Tom said


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

I said


That is the 64,000 dollar if.


Tom said


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


I said


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

Tom said


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


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

I said


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


Tom said


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


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

Tom said


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


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

I said


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

Tom said


None of the raw data suggests that.


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

I said


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


Tom said


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

Why is that funny?

Tom said


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

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

Tom said

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


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

Tom said


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


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

Tom said


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

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


Tom said


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


I said


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


Tom said


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

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

I said


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

Tom said


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

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

Tom said

I
figured that would be your position.

You are sadly mistaken about my position.

Tom said

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


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