On 2 Aug 2003 00:38:44 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:iRlWa.36496$uu5.4473@sccrnsc04...

All that the above proves (especially since the results were marginal
at best) is that there's a random distribution in the results which
favoured A *on this occasion*. Run that trial again, and I'll put an
even money bet that you'll have a slight bias in favour of B.

Anyone familiar with Statistical Process Control is well aware that
one swallow doesn't make a summer.

This wasn't one swallow, Stewart...this was 96 swallows in one case and 84
in another. A whole pride of swallows.

That's a very poor flocking argument, since a proper evaluation of the
test, using *all* the results, shows that the amps and cables were
most definitely *not* sonically distinguishable. Further, those test
subjects who scored well on cables scored poorly on amps, and vice
versa, proving the point that they could not reliably distinguish any
differences.

So the odds of such severe swings
in opposite directions (even if only marginal) is not very high over the
whole pride. We are not talking a sample of two here.

We are also not talking of any 'swings' that have statistical
significance. This has been pointed out to you several times by
several people, but you still insist on attempting to distort the
results to fit your own prejudices.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering