AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)

(S888Wheel) wrote:

I said

By certain persons I suspect you are including me. That is an interesting
question. Does such a body of evidence even exist? When Tom Nousiane made
his
offer of such evidence the body of evidence he offered was hardly
conclusive
about the audibility of amplifiers.

Tom said

Please don't make up things that I didn't offer.

Well here is what the record shows

"Tom said

Yes, of course. I have spent the time and money to acquire all I can about
listening tests and what they show. My copy of the Proceedings wasn't free;
so
are you expecting me to send you or Scott a free copy? I've done the same
formany. Just ask.

I said

Consider it asked.

Tom said

snail mail address please."

Maybe I am missing something but that looks like such an offer to me.

It looks like and was an offer to send you a copy of the individual article in
the Proceedings that was referent "The Great Debate: Is Anyone Winning".
Nowhere did it include anything else. But I did include 5 other pieces all of
which you simply ignore .... even though you (or anyone else) can produce a
single contrary experiment.

Tom said

You said you had never seen
ANY evidence about the audibility of amps, wires and parts. I offered to
send
you one such report. Indeed one of the ones I did send you lists a couple
dozen
amp experiments.

I said I have never seen any scientifically valid empirical evidence on the
matter.You sent six articles only two of which had the raw data I was asking
about.The two that had raw data had not been published in a peer reviewed
scientific journal so they do not qualify as scientifically valid. It was
nice
of you to send the six articles. Thank you. In light of the fact that I was
asking about *any scientifically valid empirical evidence that supported your
position on the audibility of amps*. My comments on the two articles that
actually had raw data stands. I don't recall any limmits of only one report.

Tom said

What I find interesting is that not ONE credible, replicable bias controlled
report verifying the audibility of nominally competent amps, wires or
capacitors in normally reverberant conditions exists. Not one.

What I find interesting is the best *evidence* you sent me on the matter was
IMO inconclusive. Some of the evidence in the Clark article suggested that
perhaps some people can hear differences and that some amps tested sounded
different to other amps tested. So how do you deal with that? Do you
acknowledge the test was inconclusive which is what I see or do you claim the
test gives us scientifically valid empirical evidence upon which we can draw
definitive conclusions?

Oh please. You said that no evidence was extant either way. Now you will
dismiss anything that seems contrary. WHy not just produce the body? I know why
.... because it doesn't exist. And yet you will continue to buy the Legend
without evidence. That's generally called Faith.

Have a good time harboring your beliefs. I hope you won't make decisions that
only make you feel better snd do not improve the sound quality throughput of
your playback system.

I said

This begs the question are some people
drawing definitive conclusions with less than adequate evidence to draw
such
conclusions? Do you think the two cited articles supply sufficient evience
to
draw any definitive conclusions about the audibility of amplifiers?

Tom said

Find a credible one that suggests otherwise, why don't you?

The article on the Clark tests certainly did suggest that some people can
hear
differences and that some amps sound different than others.

Actually only IF you already believe they don't and will accept only the
partial data that MAY support that conclusion. But why don't you acquire some
of the other reports I suggested?

I said

Do you
think the evidence in those articles qualify as scientifically valid bodies
of
empirical evidence? Do you think the issue of test sensitivity was
sufficiently
addressed in those tests based on the content of those articles?

Tom said

Yes. Definitely.

How? There was no scientific peer review. Are you going to ignore the
protocols
of the scientific world? I think issue of test sensitivity in both cited
articles were quite poorly addressed.

In what ways? What differences other than frequency response, distortion and
level do you reference? How were those verified?

So much so that one can draw multiple
conclusions from the results such as the listeners may have not been
sensitive
enough.

Oh sure that's the standard high-end response to reports of "they sound the
same to me" ...... YOU aren't sensitive enough and/or Your System Isn't Good
Enough. I'm guessing that your system isn't good enough either.

The setup may not have been releavling enough etc. A bad mistake IMO.

OK IS your system Good Enough?

I said

Unfortunately four of the six articles
you sent me had no raw data to examine and only offered conclusions.

Arny said

Would this have made a difference?

I said

It does to me when I am asking for empirical evidence. conclusions and
analysis
is not data. analysis and conclusions without the raw data is just opinions
IMO.

Tom said

The statemrnt about lack of data is simply not true.

Yes it is. Only two of the articles had the raw data.

Tom said

All the reports sent to
him contained raw data.

Straw man. I said "the raw data" which implies all of it. Only two of the six
did this. Heck some of the articles had no raw data.

Tom said

The other was a compilation of results from a couple
dozen previously conducted amplifier tests.

Right. They were an analyisis of data that was not presented in the raw. That
was exactly what I did not want as I already explained.

You made no "requirements" about Raw Data in the beginning did you? But if you
read all of them carefully everyone except "Great Debate" and "Can you
Trust...?" had individual subject responses depicted.

But why would you care? You aren't interested in what the evidence shows, are
you? If you were you'd already have gathered some of the evidence and/or
conducted a modest experiment or two yourself.

Tom said

All Mr Wheel has to do is look them
up.

As if this is an easy and cost free task. We've been down this road before. I
have been on too many fruitless Easter egg hunts on this subject. If those
claiming the existance of evidence cannot provide it than it is unreasonable
for them to expect me to go find it IMO.

Why not? I've been interested and 'found them.' Why do you get a reprieve?

Tom said

But again he originally suggested that no evidence on the matter, one way or
another, actually existed.

Baloney! Never suggested it. Cite your proof or withdraw the claim please. It
is a misrepresentation of anything I said or believe.

So you never said that "you" had never seen any data either way?

Tom said

At the very least one should recognize that plenty of it exists, that
interested parties have had public access to same over the past 30 years and
that you can't find a single experiment that supports the claimed audibility
of
amps and wires.

All I have done is ask to see it. To date not much has been shown to me and
what has been shown is hardly something one could base any definitive
conclusions upon. What you sent me did not prove your position at all.

It certainly didn't support that none of it was extant or wasn't available to
interested parties. But, even so, why do you continue to insist that 'amps
ain't amps' when the only data you have to examine strongly shows otherwise?

It just leaves you to shout 'no' with no evidence to the contrary.

Tom said

What's funny is that Mr Wheel examines the raw data and rejects the
conclusion
"no single listener was able to reliably identify amps under blind
consitions"
that the data clearly depicted.

Wrong.In the Dave Clark test listener #2 got 30/48 correct with a statistical
relaibility of hearing a difference of 94% Listener #6 got 26/48 with a
statistical probablity of 84% chance of hearing differences. Listener #15 got
15/21 correct with an 81% chance of hearing a difference. Given the fact that
no tests were done to measure listener's hearing acuity and no tests were
done
to varify test sensitivty to known barely aduible differences one cannot
conclude anything other than those listeners may have heard differences. Bell
curves have no meaning without data on the listener's hearing acuity. The
logicqal thing would have ben to do follow up tests on those listeners to see
if it was just a fluctuation that fits within the predicted bell curve or if
they really could hear differences as the results suggest. Hence there is no
conclusive evidence from this test that as you say"no single listener was
able
to reliably identify amps under blind conditions. Further more many different
amps were used in this test. If some do sound the same and some do sound
different this will have an affect on everyone's score and the bell curve.For
example a Counterpoint amp was compared to an NAD amp and the results of
30/48
correct answers with a probablity of 94% that a difference was heard. Yet no
follow up was done on this comparison.

Let's sort through the only evidence that Mr Wheel has ever seen and try to
find isolated stuff that supports his prior-held beliefs. Have a good time Mr
Wheel. Why not continue with the other 20+ experiments summarized in "The Great
Debate: Is Anybody Winning?"

Arny said

Bottom line, there are plenty of opportunities now to do your own
experiments, gather and analyze your own data, etc.

I said

1. That is irrelevant. Tom was claiming one could use the extant body of
evidence to make purchasing decisions. I was addressing that claim. 2. That
is
not neccessarily true. Unless if we are trying to limmit this to
scientifically
valid tests.

Tom said

I've been making high quality decisions based on this evidence for a quarter
century.

I believe you believe that.

Sure; and why would you think otherwise? Because I make my decisions based on
sound quality why would you decry them?

I said

So I find the evidence to date that I have seen less than
helpful in purchase decisions.

Tom said

Those who will not see and won'y examine historyt are doomed to repeat
historical mistakes

Something politicians should pay attention to. We are not talking history
here
we are talking evidence. If you can find fault with my analysis of the
evidence
that we have discussed please cite it and prove it.

Sure; ALL the Extant Evidence shows that nominally competent amplifiers are
completely tranparent in normally reverberant conditions to non-biased
listeners. Show me ONE experiment that even suggests otherwise.