[Moderator's note: This subthread has become very repetitive and
almost completely between only 2 people, so it and the other
subthreads with this subject are ended. -- deb ]

(S888Wheel) wrote:


No I haven't been an any easter egg hunts lately. Again, I saw no
measurements
of frequency response in the ones you sent me but I'll dig them out and look
again.

Measurements weren't printed but were taken.


I wonder if this is an adequate response to a peer review group asking for
proof of a definitive claim of fact that is allegedly scientifically valid.
"I
say it's so now you go out and prove it." That isn't going to change many
minds.

Nothing is going to change your mind; no matter how overwhelming.

Tom said
Not that I'm suggesting anything irregular about Stewart's methods. I'm
just
saying that he's the ONLY one who has ever reported these results with this
type of device.

I said


So?
Tom said


And given the results it seems unusual that he didn't verify the usual
conditions that produce similar results.


I said


The results should not cause one to have to do anything different than what
is
normally expected to be done in varifiable tests. I don't see what was
unvarified about the conditions of Stewert's tests. He seems to spell out
the
conditions of his tests pretty well.


Tom said


Frequency response differences were not verified.


Well, I guess one has to ask at this point, were the amps that Stewert said
were "*******" not amps but "equilizers" and how would one know one way or
another when one is a mere consumer? People running around believing all amps
sound the same except SETs and some OTLs may not be as well informed as
objectivists would assume. If those amps sounded different they sounded
different. at least to Stewert on his system.

OK but as you would say ... so what? Every amplifier sounds different on your
street, even those that don't.

Have YOU ever found one that sounded like another?

Stewert said

Hey; this is Tom




So where do we find this list of scientific criteria. If you aren't qualified
to pass judgement how can you say one way or another?


Gosh, i found it in numerous text books in my science classes in high school
and at my university. I also like to ask my friends who also happen to be
working research scientists. I am much kinder towards your favorite tests on
amplifier sound then they are. I showed them the reports you sent me and they
said they were absolute garbage.

Really; then why don't you tell me more?

Did you explain that no one from the "proponent" camp has ever provided an
experiment to meet your criteria that shows that amp sound is true.

Just to be "subjectivist" about this; what were the research credentials of
those folks? Just because you provide this anecdote doesn't mean that we have
to take your word for it.



Tom said


But the scientists and engineers I know fully accept these experiments as
having failed to confirm the existance of amp/wire sound.


We are obviously talking to different scientists.

Yes and I've supplied my list of experts. May I have yours?


Tom said


I'll list a few of them again: Shanefield, Geddes, Rich, Lip****z,
Vanderkooy,
Toole, Olive, Clark, Eargle, Breithaupt, Ranada, Hirsch, Davis, Gibeau....

Julian Hirsch was a scientist? Mr. Clark's report was scoffed at by my
scientist freinds. Is he considered a research scientist?

So what research scientists do you reference. Who scoffed at Clark? Hirsch was
indeed a research scientist; he started the whole 3rd party audio evaluation
paradigm and he followed it through with bias controlled listening tests.



Tom said


I'm accepting their opinion over yours.


That's fine. I never set myself up as an authroity. You respect the opinions
of
some in audio and I respect the opinion of some others. But didn't Julian
Hirsch come out and say the old 14 bit CD players playing the old undithered
CDs were sonically superior and audibally free of distortion? You are free to
take his word on things if you wish.

And that was shown to be true. Not that they were superior but that they didn't
suffer from the sonic problems ascribed to them. And Julian wasn't the only
person who attested to this.



Why not answer the question. Are YOU qualified to comment?


Because it is irrelevant. Why not answer the question I asked you? It is
relevant. I think what i do know about the scientific method qualifies me.

Really? The what about "Do Amplifiers...?" disqualifies it? What about "To
Tweak...?" disqualifies it?

I
am
quite confident that my friends who happen to be actual research scientists
are
quite qualified to comment.

So who are these people? How do they qualify as scientists?

They called them anecdotal. The word garbage was
also thrown around. The problem is my "qualifications" are not at issue.

Sure they are. You've made the challenge and used anonymous references that
can't be verified. So we have to rely on your appeal to authority but you have
no authority referent.

My
comment that they are anecodtal tests scientifically speaking is not right or
wrong because of my qualifications or lack there of. So can you answer the
relevant question i asked you? I'm betting you don't answer the question and
instead focus on me and my qualifications. we'll see.

The relevant question? Yes they meet the basic requirements for scientific
inquiry.


Tom said


I HAVE replicated his test and many others with differing results.


I said



Oh, where did you get the Apogees?


Tom said

I and others have replicated this experiment a couple dozen times with
differing results with other speakers and other amplification devices.

Then you didn't replicate Stewert's tests.

Replication doesn't need excatly the same equipment. Yes, I've replicated the
experiment with other hard loads. And, yes, Stewart's speakers are no longer
commerically available and were only distributed on a limited basis.

So to borrow a oft-employed high-end barter; even if you accept Stewart's
results for that particular set of no-longer available speakers you still can't
extrapolate that experience to any other listener or other loudspeaker.

So where is you evidence of any other speaker and any other amplifiers?



Let's put it this way; Shanefield, Masters/Toole, Masters/Clark, Pererson,
Jackson et al, Shanefield et al have duplicated this test with different
conclusions from those reported by Stewart. And with a greater description
of
the data.


I said


That's nice. It isn't what i would consider a basis for claims of scientific
facts though.

Tom said


Why not? There's no other confirming data of amp sound is there?


I guess you missed the part about tests being anecdotal scientifically
speaking.

So you would consider Toole's work as anecdotal? He'll be happy to hear that.
By the way Shanefield was a research scientist at Bell Labs when he conducted
his work. Recently he retired from Rutgers from a "Distinguished Professor"
post.


Tom said


I know exactly what to do with all data.

Here's a hint. Tossing data you don't like isn't it.

I'd say same to you. That's what you do by failing to consider all the
evidence. I include it all.


Tom said

You are the person that seems to have
that difficulty.


Why? Because I am not picking and choosing data? OK........

Yes you are. I sent you at least one complete experiment with full data that
contradicts the Pinkerton anecdote but you consign it to the 'not worth
considering' bin.

That report is "garbage" but Pinkerton is seemingly not by your definition. And
then you'll cop-out to the "I've not seen any conclusive evidence" argument
again.

We all know where you're going. There will never be sufficient evidence to
overcome your internal bias.

That's fine with me but why continue wasting all our time with these 'debates?'
Don't answer; I know the reason ..... no amount of research can prove the
existence of inaudible differences so you are reduced to debate.


Tom said


Like your rejection of published experiments that didn't have the results
you
wanted?

I said



Since I have made no such rejection of published experiments I would have to
say no. You are alone on this one.


Tom said



OK then you accept "The Great Chicago Cable Caper" and "To Tweak or Not to
Tweak" and "Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" Great!!! Amps is Amps and
Wire
is Wire !!!

I accept those tests for what they are. i don't suspect fraud. i just don't
share your interpretation of the results of those tests. I don't draw global
conclusions and claim they are definitive and scientifically valid from a few
anecdotal tests. We part ways there in a big way.

So then let's tally. There have been a couple dozen "anecdotal" experiments
with listener bias controls implemented that have failed to confirm "amp" sound
that had no documented frequency response anomalies or operational flaws. There
has been one that claimed otherwise but was not fully documented.

There has not been a single experiment of any kind, let alone peer-reviewed,
that has shown that nominally competent amplification devices have any 'sound'
of their own.

If amp sound was extant it would have been seemingly easy for proponents to
show same with a modicum of listener bias. Yet, none have done so.

And Wheel wants us to ignore all available information and just 'assume' amp
sound is a real phenomonon because he says so. How scientific is that?