really want to do this we can make
arangments. You don't need to put up a bounty.


Tom said

>
>We will then agree that the results will be publicly available and submitted
>to
>the JAES as a Convention paper and offered for publication.

Agreed.

ludovic mirabel
September 18th 03, 06:44 AM
wrote in message >...
> ludovic mirabel > wrote:
>
See previous text in full below

JJnunes had said: "In here we have Mirabel proudly holding forth
that the scientists here are the quacks brazenly through the holes in
his own arguments".
He amplified later:
> People are a literalists, (and not) when it suits them. We both are human beings.
>I apologize for the literal interpretation, but not a metaphorical
one.
A "metaphor" that pictures me as "proudly" and "brazenly holding
forth" that the "scientists here are quacks" could be mistaken for an
insinuation.
So I'd still welcome a name or two of the "scientists here" writing
for RAHE on the topic of component comparison by ABX- including their
basic research that validates their opinions. If you're putting
"metaphors" in my mouth let's see whom are you referring too as the
injured party.
I had said:
>>> I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
>>> occupied scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said >>>decisive
word about a test for comparing music >>>reproduction characteristics
of audio
>>> components.
>>> You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in the >>>RAHE. And
that, presumably, those worthies support >>>your point of view-
whatever it is.
Mr. JJnunes:
>> Which only shows that you haven't even considered the >>>trajectory
of the evidence. Those are some of the >>>starting points for seeing
that.

Be kind. Be useful and instructive. Skip "starting points" and
"trajectories", It might takes us back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
Just let's have the ground-research for ABX in comparing components.
,. The readers such as Mr. Wheel have been waiting and asking for such
evidence for a long , long time.
Just a quote or two from your witnesses Fletcher, Yost and
Moore concerning audio component comparison by ABX/DBT.
Just to spur you on I will now state emphatically that you talk about
"trajectories" for lack of anything better. NOTHING in Fletcher,
NOTHING in Yost, NOTHING in good old Moore.
And you know what else? NOTHING anywhere else. The reputable,
published basic research for the use of DBTs in comparing audio
components does NOT EXIST.
"Starting points" and "trajectories" will not replace it. You were
asked for nothing complicated. Just a very simple thing called:
quotable evidence. Remember "evidence"?. Remember quote?
I had said :
>>> 2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows >>> already
what it is not..

JJnunes:
>> When a subtle difference is in dispute, a well executed >> abx test
is the best known way to really verify if it's >>audible by the sound
alone. It is not needed in any way >> for determination of pleasure
or preference in
>> ANYTHING.
>> Most audiophiles don't care about them, there's >>absolutely
nothing wrong with that, except when they >>claim that they don't
work for the purpose
>> stated above.
>
Mr. Jjnunes, this is a strange statement. Are you saying that
audiophiles don't care about "the best known way" to discern
differences between components before buying? What's wrong with this
picture? Well, listen carefully this time-all of it's been said many
times before but seems to have slipped past you.
ALL, but ALL ABX component comparison tests with an average
audiophile panel as reported by their proctors failed to verify ANY
differences, "subtle" ("subtle" for you or for me or for Glenn Gould?)
or "gross" between cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers and Dacs
Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
And don't tell me about speakers. Try first a panel ABX test..
2) the "best known way" is not usable on this earth by human
beings. Writing paper and angelic choir are another thing
altogether.
Actually audiophiles wanting to hear differences but NOT so as to
decide preferences are not of this earth either. And preferences for
the quality of musical SOUND are what rec.audio.high-end is all about.
Yes? No? Or what does your somewhat difficult text mean?
I said
>>> 3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least
give >>>references customary in scientific debates >>>Name, Title ,
Year, Page.
>>> You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said
something
>>> to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
>>> follows!) that you won't throw your pearls before swine.
>>> It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?
JJnunes:
>> If you use them out of context, certainly. I have confidence in
you, so it >> only makes sense not to give you encouragement. The
spector
>> of you doing that to said authors is not a pretty picture. Besides,
>> you've long ago dismissed those far more qualified than I to guide
you.
>>
Never mind naughty me. Just think of your readers, They are waiting.
Do you think they'd let me get away with "quoting out of context".
Just think :say, I wrote that I found in Copernicus, Galileo and
Newton that they scorned ABX
for audio and then refused to quote "for fear that you'll quote it
out of context" I can't begin to imagine what you'd have to say about
me. No ,I can't bring myself to even think about it. The moderators
are listening.
I said:
>>> You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote
this.?
You answered:
>> Why the question? You likely will anyway. Make sure you take it out
of >>context to be consistent. I would hate >>to be a blemish on your
record.

This is the second time you have me "quoting out of context" And
this time you tack on an allegation about my "record".
I've been long enough around the RAHE to think that it is all in a
day's work here. But I ask you for a quote or two to document yor
allegation. Asking for evidence for your statements seems to be a
repeat job. No and no again I don't quote things out of context and in
your particular case I remember no context with any substance that I
could drop. Quote the context I twisted out of or ... Forget it.
What's the use? You were just being metaphorical ,right?
The first sentence of my posting that you snipped was:
" Mr. JJnunes delivery time!"
It still is.
> Ludovic Mirabel
:

> > I hear that I "proudly" call the "scientists here" quacks.
>
> People are a literalists, (and not) when it suits them. We both are human
> beings. Of course you never do this do you? (cough)
>
> I apologize for the literal interpretation, but not a metaphorical one.
>
>
> > I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
> > occupied
> > scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said decisive word about a test
> > for comparing music reproduction characteristics of audio components.
> > You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in RAHE. And that,
> > presumably,
> > those worthies support your point of view- whatever it is.
>
> Which only shows that you haven't even considered the trajectory of the
> evidence. Those are some of the starting points for seeing that.
>
>
> > Please be so kind and:
> > 1)Name the "scientists here" that I called "quacks". Names of the
> > "scientists" and dates for my name-calling, please
>
> See above.
>
>
> > 2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows already what it
> > is not.
>
> When a subtle difference is in dispute, a well executed abx test is the best
> known way to really verify if it's audible by the sound alone. It is not needed
> in any way for determination of pleasure or preference in ANYTHING. Most audiophiles
> don't care about them, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, except when they
> claim that they don't work for the purpose stated above.
>
>
>
> > 3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least give
> > references customary in scientific debates Name, Title , Year, Page.
> > You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said something
> > to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
> > follows!) that you won't
> > throw your pearls bero swine.
> > It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?
>
> If you use them out of context, certainly. I have confidence in you,
> so it only makes sense not to give you encouragement. The spector
> of you doing that to said authors is not a pretty picture. Besides,
> you've long ago dismissed those far more qualified than I to guide you.
>
>
> > You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote
> > this.?
>
> Why the question? You likely will anyway. Make sure you take it out of
> context to be consistent. I would hate to be a blemish on your record.

September 19th 03, 05:15 PM
ludovic mirabel > wrote:


> Be kind. Be useful and instructive. Skip "starting points" and
> "trajectories", It might takes us back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
> Just let's have the ground-research for ABX in comparing components.
> ,. The readers such as Mr. Wheel have been waiting and asking for such
> evidence for a long , long time.

As has been gone over many times, it is a body of evidence that supports
the fact that the test is sensitive down to the physical limits of the
hearing system. That limit is defined as the lowest instataneous loudness
that results in a detectable signal at the auditory nerve. That level is
well known and is used routinely as a reference in the more sophisticated
hearing tests in anechoic chambers.

There is really no disagreement among professionals in psychoacoustic
research that the test validates itself as described above and the body
of evidence (the books mentioned are just some of the references) supports
the results.

An analogy may illustrate the point. There is a deliberate exageration
to help illustrate it:

Writing a boatload of peer reviewed papers and books to show that
the test validates itself is like doing the same for demonstrating
the effectiveness of scalpels in surgery.


In such a situation, there is no need to write volumes. At least, that
is how I understand it to be viewed within the field. Somebody can correct
me if they are interested. (maybe there are very old references about
scalpels) But the point is made.

You have mentioned that you have a problem with no defined end point.
Most of the 'softer' (for lack of abetter word) sciences are like that.
I think it's unreasonable to dismiss them on that alone. But it seems
to be the thing in a 'postmodern' culture. I don't like postmodernism,
especially the thought of knowledge being a utility.

Bibliographies have been posted on RAHE in the past. You may have to wade
through a lot of stuff to find them in Google, but I remember seeing them.
(it was probably before you or I arrived, I think)

As for comparing components, blind methods are considered manditory in
validating codec quality, and a codec is a component as is an amplifier,
etc. The only difference is that a codec is software and an amplifier,
cable, CD player, etc.) is hardware. In other words, it isn't considered
a practical problem as I understand it.


(description of position snipped for brevity)

> Mr. Jjnunes, this is a strange statement. Are you saying that
> audiophiles don't care about "the best known way" to discern
> differences between components before buying?

It means that they can use any method they want to make them happy.
There is nothing strange about that. They don't HAVE to use blind testing,
obviously, many audiophiles are happy not to. By the same token, ust because
most choose not to use it, it doesn't mean that the test is wrong scientifically.


> What's wrong with this
> picture? Well, listen carefully this time-all of it's been said many
> times before but seems to have slipped past you.
> ALL, but ALL ABX component comparison tests with an average
> audiophile panel as reported by their proctors failed to verify ANY
> differences, "subtle" ("subtle" for you or for me or for Glenn Gould?)
> or "gross" between cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers and Dacs
> Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
> anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.

I suppose you are referring to Noisaine's tests. I recall some have said
they wern't as sensitive as they could be, but it wasn't <really> bad.
It's not true there are never no differences.

If you want to know for yourself, the best way is to do your own tests.
But, nobody HAS to do them. That's unreasonable. My position is really
more moderate than some.

If you would just stop listening to Glenn Gould, everything would be
alright. ;-)

Nousaine
September 19th 03, 05:27 PM
(S888Wheel) wrote:


>>>>> No it is not. Analogies to highly inflamatory subjects is nothing but
> insulting. claiming that different amplifiers may sound different
> is not a claim of paranormal phenomenon per se.
>>>
>>
>> Tom said
>>
>>>
>>> It's an extraordinary claim that has not been verified by any bias
>> controlled
>>> experiment.
>>
>> It is not an extraordinary claim and it has been observed in bias
>> controled
>> tests.

It is an extraordinary claim because it has ONLY been observed in
bias-controlled tests when a known audibility element was also either
verified or likely. Meyer measured the response and reported same. Banks and
Krajicek didn't verify the response element but it was most certainly present
with the equipment selected (high-output impedance amplifier with frequency
response errors.)

>>
>> Tom said
>>
>>> There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
>>> fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.
>
> As before.

>> There has been no replication of the tests you have cited either.

I beg your pardon. There have been a couple dozen replications.

> Further more no one is saying that differences between amps are
inexpicable.

That's right. They come to a few selected elements and can be
verified. If are you agreeing that an amplifier with flat response at the
speaker
terminals not driven into overload more than 1% of the time will be
transparent
then what's left to argue?

>>>
>> Tom said
>>
>>>
>>> So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity.
>>
>> Yes you are. You are saying that claims of audible distortion in amps
>> is a
> claim of the paranormal. IMO it is a completely unreasonable
>rhetorical claim meant as a campaign for an agenda rather than a logical
claim based
>of established facts.
>
The established facts are that humans hear loudness, pitch (as jj
would say
partial loudness differences) and timing (direction.)
When an amplification device provides a signal to the speaker
terminals that does nothing more than uniformly raise the level of the signal
applied
to its input terminals it will be perfectly transparent to a listener. ie
impart no
sound of its own.

It is well known that modern amplifiers of competent design are
generally capable of doing this within their power limits into normally
encountered, and even ‘difficult’ load conditions.

For an amplifier to impart its own sound it must find a way to
desecrate the signal ....damage it in some way by adding distortion or
changing the
partial loudness curve.

To say that amplifiers, as a class, are not capable of this other than
violating the stated conditions is a claim that is directly analagous
to making claims of para-normality.

If we want to 'warp' the response of the loudspeaker an equalizer is a much
better method than using an incompetent amplifier which will normally
supply incompetence through a high-output impedance.

Now IF you're claiming that extra-normal amp 'sound' is a function of
non-amplification irregularities (frequency response or overload
errors) into a given load then we all "agree" on what "amp sound" is.

But you appear to be making a more global statement. That clipping and
frequency response errors are NOT the basic fabric of 'amp' sound.
This is extraordinary.

If you are NOT making a statement like this then we have no
disagreement.


>> Tom said
>>
>>> It doesn't fit with present
>>> experimental evidence.
>>
>> No. It doesn't fit with some anecdotal exerimental evidence. You are
>> still
>> picking and choosing your evidence hear and placing far greater
>> wieght on
>> that
>> anecdotal evidence than it is due.

So statements of 'amp sound' without bias controls carry the same
weight as experiments that have applied these experimental protocols?
I strongly disagree.

….snip….

>>> Do you have a reference to a peer-reviewed experiment on Alien
>>> Abductions to
>>> report?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> J Abnorm Psychol. 2002 Aug;111(3):455-61.
>>
>> Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens.
>>
>> Clancy SA, McNally RJ, Schacter DL, Lenzenweger MF, Pitman RK.

But that didn't investigate the abductions. It appears to be reporting
on people who have reported abductions. I see nothing here to suggest that the
abductions
themselves have been investigated.

My paper "Can You Trust Your Ears?" is of the same nature. People who
are given the same sound presentations are very prone to report them as
different. e.g. report distorted versions of reality. I'm glad you brought
this up because appears to
illustrate my point quite well.


>> I said
>>
>>>
>>> There certainly are plenty of published investigations on claims
>>>> of paranormal activity. They found nothing paranormal.
>>
>> Tom said
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that surprising? Do you have some peer-reviewed references?
>>
>> I can find them if you like. Just as I found the one above on alien
>> abductions.

But you didn't find a peer reviewed article that investigated the
existance of abductions (amp sound) now did you? You only found one examining
memory distortions of reporting on them.

Are we to accept that this is evidence that abductions (amp sound)
actually occur? Not in my house :) And do we have peer-reviewed papers on the
existence of abductions?

But I will agree that people have investigated paranormal activity and not
found evidence of it.
Likewise I and others have investigated amp/wire sound and found likewise.


>>
>> Tom said
>>
>>> That's
>>> what's happened with amp sound; people have searched for it (me
>>> included)
>> and
>>> not found same.
>>
>> No, what happened is no one has published any tests in the AESJ.
>> Articles
>> have
>> been published supporting the use of bias controled tests when
>> comparing amps
>> and the like so it is hard to say the AESJ is completely
>> disinterested in the
>> results of such tests. Yes it would pobably be very uninteresting to
>> go out
>> looking for bigfoot, find nothing and then publish that you found
>> nothing.
>
>> When
>> one does scientifically valid tests on amplifier sound one never finds
>> nothing.
>> They find the amps to be indistinguishable or distinguishable. Either
>> way,
>> there is data to report that can be seen as valuable to audio
>> engineers.


This has been reported. Toole published the first one in 1976. Two
dozen others followed. What more is needed?

> In
>> all
>> those tests on human thresholds of hearing they do reprot what is
>> inaudible
>> do
>> they not?


Good point. But the current work is on data reduction. All the work is
supported by bias controlled listening tests published or otherwise.


….snip…..


>> Tom said
>>
>>> I think
>>> any extraordinary claim needs to be validated by the people MAKING
>>> the
>> claim.
>>
>> You are wrong. the validation should come from propper scientific
>> investigation. Most people who stumble upon interesting new data in
>> the field
>> are not qualified to make claims much less validate them.

"Stumble" on interesting new data about audibility? Is that you or
Tara Labs?

Come on. The Absolute Sound, Stereophile, Tara Labs, Transparent Audio
Marketing, Pass, Bryston, etc and their sales/marketing channels have
been telling us for years of how much 'better" their products sound better than
my
meager Heathkit, Yamaha amd Parasound, junk box rcas and zip cord. These claims
have been
being made for decades.

You want me to accept that they (and you) have "stumbled" on exciting
new data that none of the rest of us is privy to? And that the work of
legitimate scientists
and engineers such as Floyd Toole, Dan Shanefield, Stanley Lip****z, John
Vanderkooy and Earl Geddes
who have investigated these claims and failed to validate the extraordinary
claims is to be
granted the same weight as high-end magazine reviews, salesman’s claims and
newgroup
anecdotes?

Those claims are similar to the "miracle" gas and oil treatments we see
advertised. ……
unverified…. And you want them granted equal weight? I think that those
making the claims should
validate them if they want to be taken seriously.

>>
>> Tom said
>>
>>>
>>> The burden of proof on amp/wire sound needs to come from the
>>> Proponents.
>>> Those
>>> of us who have attempted to verfiy same haven't been able to do so.
>>> It's
>> YOUR
>>> turn now.

>No, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming their position on the
>matter is supported by science. I have made no such claims. You have. You have

>the burden of proof.
>
Hogwash. I have put many of these claims to the test with personal
bias-controlled experiments and none of the proponents has ever been
able to verify ANY sound quality effects of their stuff even in their personal
reference systems WHEN bias controls were employed.

I don't make any claim except that THEY have never established that
those products have any sound, let alone better, sound than modestly priced
commercially available ware.

It isn't that NO evidence exists either way. There's plenty of it. You
could even duplicate some of it yourself if you were curious enough. That's
what I was doing as early as 1978.

>>>> The analogy is flawed as I pointed out above. The facts are
>>>> misrepresented.
>>>> There is no contrary evidence that has been cited that can be
>>>> considered scientifically valid.

Why not? You just don't like the results. And you have no reasonable
objection. There’s been no scientifically valid evidence that paranormal
activity
can’t exist or that alien abductions DON’T occur either.

It is true that no one has been able to demonstrate paranormal skills or show
true evidence of an abduction or a public examination of BigFoot; but using
your logic there’s no scientific evidence either way.

…snip……


>> I said
>>
>>>
>>> And you have misrepresented my position. I have never
>>>> claimed that the anecdotal evidence was of no interest. I simply and
>>>> correctly
>>>> pointed out the fact that it is anecdotal.

OK so what?

>>>> Tom said
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <<
>>>> IF amp/wire sound extant of known audibility effects (level, freq
>>>> response,
>>>> overload) does exist it should have been relatively easy for a
>>>> proponent to
>>>> have conducted a replicable and
>>> reviewed experiment showing such to be
>>>> true.
>>>>>>
>>
>> I said
>>
>>>
>>>> If amplifiers and cables have no sound of their own it should be
>>>> reletively
>>>> simple to prove and publish in the AESJ or another interested
>>>> scientific
>>>> journal. It seems this hasen't happened. In all the years of debate
>>>> and all
>>>> the
>>>> anecdotal tests done to promote this belief no one has taken it upon
>>>> themsleves
>>>
>>>> to not only do the tests but to put them up for peer review and
>>>> publication
>>>> in
>>>> a scientific journal such as the AESJ which would have an obvious
>>>> interest.

Again why hasn’t a wire manufacturer done this? It should be easy, as you
say.

Why should I. It isn't my claim. I'm a 20 year member of the AES and
a past officer. I'd never recommend that the Journal publish a "We looked for
BigFoot and didn't find Him" article. It would be a waste of ink better devoted
to real issues.

Extraordinary claims, claims of any nature, need to be verified by the
claimant.

Ø >>>> Without it your claim lacks scientific support.

Even IF that were true; so what? Given that no proponent has ever
supplied a single example of non-verified amp/wire sound even exists I don't
understand why you are working so hard to support it. Rejecting even
overwhelming
contrary evidence; experiments designed so strongly to support the Mythology
claims that IF they held a grain of truth it would surely shine through.

>> Tom said
>>
>>>
>>> So why hasn't some interested party (designer, owner, seller,
>>> manufacturer)
>>> been able to do so?
>>
>> Why haven't you been able to do so for your position? Maybe it is an
>> unfair
>> question. Maybe choosing not to do so soesn't prove an inherent
>> inability.
>

I've put those claims to the test in every reasonable fashion. I've traveled
half way across the country at my own expense on three occasions to offer
proponents an opportunity to prove their claims.

I take offense at the insinuation that I haven't done enough work on
this. I've personally done more controlled listening investigation of amp/wire
sound than the entire high-end publishing/manufacturing/marketing/distribution
industry.

That I or someone else has not submitted a "I didn't Find BigFoot"
article to the Journal and haven’t worked hard enough is a pretty big joke.

If a wire BigFoot is in existence it’s simply no longer my job to find him
I’ve looked in all the reasonable places, I’ve done all the reasonable
work; mostly
at my own personal expense (even to the end of purchasing high-end equipment
to validate the long-term issue and you suggest I haven’t done enough.

On the contrary I'm over-committed.


>>
>> Tom said
>>
>>> It's simply NOT my responsibility to prove YOUR case.
>>
>> It is not the responsibility of any manufacturer to prove your case
>> either.
>
That's the point. They need to "prove" amp/wire sound before amyone
should take them seriously. I've made no claims other than my 4 Bryston
amplifiers sound exactly like each
other with loudspeakers in a room and the other 8 amplifiers in my stable
to me and to a couple dozen other audio enthusiasts under bias controlled
conditions (assumimg the Brystons are
working; which has not always been a given.)

And that I've not found
that a pair of Pass Monoblocks sounded different to the Pass owner from a
10-year old Yamaha integrated amplifier in his reference system. Or A SUMO
Andromeda from a Parasound HCA-800. Or a Bryston 4B-NRB from a Adcom Car Audio
amplifier, etc.

Want me to start of wires?


>> My
>> case is proven. My case, if you have forgotten, is that there is no
>> scientifically valid evidence upon which one can make claims one way
>> or another that are supported by science.

Your case is not proven. There is plenty oif evidence. You have just
set an arbitrary standard that you believe allows you to make this 'claim.'

> Your case is the one in dire need of valid
>> scientific support. Support you claim already exists but support you
>> fail to demonstrate.

Let's do it then.

>> Tom said
>>
>>>
>>> Your position not only lacks 'scientific support' it even LACKS
>>> anecdotal
>>> support by your own standards.
>>>
>>
>> My position that there is a lack of scientifically valid evidence to
>> make any
>> claims one way or another that are scientifically supported lacks
>> scientific
>> support? Prove it. Show us the mountain of scientifically valid
>> evidence that
>> proves your position. By the way, there is plenty of anecdotal
>> evidence to
>> support my anecdotal position.

Nothing bias-controlled though, is there?

>> Tom said
>>
>>>
>>> Let me offer an opportunity to YOU. Supply an amplifier that has a
>>> sound-of-its
>>> own and I'll measure it and if its found to be nominally competent
>>> I'll
>>> recruit
>>> and pay 10 subjects to verify your claim under bias controlled
>>> conditions.
>>> You'll only have to pay shipping both ways.
>>
>> I am not going to ship my amp to you. Tell you what, publish your
>> findings on
>> amplifier sound in the AESJ and I will concede that your position has
>> valid
>> scientific support.

Why don't YOU publish that paper to confirm your position? Why hasn't Audio
Research published such as paper? Pass Labs? You seem
to hold it strongly in spite of your own admission that there is NO scientific
support for it. But that’s what this argument is all about isn’t it? To try
to keep the issue
on a debate level. When you can’t support your case with evidence if you
talk long enough and hard enough maybe people will forget that you have no
evidence.


>>
>> Tom said
>>
>>> Alternately I'll come to your place and conduct such an experiment
>>> and
>> supply
>>> my own amplifier and all equipment required for a bias controlled
>>> test. In
>>> the
>>> latter case IF you are not able to reliably identify that amplifier
>>> (assumig
>>> it
>>> meets the competency test) 9 times out of 10 in a controlled
>>> listening test
>>> you
>>> will reimburse my flight costs. If you can I'll pay you $100.
>>
>> Why? All you have to do is declare my amp incompetent. Lets be
>> specific. I
>> went
>> from a Yamaha rack system reciever to an Audio Research SP 10/ Audio
>> Research
>> D
>> 115 MkII system. You can decide for yourself whether or not those
>> components
>> are competent at home. I can supply you with the specs.If you want to
>> test
>> the
>> Audio Research components against the Yamaha reciever using my
>> playback
>> system
>> then lets do it. And lets use scientifically accepted standards of
>> probability
>> as a standard for a positive result. If you really want to do this
>> we can
>> make
>> arangments. You don't need to put up a bounty.

I'm doing all the work and taking all the financial risk. What I want is a
good faith offer to compensate my travel if you are unable to confirm your
claims. Or we could agree to split the costs.

You can do most everything yourself in advance if you want. I'll send
you a test disc to confirm response and matching if you'd like.

>> Tom said
>>
>>>
>>> We will then agree that the results will be publicly available and
>>> submitted
>>> to
>>> the JAES as a Convention paper and offered for publication.
>>
>> Agreed.

Let's go.

ludovic mirabel
September 19th 03, 06:59 PM
(Audio Guy) wrote in message >...
> In article <UCbab.492296$o%2.220969@sccrnsc02>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>
> > Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
> > anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
>
> Or - There are no differences between the components that have been
> compared so far.
>
> Why do you insist on taking it to the extreme. Could it be so you can
> create a strawman that is easy for you to burn?

The paragraph that you saw fit to amputate is as follows:
(((" Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences
between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
And don't tell me about speakers. Try first a panel ABX test..
2) the "best known way" (ie ABX/DBT for comparing components
available for the last 30 years L.M.) is not usable on this earth by
human beings. Writing paper and angelic choir are another thing
altogether" }}}
I'll answer any argument which genuinely addresses MY argument.
When I see a selected snippet cut out of my text I'll content myself
with a requote.
A bientot Ludovic Mirabel

Audio Guy
September 19th 03, 08:09 PM
In article <juHab.521254$o%2.228267@sccrnsc02>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message >...
>> In article <UCbab.492296$o%2.220969@sccrnsc02>,
>> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>>
>> > Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
>> > anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
>>
>> Or - There are no differences between the components that have been
>> compared so far.
>>
>> Why do you insist on taking it to the extreme. Could it be so you can
>> create a strawman that is easy for you to burn?
>
> The paragraph that you saw fit to amputate is as follows:
> (((" Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences
> between
> anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
> And don't tell me about speakers. Try first a panel ABX test..
> 2) the "best known way" (ie ABX/DBT for comparing components
> available for the last 30 years L.M.) is not usable on this earth by
> human beings. Writing paper and angelic choir are another thing
> altogether" }}}
> I'll answer any argument which genuinely addresses MY argument.
> When I see a selected snippet cut out of my text I'll content myself
> with a requote.

Well I didn't think the rest had anything to do with my question so I
snipped it, something you need to do much more often. People can refer
to the original post quite easily, so it is considered bad etiquette to
quote parts of a previous post when one doesn't consider it germane
to their own new post.

So I'll just repeat my statement and question since you seem to think
that is the way to have useful discussions and since you failed to
reply:

> Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
> anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.

Or - There are no differences between the components that have been
compared so far.

Why do you insist on taking it to the extreme. Could it be so you can
create a strawman that is easy for you to burn? This also applies to
the part you insist on repeating too by the way since you imply that
those who do use ABX/DBTs aren't "human beings".

Stewart Pinkerton
September 20th 03, 04:13 PM
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:16:08 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

>Sighted listening, i.e. no bias controls, seems
>more effective in identifying subtle differences.

All sighted listening is good for, is admiring the front panel. It has
been shown time and time again that you absolutely can *not* identify
'subtle differences' by sighted listening, since they are submerged
beneath a wash of prejudice and 'false positives'. You can of course
exercise your imagination in sighted listening, but that's a different
matter.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ludovic mirabel
September 21st 03, 05:17 AM
(Mkuller) wrote in message news:<IJHab.521362$o%2.228362@sccrnsc02>...
> > wrote:>
> >As has been gone over many times, it is a body of evidence that supports
> >the fact that the test is sensitive down to the physical limits of the
> >hearing system. That limit is defined as the lowest instataneous loudness
> >that results in a detectable signal at the auditory nerve. That level is
> >well known and is used routinely as a reference in the more sophisticated
> >hearing tests in anechoic chambers.
> >
> >There is really no disagreement among professionals in psychoacoustic
> >research that the test validates itself as described above and the body
> >of evidence (the books mentioned are just some of the references) supports
> >the results.
> >
> While DBTs are effectively utilized in psychoacoustic research, there is little
> or no evidence that they are appropriate or useful for audiophiles to utilize
> in comparing audio components with music as a bias control method. In fact,
> the few reported published studies show that when used in this way, DBTs do not
> show subtle audible differences between components, but only gross frequency
> response and loudness differences and then only when pink noise is used as a
> source.
>
> There are at least two important elements missing from these amateur DBTs:
> 1. Pretesting that the the actual subtle differences can be identified with
> the program material utilized, i.e. is the music selected actually a sensitive
> enough source to identify, say a difference in midrange dynamic contrasts in a
> DBT. That a DBT is sensitive to the limits of audibility is meaningless if
> that does not apply to THIS DBT.
> 2. Pre-training the subjects to listen for the specific differences
> (midrange dynamic contrasts) prior to conducting the DBT.
>
> I believe these two protocols are standard in psychoacoustic research, but have
> not been applied to any amateur DBT I have seen. Certainly there are other
> problems with amateur pseudo-scientific use of DBTs in audio as a method of
> bias control. The bottom line is this - they have never been proven as
> effective for use in comparing audio components with music in the way they are
> blindly advocated on RAHE. Sighted listening, i.e. no bias controls, seems
> more effective in identifying subtle differences.
> Regards,
> Mike

With due respect and at the cost of a breach in the ranks I
differ in some respects.
I would not make a bland statement that "no bias controls" make
listening somehow superior. It plays exactly into the hands of those
who claim that it must be either/or- see or use ABX. Denying that
sighted bias interferes with perceptions- at least in most hands- is
flying into the face of reality.
This "see or use ABX" is a false dichotomy. There is no reason
why single blind precautions should interfere with perceptions of
so-called "subtle" differences (see below re "subtle"). In fact they
help to concentrate the mind- and the ears- on the task at hand,
wonderfully . You can cover the brand names or the eyes- whichever is
convenient. Or if you want to get simultaneous comparisons you can use
left-right with random swapping technique.
The villain is the ABX protocol which, however satisfactory
in research, proved itself in real life to interfere with the
perceptions of most, (but not necessarily all) unselected
run-of-the-mill subjects ie. the average audio consumer. I'll
rererepeat documentation in my reply to Mr. JJnunes in the ...thread.
Ludovic Mirabel
I have no idea what people here mean by "subtle". What's "subtle' to
me may be "gross" to a violin player. Differences are differences
whoever hears them. If I don't I should try to educate myself further.
High-end is all about "subtle" or it is about nothing at all.

S888Wheel
September 21st 03, 05:19 AM
I said

>
>>>>>> No it is not. Analogies to highly inflamatory subjects is nothing but
>> insulting. claiming that different amplifiers may sound different
>> is not a claim of paranormal phenomenon per se.

>
>>> Tom said
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's an extraordinary claim that has not been verified by any bias
>>> controlled
>>>> experiment.

I said

>
>>> It is not an extraordinary claim and it has been observed in bias
>>> controled
>>> tests.

Tom said

>
> It is an extraordinary claim because it has ONLY been observed in
> bias-controlled tests when a known audibility element was also either
>verified or likely.

I don't follow your logic. The claim of amplifier sound cannot possibly be so
extraoridnary if it has been conceded that it has happened. If it has been
observered in bias controled tests regardless if the reasons are known or
unknown it is ridiculous to say it is an extraordinary claim.

>
>>> Tom said
>>>
>>>> There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
>>>> fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.
>
>> As before.

I said

>
>>> There has been no replication of the tests you have cited either.
>

Tom said

>
>I beg your pardon. There have been a couple dozen replications.
>

None that I have seen. Every test you cited was different in many significant
ways. That would not constitute replication. So, if any of the tests you have
cited have been truely replicated then you haven't cited the replication of
these tests. The articles inwhich they were published do not cite any such
replication.

I said

>
>> Further more no one is saying that differences between amps are
>inexpicable.
>

Tom said

>
> That's right. They come to a few selected elements and can be
> verified. If are you agreeing that an amplifier with flat response at the
>speaker
> terminals not driven into overload more than 1% of the time will be
>transparent
>then what's left to argue?

I am agreeing that if amplifiers sound different those differences are
measurable. I am not limmiting the source of all audible distortions in
amplifiers to frequency response. If you are claiming that it has been proven
that the only audible distortion from an amp is in the frequency response then
i would like to know how you know this to be a fact?

>
>>> Tom said
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity.

I said

>
>>> Yes you are. You are saying that claims of audible distortion in amps
>>> is a
>> claim of the paranormal. IMO it is a completely unreasonable
> >rhetorical claim meant as a campaign for an agenda rather than a logical
>claim based
>>of established facts.

Tom said

> The established facts are that humans hear loudness, pitch (as jj
> would say
> partial loudness differences) and timing (direction.)
> When an amplification device provides a signal to the speaker
>terminals that does nothing more than uniformly raise the level of the signal
>applied
>to its input terminals it will be perfectly transparent to a listener. ie
>impart no
> sound of its own.

I would agree with that. Get back to me when such an amp exists.

Tom said

>
> It is well known that modern amplifiers of competent design are
> generally capable of doing this within their power limits into normally
> encountered, and even ‘difficult’ load conditions.
>

Well I have heard differently. I have heard that amps distort the signal in
many different ways and each amp measures quite differently. The question is
what is the audible threshold of each and every distortion prosduced by any
given amp when driving any kind of real world speaker load.

Tom said

>
>For an amplifier to impart its own sound it must find a way to
>desecrate the signal ....damage it in some way by adding distortion or
>changing the
>partial loudness curve.
>

Agreed. But I think your apparent claim that amps don't distort the signal is a
gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Tom said

>
> To say that amplifiers, as a class, are not capable of this other than
>violating the stated conditions is a claim that is directly analagous
>to making claims of para-normality.

No one I know of is saying that amplifier sound is anything but distortion. So
who are you arguing with on this issue? Who is claiming that amp sound is
magical? I certainly am not. I agree that any sound that an amp may have is a
result of measurable distortion. That is not an extraordinary claim. Maybe our
argument will make progress if you avoid building false positions to argue
against.

Tom said

>
> If we want to 'warp' the response of the loudspeaker an equalizer is a much
>better method than using an incompetent amplifier which will normally
>supply incompetence through a high-output impedance.
>

I fail to see the relevance of this point. My point was that without
scientifically valid evidence one cannot make claims one way or another about
the sound of amplifiers and rightly claim their position is supported by
science.

Tom said

>
>Now IF you're claiming that extra-normal amp 'sound' is a function of
>non-amplification irregularities (frequency response or overload
>errors) into a given load then we all "agree" on what "amp sound" is.

I think I have been more than clear about my claim on this thread. See above.

Tom said

>
>But you appear to be making a more global statement. That clipping and
>frequency response errors are NOT the basic fabric of 'amp' sound.
>This is extraordinary.

I don't know why you are having such trouble understanding my simple claim in
this thread so I will say it again at the risk of being painfully redundant.
Without scientifically valid evidence one cannot make claims one way or another
about the sound of amplifiers and rightly claim their position is supported by
science.
How you can deduct that out of this claim I am, as you say "But you appear to
be making a more global statement. That clipping and frequency response errors
are NOT the basic fabric of 'amp' sound. This is extraordinary." is beyond me.
I just don't see it. It looks like a lot a straw man arguments that are totally
unrelated to my very simple straight forward point.

Tom said

>
> If you are NOT making a statement like this then we have no
>disagreement.

I am not making any statements as to the cause of amplifier sound.

>
>>> Tom said
>>>
>>>> It doesn't fit with present
>>>> experimental evidence.
>>>

I said

>
>>> No. It doesn't fit with some anecdotal exerimental evidence. You are
>>> still
>>> picking and choosing your evidence hear and placing far greater
>>> wieght on
>>> that
>>> anecdotal evidence than it is due.

Tom said

>
> So statements of 'amp sound' without bias controls carry the same
>weight as experiments that have applied these experimental protocols?
>I strongly disagree.
>

I never said that. I simply said they failed to make the grade for scientific
validity. OTOH I see nothing to suggest the very tests Stewert did were in any
way inferior or less reliable than the ones you cite as valid scientific proof
about the amplifier sound.

Tom said

>
>>>> Do you have a reference to a peer-reviewed experiment on Alien
>>>> Abductions to
>>>> report?
>>>>

I said

>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> J Abnorm Psychol. 2002 Aug;111(3):455-61.
>>>
>>> Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens.
>>>
>>> Clancy SA, McNally RJ, Schacter DL, Lenzenweger MF, Pitman RK.
>

Tom said

>
> But that didn't investigate the abductions. It appears to be reporting
>on people who have reported abductions. I see nothing here to suggest that
>the
> abductions
>themselves have been investigated.

It was what you asked for. It was a peer reviewed experiment on Alien
abductions. More precisely it investigated the cause for the claim of alien
abductions.

Tom said

>
> My paper "Can You Trust Your Ears?" is of the same nature.

Really? What peer reviewed scientific journal was it published in?

Tom said

> People who
>are given the same sound presentations are very prone to report them as
>different. e.g. report distorted versions of reality. I'm glad you brought
>this up because appears to
> illustrate my point quite well.

So? I have not disputed the fact that biases affect perception. The same is
true when people listen to speakers. It doesn't lead to the conclusion that
speakers all sound the same does it? Just because some people are reporting
differences that may have been the result of sighted biases doesn't prove that
all amps sound the same.

>
>>> I said
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There certainly are plenty of published investigations on claims
>>>>> of paranormal activity. They found nothing paranormal.

>
>>> Tom said
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that surprising? Do you have some peer-reviewed references?
>>>

I said

>
>>> I can find them if you like. Just as I found the one above on alien
>>> abductions.

Tom said

>
> But you didn't find a peer reviewed article that investigated the
>existance of abductions (amp sound) now did you?

Yes I did. The investigation showed a likely cause of claims of alien
abductions without the need of aliens abducting people. So it did in effect
investigate the validity of such claims in light of the complete absense of
forensic evidence and third party eyewitness acounts.

Tom said

> You only found one examining
>memory distortions of reporting on them.
>

I found what you asked for and now you want to redifine what you asked for.
forget about the offer to find anything else on the subject. It is clearly a
waste of time. Now please feel free to get back to me when you can cite any
peer reviewed published data that support your position on amplifier sound that
you seem to claim is supported by science.

I said

>>> No, what happened is no one has published any tests in the AESJ.
>>> Articles
>>> have
>>> been published supporting the use of bias controled tests when
>>> comparing amps
>>> and the like so it is hard to say the AESJ is completely
>>> disinterested in the
>>> results of such tests. Yes it would
>pobably be very uninteresting to
>>> go out
>>> looking for bigfoot, find nothing and then publish that you found
>>> nothing.
>>

Tom said

>>> When
>>> one does scientifically valid tests on amplifier sound one never finds
>>> nothing.
>>> They find the amps to be indistinguishable or distinguishable. Either
>>> way,
>>> there is data to report that can be seen as valuable to audio
>>> engineers.

Tom said

>
>This has been reported. Toole published the first one in 1976. Two
>dozen others followed. What more is needed?

Published where?

I said

>
>> In
>>> all
>>> those tests on human thresholds of hearing they do reprot what is
>>> inaudible
>>> do
>>> they not?

Tom said

>
>
> Good point. But the current work is on data reduction. All the work is
>supported by bias controlled listening tests published or otherwise.

Which supports my claim that in the absense of any peer reviewed tests on the
sound of amplifiers one cannot make global definitive claims one way or another
and rightly claim that science supports their claim.

Nousaine
September 21st 03, 10:38 PM
(S888Wheel) wrote:

...large snips.....

>I don't follow your logic. The claim of amplifier sound cannot possibly be so
>extraoridnary if it has been conceded that it has happened. If it has been
>observered in bias controled tests regardless if the reasons are known or
>unknown it is ridiculous to say it is an extraordinary claim.

But you claim that practically every amplifier has its own set of sonic faults
that
allows it to have a sound of its own. I suggest that there are a few of these
and the source of their incompetence is not a mystery.

Further you suggest that open listening is the best way to discover the sound
of ampliifers. I say that any amplifier that applies a sound to any signal is
not an amplifief but an equakizer of some kind (usually load dependent.)

But most importantly, in a practical sense the competency of an amplifiewr can
be known with measurements in advance and as a class commerically available
products most generally have a level of competence which means they will
faithfully amplify and transport a signal from input to output in a perfectly
transparent manner.

And you have no peer- reviewed evidence that says otherwise. And you've never,
AFAIK, have tested your theory with even nominal bias controls implemented.


>>>> Tom said
>>>>
>>>>> There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
>>>>> fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.
>>
>>> As before.
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>> There has been no replication of the tests you have cited either.
>>
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>I beg your pardon. There have been a couple dozen replications.
>>
>
>None that I have seen. Every test you cited was different in many significant
>ways. That would not constitute replication. So, if any of the tests you have
>cited have been truely replicated then you haven't cited the replication of
>these tests. The articles inwhich they were published do not cite any such
>replication.

Pure conjecture. Those experiments, and you have a fairly comprehensive list,
do represent replication the key element of which is limiting listener bias.

>

>I am agreeing that if amplifiers sound different those differences are
>measurable. I am not limmiting the source of all audible distortions in
>amplifiers to frequency response.

Nor have I.

If you are claiming that it has been proven
>that the only audible distortion from an amp is in the frequency response
>then
>i would like to know how you know this to be a fact?

I have said the source of true audible difference is a function of frequency
response or overload. But amplifiers that can deliver a transparent replication
of a sugnal appearing at its input terminals are common. Those that cannot a
few and have np place in my audio system.

The problem is that a few enthusiasts, you among them I think, suggest
otherwise and
that enthusiasts should worry about mystery amp sound when it hasn't ever been
shown to exist.

>
>>
>>>> Tom said
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity.
>
>I said
>
>>
>>>> Yes you are. You are saying that claims of audible distortion in amps
>>>> is a
>>> claim of the paranormal. IMO it is a completely unreasonable
>> >rhetorical claim meant as a campaign for an agenda rather than a logical
>>claim based
>>>of established facts.
>
>Tom said
>
>> The established facts are that humans hear loudness, pitch (as jj
>> would say
>> partial loudness differences) and timing (direction.)
>> When an amplification device provides a signal to the speaker
>>terminals that does nothing more than uniformly raise the level of the
>signal
>>applied
>>to its input terminals it will be perfectly transparent to a listener. ie
>>impart no
>> sound of its own.
>
>I would agree with that. Get back to me when such an amp exists.

I currently own and use 10 of them; not counting the two dozen or so in my
active loudspeaker cadre which are intentionally 'warped' to offset the
inherent problems with the electro-mechanical transdusers.

>
>Tom said
>
>>
>> It is well known that modern amplifiers of competent design are
>> generally capable of doing this within their power limits into normally
>> encountered, and even â__difficultâ__ load conditions.
>>
>
>Well I have heard differently. I have heard that amps distort the signal in
>many different ways and each amp measures quite differently. The question is
>what is the audible threshold of each and every distortion prosduced by any
>given amp when driving any kind of real world speaker load.

You claim to have 'heard differently' but no one has ever shown under bias
controlled listening conditions that the 'sound' of an amplifier outside of
frequency reponse errors and overload exists let alone a commonly encountered
phenomenon.

>
>Tom said
>
>>
>>For an amplifier to impart its own sound it must find a way to
>>desecrate the signal ....damage it in some way by adding distortion or
>>changing the
>>partial loudness curve.
>>
>
>Agreed. But I think your apparent claim that amps don't distort the signal is
>a
>gross misrepresentation of the facts.

What facts? Where is the peer-reviewed evidence that says otherwise?


>
>Tom said
>
>>
>> To say that amplifiers, as a class, are not capable of this other than
>>violating the stated conditions is a claim that is directly analagous
>>to making claims of para-normality.
>
>No one I know of is saying that amplifier sound is anything but distortion.
>So
>who are you arguing with on this issue? Who is claiming that amp sound is
>magical? I certainly am not. I agree that any sound that an amp may have is a
>result of measurable distortion. That is not an extraordinary claim. Maybe
>our
>argument will make progress if you avoid building false positions to argue
>against.

So what measureable distortions other than frequency reponse errors and
overload (operating outside power limits)
contribue to the sound of an amplifier?

Peer-reviewed journal references?

>
>I don't know why you are having such trouble understanding my simple claim in
>this thread so I will say it again at the risk of being painfully redundant.
>Without scientifically valid evidence one cannot make claims one way or
>another
>about the sound of amplifiers and rightly claim their position is supported
>by
>science.
>How you can deduct that out of this claim I am, as you say "But you appear to
>be making a more global statement. That clipping and frequency response
>errors
>are NOT the basic fabric of 'amp' sound. This is extraordinary." is beyond
>me.
>I just don't see it. It looks like a lot a straw man arguments that are
>totally
>unrelated to my very simple straight forward point.

Let's clarify here. I belive that you claim that amplifier "sound" is common
enough that few or no amplifers are capable of transporting a signal from input
to output with sonic transparency. Yet you site no peer-reviewed evidence that
this is the case.

I maintain that such amplifiers are common and that many have used bench
measurements and bias controlled listening tests to verify transparency. I have
personally done so on many occasions. And no maufacturer, marketer or magazine
has ever shown that outside of frequency response errors (which occur
infrequently) and overload (gross incompetence) that ampliifers commerically
available to the general public are not, by and large, capable of a level of
transparency well below the threshold of human hearing.


>>

>>>> J Abnorm Psychol. 2002 Aug;111(3):455-61.
>>>>
>>>> Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens.
>>>>
>>>> Clancy SA, McNally RJ, Schacter DL, Lenzenweger MF, Pitman RK.
>>
>
>Tom said
>
>>
>> But that didn't investigate the abductions. It appears to be reporting
>>on people who have reported abductions. I see nothing here to suggest that
>>the
>> abductions
>>themselves have been investigated.
>
>It was what you asked for. It was a peer reviewed experiment on Alien
>abductions. More precisely it investigated the cause for the claim of alien
>abductions.

Again it says nothing about the existance of true abductions.

>
>Tom said
>
>>
>> My paper "Can You Trust Your Ears?" is of the same nature.
>
>Really? What peer reviewed scientific journal was it published in?

It was give at an AES Convention. No it was not peer-reviewed. But it does
examine perceptual distortions of humans when reporting of sound and how people
will falsely report difference when given two identical sound presentations.


>
>So? I have not disputed the fact that biases affect perception. The same is
>true when people listen to speakers. It doesn't lead to the conclusion that
>speakers all sound the same does it? Just because some people are reporting
>differences that may have been the result of sighted biases doesn't prove
>that
>all amps sound the same.

No one said that either. But no one has delivered any reasonable peer-reviewed
evidence that they don't.

Your observation that they do not has no bias controlled evidence to support
it. So the claim that they do not has not only no basis but cannot be supported
by the people with the most to gain from that proposition.

And those people, you included, are reduced to argumentation. If your claim was
generally true it should be so easy to prove.


>> But you didn't find a peer reviewed article that investigated the
>>existance of abductions (amp sound) now did you?
>
>Yes I did. The investigation showed a likely cause of claims of alien
>abductions without the need of aliens abducting people. So it did in effect
>investigate the validity of such claims in light of the complete absense of
>forensic evidence and third party eyewitness acounts.

Yes; so it didn't PROVE that alien abductions CAN"T happen. But your assertions
are just that, as well, without forensic evidence of any kind.

>
>I found what you asked for and now you want to redifine what you asked for.
>forget about the offer to find anything else on the subject. It is clearly a
>waste of time. Now please feel free to get back to me when you can cite any
>peer reviewed published data that support your position on amplifier sound
>that
>you seem to claim is supported by science.

I'm waiting for your peer-reviewed evidence supporting amp sound.


>>This has been reported. Toole published the first one in 1976. Two
>>dozen others followed. What more is needed?
>
>Published where?

Audio Scene of Canada. And no I'm not going to send you a copy. Find it
yourself.

>> Good point. But the current work is on data reduction. All the work is
>>supported by bias controlled listening tests published or otherwise.
>
>Which supports my claim that in the absense of any peer reviewed tests on the
>sound of amplifiers one cannot make global definitive claims one way or
>another
>and rightly claim that science supports their claim.

Then one should also stop making claims about amp sound shouldn't they?

ludovic mirabel
September 22nd 03, 03:05 AM
wrote in message >...
> ludovic mirabel > wrote:
>
>
> > Be kind. Be useful and instructive. Skip "starting points" and
> > "trajectories", It might take us back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
> > Just let's have the ground-research for ABX in comparing components.
> > ,. The readers such as Mr. Wheel have been waiting and asking for such
> > evidence for a long , long time.

JjNunes answers:
> As has been gone over many times, it is a body of evidence that supports
> the fact that the test is sensitive down to the physical limits of the
> hearing system. That limit is defined as the lowest instataneous loudness
> that results in a detectable signal at the auditory nerve. That level is
> well known and is used routinely as a reference in the more sophisticated
> hearing tests in anechoic chambers.
> There is really no disagreement among professionals in psychoacoustic
> research that the test validates itself as described above and the body
> of evidence (the books mentioned are just some of the references) supports
> the results.
>
Where is the "ground research for COMPONENT CMPARISON BY ABX"?
Analogies and inferences from other areas will not do (see below)
Translated for clarity your evidence means just this much:
psychometricians find that selected, trained subjects with normal
hearing will still hear normally while ABXing. A great hearing test.
Bully for psychometrics' "professionals". A shame though they will not
do any component comparisons. These are for us ordinary audiophiles or
what are they for?
What has it all got to do with comparing components for their
MUSICAL reproduction differences? Something more complicated is
involved- a zillion different brains of a zillion "audiophiles".
Beethoven and Klemperer would have been disbarred from psychometric
research- what a shame!

> An analogy may illustrate the point. There is a deliberate exageration
> to help illustrate it:
>
> Writing a boatload of peer reviewed papers and books to show that
> the test validates itself is like doing the same for demonstrating
> the effectiveness of scalpels in surgery.
>
You don't use a scalpel to cut bread. It works better in the
surgical theatre and you don't use psychometric tests to distinguish
between audio components.
Psychometricians keep out of it. Perhaps they know something. Or can
you give a references to the contrary?

> In such a situation, there is no need to write volumes. At least, that
> is how I understand it to be viewed within the field. Somebody can correct
> me if they are interested. (maybe there are very old references about
> scalpels) But the point is made.
>
And the point is? (Sorry couldn't resist this generous opening)

> You have mentioned that you have a problem with no defined end point.
> Most of the 'softer' (for lack of abetter word) sciences are like that.
> I think it's unreasonable to dismiss them on that alone. But it seems
> to be the thing in a 'postmodern' culture. I don't like postmodernism,
> especially the thought of knowledge being a utility.
>
Your thoughts on postmodern thinking are appreciated. But I'm not
looking in RAHE for new insights into the theory of knowledge but for
something very much simpler. I'll quote my text from one week ago that
also appears to have slipped your attention: ("The endless debate",
Sept 13
DBT2: Use in research including psychoacoustics; Subjects are
trained and the hopeless rejected- ie they are selected. A known
artefact (a certain amount of distortion, frequency bumps etc) is
introduced- subject either hears it or does not. Period.

Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components; Randomly
collected test population. Diferent ages, gender, hearing ability,
training and aptitude for the test protocol, different musical
exposure and interest. *No objective target to aim at* so no one can
tell who is right and who is wrong. The few who hear or the most who
don't? Consequently the proctor verdict is by majority vote-the lowest
common denominator. The whole thing as subjectivist as could be and
certainly not replicable by another panel.

> Bibliographies have been posted on RAHE in the past. You may have to wade
> through a lot of stuff to find them in Google, but I remember seeing them.
> (it was probably before you or I arrived, I think)
>
Well, I've done more than see them. I reviewed Rampelmann's and
Motry's bibliographies and culled ALL the published ABX component
comparisons by audiophile panels that had been published in the 80's.(
none appeared since- but talk-talk about how wonderful ABX is-
continued) This review was quoted and discussed here in the past 2
years ad nauseam. Sorry this too slpped your attention. Even more
sorry for myself having to repeat it all every few weeks for the
benefit of anyone newly appeared on the horizon. (For Quotes see P.S.)
( None were published since- lots of smoke but no fire-lots of theory
but no practical results). ALL gave: "They all sound the same"
results and so will any others -guaranteed. When you collect a bunch
of "audiophiles" most of them will perform in the middle and give you
random, coin throw results. Only in this strange kind of "research"
the few who heard MORE than the average were added to the overall
results.. Why? Because of the agenda: cables ,amps everything MUST
sound the same- it sounds the same to US "researchers" and
"measurements" (that we have as of year 2003) are the same. All those
engineers such as Palavicini, Meidtner, Strickland, Hafler are con-
men or deluded and only the Rahe experts know how to show them up.

> As for comparing components, blind methods are considered
manditory in
> validating codec quality, and a codec is a component as is an amplifier,
> etc. The only difference is that a codec is software and an amplifier,
> cable, CD player, etc.) is hardware. In other words, it isn't considered
> a practical problem as I understand it.
>
Great: testing codex is just the same as testing musical
characteristics of a component. Then please, test some components .
Audiophiles are not in the market for codex. And Mr. JJnunes-
reasoning by inference does not wash.

> (description of position snipped for brevity)
>
Pity. It contained your statement that ABX was "the best known way".
To which I said:
> > Mr. Jjnunes, this is a strange statement. Are you saying that
> > audiophiles don't care about "the best known way" to discern
> > differences between components before buying?
>
> It means that they can use any method they want to make them happy.
> There is nothing strange about that. They don't HAVE to use blind testing,
> obviously, many audiophiles are happy not to. By the same token, ust because
> most choose not to use it, it doesn't mean that the test is wrong
> scientifically.
>
This is a change from " the best known way" Is it just "not wrong
scientifically"-whatever that may mean- or is it "the best known way"?
You can define "science" for your convenience. I define a "test"
as something reproducible by the targeted population from individual
to individual. ABX is not that.
But if it is "the best known way" then you're intellectually duty-
bound to recommend it. I'll tell you in secret: it is not that and it
is not a "test". There ain't no "test" with general audiophile
validity. Neither "best" nor "worse" Nohow, nowhere. In science
bluster and opinions do not replace evidence.
To quote the paragraph you omitted: "2) the "best known way" (ie
ABX/DBT for comparing components available for the last 30 years L.M.)
is not usable on this earth by human beings. Writing paper and angelic
choir are another thing
altogether"
I said:
> > What's wrong with this
> > picture? Well, listen carefully this time-all of it's been said many
> > times before but seems to have slipped past you.
> > ALL, but ALL ABX component comparison tests with an average
> > audiophile panel as reported by their proctors failed to verify ANY
> > differences, "subtle" ("subtle" for you or for me or for Glenn Gould?)
> > or "gross" between cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers and Dacs
> > Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
> > anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
>
> I suppose you are referring to Noisaine's tests.
Definitely not. Nousaine's tests are for a few individuals at the
most.. I'm referring to PUBLISHED panel tests results.

I recall some have said
> they wern't as sensitive as they could be, but it wasn't <really> bad.
> It's not true there are never no differences.
>
> If you want to know for yourself, the best way is to do your own tests.
> But, nobody HAS to do them. That's unreasonable. My position is really
> more moderate than some.
>
Why on earth would I buy a $600:00 switch to find out that in my
hands ABX makes it all "sound the same".?
> If you would just stop listening to Glenn Gould, everything would be
> alright. ;-)

And if you and others just gave up the quaint idea that there
must be a "test" to measure subjective, individual perceptions of
complex signals like music (in no other sphere of sensory preferences-
just in audio- we're so blessed)... Rahe would become a useful forum
for exchange of personal experiences. And credible opinions of
credible witnesses would be interesting to others with similar
interests and so on. Just like the opinions of the mag. reviewers.
Ludovic Mirabel
Mr Jjnunes do me and your readers a favour and read the threads. The
following appeared in my reply to Mr. ABrams 3/52 ago. The thread is
still current
Representative conclusions of the ABX developers (Clark , Masters
etc)proctoring the ABX listening tests. :
Quoted on 3rd Sept '03 in the "Endless debate" thread
"Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD
Players Sound
the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Conclusions signed by D.L. Clark:
"......it is difficult to imagine a real-life situation in which
audible differences could be reliably detected or in which one player
(CD player L.M.) would be consistently preferred "for its sound alone"

Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the
Difference?"
> Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)
Conclusions signed by Larry Greenhill:
"This project was unable to validate the sonic benefits claimed for
exotic speaker cables over common 16-gauge zipcord.We can only
concludet there is little advantage beside the pride of ownership in
using these thick expensive wires"

In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility of
distortion
was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
Various types of distortion with different signals were tested.. There
were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion level
(2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct hits
was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant level of
60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the signal
very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
Will it do for the time being?

ludovic mirabel
September 22nd 03, 03:05 AM
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<GvIab.386910$Oz4.170898@rwcrnsc54>...
> In article <juHab.521254$o%2.228267@sccrnsc02>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message >...
> >> In article <UCbab.492296$o%2.220969@sccrnsc02>,
> >> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> >>
> >> > Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
> >> > anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
> >>
> >> Or - There are no differences between the components that have been
> >> compared so far.
> >>
> >> Why do you insist on taking it to the extreme. Could it be so you can
> >> create a strawman that is easy for you to burn?
> >
> > The paragraph that you saw fit to amputate is as follows:
> > (((" Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences
> > between
> > anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
> > And don't tell me about speakers. Try first a panel ABX test..
> > 2) the "best known way" (ie ABX/DBT for comparing components
> > available for the last 30 years L.M.) is not usable on this earth by
> > human beings. Writing paper and angelic choir are another thing
> > altogether" }}}
> > I'll answer any argument which genuinely addresses MY argument.
> > When I see a selected snippet cut out of my text I'll content myself
> > with a requote.
>
> Well I didn't think the rest had anything to do with my question so I
> snipped it, something you need to do much more often. People can refer
> to the original post quite easily, so it is considered bad etiquette to
> quote parts of a previous post when one doesn't consider it germane
> to their own new post.
>
> So I'll just repeat my statement and question since you seem to think
> that is the way to have useful discussions and since you failed to
> reply:
>
> > Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
> > anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
>
> Or - There are no differences between the components that have been
> compared so far.
>
> Why do you insist on taking it to the extreme. Could it be so you can
> create a strawman that is easy for you to burn? This also applies to
> the part you insist on repeating too by the way since you imply that
> those who do use ABX/DBTs aren't "human beings".

ABX has been around for the last 30 years. In the first 15 years
of its existence PANEL tests for comparing:cables, amps, preamps,
cdplayers and dacs appeared in the "Stereo Review" and "Audio" I
searched for them in the Public Library and reported in several
threads here. I'm tired of redoing it all every 2 weeks by request.
They were ALL negative- "they all sound the same" None were done
since 1990.
Your alternatives are to wait a while longer,or believe that ABX
proves that everything in Audio sounds the same, or get a large bag of
salt to apply to the sanctity of ABX.
Ludovic Mirabel

S888Wheel
September 22nd 03, 04:27 AM
I said

<<

>I don't follow your logic. The claim of amplifier sound cannot possibly be so
>extraoridnary if it has been conceded that it has happened. If it has been
>observered in bias controled tests regardless if the reasons are known or
>unknown it is ridiculous to say it is an extraordinary claim.
>>

Tom said

<<
But you claim that practically every amplifier has its own set of sonic faults
that
allows it to have a sound of its own >>

Nope. i haven't made any such claim. I don't know how to be any more clear
about my claim on this thread. Must i repeat it again?

Tom said

<< I suggest that there are a few of these
and the source of their incompetence is not a mystery.
>>

It's nice to see yo suggesting it rather than asserting it as a scientific
fact. I think that is a step in the right direction.

Tom said

<<
Further you suggest that open listening is the best way to discover the sound
of ampliifers. >>

No I don't. I don't know where you got that from. I guess I should remind you
of what I did suggest. I am suggesting that without scientifically valid
evidence one cannot make a global claim about amplifier sound either way and
rightly claim that there postion is scientifically supported. Please no more
straw man arguments. Please, no more misrepresentations of what I have said and
what I think. Please.

Tom said

<< I say that any amplifier that applies a sound to any signal is
not an amplifief but an equakizer of some kind (usually load dependent.) >>

You have said this before. I think you are wrong. I think you are playing
semantical games. I think if you go into any, any hifi retailer and ask for an
equilizer they will not show you any amplifiers that you think are incompetent
no matter how many such amplifiers they may have.

Tom said

<<

But most importantly, in a practical sense the competency of an amplifiewr can
be known with measurements in advance and as a class commerically available
products most generally have a level of competence which means they will
faithfully amplify and transport a signal from input to output in a perfectly
transparent manner.
>>

You are entitled to this opinion. I don't agree with you on the very meaning of
competence. I make no argument that amplifier performance is not measurable.

Tom said

<<

And you have no peer- reviewed evidence that says otherwise. >>

Obviously, given the total lack of any peer reviewed evidence on amplifier
sound. So one can say that you have no peer reviewed evidence that suggests all
amplifiers are transparent either. With a total lack of such peer reviewed
evidence making any claims based on the lack of evidence doesn't carry any
value.

Tom said

<< AFAIK, have tested your theory with even nominal bias controls implemented.

>>

What "theory" would that be? I don't recall offering any theories about
anything.

<<
>>>> Tom said
>>>>
>>>>> There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
>>>>> fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.
>>
>>> As before. >>

<<
>I said
>
>>
>>>> There has been no replication of the tests you have cited either.
>>
> >>

<<
>Tom said
>
>>
>>I beg your pardon. There have been a couple dozen replications.
>>
> >>

I said

<<
>None that I have seen. Every test you cited was different in many significant
>ways. That would not constitute replication. So, if any of the tests you have
>cited have been truely replicated then you haven't cited the replication of
>these tests. The articles inwhich they were published do not cite any such
>replication. >>

Tom said

<<

Pure conjecture. Those experiments, and you have a fairly comprehensive list,
do represent replication the key element of which is limiting listener bias.
>>

There is more to "replication" than preserving a few key elements. Besides,
Stewert's tests limmited listener bias as well. But you continue to ignore
those tests. It looks like picking and choosing anecdotal evidence to me. It
looks far less than scientific to me.

I said

<<

>I am agreeing that if amplifiers sound different those differences are
>measurable. I am not limmiting the source of all audible distortions in
>amplifiers to frequency response.
>>

Tom said

<<
Nor have I.
>>

OK but it looked that way to me from what you said.

I said

<<
If you are claiming that it has been proven
>that the only audible distortion from an amp is in the frequency response
>then
>i would like to know how you know this to be a fact?
>>

Tom said

<<
I have said the source of true audible difference is a function of frequency
response or overload. >>

Fine. I didn't see overload as an issue since no one disputes that overload
leads to audible distortion. I see you didn't answer the question though. How
do you know those are the only distortions that are audible?

Tom said

<< But amplifiers that can deliver a transparent replication
of a sugnal appearing at its input terminals are common. Those that cannot a
few and have np place in my audio system. >>

I am aware of your opinion on this. You are entitled to it. You are entitled to
claim it is supported by science when you show it is supported by science. The
evidence you have presented doesn't cut it IMO. The tests you choose as valid
do seem to support your position more or less, they are IMO junk on a
scientific level.

Tom said

<<
The problem is that a few enthusiasts, you among them I think, suggest
otherwise and
that enthusiasts should worry about mystery amp sound when it hasn't ever been
shown to exist. >>

You see some things in audio as a problem I see other things in audio as a
problem. Live and let live.

<<
>>
>>>> Tom said
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity.
> >>

<<
>I said
>
>>
>>>> Yes you are. You are saying that claims of audible distortion in amps
>>>> is a
>>> claim of the paranormal. IMO it is a completely unreasonable
>> >rhetorical claim meant as a campaign for an agenda rather than a logical
>>claim based
>>>of established facts.
>
>Tom said >>

<<
>> The established facts are that humans hear loudness, pitch (as jj
>> would say
>> partial loudness differences) and timing (direction.)
>> When an amplification device provides a signal to the speaker
>>terminals that does nothing more than uniformly raise the level of the
>signal
>>applied
>>to its input terminals it will be perfectly transparent to a listener. ie
>>impart no
>> sound of its own.
> >>

I said

<<
>I would agree with that. Get back to me when such an amp exists.
>>

Tom said

<<

I currently own and use 10 of them; not counting the two dozen or so in my
active loudspeaker cadre which are intentionally 'warped' to offset the
inherent problems with the electro-mechanical transdusers.
>>

Reaaaally? You own 10 amps with no measurable distortion? That is an
extraordinary claim IMO. can you prove your amps are distortionless? I bet they
have all kinds of measurable distortions. Your words were "When an
amplification device does nothing more than uniformly raise the level of the
signal applied to it's input terminals it will be perfectly transparent to the
listener" and I agree. I don't believe any such amplifier exists though. But
you say you have 10 of them. can you show they have no measurable distortion?
That is what your words describe.

<<
>Tom said
>
>>
>> It is well known that modern amplifiers of competent design are
>> generally capable of doing this within their power limits into normally
>> encountered, and even â__difficultâ__ load conditions.
>> >>

I said

<<
>
>Well I have heard differently. I have heard that amps distort the signal in
>many different ways and each amp measures quite differently. The question is
>what is the audible threshold of each and every distortion prosduced by any
>given amp when driving any kind of real world speaker load. >>

Tom said

<<
You claim to have 'heard differently' but no one has ever shown under bias
controlled listening conditions that the 'sound' of an amplifier outside of
frequency reponse errors and overload exists let alone a commonly encountered
phenomenon.

> >>

We have a misunderstanding. Maybe I should have said "read" differently even
though I have heard people say it as well. You still continue to deny the
existance of Stewert's tests. I find picking and choosing evidence and then
claiming all the evidence agrees with you is not reasonable much less
scientific.
<<
>Tom said
>
>>
>>For an amplifier to impart its own sound it must find a way to
>>desecrate the signal ....damage it in some way by adding distortion or
>>changing the
>>partial loudness curve.
>> >>

I said

<<
>
>Agreed. But I think your apparent claim that amps don't distort the signal is
>a
>gross misrepresentation of the facts.
>>

Tom said

<< What facts? >>

The "facts" that amplifiers distort the signal they are fed in ways that are
easily measured.

Tom said

<< Where is the peer-reviewed evidence that says otherwise?
>>

You suscribe to the AESJ yes? Nothing measuring distortion of amplifiers has
ever been published? Hmm I could have sworn Dick Pierce has made claims of
measuring all kinds of distortion in any and all amps he has tested. Maybe I am
mistaken. Do I really need to go on another Easter Egg hunt? Are you seriously
asserting that amps don't have measurable distortion?

I think we are just arguing in circles. I simply find many of your positions
unsupported. Please let me know if you ever plan to submit anything on the
subject to the AESJ for publication. I would be very curious to see if it is
accepted for publication.

I said

<<
>I don't know why you are having such trouble understanding my simple claim in
>this thread so I will say it again at the risk of being painfully redundant.
>Without scientifically valid evidence one cannot make claims one way or
>another
>about the sound of amplifiers and rightly claim their position is supported
>by
>science.
>How you can deduct that out of this claim I am, as you say "But you appear to
>be making a more global statement. That clipping and frequency response
>errors
>are NOT the basic fabric of 'amp' sound. This is extraordinary." is beyond
>me.
>I just don't see it. It looks like a lot a straw man arguments that are
>totally
>unrelated to my very simple straight forward point.
>>

Tom said

<<
Let's clarify here. I belive that you claim that amplifier "sound" is common
enough that few or no amplifers are capable of transporting a signal from input
to output with sonic transparency. >>

You believe incorrectly. I don't make such global claims based on my personal
experiences. That would be presumptuous on my part. I think if you read what I
say and only what I say my claims will be clear.

<<
>Tom said
>
>>
>> My paper "Can You Trust Your Ears?" is of the same nature.
> >>

I said

<<
>Really? What peer reviewed scientific journal was it published in? >>

Tom said

<<
It was give at an AES Convention. No it was not peer-reviewed. But it does
examine perceptual distortions of humans when reporting of sound and how people
will falsely report difference when given two identical sound presentations.
>>

It was not peer reviewed. It hasn't been scrutinized to be scientifically
valid.

I said

<<
>
>So? I have not disputed the fact that biases affect perception. The same is
>true when people listen to speakers. It doesn't lead to the conclusion that
>speakers all sound the same does it? Just because some people are reporting
>differences that may have been the result of sighted biases doesn't prove
>that
>all amps sound the same. >>

Tom said

<<
No one said that either. But no one has delivered any reasonable peer-reviewed
evidence that they don't. >>

Or that they do. Again you point to the lack of evidence of either as proof of
support of your positive assertion. I believe that is both unscientific and
unreasonable.

Tom said

<<
I'm waiting for your peer-reviewed evidence supporting amp sound.
>>

And I am waiting for your peer reviewed evidence that supports no amp sound.
Lets not forget that you claim this position is supported scientifically. I
make no such claims of scientific support of my opinions.

September 22nd 03, 04:14 PM
Mkuller > wrote:

> While DBTs are effectively utilized in psychoacoustic research, there is little
> or no evidence that they are appropriate or useful for audiophiles to utilize
> in comparing audio components with music as a bias control method. In fact,
> the few reported published studies show that when used in this way, DBTs do not
> show subtle audible differences between components, but only gross frequency
> response and loudness differences and then only when pink noise is used as a
> source.

A correlation between audible differences and measured differences when both
are under controlled conditions is very powerful evidence indeed. Such
correlations are lacking in the subjectivist evidence. That there is a
difference between the results of controlled tests and sighted tests is
something that is expected and in fact should be. It would be sad indeed if
people had no auditory imagination --- indeed it would be impossible to
produce music and build great instruments if that was the case.


> There are at least two important elements missing from these amateur DBTs:
> 1. Pretesting that the the actual subtle differences can be identified with
> the program material utilized, i.e. is the music selected actually a sensitive
> enough source to identify, say a difference in midrange dynamic contrasts in a
> DBT. That a DBT is sensitive to the limits of audibility is meaningless if
> that does not apply to THIS DBT.
> 2. Pre-training the subjects to listen for the specific differences
> (midrange dynamic contrasts) prior to conducting the DBT.

> I believe these two protocols are standard in psychoacoustic research, but have
> not been applied to any amateur DBT I have seen. Certainly there are other
> problems with amateur pseudo-scientific use of DBTs in audio as a method of
> bias control. The bottom line is this - they have never been proven as
> effective for use in comparing audio components with music in the way they are
> blindly advocated on RAHE. Sighted listening, i.e. no bias controls, seems
> more effective in identifying subtle differences.

I'm not going to hash over all the usual stuff. I'm weary of arguing about
it and nothing will likely change if I did. But you do make your point clearly
and succinctly, even if it no longer makes any sense to me. (I used to be a
subjectivist) Mr. Mirabel could hopefully learn something from your writing style.

September 22nd 03, 04:16 PM
ludovic mirabel > wrote:

> Where is the "ground research for COMPONENT CMPARISON BY ABX"?
> Analogies and inferences from other areas will not do (see below)
> Translated for clarity your evidence means just this much:
> psychometricians find that selected, trained subjects with normal
> hearing will still hear normally while ABXing. A great hearing test.
> Bully for psychometrics' "professionals". A shame though they will not
> do any component comparisons. These are for us ordinary audiophiles or
> what are they for?

I would rather listen to music. What do you do? Endlessly compare
components for inaudible differences and call it music listening?


> What has it all got to do with comparing components for their
> MUSICAL reproduction differences? Something more complicated is
> involved- a zillion different brains of a zillion "audiophiles".
> Beethoven and Klemperer would have been disbarred from psychometric
> research- what a shame!

I would prefer the irony. With your posts, I have to wonder if you might be
serious.


> You don't use a scalpel to cut bread. It works better in the
> surgical theatre and you don't use psychometric tests to distinguish
> between audio components.
> Psychometricians keep out of it. Perhaps they know something. Or can
> you give a references to the contrary?

One's that were here have left for reasons you can have a victory
celebration about.


>> In such a situation, there is no need to write volumes. At least, that
>> is how I understand it to be viewed within the field. Somebody can correct
>> me if they are interested. (maybe there are very old references about
>> scalpels) But the point is made.
>>
> And the point is? (Sorry couldn't resist this generous opening)

Are you interested?


>> You have mentioned that you have a problem with no defined end point.
>> Most of the 'softer' (for lack of abetter word) sciences are like that.
>> I think it's unreasonable to dismiss them on that alone. But it seems
>> to be the thing in a 'postmodern' culture. I don't like postmodernism,
>> especially the thought of knowledge being a utility.


> Your thoughts on postmodern thinking are appreciated. But I'm not
> looking in RAHE for new insights into the theory of knowledge but for
> something very much simpler.

Your posts on this subject indeed are typically postmodern in the emphasis
on the relativistic softening of known facts and attempted deconstruction.


I'll quote my text from one week ago that
> also appears to have slipped your attention: ("The endless debate",
> Sept 13
> DBT2: Use in research including psychoacoustics; Subjects are
> trained and the hopeless rejected- ie they are selected. A known
> artefact (a certain amount of distortion, frequency bumps etc) is
> introduced- subject either hears it or does not. Period.

> Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
> I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components; Randomly
> collected test population. Diferent ages, gender, hearing ability,
> training and aptitude for the test protocol, different musical
> exposure and interest. *No objective target to aim at* so no one can
> tell who is right and who is wrong. The few who hear or the most who
> don't? Consequently the proctor verdict is by majority vote-the lowest
> common denominator. The whole thing as subjectivist as could be and
> certainly not replicable by another panel.

Sorry, I can't figure out what you're talking about. Do work on
your writing style. I'm don't read every post just to satisfy you. I'm
not going to go overtime responding to someone who writes in such a turgid
style.


> Well, I've done more than see them. I reviewed Rampelmann's and
> Motry's bibliographies and culled ALL the published ABX component
> comparisons by audiophile panels that had been published in the 80's.(
> none appeared since- but talk-talk about how wonderful ABX is-
> continued) This review was quoted and discussed here in the past 2
> years ad nauseam. Sorry this too slpped your attention. Even more
> sorry for myself having to repeat it all every few weeks for the
> benefit of anyone newly appeared on the horizon. (For Quotes see P.S.)
> ( None were published since- lots of smoke but no fire-lots of theory
> but no practical results). ALL gave: "They all sound the same"
> results and so will any others -guaranteed. When you collect a bunch
> of "audiophiles" most of them will perform in the middle and give you
> random, coin throw results. Only in this strange kind of "research"
> the few who heard MORE than the average were added to the overall
> results.. Why? Because of the agenda: cables ,amps everything MUST
> sound the same- it sounds the same to US "researchers" and
> "measurements" (that we have as of year 2003) are the same. All those
> engineers such as Palavicini, Meidtner, Strickland, Hafler are con-
> men or deluded and only the Rahe experts know how to show them up.

again, I don't know how to respond to a paragraph that looks as if has been
in the blender.


> Great: testing codex is just the same as testing musical
> characteristics of a component. Then please, test some components .
> Audiophiles are not in the market for codex. And Mr. JJnunes-
> reasoning by inference does not wash.

Usually lots of differences with codecs. Do you think they all sound the
same? Or do you want to put those words in others mouths?


>> (description of position snipped for brevity)
>>
> Pity. It contained your statement that ABX was "the best known way".

It did indeed.


> To which I said:
>> > Mr. Jjnunes, this is a strange statement. Are you saying that
>> > audiophiles don't care about "the best known way" to discern
>> > differences between components before buying?
>>
>> It means that they can use any method they want to make them happy.
>> There is nothing strange about that. They don't HAVE to use blind testing,
>> obviously, many audiophiles are happy not to. By the same token, ust because
>> most choose not to use it, it doesn't mean that the test is wrong
>> scientifically.
>>
> This is a change from " the best known way" Is it just "not wrong
> scientifically"-whatever that may mean- or is it "the best known way"?

There is no change.

It is the best known way to identify subtle differences <by the sound
alone>. Sighted testing includes information based on other than the sound.
There is no contradiction except in your mind.


> You can define "science" for your convenience. I define a "test"
> as something reproducible by the targeted population from individual
> to individual. ABX is not that.
> But if it is "the best known way" then you're intellectually duty-
> bound to recommend it. I'll tell you in secret: it is not that and it
> is not a "test". There ain't no "test" with general audiophile
> validity. Neither "best" nor "worse" Nohow, nowhere. In science
> bluster and opinions do not replace evidence.
> To quote the paragraph you omitted: "2) the "best known way" (ie
> ABX/DBT for comparing components available for the last 30 years L.M.)
> is not usable on this earth by human beings. Writing paper and angelic
> choir are another thing
> altogether"

You just don't like the evidence and you don't understand my position.
So you paraphrase and jumble it up in your blender (that's always ready -
even for your own words) beyond recognition. That's pitiful.


> And if you and others just gave up the quaint idea that there
> must be a "test" to measure subjective, individual perceptions of
> complex signals like music (in no other sphere of sensory preferences-
> just in audio- we're so blessed)... Rahe would become a useful forum
> for exchange of personal experiences. And credible opinions of
> credible witnesses would be interesting to others with similar
> interests and so on. Just like the opinions of the mag. reviewers.

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

I never jump in on discussions about equipment with references to blind
testing. I wouldn't even if it was permitted in moderation policy. You
are free to rhapsodize as you wish. What's your problem???

All Ears
September 22nd 03, 05:07 PM
big snip

> In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility of
> distortion
> was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
> Various types of distortion with different signals were tested.. There
> were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion level
> (2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct hits
> was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant level of
> 60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
> Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
> Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the signal
> very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
> Will it do for the time being?
>

I think this is good "food for thoughts" because it gives an idea of how
large a margin there is to really detect a difference.

This is also why I asked about if anybody had any experience with the
"Golden Ear" CD set. However, either this issue has been debated to death
before I came here, or there is little interest in training the ear.

KE

Mkuller
September 22nd 03, 06:41 PM
wrote:>
>A correlation between audible differences and measured differences when both
>are under controlled conditions is very powerful evidence indeed. Such
>correlations are lacking in the subjectivist evidence. That there is a
>difference between the results of controlled tests and sighted tests is
>something that is expected and in fact should be. It would be sad indeed if
>people had no auditory imagination --- indeed it would be impossible to
>produce music and build great instruments if that was the case.
>

Now you want to bring in a correlation with measured differences. That would
be great IF you knew exactly what to measure. I don't think we're quite there
yet.

So DBTs err on the negative side making everything sound the same, and sighted
listening errs on the positive side making everything (even cables) sound
different, then reality is most likely somewhere in between. I'll take the
latter with experienced listeners over amateur pseudo-science DBTs any day.

jjnunes
(I used to be a subjectivist)

So what experience with what equipment changed your mind?
Regards,
Mike

Nousaine
September 22nd 03, 11:30 PM
(Mkuller) wrote:

wrote:>
>>A correlation between audible differences and measured differences when both
>>are under controlled conditions is very powerful evidence indeed. Such
>>correlations are lacking in the subjectivist evidence. That there is a
>>difference between the results of controlled tests and sighted tests is
>>something that is expected and in fact should be. It would be sad indeed if
>>people had no auditory imagination --- indeed it would be impossible to
>>produce music and build great instruments if that was the case.
>>
>
>Now you want to bring in a correlation with measured differences. That would
>be great IF you knew exactly what to measure. I don't think we're quite there
>yet.

>So DBTs err on the negative side making everything sound the same, and
>sighted
>listening errs on the positive side making everything (even cables) sound
>different, then reality is most likely somewhere in between.

DBTing makes no errors but does limit decision-making to sound alone.

I'll take the
>latter with experienced listeners over amateur pseudo-science DBTs any day.

You don't have to make that distinction. Of the dozens of subjects I've used in
blind testing the overwhelming majority were experienced audio enthusiasts.
Most of the documented blimd tests have used the same.

>jjnunes
>(I used to be a subjectivist)
>
>So what experience with what equipment changed your mind?
>Regards,
>Mike

For me the light came on when I was demonstrating the wonderful sound of my
special new film capacitors I was using and discovered I had accidentally
inserted the wrong component in the circuit and listeners still 'heard' the
improvement.

A short stint with someone else anonymously operating the switch showed me
quickly that the capacitors were sonically indistinguishable and that bias
controlling listening is a prerequisite for sonic improvement pathing.

Stewart Pinkerton
September 23rd 03, 03:17 PM
On 22 Sep 2003 22:30:35 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(Mkuller) wrote:

>>jjnunes
>>(I used to be a subjectivist)
>>
>>So what experience with what equipment changed your mind?
>>Regards,
>>Mike
>
>For me the light came on when I was demonstrating the wonderful sound of my
>special new film capacitors I was using and discovered I had accidentally
>inserted the wrong component in the circuit and listeners still 'heard' the
>improvement.
>
>A short stint with someone else anonymously operating the switch showed me
>quickly that the capacitors were sonically indistinguishable and that bias
>controlling listening is a prerequisite for sonic improvement pathing.

I had a similar Damascene revelation, and there's one interesting
phenomemon that I've noticed over the years. At least a dozen serious
audiophiles of my acquaintance, plus several regular newsgroup
posters, have changed from being 'subjectivists', to making use of
DBTs. OTOH, I know of not one single person who has gone the other
way, from believing in DBTs to preferring sighted listening. I wonder
why that is? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ludovic mirabel
September 23rd 03, 06:31 PM
"All Ears" > wrote in message news:<97Fbb.406782$cF.126279@rwcrnsc53>...
> big snip
>
> > In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility of
> > distortion
> > was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
> > Various types of distortion with different signals were tested.. There
> > were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion level
> > (2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct hits
> > was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant level of
> > 60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
> > Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
> > Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the signal
> > very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
> > Will it do for the time being?
> >
>
> I think this is good "food for thoughts" because it gives an idea of how
> large a margin there is to really detect a difference.
>
Note that the performance varies from one listener to other-
inspite of training and retraining-. A few have 5 out of 5 correct
responses, a few 1 out of 5 and most fall in the average middle. As
you would expect.
Note that the "objectivist", objectively unbiased, proctors
showed no interest in the few who heard the DIFFERENCES accurately.
They just lumped them together with the most who DID NOT and got an
average for an average, fictitious Mr. Average Listener who hears no
differences-ever. This of course was in acordance with the "Stereo
Review" guiding principle- "the high end does not exist, our big
account advertisers sound just as good."
Ludovic Mirabel
> This is also why I asked about if anybody had any experience with the
> "Golden Ear" CD set. However, either this issue has been debated to death
> before I came here, or there is little interest in training the ear.
>
> KE

Audio Guy
September 23rd 03, 10:57 PM
In article <ZG%bb.416971$Oz4.206670@rwcrnsc54>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<P7Fbb.406164$Oz4.197010@rwcrnsc54>...
>> In article >,
>> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> >
>> > Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
>> > I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components;
>>
>> Please, if nothing else, the test under discussion is most definitely
>> a "double blind test". You may not agree with the results, but it is
>> most certainly a DBT under every definition I am aware of. Talk about
>> your strawmen.
>
> Double Blind it is. "Test" it is not. A test by definition has to
> be replicable by the test subjects who are its constituency: ie a
> motley crew of "audiophiles" from the car boom- box enthusiasts to
> middle aged chamber music lovers. Individual performances differ
> widely as reflected in the reports of ALL of the existing "listening
> tests". Providence arranged that our results, yours and mine, are not
> transferable. That is the kind of test it is when you force it onto
> inappropriate topics like COMPARING COMPONENTS.
> Try again.

I think it is you that needs to try again. How is it not a "test"?
And how is it not replicable? Just because you say so? So one could
not take the same people who were in a specific DBT and get the same
results a second time? Is that not the definition of "replicable"?

And why would you include "car boom-box enthusiasts" in your
definition of an audiophile? I certainly wouldn't include them
myself. Must you again stretch the meanings of commonly understood
terms just to be able to prove your point?

Nousaine
September 24th 03, 02:34 AM
(Audio Guy)
wrote:


>
>In article <ZG%bb.416971$Oz4.206670@rwcrnsc54>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> (Audio Guy) wrote in message
>news:<P7Fbb.406164$Oz4.197010@rwcrnsc54>...
>>> In article >,
>>> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>>> >
>>> > Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
>>> > I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components;
>>>
>>> Please, if nothing else, the test under discussion is most definitely
>>> a "double blind test". You may not agree with the results, but it is
>>> most certainly a DBT under every definition I am aware of. Talk about
>>> your strawmen.
>>
>> Double Blind it is. "Test" it is not. A test by definition has to
>> be replicable by the test subjects who are its constituency: ie a
>> motley crew of "audiophiles" from the car boom- box enthusiasts to
>> middle aged chamber music lovers. Individual performances differ
>> widely as reflected in the reports of ALL of the existing "listening
>> tests". Providence arranged that our results, yours and mine, are not
>> transferable. That is the kind of test it is when you force it onto
>> inappropriate topics like COMPARING COMPONENTS.
>> Try again.
>
>I think it is you that needs to try again. How is it not a "test"?
>And how is it not replicable? Just because you say so? So one could
>not take the same people who were in a specific DBT and get the same
>results a second time? Is that not the definition of "replicable"?
>
>And why would you include "car boom-box enthusiasts" in your
>definition of an audiophile? I certainly wouldn't include them
>myself. Must you again stretch the meanings of commonly understood
>terms just to be able to prove your point?

That term is meant as a put-down but there are some very good high-fidelity
reasons that the vehicle can be a very good place to enjoy recorded music and
other programs which are often overlooked because of the inherent noise
problems.

To begin there are some very quiet vehicles and most are becoming quieter every
year. That notwithstanding; autosound gives one the ability to develop
realistic loudness levels with moderate amplifier and speaker displacement
which are often unattainable in many home systems. From a system design
standpoint the fixed listening position can be seen as a big improvement.
Seating may not be centerline but it will be known in advance.

And the big break is what I call "Free Bass." A single long stroke 10-inch
woofer in a 0.75 ft3 enclosure can generate 120 dB SPL at 10 Hz with reasonably
low distortion in a subcompact sized vehicle. This level of low frequency
output allows users to experience organ and other classical recordings with
full dynamics; something only a few home subwoofer systems are truly capable
of.

Further autosound gives us the ability to enjoy high-fi while held captive on
the 1-2 hours a day that many folks commit to commuting.

I've professionally evaluated over 400 OEM prototype and production autosound
systems in the past 5 years and the best ones are better than 95% of the home
audio systems I've heard over my 300 years as an enthusiast.

Michael Siemon
September 24th 03, 04:08 AM
In article >,
(Nousaine) wrote:
....

> I've professionally evaluated over 400 OEM prototype and production autosound
> systems in the past 5 years and the best ones are better than 95% of the home
> audio systems I've heard over my 300 years as an enthusiast.

Now, Tom -- I'm sure it only _seems_ that long. :-)

Stewart Pinkerton
September 24th 03, 03:33 PM
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:31:45 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

>"All Ears" > wrote in message news:<97Fbb.406782$cF.126279@rwcrnsc53>...
>> big snip
>>
>> > In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility of
>> > distortion
>> > was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
>> > Various types of distortion with different signals were tested.. There
>> > were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion level
>> > (2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct hits
>> > was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant level of
>> > 60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
>> > Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
>> > Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the signal
>> > very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
>> > Will it do for the time being?
>> >
>>
>> I think this is good "food for thoughts" because it gives an idea of how
>> large a margin there is to really detect a difference.
>>
> Note that the performance varies from one listener to other-
>inspite of training and retraining-. A few have 5 out of 5 correct
>responses, a few 1 out of 5 and most fall in the average middle. As
>you would expect.

Indeed, as you would expect for an effect which is on the threshold of
audibility.

> Note that the "objectivist", objectively unbiased, proctors
>showed no interest in the few who heard the DIFFERENCES accurately.
>They just lumped them together with the most who DID NOT and got an
>average for an average, fictitious Mr. Average Listener who hears no
>differences-ever. This of course was in acordance with the "Stereo
>Review" guiding principle- "the high end does not exist, our big
>account advertisers sound just as good."

You are once again making the classic mistake (or is it yet another
deliberate distortion?) of ignoring the basis of statistics. *You*
invariably 'cherry pick' the results that suit your preconceptions,
the researchers above very properly included *all* the responses. They
most certainly did *not* 'ignore' the 5/5 response, they *included* it
in the results. Incidentally, you once again alter the facts to suit
yourself. There is no indication in the above report that there were
'a few' listeners who scored 1/5 or 5/5, there may have been only one
of each - as a standard distribution curve would suggest.

Now, if the researchers had *repeated* the experiment, do you presume
that the same listeners would score the same results, i.e. that the
5/5 scorer(s) really do have 'Golden Ears'? That would suit *your*
preconceptions, but the results of the recently posted TAG McLaren
tests did not show this. Once again, you attempt to ignore the very
basis of statistical probability, in an attempt to shore up your
prejudices.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Nousaine
September 24th 03, 05:54 PM
Michael Siemon wrote:

>In article >,
> (Nousaine) wrote:
>...
>
>> I've professionally evaluated over 400 OEM prototype and production
>autosound
>> systems in the past 5 years and the best ones are better than 95% of the
>home
>> audio systems I've heard over my 300 years as an enthusiast.
>
>Now, Tom -- I'm sure it only _seems_ that long. :-)

:) You're right. That extra errant zero added 2.7 centuries. I aplogize to
everyone for my lack of touch typing skills.

ludovic mirabel
September 24th 03, 06:06 PM
(Audio Guy) wrote in message >...
> In article <ZG%bb.416971$Oz4.206670@rwcrnsc54>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<P7Fbb.406164$Oz4.197010@rwcrnsc54>...
> >> In article >,
> >> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> >> >
> >> > Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
> >> > I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components;
> >>
> >> Please, if nothing else, the test under discussion is most definitely
> >> a "double blind test". You may not agree with the results, but it is
> >> most certainly a DBT under every definition I am aware of. Talk about
> >> your strawmen.
> >
> > Double Blind it is. "Test" it is not. A test by definition has to
> > be replicable by the test subjects who are its constituency: ie a
> > motley crew of "audiophiles" from the car boom- box enthusiasts to
> > middle aged chamber music lovers. Individual performances differ
> > widely as reflected in the reports of ALL of the existing "listening
> > tests". Providence arranged that our results, yours and mine, are not
> > transferable. That is the kind of test it is when you force it onto
> > inappropriate topics like COMPARING COMPONENTS.
> > Try again.
>
> I think it is you that needs to try again. How is it not a "test"?
> And how is it not replicable? Just because you say so? So one could
> not take the same people who were in a specific DBT and get the same
> results a second time? Is that not the definition of "replicable"?
>
If you are happy with a "test" that gives as many different results
as there are people doing it, who am I to stop you? Use it. You'll get
yours.
I will not stop you and I will not continue this pointless scholastic
argument.

> And why would you include "car boom-box enthusiasts" in your
> definition of an audiophile? I certainly wouldn't include them
> myself. Must you again stretch the meanings of commonly understood
> terms just to be able to prove your point?
Because I knew quite a few who so considered themselves. I remember
some writing to RAHE that the car is the best listening environment.
Are young people who never heard the sound of unamplified instruments
also banned? I doubt if I'd like what you listen too and vice versa,
no doubt
Ludovic Mirabel

ludovic mirabel
September 24th 03, 06:08 PM
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<UCbab.492296$o%2.220969@sccrnsc02>...
> wrote in message >...
> > ludovic mirabel > wrote:
> >
> See previous text in full below
>
This is the 4th request to Mr. Jjnunes for references
Sept.15th.: "Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time"-:
Sept. 16th: "Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time"-:
Sept. 19th. "Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time"-:
Sept 23rd. "Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time"-:

It began thus. In a discussion about Einstein and Planck (Sept. 13)
Mr. Jj took a swipe at me.:
"But to get back on topic, how does it follow that high end audio is
on the verge of such a thing as was implied by the other poster? In
here we have Mirabel proudly holding forth that the scientists here
are the quacks brazenly through the holes in his own arguments. It's
the subjectivists that are citing old tossed theories, (Raedecker's
advocation of chochlear amplifiers comes to mind) Most don't bother to
even check out the important authors that have been cited here.
(Moore, Yost, Fletcher, etc) These seminal texts have been informally
cited many times, yet they complain that they haven't, which just
shows willful ignorance and/or lack of interest"

I said::
Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time- (Nr.1):. .
" Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least give
references customary in scientific debates Name, Title , Year, Page.
You've been asked this before and clammed up...
It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?"

There still were no references, no quotes.

But we got Reason Nr1 for no references: "wilful ignorance"
Reason Nr1 ctd.:" There is a "body of evidence" and "no disagreement
among professionals in psychoacoustic research that the test validates
itself"

Reason Nr.2:. It is all in the books by Yoost, Moore, Fletcher

I pointed out that psychoacoustic research is not about COMPARING
COMPONENTS.
.I asked again for reference to the author, title and page. Or
pertinent quotes..
Mr. Jjnunes refused because I would "quote out of context". He did
not explain how I could quote his own selected quotes out of his own
selected context
Or why does he deprive our readers of his truth.

Reason Nr.3: Mr. Jjnunes does not like postmodern criticism and
deconstruction.
I pointed out that Derrida et al. had nil to say about COMPARING
COMPONENTS

Finally somewhat impatient I said:
( There is...) NOTHING in Fletcher, NOTHING in Yost, NOTHING in good
old Moore. And you know what else? NOTHING ANYWHERE ELSE. The
reputable, published basic research for the use of DBTs in comparing
audio components does NOT EXIST. "Starting points" and "trajectories"
will not replace it. You were asked for nothing complicated. Just a
very simple thing called: quotable evidence. Remember "evidence"?.
Remember quote?"
We got an answer:
Reason Nr.4 : Mr. Jjnunes does not like my writing style.
Ludovic Mirabel

As I'm always eager to learn and as English is not my first language
I'll now concentrate on Mr. Jjnunes writing using it as a model for
clear thinking and clear writing about clear ideas.

Sept15 requote : Mr. Jjnunes:
> But to get back on topic, how does it follow that high end audio is on the >verge of such a thing as was implied by the other poster.

It is not clear what verge of what "such a thing" was "implied" by
what other poster and there is no context to refer to, But let's not
quibble

> In here we have Mirabel proudly holding forth that the scientists here are >the quacks brazenly through the holes in his own arguments.

Please help with the gorgeous imagery. How do I " proudly hold
forth... brazenly through the holes in his own argument"? Do you
recommend the "holding forth through the holes in argument" metaphor
for me to use in the future ?

> It's the subjectivists that are citing old tossed theories,

Could you explain what a "tossed theory" is? Would you recommend I
use THIS image to get an A from you? Is a "tossed theory" a bad one?
Is it the kind of an imaginary theory in an imaginary book that one
tosses around "proudly and brazenly"as one's reference? Or is it
something like a tossed salad?

> Raedecker's advocation:..

"Advocation" stumped me. I thought you must have confused it with the
normally used "advocacy'. But a peep in the Webster clarified it. 1) A
term in Scottish law 2) obsolete: advocacy.
You're using archaic English to enrich my vocabulary, right?

>.... of chochlear ( did you mean "cochlear "?) amplifiers comes
> to mind.

Just one more truly puzzling stylistic point:
On Sept 19th. you said: "I suppose you are referring to Noisaine's
tests. I recall some have said they wern't as sensitive as they could
be, but it wasn't <really> bad.
It's not true there are never no differences."

If you say : "It is true there are never no differences" you mean
that there are differences, right. One more added negative means
that there are NO differences- never. Is that what you wanted to say?
I'm doubly puzzled. Because of course there are differences between
components. Whom are you arguing with? And what are you saying?
Ludovic Mirabel

> JJnunes had said: "In here we have Mirabel proudly holding forth
> that the scientists here are the quacks brazenly through the holes in
> his own arguments".
> He amplified later:
> > People are a literalists, (and not) when it suits them. We both are human beings.
> >I apologize for the literal interpretation, but not a metaphorical
> one.
> A "metaphor" that pictures me as "proudly" and "brazenly holding
> forth" that the "scientists here are quacks" could be mistaken for an
> insinuation.
> So I'd still welcome a name or two of the "scientists here" writing
> for RAHE on the topic of component comparison by ABX- including their
> basic research that validates their opinions. If you're putting
> "metaphors" in my mouth let's see whom are you referring too as the
> injured party.
> I had said:
> >>> I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
> >>> occupied scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said >>>decisive
> word about a test for comparing music >>>reproduction characteristics
> of audio
> >>> components.
> >>> You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in the >>>RAHE. And
> that, presumably, those worthies support >>>your point of view-
> whatever it is.
> Mr. JJnunes:
> >> Which only shows that you haven't even considered the >>>trajectory
> of the evidence. Those are some of the >>>starting points for seeing
> that.
>
> Be kind. Be useful and instructive. Skip "starting points" and
> "trajectories", It might takes us back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
> Just let's have the ground-research for ABX in comparing components.
> ,. The readers such as Mr. Wheel have been waiting and asking for such
> evidence for a long , long time.
> Just a quote or two from your witnesses Fletcher, Yost and
> Moore concerning audio component comparison by ABX/DBT.
> Just to spur you on I will now state emphatically that you talk about
> "trajectories" for lack of anything better. NOTHING in Fletcher,
> NOTHING in Yost, NOTHING in good old Moore.
> And you know what else? NOTHING anywhere else. The reputable,
> published basic research for the use of DBTs in comparing audio
> components does NOT EXIST.
> "Starting points" and "trajectories" will not replace it. You were
> asked for nothing complicated. Just a very simple thing called:
> quotable evidence. Remember "evidence"?. Remember quote?
> I had said :
> >>> 2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows >>> already
> what it is not..
>
> JJnunes:
> >> When a subtle difference is in dispute, a well executed >> abx test
> is the best known way to really verify if it's >>audible by the sound
> alone. It is not needed in any way >> for determination of pleasure
> or preference in
> >> ANYTHING.
> >> Most audiophiles don't care about them, there's >>absolutely
> nothing wrong with that, except when they >>claim that they don't
> work for the purpose
> >> stated above.
> >
> Mr. Jjnunes, this is a strange statement. Are you saying that
> audiophiles don't care about "the best known way" to discern
> differences between components before buying? What's wrong with this
> picture? Well, listen carefully this time-all of it's been said many
> times before but seems to have slipped past you.
> ALL, but ALL ABX component comparison tests with an average
> audiophile panel as reported by their proctors failed to verify ANY
> differences, "subtle" ("subtle" for you or for me or for Glenn Gould?)
> or "gross" between cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers and Dacs
> Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
> anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
> And don't tell me about speakers. Try first a panel ABX test..
> 2) the "best known way" is not usable on this earth by human
> beings. Writing paper and angelic choir are another thing
> altogether.
> Actually audiophiles wanting to hear differences but NOT so as to
> decide preferences are not of this earth either. And preferences for
> the quality of musical SOUND are what rec.audio.high-end is all about.
> Yes? No? Or what does your somewhat difficult text mean?
> I said
> >>> 3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least
> give >>>references customary in scientific debates >>>Name, Title ,
> Year, Page.
> >>> You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said
> something
> >>> to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
> >>> follows!) that you won't throw your pearls before swine.
> >>> It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?
> JJnunes:
> >> If you use them out of context, certainly. I have confidence in
> you, so it >> only makes sense not to give you encouragement. The
> spector
> >> of you doing that to said authors is not a pretty picture. Besides,
> >> you've long ago dismissed those far more qualified than I to guide
> you.
> >>
> Never mind naughty me. Just think of your readers, They are waiting.
> Do you think they'd let me get away with "quoting out of context".
> Just think :say, I wrote that I found in Copernicus, Galileo and
> Newton that they scorned ABX
> for audio and then refused to quote "for fear that you'll quote it
> out of context" I can't begin to imagine what you'd have to say about
> me. No ,I can't bring myself to even think about it. The moderators
> are listening.
> I said:
> >>> You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote
> this.?
> You answered:
> >> Why the question? You likely will anyway. Make sure you take it out
> of >>context to be consistent. I would hate >>to be a blemish on your
> record.
>
> This is the second time you have me "quoting out of context" And
> this time you tack on an allegation about my "record".
> I've been long enough around the RAHE to think that it is all in a
> day's work here. But I ask you for a quote or two to document yor
> allegation. Asking for evidence for your statements seems to be a
> repeat job. No and no again I don't quote things out of context and in
> your particular case I remember no context with any substance that I
> could drop. Quote the context I twisted out of or ... Forget it.
> What's the use? You were just being metaphorical ,right?
> The first sentence of my posting that you snipped was:
> " Mr. JJnunes delivery time!"
> It still is.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> :
>
> > > I hear that I "proudly" call the "scientists here" quacks.
> >
> > People are a literalists, (and not) when it suits them. We both are human
> > beings. Of course you never do this do you? (cough)
> >
> > I apologize for the literal interpretation, but not a metaphorical one.
> >
> >
> > > I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
> > > occupied
> > > scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said decisive word about a test
> > > for comparing music reproduction characteristics of audio components.
> > > You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in RAHE. And that,
> > > presumably,
> > > those worthies support your point of view- whatever it is.
> >
> > Which only shows that you haven't even considered the trajectory of the
> > evidence. Those are some of the starting points for seeing that.
> >
> >
> > > Please be so kind and:
> > > 1)Name the "scientists here" that I called "quacks". Names of the
> > > "scientists" and dates for my name-calling, please
> >
> > See above.
> >
> >
> > > 2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows already what it
> > > is not.
> >
> > When a subtle difference is in dispute, a well executed abx test is the best
> > known way to really verify if it's audible by the sound alone. It is not needed
> > in any way for determination of pleasure or preference in ANYTHING. Most audiophiles
> > don't care about them, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, except when they
> > claim that they don't work for the purpose stated above.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least give
> > > references customary in scientific debates Name, Title , Year, Page.
> > > You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said something
> > > to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
> > > follows!) that you won't
> > > throw your pearls bero swine.
> > > It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?
> >
> > If you use them out of context, certainly. I have confidence in you,
> > so it only makes sense not to give you encouragement. The spector
> > of you doing that to said authors is not a pretty picture. Besides,
> > you've long ago dismissed those far more qualified than I to guide you.
> >
> >
> > > You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote
> > > this.?
> >
> > Why the question? You likely will anyway. Make sure you take it out of
> > context to be consistent. I would hate to be a blemish on your record.

Audio Guy
September 24th 03, 07:14 PM
In article <zakcb.565277$Ho3.103338@sccrnsc03>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message >...
>> In article <ZG%bb.416971$Oz4.206670@rwcrnsc54>,
>> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<P7Fbb.406164$Oz4.197010@rwcrnsc54>...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> >> >
>> >> > Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
>> >> > I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components;
>> >>
>> >> Please, if nothing else, the test under discussion is most definitely
>> >> a "double blind test". You may not agree with the results, but it is
>> >> most certainly a DBT under every definition I am aware of. Talk about
>> >> your strawmen.
>> >
>> > Double Blind it is. "Test" it is not. A test by definition has to
>> > be replicable by the test subjects who are its constituency: ie a
>> > motley crew of "audiophiles" from the car boom- box enthusiasts to
>> > middle aged chamber music lovers. Individual performances differ
>> > widely as reflected in the reports of ALL of the existing "listening
>> > tests". Providence arranged that our results, yours and mine, are not
>> > transferable. That is the kind of test it is when you force it onto
>> > inappropriate topics like COMPARING COMPONENTS.
>> > Try again.
>>
>> I think it is you that needs to try again. How is it not a "test"?
>> And how is it not replicable? Just because you say so? So one could
>> not take the same people who were in a specific DBT and get the same
>> results a second time? Is that not the definition of "replicable"?
>>
> If you are happy with a "test" that gives as many different results
> as there are people doing it, who am I to stop you? Use it. You'll get
> yours.

Where is your evidence that audio DBTs "gives as many different
results as there are people doing it"? So far it is only your mistaken
interpretation of the test statistics. How about some real evidence?

> I will not stop you and I will not continue this pointless scholastic
> argument.

How is it a "scholastic argument"? Are you using this label so you
can side-step the issue? Ironically many would consider all of your
arguments purely "scholastic arguments".

>> And why would you include "car boom-box enthusiasts" in your
>> definition of an audiophile? I certainly wouldn't include them
>> myself. Must you again stretch the meanings of commonly understood
>> terms just to be able to prove your point?

> Because I knew quite a few who so considered themselves. I remember
> some writing to RAHE that the car is the best listening environment.
> Are young people who never heard the sound of unamplified instruments
> also banned? I doubt if I'd like what you listen too and vice versa,
> no doubt

So the type of music one listens to defines whether or not they are
an audiophile? Again, you keep creating your own definitions just to
allow you to prove your mistaken points. The ironic thing about this
is that you've admitted you use always surround processor when using
your audio system. Quite a few who consider themselves to be
audiophiles would consider that to disqualify you from being a
serious audiophile.

ludovic mirabel
September 24th 03, 11:59 PM
"normanstrong" > wrote in message news:<UBlcb.425745$cF.131919@rwcrnsc53>...
> "ludovic mirabel" > wrote in message
> news:5s%bb.555712$Ho3.96892@sccrnsc03...
> > "All Ears" > wrote in message
> news:<97Fbb.406782$cF.126279@rwcrnsc53>...
> > > big snip
> > >
See below:
> I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage, never having read the article under
> consideration. Nevertheless, it seems that we're talking about a test
> in which 15 trained individuals each made 5 attempts to recognize a
> 2db distortion--for a total of 75 attempts. (I hope I got this
> right.)
>
> Some subjects aced the test, getting all 5 right. According to Mr.
> Mirabel, this was because those listeners actually heard the
> difference, while the ones that only got 1 right out of 5 tries were.
> . . .were what? What can we say about these individuals in much the
> same way that we credited the perfect scorers with more sensitive
> hearing? After all, even writing down the answer without listening at
> all will give a better score than 1 out of 5. Were these people just
> unlucky? If so, couldn't we say that the perfect scorers were
> similarly just lucky?
>
> If I wanted to find out if the lucky individuals really were lucky,
> I'd run the test again, with these individuals running a total of 75
> trials. If they got 61% correct, then they're no better than the
> average subject from the first trial. Finally, I'd pick the single
> subject that did the very best, and have him run the test again, this
> time all 75 trials. My guess would be that he would be right 61% of
> the time, which would validate the original supposition.
>
> Norm Strong

Norman, I agree with you. The interesting results are those of the
better performers. Either THEY heard it or not.
Everything possible should have been done to find out. Their results
should have been followed up till no doubt remained either way. You
can guess what you like. Guesses don't replace statistics.
My point is exactly that the Masters, Clarks etc. were not interested
enough.
Neither was their publisher.
As a result we get a homogenised, blended result proving that Mr.
Average rules.
This is in a supposedly well researched "test" where surely the only
thing that matters to high-end buyers is not that most people don't
but that some people possibly do.
Ludovic Mirabel

> > > > In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility
> of
> > > > distortion
> > > > was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
> > > > Various types of distortion with different signals were tested..
> There
> > > > were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion
> level
> > > > (2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct
> hits
> > > > was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant
> level of
> > > > 60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
> > > > Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
> > > > Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the
> signal
> > > > very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
> > > > Will it do for the time being?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think this is good "food for thoughts" because it gives an idea
> of how
> > > large a margin there is to really detect a difference.
> > >
> > Note that the performance varies from one listener to other-
> > inspite of training and retraining-. A few have 5 out of 5 correct
> > responses, a few 1 out of 5 and most fall in the average middle. As
> > you would expect.
> > Note that the "objectivist", objectively unbiased, proctors
> > showed no interest in the few who heard the DIFFERENCES accurately.
> > They just lumped them together with the most who DID NOT and got an
> > average for an average, fictitious Mr. Average Listener who hears no
> > differences-ever. This of course was in acordance with the "Stereo
> > Review" guiding principle- "the high end does not exist, our big
> > account advertisers sound just as good."
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> > > This is also why I asked about if anybody had any experience with
> the
> > > "Golden Ear" CD set. However, either this issue has been debated
> to death
> > > before I came here, or there is little interest in training the
> ear.

ludovic mirabel
September 25th 03, 02:40 AM
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<zalcb.565817$Ho3.102946@sccrnsc03>...
> >> >> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> >> >>
> > If you are happy with a "test" that gives as many different results
> > as there are people doing it, who am I to stop you? Use it. You'll get
> > yours.
> Audio Guy:

> Where is your evidence that audio DBTs "gives as many different
> results as there are people doing it"? So far it is only your mistaken
> interpretation of the test statistics. How about some real evidence?
>

Below find the results of of Greenhill's ABX cable test (The
Stereophile ,1983)
A "hit" is 12 correct answers out of 15.
Note different performers, performing differently. (Surprise,
Surprise!).
Note Nr. 6; 1.75db level difference but music is the signal. Compare
with test
1 and test 4.
I will not rediscuss the "statistics". This was thrashed out ad
nauseam here.
If it tells you something different from what it tells me, well and
good.

SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K
Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise 1.75db level difference
15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
2. Same but levels matched
9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12 12
3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise
13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12 7
4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise
15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15
5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music
4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10
6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music 1.75db. level difference
14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10
______________________________________________
% of "hits" in the total of 6 tests, 90 tries.
67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50 83 50

L.M.:
> > I will not stop you and I will not continue this pointless scholastic
> > argument.
>
> How is it a "scholastic argument"? Are you using this label so you
> can side-step the issue? Ironically many would consider all of your
> arguments purely "scholastic arguments".
>
Yes you're correct: scholastic arguments, including mine, are about
something unproven. When you or someone like Mr. JJnunes comes up with
experimental evidence that ABX is the right tool for COMPARING
COMPONENTS and that for instance it does not interfere with perception
of their musical characteristics we'll be talking about realities.

> >> And why would you include "car boom-box enthusiasts" in your
> >> definition of an audiophile? I certainly wouldn't include them
> >> myself. Must you again stretch the meanings of commonly understood
> >> terms just to be able to prove your point?
>
> > Because I knew quite a few who so considered themselves. I remember
> > some writing to RAHE that the car is the best listening environment.
> > Are young people who never heard the sound of unamplified instruments
> > also banned? I doubt if I'd like what you listen to and vice versa,
> > no doubt
>
> So the type of music one listens to defines whether or not they are
> an audiophile? Again, you keep creating your own definitions just to
> allow you to prove your mistaken points. The ironic thing about this
> is that you've admitted you use always surround processor when using
> your audio system. Quite a few who consider themselves to be
> audiophiles would consider that to disqualify you from being a
> serious audiophile.

What on earth are you talking about? I said that if anyone wants to
call himself "audiophile"- owner of a car audio, or of Wilson Grand
Slam or of surround processor or Mr. Audio Guy - that is fine with
me. It had better be.
Ludovic Mirabel

> >> >> > Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
> >> >> > I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components;
> >> >>
> >> >> Please, if nothing else, the test under discussion is most definitely
> >> >> a "double blind test". You may not agree with the results, but it is
> >> >> most certainly a DBT under every definition I am aware of. Talk about
> >> >> your strawmen.
> >> >
> >> > Double Blind it is. "Test" it is not. A test by definition has to
> >> > be replicable by the test subjects who are its constituency: ie a
> >> > motley crew of "audiophiles" from the car boom- box enthusiasts to
> >> > middle aged chamber music lovers. Individual performances differ
> >> > widely as reflected in the reports of ALL of the existing "listening
> >> > tests". Providence arranged that our results, yours and mine, are not
> >> > transferable. That is the kind of test it is when you force it onto
> >> > inappropriate topics like COMPARING COMPONENTS.
> >> > Try again.
> >>
> >> I think it is you that needs to try again. How is it not a "test"?
> >> And how is it not replicable? Just because you say so? So one could
> >> not take the same people who were in a specific DBT and get the same
> >> results a second time? Is that not the definition of "replicable"?

September 25th 03, 05:57 AM
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:08:01 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:


>This is the 4th request to Mr. Jjnunes for references

I don't take you seriously, especially since these have posted before
and you argued against them with your usual absurd rhetorical games.
I'm not interested in continuing further. You apparently can't even
come to terms with audio components being reproducers of sound and
play rhetorical games about them being 'producers of music' to thus
provide yourself with an avenue to argue from the same pretext as to
how musical instruments are compared. That was why I made the mistake
of pointing you at the books I mentioned --- to provide a foundation
to look further into the subject.

You aren't interested in rational debate about this, but rather
rhetoric and rhetoric only. I should have learned this lesson sooner.

On of the signs of a healthy mind is the ability to cease when sated.
Can you do so?

Good bye.

The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation 1170191 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Lip****z, Stanley P.; Vanderkooy, John
Publication: Volume 29 Number 7/8 pp. 482·491; July 1981
Abstract: A polarization of people has occurred regarding subjective
evaluation, separating those who believe that audible differences are
related to measurable differences in controlled tests, from those who
believe that such differences have no direct relationship to
measurements. Tests are necessary to resolve such differences of
opinion, and to further the state of audio and open new areas of
understanding. We argue that highly controlled tests are necessary to
transform subjective evaluation to an objective plane so that
preferences and bias can be eliminated, in the quest for determining
the accuracy of an audio component. In order for subjective tests to
be meaningful to others, the following should be observed. (1) There
must be technical competence to prevent obvious and/or subtle effects
from affecting the test. (2) Linear differences must be thoroughly
excised before conclusions about nonlinear errors can be reached. (3)
The subjective judgment required in the test must be simple, such as
the ability to discriminate between two components, using an absolute
reference wherever possible. (4) The test must be blind or preferably
double-blind. To implement such tests we advocate the use of A/B
switchboxes. The box itself can be tested for audibly intrusive
effects, and several embellishments are described which allow
double-blind procedures to be used in listening tests. We believe
that the burden of proof must lie with those who make new hypotheses
regarding subjective tests. This alone would wipe out most criticisms
of the controlled tests reported in the literature. Speculation is
changed to fact only by careful experimentation. Recent references
are given which support out point of view. The significance of
differences in audio components is discussed, and in conclusion we
detail some of our tests, hypotheses and speculations.
Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample Size in ABX Testing
442116 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Burstein, Herman
Publication: Volume 36 Number 11 pp. 879·883; November 1988
Abstract: When sampling from a dichotomous population with an assumed
proportion p of events having a defined characteristic, the binomial
distribution is the appropriate statistical model for accurately
determining: type 1 error risk (symbol); type 2 error risk (symbol);
sample size n based on specified (symbol) and (symbol) and
assumptions about p; and critical c (minimum number of events to
satisfy a specified [symbol]). Table 3 in [1] pre;sents such data for
a limited number of sample sizes and p values. To extend the scope of
Table 3 to most n and p, we present approximation formulas of
substantial accuracy, based on the normal distribution as an
approximation of the binomial.
High Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double Blind Comparator
1281885 bytes (CD aes10)
Author(s): Clark, David
Publication: Preprint 1771; Convention 69; May 1981
Abstract: A system for practical implementation of double-blind
audibility tests is described. The controller is a self contained
unit, designed to provide setup and operational convenience while
giving the user maximum sensitivity to detect differences. Standards
for response matching other controls are suggested as well as
statistical methods of evaluating data. Test results to data are
summarized.
Noise Reduction in Audio Employing Auditory Masking Approach 2543054
bytes (CD aes15)
Author(s): Czyzewski, Andrzej; Krolikowski, Rafal
Publication: Preprint 4930; Convention 106; May 1999
Abstract: A new method of noise reduction which exploits some
features of the auditory system is proposed. The noise suppression is
obtained twofold: by rising masking thresholds or by keeping noisy
components beneath these thresholds. The foundations of the method
and some engineered algorithms are described. The way of introduction
of the noise reduction features into an MPEG encoder is demonstrated.
Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for Listening Tests 468821
bytes (CD aes5)
Author(s): Burstein, Herman
Publication: Volume 37 Number 5 pp. 363·367; May 1989
Abstract: A simple transformation of classical binomial confidence
limits provides exact confidence limits for the results of a
listening test, such as the popular ABX test. These limits are for
the proportion of known correct responses, as distinguished from
guessed correct responses. Similarly, a point estimate is obtained
for the proportion of known correct responses. The transformed
binomial limits differ, often markedly, from those obtained by the
Bayesian method.
Comments on "Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in the Statistical Analysis of
Listening Tests" and Author's Replies 674942 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Shanefield, Daniel; Clark, David; Nousaine, Tom;
Leventhal, Les
Publication: Volume 35 Number 7/8 pp. 567·572; July 1987
Abstract: Not available.
High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator
955218 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Clark, David
Publication: Volume 30 Number 5 pp. 330-338; May 1982
Abstract: A system for the practical implementation of double-blind
audibility tests is described. The controller is a self-contained
unit, designed to provide setup and operational convenience while
giving the user maximum sensitivity to detect differences. Standards
for response matching and other controls are suggested as well as
statistical methods of evaluating data. Test results to date are
summarized.
Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in the Statistical Analysis of Listening
Tests 1828932 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Leventhal, Les
Publication: Volume 34 Number 6 pp. 437·453; June 1986
Abstract: When the conventional 0.05 significance level is used to
analyze listening test data, employing a small number of trials or
listeners can produce an unexpectedly high risk of concluding that
audible differences are inaudible (type 2 error). The risk can be
both large absolutely and large relative to the risk of concluding
that inaudible differences are audible (type 2 error). this
constitutes systematic bias against those who believe that
differences are audible between well-designed electronic components
that are spectrally equated and not overdriven. A statistical table
is introduced that enables readers to look up type 1 and type 2 error
risks without calculation. Ways to manipulate the risks are
discussed, a quantitative measure of a listening test's fairness is
introduced, and implications for reviewers of the listening test
literature are discussed.
On the Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems
1936662 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Lip****z, Stanley P.; Pocock, Mark; Vanderkooy, John
Publication: Volume 30 Number 9 pp. 580·595; September 1982
Abstract: The current state of our knowledge regarding the audible
consequences of phase nonlinearities in the audio chain is surveyed,
a series of experiments is described which the authors have conducted
using a flexible system of all-pass networks carefully constructed
for this purpose, and some conclusions are drawn regarding the
audible effects of midrange phase distortions. It is known that the
inner ear possesses nonlinearity (akin to an acoustic half-wave
rectifier) in its mechanical-to-electrical transduction, and this
would be expected to modify the signal on the acoustic nerve in a
manner which depends upon the acoustic signal waveform, and so upon
the relative phase relationships of the frequency components of this
signal. Some of these effects have been known for over 30 years, and
are quite audible on even very simple signals. Simple experiments are
outlined to enable the readers to demonstrate these effects for
themselves. Having satisfied ourselves that phase distortions can be
audible, the types of phase distortions contributed by the various
links in the audio chain are surveyed, and it is concluded that only
the loudspeaker contributes significant midrange phase
nonlinearities. Confining the investigation to the audibility of such
phase nonlinearities in the midrange, circuitry is described which
enables such effects to be assessed objectivbely fo their audible
consequences. The experiments conducted so far lead to a number of
conclusions. 1) Even quite small midrange phase nonlinearities can be
audible on suitably chosen signals. 2) Audibility is far greater on
headphones than on loudspeakers. 3) Simple acoustic signals generated
anechoically display clear phase audibility on headphones. 4) On
normal music or speech signals phase distortion appears not to be
generally audible, although it was heard with 99% confidence on some
recorded vocal material. It is clear that more work needs to be done
to ascertain acceptable limits for the phase linearity of audio
components·limits which might become more stringent as improved
recording/reproduction systems become available. It is stressed that
none of these experiments thus far has indicated a present
requirement for phase linearity in loudspeakers for the reproduction
of music and speech.

Subjective Evaluation of High-Quality Audio Coding Systems: Methods
and Results in the Two-Channel Case 2152388 bytes (CD aes13)
Author(s): Grusec, Theodore; Thibault, Louis; Soulodre, Gilbert
Publication: Preprint 4065; Convention 99; October 1995
Abstract: Experiments completed at the Communications Research Centre
in subjective assessment of 2-channel coding systems are described
along with the methodologies used in their execution. The discussion
centers on acoustic conditions, presentation technologies, choosing
audio materials, selecting and training listeners, grading
procedures, blind rating, data analysis, and decision-making from
experimental outcomes. Key ITU-R test results are presented to
characterize the quality of low bit-rate coding systems operating in
various configurations.
Sensitive Methodologies for the Subjecive Evaluation of High Quality
Audio Coding Systems 1881344 bytes (CD aes17)
Author(s): Grusec, Ted; Thibault, Louis; Beaton, Richard J.
Publication: Paper DSP-07; Conference: AES UK Conference: DSP;
September 1992
Abstract: Not available.
Formal Subjective Testing of the MPEG-2 NBC Multichannel Coding
Algorithm 1119369 bytes (CD aes14)
Author(s): Kirby, D.; Watanabe, K.
Publication: Preprint 4418; Convention 102; March 1997
Abstract: As part of its standardization process, the MPEG NBC
(non-backwards compatible) multichannel audio coding algorithm was
submitted for formal subjective testing in 1996 September. The tests
were carried out jointly at two test sites: the BBC and NHK. The
report was submitted to the Motion Picture Expert Group (MPEG) in
1996 November. This paper describes the design of these tests, the
preparations required, and the results obtained for each of the
codecs tested.
Verbal and Nonverbal Elicitation Techniques in the Subjective
Assessment of Spatial Sound Reproduction 2376898 bytes (CD aes18)
Author(s): MASON, RUSSELL; FORD, NATANYA; RUMSEY, FRANCIS; DE BRUYN,
BART
Publication: Volume 49 Number 5 pp. 366-384; May 2001
Abstract: Current research into spatial audio has shown an increasing
interest in the way subjective attributes of reproduced sound are
elicited from listeners. The emphasis at present is on verbal
semantics, however, studies suggest that nonverbal methods of
elicitation could be beneficial. Research into the relative merits of
these methods has found that nonverbal responses may result in
different elicited attributes compared to verbal techniques.
Nonverbal responses may be closer to the perception of the stimuli
than the verbal interpretation of this perception. There is evidence
that drawing is not as accurate as other nonverbal methods of
elicitation when it comes to reporting the localization of auditory
images. However, the advantage of drawing is its ability to describe
the whole auditory space rather than a single dimension.
Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener
Performance 3114170 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Toole, Floyd E.
Publication: Volume 33 Number 1/2 pp. 2·32; January 1985
Abstract: With adequate attention to the details of experiment design
and the selection of participants, listening tests on loudspeakers
yielded sound-quality ratings that were both reliable and repeatable.
Certain listeners differed in the consistency of their ratings and in
the ratings themselves. These differences correlated with both
hearing threshold levels and age. Listeners with near normal hearing
thresholds showed the smallest individual variations and the closest
agreement with each others. Sound-quality ratings changed as a
function of the hearing threshold level and age of the listener. The
amount and direction of the change depended upon the specific
products; some products were rated similarly by all listeners,
whereas others had properties that caused them to be rated
differently. Stereophonic and monophonic tests yielded similar
sound-quality ratings for highly rated products, but in stereo,
listeners tended to be less consistent and less critifal of products
with distinctive characteristics. Assessments of stereophonic spatial
and image qualities were closely related to sound-quality ratings.
The relationship between these results and objective performance data
is being pursued.
A Disk-Based System for the Subjective Assessment of High-Qualtity
Audio 1278922 bytes (CD aes12)
Author(s): Beaton, Richard J.; Wong, Peter
Publication: Preprint 3497; Convention 94; March 1993
Abstract: This paper describes the design of a digital system which
integrates automated tandem recording with a playback system
implementing an enhanced ABC triple stimulus with hidden reference
listening test methodology. This methodology was developed
specifically for CCIR evaluations of nearly transparent low bit-rate
audio coding algorithms. The system was used extensively in recent
CCIR TG 10/2 testing of low bit-rate audio coding algorithms for
digital audio broadcast. The use of a disk-based system was
instrumental in producing reliable assessments for the high-quality
systems under test. This paper outlines the technical challenges to
implementing the assessment methodology and discusses some of the
important new issues arising in evaluating the quality of nearly
transparent audio processes.
Audio Level Monitoring for Blind Sound Engineers/Recordists 760962
bytes (CD aes12)
Author(s): Angus, James A. S.; Malyon, Nicholas J.
Publication: Preprint 3219; Convention 91; October 1991
Abstract: Audio level monitoring relies heavily on visual displays
which are inappropriate for blind users. This paper will describe a
technique which allows a blind sound recordist to set her/ his own
levels via an audio cue. It will describe the design and
implementation of a unit which handles stereo recording in the studio
and on location and it will discuss extensions of the technique to
multitrack recording.
Comments on ·Subjective Appraisal of Loudspeaker Directivity for
Multichannel Reproduction· and
New Developments in MPEG-2 Audio: Extension to Multi-Channel Sound
and Improved Coding at Very Low Bit Rates 1023245 bytes (CD aes17)
Author(s): Stoll, Gerhard
Publication: Paper DAB-06; Conference: AES UK Conference: DAB, The
Future of Radio; May 1995
Abstract: The first objective of MPEG-2 Audio was the extension from
two to five channels, based on recommendations from ITU-R, SMPTE and
EBU. This was achieved in November 1994 with the approval of ISO/IEC
13818-3, known as MPEG-2 Audio. This standard provides high quality
coding of 5+1 audio channels together with backwards compatibility to
MPEG-1 · the key to ensure that existing 2-channel decoders will
still be able to decode the compatible stereo information from
multi-channel signals. For audio reproduction of surround sound the
loudspeaker positions left, center, right, left and right surround
are used · according to the 3/2-standard. The envisaged applications
are beside digital television systems such as dTTb, HDTVT, HD-SAT,
ADDT, digital storage media and the EU147 Digital Audio Broadcasting
system. The second objective was the extension of MPEG-1 Audio to
lower sampling rates to improve the audio quality at bit rates less
than 64 kbit/s per channel, in particular for speech applications.
This is of particular interest for the EU147 DAB system to provide
high quality news channels at the lowest bit rate.
Subjective Assessments on Low Bit-Rate Audio Codecs 1159838 bytes
(CD aes16)
Author(s): Grewin, Christer; Rydén, Thomas
Publication: Paper 10-013; Conference: The AES 10th International
Conference: Images of Audio; September 1991
Abstract: The Swedish Broadcasting Corporation (SR) has performed
subjective assessments on low bit-rate audio codecs for
ISO/MPEG/Audio. As it is likely that the same codec can be used for
DAB the evaluation is of great importance for broadcasters. This
paper presents the methodology, results and conclusions from the two
listening tests performed in July 1990 and April/May 1991.

Stewart Pinkerton
September 25th 03, 03:31 PM
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:18:09 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:31:45 GMT, (ludovic
>> mirabel) wrote:
>>
>> >"All Ears" > wrote in message news:<97Fbb.406782$cF.126279@rwcrnsc53>...
>> >> big snip
>> >>
>> >> > In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility of
>> >> > distortion
>> >> > was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
>> >> > Various types of distortion with different signals were tested.. There
>> >> > were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion level
>> >> > (2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct hits
>> >> > was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant level of
>> >> > 60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
>> >> > Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
>> >> > Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the signal
>> >> > very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
>> >> > Will it do for the time being?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I think this is good "food for thoughts" because it gives an idea of how
>> >> large a margin there is to really detect a difference.
>> >>
>> > Note that the performance varies from one listener to other-
>> >inspite of training and retraining-. A few have 5 out of 5 correct
>> >responses, a few 1 out of 5 and most fall in the average middle. As
>> >you would expect.
>>
>> Indeed, as you would expect for an effect which is on the threshold of
>> audibility.
>>
>> > Note that the "objectivist", objectively unbiased, proctors
>> >showed no interest in the few who heard the DIFFERENCES accurately.
>> >They just lumped them together with the most who DID NOT and got an
>> >average for an average, fictitious Mr. Average Listener who hears no
>> >differences-ever. This of course was in acordance with the "Stereo
>> >Review" guiding principle- "the high end does not exist, our big
>> >account advertisers sound just as good."
>>
>> You are once again making the classic mistake (or is it yet another
>> deliberate distortion?) of ignoring the basis of statistics. *You*
>> invariably 'cherry pick' the results that suit your preconceptions,
>> the researchers above very properly included *all* the responses. They
>> most certainly did *not* 'ignore' the 5/5 response, they *included* it
>> in the results. Incidentally, you once again alter the facts to suit
>> yourself. There is no indication in the above report that there were
>> 'a few' listeners who scored 1/5 or 5/5, there may have been only one
>> of each - as a standard distribution curve would suggest.
>>
>> Now, if the researchers had *repeated* the experiment, do you presume
>> that the same listeners would score the same results, i.e. that the
>> 5/5 scorer(s) really do have 'Golden Ears'? That would suit *your*
>> preconceptions, but the results of the recently posted TAG McLaren
>> tests did not show this. Once again, you attempt to ignore the very
>> basis of statistical probability, in an attempt to shore up your
>> prejudices.
>
>For economy I'll refer to my today's answer to Mr. Strong.

Which is completely refuted by the TAG test, which found that the
better performers in one test, were average or worse performers in the
other test.

>I'll add only that when Mr. Pinkerton posts his results of his tests
>in the group that is not "cherry picking".

Indeed it's not, since I posted both positive *and* negative results.
You no doubt would have claimed that the negative results were in some
mysterious way flawed, and/or that you were simply 'bad at DBTs', and
that some unnamed other person would of course have obtained no
negative results.

> He had himself and one or
>two of his friends in his amplifier "test". If he added 10
>"audiophiles" he would add up all their results- and let the dice
>fall as they may- even if Krell turned out not distinguishable from
>Panasonic integrated- right?

Right.

>I wonder if he ever sat an exam.?

Far too many! :-)

> I wonder if he'd like the collective
>results averaged or would he want himself to be cherry-picked.

Different situation, as I have a personal interest in my own results.
Audiophile friends with an interest in their own results would no
doubt conduct further tests for themselves. The analogous situation is
where I perform lots of tests on myself, to verify my own abilities,
but only limited tests on others, to verify that I am just one of many
with similar perceptual abilities. You have shown absolutely *no*
evidence of the existence of 'Golden Ears', indeed all the available
evidence suggests nothing more than standard statistical distributions
according to random chance.

This does not seem to prevent you from *claiming* that such people
somehow must exist - somewhat like Bigfoot.

>Absurdity in the service of winning a debate on paper could not go any
>further

I entirely agree.............

>The insinuating: " Or is it yet ANOTHER DELIBERATE DISTORTION" is par
>for the gentleman. It tells more about the way he thinks than he'd
>like to be known and is another one of his contributions to the
>gentler , kinder RAHE debating manners.

It tells people *exactly* what I'd like to be known, which is that you
simply *refuse* to engage in honest debate, instead using every
possible trick to avoid the inevitable conclusion, that you simply do
not have a case to argue.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Howard Ferstler
September 25th 03, 04:59 PM
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<Ilpcb.570671$o%2.255805@sccrnsc02>...
> "normanstrong" > wrote in message news:<UBlcb.425745$cF.131919@rwcrnsc53>...
> > "ludovic mirabel" > wrote in message
> > news:5s%bb.555712$Ho3.96892@sccrnsc03...
> > > "All Ears" > wrote in message
> news:<97Fbb.406782$cF.126279@rwcrnsc53>...
> > > > big snip
> > > >
> See below:
> > I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage, never having read the article under
> > consideration. Nevertheless, it seems that we're talking about a test
> > in which 15 trained individuals each made 5 attempts to recognize a
> > 2db distortion--for a total of 75 attempts. (I hope I got this
> > right.)
> >
> > Some subjects aced the test, getting all 5 right. According to Mr.
> > Mirabel, this was because those listeners actually heard the
> > difference, while the ones that only got 1 right out of 5 tries were.
> > . . .were what? What can we say about these individuals in much the
> > same way that we credited the perfect scorers with more sensitive
> > hearing? After all, even writing down the answer without listening at
> > all will give a better score than 1 out of 5. Were these people just
> > unlucky? If so, couldn't we say that the perfect scorers were
> > similarly just lucky?
> >
> > If I wanted to find out if the lucky individuals really were lucky,
> > I'd run the test again, with these individuals running a total of 75
> > trials. If they got 61% correct, then they're no better than the
> > average subject from the first trial. Finally, I'd pick the single
> > subject that did the very best, and have him run the test again, this
> > time all 75 trials. My guess would be that he would be right 61% of
> > the time, which would validate the original supposition.
> >
> > Norm Strong

> Norman, I agree with you. The interesting results are those of the
> better performers. Either THEY heard it or not.
> Everything possible should have been done to find out. Their results
> should have been followed up till no doubt remained either way. You
> can guess what you like. Guesses don't replace statistics.
> My point is exactly that the Masters, Clarks etc. were not interested
> enough.
> Neither was their publisher.
> As a result we get a homogenised, blended result proving that Mr.
> Average rules.

The limitations of our poor "Mr. Average" notwithstanding, even you
will have to admit that the ABX tests done by Masters, Clark, Green,
etc. have indicated that the differences people did manage to hear (by
your reckoning, at least) were small by the standards most listeners
would apply.

In other words, this debate basically involves hair-splitting
differences. Now, I am very aware that a typical high ender is often
obsessed with "hair-splitting differences" (I am that way myself,
particularly with the product reviews I have done, but this mainly
involves speaker, surround processor, and subwoofer performance) but
even such individuals will have to admit that said differences would
be very hard to hear during typical, "music for enjoyment" listening
sessions. If they were not hard to hear, the people taking ABX tests
with amps and wires would not have to struggle so much with (and
supposedly be all stressed out by) the test procedures. Serious
differences would be spotted immediately.

Anyway, in other parts of the thread you go on and on and on about
what Clark, Masters, Green, etc. have done and you debate endlessly
about what it all means. Why not just do an ABX test yourself (with a
real ABX device) and see what YOU come up with. Do the work and see
whether or not differences you hear sighted (between a known A and a
known B) show up when you switch to X. I simply cannot see what all
the big deal is when it comes to the ABX issue.

The interesting thing about all these DBT debates I have been
observing is that the only alternative for some people appears to be
sighted comparisons. For them, it is necessary to know what is playing
in order to know what to listen for, or something like that. And of
course, they claim that the stress caused by the ABX protocol (or any
other DBT protocol) or the supposed "rushed" listening involved causes
their ears to clog up.

However, I see this as poppycock. Basically, a sighted comparison
allows the participant to cheat. He may cheat to fool others or he may
cheat to fool himself. That is it, pure and simple. However, remember
that the ABX device (adjusted so that the levels are precisely
matched) allows them to compare known A and B components and cheat
during that part of the procedure all they want. It is only when they
switch to X that the pressure is on and they have to deliver the
goods.

Yeah, I can see how that would make some people sweat, because it
means a lot to some of them to have a preferred product come out the
winner (why this need for a preferred product to win continues to
amaze me, unless maybe we are talking about the guy who designed the
thing or sells it), and of course there is the issue of discovering
that those golden ears may not be so golden after all. The latter may
be the most stressful thing of all for those who do not have a
commercial stake in the results.

Howard Ferstler

Audio Guy
September 25th 03, 06:16 PM
In article >,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<zalcb.565817$Ho3.102946@sccrnsc03>...
>> >> >> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> >> >>
>> > If you are happy with a "test" that gives as many different results
>> > as there are people doing it, who am I to stop you? Use it. You'll get
>> > yours.
>> Audio Guy:
>
>> Where is your evidence that audio DBTs "gives as many different
>> results as there are people doing it"? So far it is only your mistaken
>> interpretation of the test statistics. How about some real evidence?
>>
>
> Below find the results of of Greenhill's ABX cable test (The
> Stereophile ,1983)
> A "hit" is 12 correct answers out of 15.
> Note different performers, performing differently. (Surprise,
> Surprise!).
> Note Nr. 6; 1.75db level difference but music is the signal. Compare
> with test
> 1 and test 4.
> I will not rediscuss the "statistics". This was thrashed out ad
> nauseam here.
> If it tells you something different from what it tells me, well and
> good.
>
> SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K
> Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise 1.75db level difference
> 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
> 2. Same but levels matched
> 9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12 12
> 3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise
> 13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12 7
> 4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise
> 15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15
> 5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music
> 4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10
> 6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music 1.75db. level difference
> 14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10
> ______________________________________________
> % of "hits" in the total of 6 tests, 90 tries.
> 67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50 83 50
>
> L.M.:

It tells me that people can easy tell level differences with pink
noise, not so easily with music. Where does it "gives as many
different results as there are people doing it"?

>> > I will not stop you and I will not continue this pointless scholastic
>> > argument.
>>
>> How is it a "scholastic argument"? Are you using this label so you
>> can side-step the issue? Ironically many would consider all of your
>> arguments purely "scholastic arguments".
>>
> Yes you're correct: scholastic arguments, including mine, are about
> something unproven. When you or someone like Mr. JJnunes comes up with
> experimental evidence that ABX is the right tool for COMPARING
> COMPONENTS and that for instance it does not interfere with perception
> of their musical characteristics we'll be talking about realities.

I believe Mr. Junes has just done that.

< excessive quoting snipped >

ludovic mirabel
September 26th 03, 07:26 PM
wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:08:01 GMT, (ludovic
> mirabel) wrote:
>
>
> >This is the 4th request to Mr. Jjnunes for references
>
> I don't take you seriously, especially since these have posted before
> and you argued against them with your usual absurd rhetorical games.
> I'm not interested in continuing further. You apparently can't even
> come to terms with audio components being reproducers of sound and
> play rhetorical games about them being 'producers of music' to thus
> provide yourself with an avenue to argue from the same pretext as to
> how musical instruments are compared. That was why I made the mistake
> of pointing you at the books I mentioned --- to provide a foundation
> to look further into the subject.
>
> You aren't interested in rational debate about this, but rather
> rhetoric and rhetoric only. I should have learned this lesson sooner.
>
> On of the signs of a healthy mind is the ability to cease when sated.
> Can you do so?
>
> Good bye.
>
You are breaking my heart. Are you sure? After mentioning
me twice a propos of nothing in your replies to your other fans, coyly
drawing my attention, you leave me high and dry, just with Pierce and
Audio Guy as the other relay racers. No more literary criticism? No
more hilarious quips?
But wait! You leave behind 18 titles culled a little
carelessly from the annual indices of JAES. You must have been in a
rush because you have one abstract repeated twice.... and one bare
title- no abstract. Still at least we have 16 abstracts. Better than
Pierce who gives titles alone.
So let me try and get "a healthy and sated mind" with a
little help from my friends. You see I don't take offence in a good
cause.
Mercy be! Not a single account of research documenting that
ABX is the proper instrument for us audio consumers to use when
COMPARING COMPONENTS. Remember COMPONENT COMPARISON? Remember us audio
fans? I've been putting it in capitals just to keep minds focused. I
know that some say it isn't good manners. Is that why you ignored it?
What is one to do to impress the topic on you- no underlining, no
bold print or italics in Google postings?
Instead you got: coding systems, testing of MPEG, audio
level monitoring for the blind, noise reduction, transformation of
binomials, verbal and non-verbal elicitation of audio impressions, and
other such burning audiophile issues. There is Mr. Toole, himself
testing:"Subjective measurements of loudspeaker quality" but no
mention of ABX!
You must be a believer in the great dictum: never
underestimate the idiocy of your readers.
There is Prof. Lip****z (he of the "SACD is a
catastrophe")explaining why he believes in "blind or preferably double
blind" testing
but not givimg any results in support.
There is Mr. Clark describing the ABX switch. You put
him in twice.
But you must have been in a rush because you included
as your Nr.8 exhibit a critique by Leventhal of the BIAS in ABX
testing AGAINST recognition of differences. Read it carefully- you
might get it this time. It was hotly debated by ABXers at the time.

Pierce is right. I will not read this stuff. If I
wanted to be thought an expert in psychoacoustics I would have studied
it- not just quoted a hodge-podge counting on no one calling my bluff.
The subject and your references are not of the slightest interest to
me and without any bearing on the subject of suitability of ABX for
untrained, disparate, uninterested audio consumers.

Now if you quoted one, single published audiophile
PANEL ABX test with a positive outcome there would be something to
talk about.
A "test" that has negative results only is not a
"test" for this application: comparing audio components by audio
consumers. Look up any introductory chapter on the methodology of
scientific experiment.

Ludovic Mirabel

The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation 1170191 bytes (CD aes4)
> Author(s): Lip****z, Stanley P.; Vanderkooy, John
> Publication: Volume 29 Number 7/8 pp. 482·491; July 1981
> Abstract: A polarization of people has occurred regarding subjective
> evaluation, separating those who believe that audible differences are
> related to measurable differences in controlled tests, from those who
> believe that such differences have no direct relationship to
> measurements. Tests are necessary to resolve such differences of
> opinion, and to further the state of audio and open new areas of
> understanding. We argue that highly controlled tests are necessary to
> transform subjective evaluation to an objective plane so that
> preferences and bias can be eliminated, in the quest for determining
> the accuracy of an audio component. In order for subjective tests to
> be meaningful to others, the following should be observed. (1) There
> must be technical competence to prevent obvious and/or subtle effects
> from affecting the test. (2) Linear differences must be thoroughly
> excised before conclusions about nonlinear errors can be reached. (3)
> The subjective judgment required in the test must be simple, such as
> the ability to discriminate between two components, using an absolute
> reference wherever possible. (4) The test must be blind or preferably
> double-blind. To implement such tests we advocate the use of A/B
> switchboxes. The box itself can be tested for audibly intrusive
> effects, and several embellishments are described which allow
> double-blind procedures to be used in listening tests. We believe
> that the burden of proof must lie with those who make new hypotheses
> regarding subjective tests. This alone would wipe out most criticisms
> of the controlled tests reported in the literature. Speculation is
> changed to fact only by careful experimentation. Recent references
> are given which support out point of view. The significance of
> differences in audio components is discussed, and in conclusion we
> detail some of our tests, hypotheses and speculations.
> Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample Size in ABX Testing
> 442116 bytes (CD aes4)
> Author(s): Burstein, Herman
> Publication: Volume 36 Number 11 pp. 879·883; November 1988
> Abstract: When sampling from a dichotomous population with an assumed
> proportion p of events having a defined characteristic, the binomial
> distribution is the appropriate statistical model for accurately
> determining: type 1 error risk (symbol); type 2 error risk (symbol);
> sample size n based on specified (symbol) and (symbol) and
> assumptions about p; and critical c (minimum number of events to
> satisfy a specified [symbol]). Table 3 in [1] pre;sents such data for
> a limited number of sample sizes and p values. To extend the scope of
> Table 3 to most n and p, we present approximation formulas of
> substantial accuracy, based on the normal distribution as an
> approximation of the binomial.
> High Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double Blind Comparator
> 1281885 bytes (CD aes10)
> Author(s): Clark, David
> Publication: Preprint 1771; Convention 69; May 1981
> Abstract: A system for practical implementation of double-blind
> audibility tests is described. The controller is a self contained
> unit, designed to provide setup and operational convenience while
> giving the user maximum sensitivity to detect differences. Standards
> for response matching other controls are suggested as well as
> statistical methods of evaluating data. Test results to data are
> summarized.
> Noise Reduction in Audio Employing Auditory Masking Approach 2543054
> bytes (CD aes15)
> Author(s): Czyzewski, Andrzej; Krolikowski, Rafal
> Publication: Preprint 4930; Convention 106; May 1999
> Abstract: A new method of noise reduction which exploits some
> features of the auditory system is proposed. The noise suppression is
> obtained twofold: by rising masking thresholds or by keeping noisy
> components beneath these thresholds. The foundations of the method
> and some engineered algorithms are described. The way of introduction
> of the noise reduction features into an MPEG encoder is demonstrated.
> Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for Listening Tests 468821
> bytes (CD aes5)
> Author(s): Burstein, Herman
> Publication: Volume 37 Number 5 pp. 363·367; May 1989
> Abstract: A simple transformation of classical binomial confidence
> limits provides exact confidence limits for the results of a
> listening test, such as the popular ABX test. These limits are for
> the proportion of known correct responses, as distinguished from
> guessed correct responses. Similarly, a point estimate is obtained
> for the proportion of known correct responses. The transformed
> binomial limits differ, often markedly, from those obtained by the
> Bayesian method.
> Comments on "Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in the Statistical Analysis of
> Listening Tests" and Author's Replies 674942 bytes (CD aes4)
> Author(s): Shanefield, Daniel; Clark, David; Nousaine, Tom;
> Leventhal, Les
> Publication: Volume 35 Number 7/8 pp. 567·572; July 1987
> Abstract: Not available.
> High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator
> 955218 bytes (CD aes4)
> Author(s): Clark, David
> Publication: Volume 30 Number 5 pp. 330-338; May 1982
> Abstract: A system for the practical implementation of double-blind
> audibility tests is described. The controller is a self-contained
> unit, designed to provide setup and operational convenience while
> giving the user maximum sensitivity to detect differences. Standards
> for response matching and other controls are suggested as well as
> statistical methods of evaluating data. Test results to date are
> summarized.
> Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in the Statistical Analysis of Listening
> Tests 1828932 bytes (CD aes4)
> Author(s): Leventhal, Les
> Publication: Volume 34 Number 6 pp. 437·453; June 1986
> Abstract: When the conventional 0.05 significance level is used to
> analyze listening test data, employing a small number of trials or
> listeners can produce an unexpectedly high risk of concluding that
> audible differences are inaudible (type 2 error). The risk can be
> both large absolutely and large relative to the risk of concluding
> that inaudible differences are audible (type 2 error). this
> constitutes systematic bias against those who believe that
> differences are audible between well-designed electronic components
> that are spectrally equated and not overdriven. A statistical table
> is introduced that enables readers to look up type 1 and type 2 error
> risks without calculation. Ways to manipulate the risks are
> discussed, a quantitative measure of a listening test's fairness is
> introduced, and implications for reviewers of the listening test
> literature are discussed.
> On the Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems
> 1936662 bytes (CD aes4)
> Author(s): Lip****z, Stanley P.; Pocock, Mark; Vanderkooy, John
> Publication: Volume 30 Number 9 pp. 580·595; September 1982
> Abstract: The current state of our knowledge regarding the audible
> consequences of phase nonlinearities in the audio chain is surveyed,
> a series of experiments is described which the authors have conducted
> using a flexible system of all-pass networks carefully constructed
> for this purpose, and some conclusions are drawn regarding the
> audible effects of midrange phase distortions. It is known that the
> inner ear possesses nonlinearity (akin to an acoustic half-wave
> rectifier) in its mechanical-to-electrical transduction, and this
> would be expected to modify the signal on the acoustic nerve in a
> manner which depends upon the acoustic signal waveform, and so upon
> the relative phase relationships of the frequency components of this
> signal. Some of these effects have been known for over 30 years, and
> are quite audible on even very simple signals. Simple experiments are
> outlined to enable the readers to demonstrate these effects for
> themselves. Having satisfied ourselves that phase distortions can be
> audible, the types of phase distortions contributed by the various
> links in the audio chain are surveyed, and it is concluded that only
> the loudspeaker contributes significant midrange phase
> nonlinearities. Confining the investigation to the audibility of such
> phase nonlinearities in the midrange, circuitry is described which
> enables such effects to be assessed objectivbely fo their audible
> consequences. The experiments conducted so far lead to a number of
> conclusions. 1) Even quite small midrange phase nonlinearities can be
> audible on suitably chosen signals. 2) Audibility is far greater on
> headphones than on loudspeakers. 3) Simple acoustic signals generated
> anechoically display clear phase audibility on headphones. 4) On
> normal music or speech signals phase distortion appears not to be
> generally audible, although it was heard with 99% confidence on some
> recorded vocal material. It is clear that more work needs to be done
> to ascertain acceptable limits for the phase linearity of audio
> components·limits which might become more stringent as improved
> recording/reproduction systems become available. It is stressed that
> none of these experiments thus far has indicated a present
> requirement for phase linearity in loudspeakers for the reproduction
> of music and speech.
>
> Subjective Evaluation of High-Quality Audio Coding Systems: Methods
> and Results in the Two-Channel Case 2152388 bytes (CD aes13)
> Author(s): Grusec, Theodore; Thibault, Louis; Soulodre, Gilbert
> Publication: Preprint 4065; Convention 99; October 1995
> Abstract: Experiments completed at the Communications Research Centre
> in subjective assessment of 2-channel coding systems are described
> along with the methodologies used in their execution. The discussion
> centers on acoustic conditions, presentation technologies, choosing
> audio materials, selecting and training listeners, grading
> procedures, blind rating, data analysis, and decision-making from
> experimental outcomes. Key ITU-R test results are presented to
> characterize the quality of low bit-rate coding systems operating in
> various configurations.
> Sensitive Methodologies for the Subjecive Evaluation of High Quality
> Audio Coding Systems 1881344 bytes (CD aes17)
> Author(s): Grusec, Ted; Thibault, Louis; Beaton, Richard J.
> Publication: Paper DSP-07; Conference: AES UK Conference: DSP;
> September 1992
> Abstract: Not available.
> Formal Subjective Testing of the MPEG-2 NBC Multichannel Coding
> Algorithm 1119369 bytes (CD aes14)
> Author(s): Kirby, D.; Watanabe, K.
> Publication: Preprint 4418; Convention 102; March 1997
> Abstract: As part of its standardization process, the MPEG NBC
> (non-backwards compatible) multichannel audio coding algorithm was
> submitted for formal subjective testing in 1996 September. The tests
> were carried out jointly at two test sites: the BBC and NHK. The
> report was submitted to the Motion Picture Expert Group (MPEG) in
> 1996 November. This paper describes the design of these tests, the
> preparations required, and the results obtained for each of the
> codecs tested.
> Verbal and Nonverbal Elicitation Techniques in the Subjective
> Assessment of Spatial Sound Reproduction 2376898 bytes (CD aes18)
> Author(s): MASON, RUSSELL; FORD, NATANYA; RUMSEY, FRANCIS; DE BRUYN,
> BART
> Publication: Volume 49 Number 5 pp. 366-384; May 2001
> Abstract: Current research into spatial audio has shown an increasing
> interest in the way subjective attributes of reproduced sound are
> elicited from listeners. The emphasis at present is on verbal
> semantics, however, studies suggest that nonverbal methods of
> elicitation could be beneficial. Research into the relative merits of
> these methods has found that nonverbal responses may result in
> different elicited attributes compared to verbal techniques.
> Nonverbal responses may be closer to the perception of the stimuli
> than the verbal interpretation of this perception. There is evidence
> that drawing is not as accurate as other nonverbal methods of
> elicitation when it comes to reporting the localization of auditory
> images. However, the advantage of drawing is its ability to describe
> the whole auditory space rather than a single dimension.
> Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener
> Performance 3114170 bytes (CD aes4)
> Author(s): Toole, Floyd E.
> Publication: Volume 33 Number 1/2 pp. 2·32; January 1985
> Abstract: With adequate attention to the details of experiment design
> and the selection of participants, listening tests on loudspeakers
> yielded sound-quality ratings that were both reliable and repeatable.
> Certain listeners differed in the consistency of their ratings and in
> the ratings themselves. These differences correlated with both
> hearing threshold levels and age. Listeners with near normal hearing
> thresholds showed the smallest individual variations and the closest
> agreement with each others. Sound-quality ratings changed as a
> function of the hearing threshold level and age of the listener. The
> amount and direction of the change depended upon the specific
> products; some products were rated similarly by all listeners,
> whereas others had properties that caused them to be rated
> differently. Stereophonic and monophonic tests yielded similar
> sound-quality ratings for highly rated products, but in stereo,
> listeners tended to be less consistent and less critifal of products
> with distinctive characteristics. Assessments of stereophonic spatial
> and image qualities were closely related to sound-quality ratings.
> The relationship between these results and objective performance data
> is being pursued.
> A Disk-Based System for the Subjective Assessment of High-Qualtity
> Audio 1278922 bytes (CD aes12)
> Author(s): Beaton, Richard J.; Wong, Peter
> Publication: Preprint 3497; Convention 94; March 1993
> Abstract: This paper describes the design of a digital system which
> integrates automated tandem recording with a playback system
> implementing an enhanced ABC triple stimulus with hidden reference
> listening test methodology. This methodology was developed
> specifically for CCIR evaluations of nearly transparent low bit-rate
> audio coding algorithms. The system was used extensively in recent
> CCIR TG 10/2 testing of low bit-rate audio coding algorithms for
> digital audio broadcast. The use of a disk-based system was
> instrumental in producing reliable assessments for the high-quality
> systems under test. This paper outlines the technical challenges to
> implementing the assessment methodology and discusses some of the
> important new issues arising in evaluating the quality of nearly
> transparent audio processes.
> Audio Level Monitoring for Blind Sound Engineers/Recordists 760962
> bytes (CD aes12)
> Author(s): Angus, James A. S.; Malyon, Nicholas J.
> Publication: Preprint 3219; Convention 91; October 1991
> Abstract: Audio level monitoring relies heavily on visual displays
> which are inappropriate for blind users. This paper will describe a
> technique which allows a blind sound recordist to set her/ his own
> levels via an audio cue. It will describe the design and
> implementation of a unit which handles stereo recording in the studio
> and on location and it will discuss extensions of the technique to
> multitrack recording.
> Comments on ·Subjective Appraisal of Loudspeaker Directivity for
> Multichannel Reproduction· and
> New Developments in MPEG-2 Audio: Extension to Multi-Channel Sound
> and Improved Coding at Very Low Bit Rates 1023245 bytes (CD aes17)
> Author(s): Stoll, Gerhard
> Publication: Paper DAB-06; Conference: AES UK Conference: DAB, The
> Future of Radio; May 1995
> Abstract: The first objective of MPEG-2 Audio was the extension from
> two to five channels, based on recommendations from ITU-R, SMPTE and
> EBU. This was achieved in November 1994 with the approval of ISO/IEC
> 13818-3, known as MPEG-2 Audio. This standard provides high quality
> coding of 5+1 audio channels together with backwards compatibility to
> MPEG-1 · the key to ensure that existing 2-channel decoders will
> still be able to decode the compatible stereo information from
> multi-channel signals. For audio reproduction of surround sound the
> loudspeaker positions left, center, right, left and right surround
> are used · according to the 3/2-standard. The envisaged applications
> are beside digital television systems such as dTTb, HDTVT, HD-SAT,
> ADDT, digital storage media and the EU147 Digital Audio Broadcasting
> system. The second objective was the extension of MPEG-1 Audio to
> lower sampling rates to improve the audio quality at bit rates less
> than 64 kbit/s per channel, in particular for speech applications.
> This is of particular interest for the EU147 DAB system to provide
> high quality news channels at the lowest bit rate.
> Subjective Assessments on Low Bit-Rate Audio Codecs 1159838 bytes
> (CD aes16)
> Author(s): Grewin, Christer; Rydén, Thomas
> Publication: Paper 10-013; Conference: The AES 10th International
> Conference: Images of Audio; September 1991
> Abstract: The Swedish Broadcasting Corporation (SR) has performed
> subjective assessments on low bit-rate audio codecs for
> ISO/MPEG/Audio. As it is likely that the same codec can be used for
> DAB the evaluation is of great importance for broadcasters. This
> paper presents the methodology, results and conclusions from the two
> listening tests performed in July 1990 and April/May 1991.

ludovic mirabel
September 27th 03, 02:52 AM
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<MpFcb.576680$YN5.411073@sccrnsc01>...
> In article >,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<zalcb.565817$Ho3.102946@sccrnsc03>...
> >> >> >> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> >> >> >>
> >> > If you are happy with a "test" that gives as many different results
> >> > as there are people doing it, who am I to stop you? Use it. You'll get
> >> > yours.
> >> Audio Guy:
>
> >> Where is your evidence that audio DBTs "gives as many different
> >> results as there are people doing it"? So far it is only your mistaken
> >> interpretation of the test statistics. How about some real evidence?
> >>
> >
> > Below find the results of of Greenhill's ABX cable test (The
> > Stereophile ,1983)
> > A "hit" is 12 correct answers out of 15.
> > Note different performers, performing differently. (Surprise,
> > Surprise!).
> > Note Nr. 6; 1.75db level difference but music is the signal. Compare
> > with test
> > 1 and test 4.
> > I will not rediscuss the "statistics". This was thrashed out ad
> > nauseam here.
> > If it tells you something different from what it tells me, well and
> > good.
> >
> > SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K
> > Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise 1.75db level difference
> > 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
> > 2. Same but levels matched
> > 9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12 12
> > 3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise
> > 13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12 7
> > 4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise
> > 15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15
> > 5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music
> > 4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10
> > 6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music 1.75db. level difference
> > 14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10
> > ______________________________________________
> > % of "hits" in the total of 6 tests, 90 tries.
> > 67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50 83 50
> >
> > L.M.:
>
> It tells me that people can easy tell level differences with pink
> noise, not so easily with music. Where does it "gives as many
> different results as there are people doing it"?
>
You're right. I got sort of dozed off looking at it all and got
carried away.
It is sometimes 10/11 the same results sometimes 3/11 and a few in
between.
It all adds up beautifully. I wish you and Mr Nunes who "has just done
that" many happy hours with the ABX and pink noise.
Ludovic Mirabel

> >> > I will not stop you and I will not continue this pointless scholastic
> >> > argument.
> >>
> >> How is it a "scholastic argument"? Are you using this label so you
> >> can side-step the issue? Ironically many would consider all of your
> >> arguments purely "scholastic arguments".
> >>
> > Yes you're correct: scholastic arguments, including mine, are about
> > something unproven. When you or someone like Mr. JJnunes comes up with
> > experimental evidence that ABX is the right tool for COMPARING
> > COMPONENTS and that for instance it does not interfere with perception
> > of their musical characteristics we'll be talking about realities.
>
> I believe Mr. Junes has just done that.
>
> < excessive quoting snipped >

L Mirabel
September 27th 03, 08:55 PM
> In truth I have little to substantiate to you. Every few
> weeks you post a personal attack ( quotes below) with no other content
> or you truncate and distort my words
> . Every time when shown up you go silent for a month or two. I
> find it distasteful to go over all this stuff again but since you
> force me you'll find requotes below. There's more if you want it.
> Just ask..
> . You seem to have some kind of immunity for this kind of
> thing here. I won't claim the same.
> Now you thought up a new wrinkle: insinuation that I'm
> lying about my professional record.. This of course has nothing to do
> with an argument about the proper way to compare components but
> anything will do.
> One thing I know : However inadequate my DBT exposure cxould be it
> exceeds yours by miles.
> I apologise to the readers for what follows and invite you
> to skip it. It is not MY choice of the way to discuss opinions.
> -----------
> ------- After 5 years of postgraduate training in internal medicine
> I became a full time, and the only resident researcher in the
> schistosomiasis (bilharzia) unit, a division of the Tropical Disease
> Research of the Med. Research Ccil of U.K. in Hertford in 1951/2.
> Head: Dr Newsome. My lab technician: Mr England (yes!). We had also an
> Egyptian on a fellowship from his Govt. I forgot his name but remember
> him for memorising a 900 page textbook of Neurology in one week.
> I already had some drug research DBT experience.. I was a
> Senior House Officer in Brook Hospital, London. A Dr. G. Loxton,
> rheumatologist, was trying out a "wonder drug" for rheumatoid
> arthritis (dexoxycorticosterone with vitamin C). Initial enthusiasm
> cooled after a DBT.
> M.R.C. was the organisation and that was the time when
> and where the principles of randomised DB drug testing were being
> developed principally by the statistician Bradford Hill. My unit was
> researching the proposed bilharzia drugs effects on infected animals
> (baboons and "desert rats") and planning human trials but none of the
> drugs we tested warranted it as yet..
> I resigned after one year after passing my specialty exam
> in int. medicine (M.R.C.P. Ed). I decided that I preferred clinical
> medicine to research and as there were no openings for me in U.K I
> emigrated to Canada. Hundreds of others newly qualified specialists
> in U;K; had to (or U.S. or Australia) because under the system in U.K.
> a specialist- consultant doesn't just hang out his shingle. You have
> to wait for someone to retire or die and then be selected by a
> hospital in preference to others, most at least equally bright.
> Afterwards, as the consultant cardiologist ( solo for

> a few years till others joined me) in a large suburban hospital I HAD
> TO keep up with DBT's. Randomised DBT drug trial has been staple in
> medicine for decades. No new treatment without DBT. It was the air we
> breathed. At that there are constant arguments about the adequate
> selection of controls, significance of results etc. . Proper DBT at
> that with objective body changes to assess at the end, symmetrical
> placebo control group etc.- not a question and answer ad hoc
> "listening test" or a home ABX switch kit.------ End of personal stuff
> The only reason I first brought up my research
> experience here was because people like you with qualifications in eg.
> electronic engineering kept questioning my right as an audio consumer
> to express my views on the DBT tunes sung in RAHE. Perhaps you felt I
> was trespassing on your territory as the all- round audio oracle. I
> happen to react to the local authorities laying down the law about
> things they know no more about than anyone else. Someone like me was
> long overdue in RAHE. If only to infuriate the pompous importances.
> That you'd imagine that disagreeing with you is important
> enough for anyone to falsify his credentials tells more about you than
> I care to know.
> As for your "references"- whom are you kidding Pierce?
> You know perfectly well that the argument is about ABX as THE test for
> ordinary audio consumers for COMPARING COMPONENTS- NOT ABOUT
> PSYCHOACOUSTIC RESEARCH. Of course I do not spell it in full every
> time- I'm assuming the minimum of decent discussion manners. After all
> I said it at least twenty times already. Of course you would quote a
> dozen references of which only one (Toole) may have some bearing on
> the subject. Who is actually comparing *what* components in your
> "references"?. With what results? You hope no one will read this stuff
> carefully , right? Why don't you quote the index of JAES for one year?
> You don't want to compete with Jjnunes 18 titles.?
> For your information this is what a proper reference
> looks like.: S. J. Wilson & al "Comparing the quality of oral
> anticoagulant management by....A randomised controlled clinical trial"
> C.M.A.J., vol.169, No4, 293, '03.
> This IS a reference. You want to know about management of anticoags,
> this is what you look up.
> You want to know about the usefulness of ABX to untrained, unselected
> audio fans for comparing components you don't look in these irrelevant
> collections
> In the meantime I'll repeat what I said to Jjnunes:
> " "Just to spur you on I will now state emphatically that
> you talk about "trajectories" for lack of anything better. NOTHING in
> Fletcher, NOTHING in Yost, NOTHING in good old Moore. And you know
> what else? NOTHING ANYWHERE ELSE. The reputable, published basic
> research for the consumer use of DBTs in comparing audio components

> does NOT EXIST. "Starting points" and "trajectories" will not replace
> it. You were asked for nothing complicated. Just a very simple thing
> called: quotable evidence. Remember "evidence"?. Remember quote?"
> And I'll add this: you Mr. Pierce do not have the
> foggiest about how to transfer Component Comparison DBT from the lab
> to the street. If you did you would not be quoting your pseudo
> "references"..Read my soon to appear ( I hope) posting about S.
> Toole's loudspeaker comparison in his laboratory to begin learning.
> I can not stop wondering what accounts for the
> hostility in the samples quoted below. Gourmets argue about
> food, wine drinkers about wines, piano players about pianos. No Gallo
> drinkers claim that they have a "test"that will show up those damn
> Burgundy and Bordeaux lovers. Audio seems to breed a particularly
> embittered and combative swarm of discussants..
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Samples of Mr. Pierce debating methods.
> June 25 "Why Dbts in audio do not deliver?"
> "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. In that sense, indeed, ANY
> testing of ANY kind will NEVER deliver what they want, except that
> testing that gives the results they expect. It basically reduces to
> the fact that if you don't get the answer you expect, blame the
> question, but NEVER entertain the posibility that not so much the
> expectation itself is wrong, but the very fact that you HAVE an
> expectation is the issue. Science certainly works hard to give you
> answers, it just doesn't give a sh*t whether you like the answer or
> not. THAT'S why DBT doesn't work: because it does."
> No quoted argument of mine in the whole posting, Just this.
>
> July 8 same thread:
> "I'd posit, instead, that Ludovic simply engages in a continuous
> 2. 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."
> It continues in the same vein. And there are plenty more like this. It
> goes back two years. Just ask, Mr. Pierce, and I'll oblige.
>
>
>> T. Poulsen, "Application of psychoacoustic methods,"
>> H. Staffeldt, "Evaluation and scaling of timbre in listening tests
>> on loudspeakers,"
>> F. Toole, "Planning of listening tests - technical and environmental
>> variables,"
>> A. Gabrielsson, "Planning of listening tests - listener and
>> experimenatl variables,"
>> S. Bach, "Planning of listening tests - choice of rating scale and
>> test procedure,"
>> N. Kousgaard, "The applicatin of binary paired comparisons to
>> listening tests,"
>> M. Williams, "Choice of programme material for critical listening
>> to loudspeakers,"
>> S. Pramanik, "Inadvertant bias in listening tests,"
>> F. Toole, "Correlation between the results of objective and
>> subjective tests,"
>>
>> All present at and found in the Proceedings of the Symposium
>> on Perception of Reproduced Sound, Gammel Avernaes, Denmark, 1987.

> __________________________________________________ __________

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> wrote in message
>...
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:08:01 GMT, (ludovic
> > mirabel) wrote:
> >
> >
> > >This is the 4th request to Mr. Jjnunes for references
> >
> > I don't take you seriously, especially since these have posted before
> > and you argued against them with your usual absurd rhetorical games.
> > I'm not interested in continuing further. You apparently can't even
> > come to terms with audio components being reproducers of sound and
> > play rhetorical games about them being 'producers of music' to thus
> > provide yourself with an avenue to argue from the same pretext as to
> > how musical instruments are compared. That was why I made the mistake
> > of pointing you at the books I mentioned --- to provide a foundation
> > to look further into the subject.
> >
> > You aren't interested in rational debate about this, but rather
> > rhetoric and rhetoric only. I should have learned this lesson sooner.
>
> Indeed, but hope springs eternal even, it seems, for our persistant
> Mr. Ludovic.
>
> In addition to Mr. Nunes' excellent references, every one of which I
> would wager Mr. Ludovic has never read and will ignore, I would merely
> AGAIN, as I did some months ago, point out the following references:
>
> T. Poulsen, "Application of psychoacoustic methods,"
> H. Staffeldt, "Evaluation and scaling of timbre in listening tests
> on loudspeakers,"
> F. Toole, "Planning of listening tests - technical and environmental
> variables,"
> A. Gabrielsson, "Planning of listening tests - listener and
> experimenatl variables,"
> S. Bach, "Planning of listening tests - choice of rating scale and
> test procedure,"
> N. Kousgaard, "The applicatin of binary paired comparisons to
> listening tests,"
> M. Williams, "Choice of programme material for critical listening
> to loudspeakers,"
> S. Pramanik, "Inadvertant bias in listening tests,"
> F. Toole, "Correlation between the results of objective and
> subjective tests,"
>
> All present at and found in the Proceedings of the Symposium
> on Perception of Reproduced Sound, Gammel Avernaes, Denmark, 1987.
>
> Through all, this, our dear Mr. Ludovic has pounded his fist and the
> occasional show on the table DEMANDING references, when provided with
> same, he has simply pounded louder.
>
> And he has ALSO made claims about the unsuitability of blind testing,
> claiming his experience in the medical field and testing. He has done
> so, it would seem with NO substantiation of those claims. I think its
> time we called his bluff:
>
> Mr. Ludovic, you have provided NO substantiation that you have ANY
> experience in the field of blind testing or medical research. Your
> claims, indeed, could well be interpreted as belonging to someone
> who has, at best, very limited, casual and peripheral experience in
> the realm.
>
> We, thus, kindly ask YOU to substantiate YOUR claims of experience in
> those fields which you claim some experience. Where are YOUR published
> papers? With whom were YOU affiliated? What research projects have YOU
> been a principal or support investigator on?
>
> Please, we have provided DOZENS of references for YOU, how about providing
> us the same.
>
> After all, aren't YOU subject to the very same criteria that you subject
> others to?

ludovic mirabel
September 28th 03, 06:37 PM
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:18:09 GMT, (ludovic
> mirabel) wrote:
>
> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> >> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:31:45 GMT, (ludovic
> >> mirabel) wrote:
> >>
> >> >"All Ears" > wrote in message news:<97Fbb.406782$cF.126279@rwcrnsc53>...
> >> >>
Mirabel wrote:
> >> >> > In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility of
> >> >> > distortion
> >> >> > was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
> >> >> > Various types of distortion with different signals were tested.. There
> >> >> > were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion level
> >> >> > (2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct hits
> >> >> > was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant level of
> >> >> > 60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
> >> >> > Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
> >> >> > Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the signal
> >> >> > very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
> >> >> > Will it do for the time being?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
All Ears commented:
> >> >> I think this is good "food for thoughts" because it gives an idea of how
> >> >> large a margin there is to really detect a difference.
> >> >>
I answered:
> >> > Note that the performance varies from one listener to other-
> >> >inspite of training and retraining-. A few have 5 out of 5 correct
> >> >responses, a few 1 out of 5 and most fall in the average middle. As
> >> >you would expect.
> >>
Pinkerton:
> >> Indeed, as you would expect for an effect which is on the threshold of
> >> audibility.
> >>
> >> > Note that the "objectivist", objectively unbiased, proctors
> >> >showed no interest in the few who heard the DIFFERENCES accurately.
> >> >They just lumped them together with the most who DID NOT and got an
> >> >average for an average, fictitious Mr. Average Listener who hears no
> >> >differences-ever. This of course was in acordance with the "Stereo
> >> >Review" guiding principle- "the high end does not exist, our big
> >> >account advertisers sound just as good."
> >>
> >> You are once again making the classic mistake (or is it yet another
> >> deliberate distortion?) of ignoring the basis of statistics. *You*
> >> invariably 'cherry pick' the results that suit your preconceptions,
> >> the researchers above very properly included *all* the responses. They
> >> most certainly did *not* 'ignore' the 5/5 response, they *included* it
> >> in the results. Incidentally, you once again alter the facts to suit
> >> yourself. There is no indication in the above report that there were
> >> 'a few' listeners who scored 1/5 or 5/5, there may have been only one
> >> of each - as a standard distribution curve would suggest.
> >>
> >> Now, if the researchers had *repeated* the experiment, do you presume
> >> that the same listeners would score the same results, i.e. that the
> >> 5/5 scorer(s) really do have 'Golden Ears'? That would suit *your*
> >> preconceptions, but the results of the recently posted TAG McLaren
> >> tests did not show this. Once again, you attempt to ignore the very
> >> basis of statistical probability, in an attempt to shore up your
> >> prejudices.
> >
I love "probability". But when someone is correct 5 times out of 5
and someone else 1 out of 5 ,or 74 times out of 90 (like Greenhill's
"golden ear") and not 30 out of 90 like his other testees I would be
curious how they would do on a repeat. In other words I'd experiment.
Of course things are diferent when one is a pure, scientific
statistician/mathematician like Mr. Pinkerton. Cherry-picking is
taboo, experiments-hell, we have probabilities and OUR probabilities
are certainties.
And paper is patient.

Now for the "golden ear". For the last time (What a hope!)
Greenhill said: "The final significant conclusion is that at least
one genuine "golden ear" exists". The only time I used the term was
when relating his results.
Greenhill was the cable test proctor and the writer ("The Stereo
Review" Aug. 1983, p. 51),
He is also former collaborator of Mr. Krueger, who I believe
invented ABX.
He is also alive and well and writing for "The Stereophile". WHY don't
you tell him what you think of his statistics and his "claim". You
have a TAG test (whatever that is) on your side.
One more little thing: I said all this stuff to you before. You
still twist the facts to suit your polemic. Go home and write the
Pinkerton comment you would write if I did such a thing.
>
> >For economy I'll refer to my today's answer to Mr. Strong.
>
> Which is completely refuted by the TAG test, which found that the
> better performers in one test, were average or worse performers in the
> other test.
>
I don't know the test but I guess that you're saying that it
contains the ultimate truth that makes any further experiment
unnecessary,

> >I'll add only that when Mr. Pinkerton posts his results of his tests
> >in this group that is not "cherry picking".
>
> Indeed it's not, since I posted both positive *and* negative results.
> You no doubt would have claimed that the negative results were in some
> mysterious way flawed, and/or that you were simply 'bad at DBTs', and
> that some unnamed other person would of course have obtained no
> negative results.
>
1) Why would anyone in his senses say that ALL the negative results
are flawed? I would not. Is this what some discussants here wittily
call a "strawman?"
2) And Greenhill posted only the positive ones?? My poor
nonmathematical head is spinning.
I see-
> > He had himself and one or
> >two of his friends in his amplifier "test". If he added 10
> >"audiophiles" he would add up all their results- and let the dice
> >fall as they may- even if Krell turned out not distinguishable from
> >Panasonic integrated- right?
>
> Right.
>
> >I wonder if he ever sat an exam.?
>
> Far too many! :-)
>
> > I wonder if he'd like the collective
> >results averaged or would he want himself to be cherry-picked.
>
> Different situation, as I have a personal interest in my own results.
> Audiophile friends with an interest in their own results would no
> doubt conduct further tests for themselves. The analogous situation is
> where I perform lots of tests on myself, to verify my own abilities,
> but only limited tests on others, to verify that I am just one of many
> with similar perceptual abilities. You have shown absolutely *no*
> evidence of the existence of 'Golden Ears', indeed all the available
> evidence suggests nothing more than standard statistical distributions
> according to random chance.
>
Sorry. Your mathematics are beyond me. I have no idea what you're
saying.

> This does not seem to prevent you from *claiming* that such people
> somehow must exist - somewhat like Bigfoot.
>
This is witty. I go to the Okanagan (in B.C.) and I saw the Bigfoot
talking to the "Golden Ear". In person

> >Absurdity in the service of winning a debate on paper could not go any
> >further
>
> I entirely agree.............
>
This is witty too.

> >The insinuating: " Or is it yet ANOTHER DELIBERATE DISTORTION" is par
> >for the gentleman. It tells more about the way he thinks than he'd
> >like to be known and is another one of his contributions to the
> >gentler , kinder RAHE debating manners.
>
> It tells people *exactly* what I'd like to be known, which is that you
> simply *refuse* to engage in honest debate, instead using every
> possible trick to avoid the inevitable conclusion, that you simply do
> not have a case to argue.

Name one participant in RAHE discussions who disagrees with you on
DBT matters and who does "engage in honest debate" with you. If you
recall it is not Mkuller or Harry Lavo. Name one "honest" man who
disagrees with you ,honestly by your lights, about testing cables.
It is probably ( statistically of course) true that you really
believe that people normally lie to argue a point. That is a kind of
insight.
Ludovic Mirabel

ludovic mirabel
September 28th 03, 06:38 PM
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<XWldb.603104$o%2.282900@sccrnsc02>...
> In article <O36db.436378$Oz4.243723@rwcrnsc54>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<MpFcb.576680$YN5.411073@sccrnsc01>...
> >> In article >,
> >> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> >> >
> >> > Below find the results of of Greenhill's ABX cable test (The
> >> > Stereophile ,1983)
> >> > A "hit" is 12 correct answers out of 15.
> >> > Note different performers, performing differently. (Surprise,
> >> > Surprise!).
> >> > Note Nr. 6; 1.75db level difference but music is the signal. Compare
> >> > with test
> >> > 1 and test 4.
> >> > I will not rediscuss the "statistics". This was thrashed out ad
> >> > nauseam here.
> >> > If it tells you something different from what it tells me, well and
> >> > good.
> >> >
> >> > SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K
> >> > Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise 1.75db level difference
> >> > 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
> >> > 2. Same but levels matched
> >> > 9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12 12
> >> > 3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise
> >> > 13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12 7
> >> > 4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise
> >> > 15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15
> >> > 5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music
> >> > 4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10
> >> > 6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music 1.75db. level difference
> >> > 14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10
> >> > ______________________________________________
> >> > % of "hits" in the total of 6 tests, 90 tries.
> >> > 67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50 83 50
> >> >
> >> > L.M.:
> >>
> >> It tells me that people can easy tell level differences with pink
> >> noise, not so easily with music. Where does it "gives as many
> >> different results as there are people doing it"?
> >>
> > You're right. I got sort of dozed off looking at it all and got
> > carried away.
> > It is sometimes 10/11 the same results sometimes 3/11 and a few in
> > between.
> > It all adds up beautifully. I wish you and Mr Nunes who "has just done
> > that" many happy hours with the ABX and pink noise.
>
> This just shows again that you have an incomplete understanding of
> statistics. You state that a hit is 12 out of 15. If it is not a hit,
> then it is considered to be within the realm of random chance and so
> is not counted any differently whether it is 1 out of 15 or 11 out of
> 15. That does not by any stretch of the imagination "gives as many
> different results as there are people doing it".

I said I will not discuss satististics but I'm always eager to
learn. You are right.
It is all the same. No differences. Or maybe there are SOME
differences but they are not statistical. They are just an illusion, a
puff in the wind, a knock and we are through the mirror in the
Wonderland.

Ludovic Mirabel

Audio Guy
September 28th 03, 11:25 PM
In article <a0Fdb.611941$Ho3.119231@sccrnsc03>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<XWldb.603104$o%2.282900@sccrnsc02>...
>>
>> This just shows again that you have an incomplete understanding of
>> statistics. You state that a hit is 12 out of 15. If it is not a hit,
>> then it is considered to be within the realm of random chance and so
>> is not counted any differently whether it is 1 out of 15 or 11 out of
>> 15. That does not by any stretch of the imagination "gives as many
>> different results as there are people doing it".
>
> I said I will not discuss satististics but I'm always eager to
> learn. You are right.
> It is all the same. No differences. Or maybe there are SOME
> differences but they are not statistical. They are just an illusion, a
> puff in the wind, a knock and we are through the mirror in the
> Wonderland.

Did you not employ statistical analysis in any of the medical DBTs
you were involved in? Because it's key in analyzing the results of
the test or tests. Without the statistical analysis you cannot tell
which results are just random chance and which are really
significant.

I will agree with your point that when results get very close to
shoving significance the individual in question should be retested.
But without the retesting you cannot state that they did hear
something, only that they may have heard something. But I have yet to
see you make that qualification.

Nousaine
September 29th 03, 01:01 AM
(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

...snips to specific content....

>But you must have been in a rush because you included
>as your Nr.8 exhibit a critique by Leventhal of the BIAS in ABX
>testing AGAINST recognition of differences. Read it carefully- you
>might get it this time. It was hotly debated by ABXers at the time.

Actually that was not Leventhal's argument. But interestingly in later time
Leventhal argued that we should use 2 tails in the statistical analysis (the
classic binomial distribution is a one tailed examination) so that the
qualifying upper level positive criterion score for a 16 trial experiment
would rise to 13/16 @ 95%.

Stewart Pinkerton
September 29th 03, 03:44 PM
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:37:55 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...

>> It tells people *exactly* what I'd like to be known, which is that you
>> simply *refuse* to engage in honest debate, instead using every
>> possible trick to avoid the inevitable conclusion, that you simply do
>> not have a case to argue.
>
> Name one participant in RAHE discussions who disagrees with you on
>DBT matters and who does "engage in honest debate" with you. If you
>recall it is not Mkuller or Harry Lavo. Name one "honest" man who
>disagrees with you ,honestly by your lights, about testing cables.

That is of course entirely my point. It is *very* obvious that those
in this forum who support DBTs rely on logic and on the results of
actual tests, whereas those who disagree rely on polemic, distortion
and cherry-picking.

> It is probably ( statistically of course) true that you really
>believe that people normally lie to argue a point.

Not perhaps in general, but it certainly seems to form a pattern in
*this* instance.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Harry Lavo
September 30th 03, 02:19 AM
Stewart -

Since my name has been dragged in here, and you are apparently calling me
"dishonest" and a "liar," would you please cite where and when I have been
"dishonest" or "lied" in a discussion of dbt testing. Of cables no less,
which I have studiously avoided.

If you can't find any (which will be the case) I would appreciate an
apology.

Harry

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:37:55 GMT, (ludovic
> mirabel) wrote:
>
> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
>...
>
> >> It tells people *exactly* what I'd like to be known, which is that you
> >> simply *refuse* to engage in honest debate, instead using every
> >> possible trick to avoid the inevitable conclusion, that you simply do
> >> not have a case to argue.
> >
> > Name one participant in RAHE discussions who disagrees with you on
> >DBT matters and who does "engage in honest debate" with you. If you
> >recall it is not Mkuller or Harry Lavo. Name one "honest" man who
> >disagrees with you ,honestly by your lights, about testing cables.
>
> That is of course entirely my point. It is *very* obvious that those
> in this forum who support DBTs rely on logic and on the results of
> actual tests, whereas those who disagree rely on polemic, distortion
> and cherry-picking.
>
> > It is probably ( statistically of course) true that you really
> >believe that people normally lie to argue a point.
>
> Not perhaps in general, but it certainly seems to form a pattern in
> *this* instance.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ludovic mirabel
October 1st 03, 05:10 PM
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<4dJdb.455493$Oz4.260164@rwcrnsc54>...
> In article <a0Fdb.611941$Ho3.119231@sccrnsc03>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<XWldb.603104$o%2.282900@sccrnsc02>...
> >>
> >> This just shows again that you have an incomplete understanding of
> >> statistics. You state that a hit is 12 out of 15. If it is not a hit,
> >> then it is considered to be within the realm of random chance and so
> >> is not counted any differently whether it is 1 out of 15 or 11 out of
> >> 15. That does not by any stretch of the imagination "gives as many
> >> different results as there are people doing it".
> >
> > I said I will not discuss satististics but I'm always eager to
> > learn. You are right.
> > It is all the same. No differences. Or maybe there are SOME
> > differences but they are not statistical. They are just an illusion, a
> > puff in the wind, a knock and we are through the mirror in the
> > Wonderland.
>
> Did you not employ statistical analysis in any of the medical DBTs
> you were involved in? Because it's key in analyzing the results of
> the test or tests. Without the statistical analysis you cannot tell
> which results are just random chance and which are really
> significant.
>
> I will agree with your point that when results get very close to
> shoving significance the individual in question should be retested.
> But without the retesting you cannot state that they did hear
> something, only that they may have heard something. But I have yet to
> see you make that qualification.

Dear man , I qualified thusly at least ten times in the
last two years, asking why didn't the proctord pay attention to the
only interesting results, namely
those of the exceptional performers and rechecked them SOS. But I
can't expect you to memorise my collected writings. So for your
convenience: Yes they should have done it. Even though Greenhill ran
not just one but six tests and only two of his subjects scored
consistenly well
in five of them.
You don't say how many times they should have repeated it to
satisfy you and Pinkerton. Twice? 3 times? Ten times like Norman
Strong once suggested?
So let's collaborate on an ideal design
Your statistical prowess encourages me. Let us get an ABX
project, you and I together, based on Sean Olive's results. (of course
he did not use ABX but we respect his results, right?).
To do justice to the differences in performance between trained
(the best) , semitrained (in the middle - 3 times worse) and the great
unwashed (us audio consumers- just like the audio students- 27 times
worse) we'll get three groups going.
First the random collection of audiophiles. Get them ABXed on
anything reasonably comparable other than the grossly unlike
loudspeakers. The result almost guaranteed: "No difference, no
preference".
All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.. Just
what you all would have wanted. The result is accepted without a
murmur just like your predecessors in the
"Stereo Review" days accepted Greenhill, Clark, Masters and so on.
As long as their ABX manipulated results on cable, preamp, amp,
cdplayer, dac were "They are all the same" . Electronics is wonderful
Now group 3, the trained. Some get 80% correct. Panic in the
ranks. This couldn't be! Repeat please. And keep repeating till they
say "uncle" ie. till they are half-deaf and ready to confess that
there is "No difference"- and can I go home, please?
The intermediate group , the salesmen, doesn't count. They
convince easy.
Isn't statistics wonderful too?
Ludovic Mirabel.

ludovic mirabel
October 3rd 03, 06:39 AM
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<4dJdb.455493$Oz4.260164@rwcrnsc54>...
> In article <a0Fdb.611941$Ho3.119231@sccrnsc03>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<XWldb.603104$o%2.282900@sccrnsc02>...
> >>
> >> This just shows again that you have an incomplete understanding of
> >> statistics. You state that a hit is 12 out of 15. If it is not a hit,
> >> then it is considered to be within the realm of random chance and so
> >> is not counted any differently whether it is 1 out of 15 or 11 out of
> >> 15. That does not by any stretch of the imagination "gives as many
> >> different results as there are people doing it".
> >
> > I said I will not discuss satististics but I'm always eager to
> > learn. You are right.
> > It is all the same. No differences. Or maybe there are SOME
> > differences but they are not statistical. They are just an illusion, a
> > puff in the wind, a knock and we are through the mirror in the
> > Wonderland.
>
> Did you not employ statistical analysis in any of the medical DBTs
> you were involved in? Because it's key in analyzing the results of
> the test or tests. Without the statistical analysis you cannot tell
> which results are just random chance and which are really
> significant.
>
> I will agree with your point that when results get very close to
> shoving significance the individual in question should be retested.
> But without the retesting you cannot state that they did hear
> something, only that they may have heard something. But I have yet to
> see you make that qualification.

Dear man , I qualified thusly at least ten times in the
last two years, asking why didn't the proctord pay attention to the
only interesting results, namely
those of the exceptional performers and rechecked them SOS. But I
can't expect you to memorise my collected writings. So for your
convenience: Yes they should have done it. Even though Greenhill ran
not just one but six tests and only two of his subjects scored
consistenly well
in five of them.
You don't say how many times they should have repeated it to
satisfy you and Pinkerton. Twice? 3 times? Ten times like Norman
Strong once suggested?
So let's collaborate on an ideal design
Your statistical prowess encourages me. Let us get an ABX
project, you and I together, based on Sean Olive's results. (of course
he did not use ABX but we respect his results, right?).
To do justice to the differences in performance between trained
(the best) , semitrained (in the middle - 3 times worse) and the great
unwashed (us audio consumers- just like the audio students- 27 times
worse) we'll get three groups going.
First the random collection of audiophiles. Get them ABXed on
anything reasonably comparable other than the grossly unlike
loudspeakers. The result almost guaranteed: "No difference, no
preference".
All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.. Just
what you all would have wanted. The result is accepted without a
murmur just like your predecessors in the
"Stereo Review" days accepted Greenhill, Clark, Masters and so on.
As long as their ABX manipulated results on cable, preamp, amp,
cdplayer, dac were "They are all the same" . Electronics is wonderful
Now group 3, the trained. Some get 80% correct. Panic in the
ranks. This couldn't be! Repeat please. And keep repeating till they
say "uncle" ie. till they are half-deaf and ready to confess that
there is "No difference"- and can I go home, please?
The intermediate group , the salesmen, doesn't count. They
convince easy.
Isn't statistics wonderful too?
Ludovic Mirabel.

Audio Guy
October 3rd 03, 09:56 PM
In article >,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> First the random collection of audiophiles. Get them ABXed on
> anything reasonably comparable other than the grossly unlike
> loudspeakers. The result almost guaranteed: "No difference, no
> preference".
> All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.. Just
> what you all would have wanted. The result is accepted without a
> murmur just like your predecessors in the
> "Stereo Review" days accepted Greenhill, Clark, Masters and so on.
> As long as their ABX manipulated results on cable, preamp, amp,
> cdplayer, dac were "They are all the same" . Electronics is wonderful
> Now group 3, the trained. Some get 80% correct. Panic in the
> ranks. This couldn't be! Repeat please. And keep repeating till they
> say "uncle" ie. till they are half-deaf and ready to confess that
> there is "No difference"- and can I go home, please?
> The intermediate group , the salesmen, doesn't count. They
> convince easy.
> Isn't statistics wonderful too?

You make extreme assumptions about me and DBTs. I have NEVER said that
everything sounds the same. NEVER. I myself have found that I hear
differences in components, both sighted and via DBT. And I never said
that audio consumers MUST use a DBT of some sort to determine which
audio products they should buy.

But I do advocate that one must use a DBT of some sort if one wants to
be sure of differences in audio components because non-blind
comparisons are prone to error, re: the classic "Clever Hans" story.
And an ABX device is a simple way to perform a DBT on audio
components no matter how often your decry "ABX manipulated results".