Scott W says: (Google message 95, Aug. 30
Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants

over 50%.
One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the
expected distribution for random responses of 15 participants.
If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but
reality is...
one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct
And comments: "Elmirs almost BS'ing as bad as Stereophile "

Mr. Scott W.
You're mailing your elegant prose to the wrong address. I did not
invent Greenhill's "Golden Ear" or Greenhill's statistics. I
*quoted* from that impeccably objectivist writer who moderated and
reported the Stereo Review cable test. You are also taking him for a
village moron and insulting his statistics' protocol which for an
objectivist, with an axe to grind, was quite scrupulous (read it!!!). I
suspect that he forgot more statistics than you had ever known. I
learnt mine as an employee of the Med. Research Ccil. of U.K. where
double blind tests were *first ever* used.
I must acknowledge that I admire your temerity in- how shall I put it?-
shooting your mouth off without first looking up the source (I gave
clear reference to it)
Greenhill's "Golden Ear" did not "come at 81% one time" Mr,
Scott W. There were six different cable comparison tests consisting of
15 trials each. The "Golden Ear" got 15 out of 15 in four of them,
12 in one, and 10 in one. Hence 83%-get it?
Prophetically I said to Mr.Le Gal one hour ago:" I can already hear
the parrot cry:
"I do not like this result. I want a repeat, and then a repeat again
and again till Mr. Golden Ear recants and signs up to my revealed
faith."
I'm sorry you don't like cables to be different. But you should be
happy. Greenhill's final conclusion was that ABX rules and as long as
you ABX everything will sound the same.
Ludovic Mirabel