(Mkuller) wrote:



(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:
If anyone says 'the fact that you knew which product you were
listening to invalidates any audible evaluation you may have made' is
ludicrous.


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
No, it's a simple fact, easily supported by experiment in the case of
subtle differences, such as among nominally competent amplifiers. Why
are you so adamant in refusing to accept simple truths?


Truth? It's your opinion stated as fact... I have never heard two
amplifiers
that sound the same - the greatest differences were between tubed and solid
state amps - competent ones - and you deny those differences exist.

Nope, your comparison method is faulty. The odds are that some of them
did indeed sound different, but others did not.

I can demonstrate a tube amp and a SS amp which sound obviously and
vastly different to a room full of audiioophiles - and I won't
actually have to change the connections for them to 'hear' the
difference.............


So what?

Why will you not accept the plain fact that sighted comparisons are
fatally flawed, and at least *try* it for yourself. What are you
afraid of? Will your ego not admit even the possibility of error?


Why not admit the fact that your application of the DBT *most likely* is
fatally flawed. Will your ego not admit even the possibility of error?

Of course it was consistent, when you *knew* which one was connected!
It's called reinforcement, and any first-year psy student can explain
it to you. This isn't new knowledge, nor is it even in dispute in
medical circles, which is why double-blind testing is *always* used in
medical research.


Yes it used in medical and other research. But until a someone provides a
*validation test* for open-ended audio component comparisons with music as
the
program - your strong beliefs are just speculation.

The point is, it is simply not worth my time to converse with those
who deny that such differences can be heard at all.


Not denying anything of the sort, merely pointing out that your
comparison method is fatally flawed. Try it again under blind
conditions, and you'll find that many of those 'night and day'
diferences magically disappear. Those that remain are *real*
differences, and you will have achieved something. At the moment, you
are sticking your fingers firmly in your ears................


Can you spell *v-a-l-i-d-a-t-i-o-n t-e-s-t*?
Regards,
Mike

I've done the validation test on several occasions. One of the more well knowmn
ones was conducted at a hi-fi store where the owner claimed to have been able
to easily identify amplifiers in his reference system under even blind
conditions.

Turns out that he was unable to reliably identify his 10k+ monoblock amplifiers
from a used $500 integrated amplifier with nothing more than a opague cloth
draped over the terminals so he wasn't able to visually identify which of the
amplifiers was driving his Dunlavy speakers even though they both remained in
full sight.

He was given a subsequent chance to repeat the experiment with an ABX switchbox
the following day and again failed to reliably identify the same two amplifiers
(both of which had remained accessible to him overnight.)

This validates the technique and protocol and tells us that under even the most
perfect of conditions (personal reference system, personally chosen programs,
single listener with total control over every factor except visual
identification, 'interloper' amplifier that would normally be as different as a
personal reference as one could get) that "amplifier" sound doesn't really
exist.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:JJO0c.433001$I06.4901420@attbi_s01...



What you are saying above is a very reasonable position. Unfortunately, it
seems to believed only in the abstract here. When somebody such as Michael
comes on saying he can hear differences in amps...there is no questioning
him on his listening conditions, no consideration of the age or circuitry of
the amps in question (despite one being a digital amp...the one chosen at
that). .no discussion of his stated purpose or state of mind. All that
happens is that he is told because he listened sighted, he is surely
imagining things. Then the turmoil ensues.


I should point out that the Sony TA-N88B, the digital amp, was far and
away the best and most obviously different. It was this amp that my
friend Bob heard compared to the Harmon-Kardon. He said it was 'easy'
to tell them apart. I chose this amp, but unfortunately it kept
failing, an apparent congenital defect of this product. Since it kept
failing, I returned it.

I then had to repeat the whole series of tests, to find an acceptable
amp to purchase that would not break down. I ended up with the Denon,
which was the best of the rest. I still own that amp, bought in 1986,
and it works quite fine.

"Harry Lavo" wrote:




"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote"

...snips to content ....


I think the subjectivists actually find this topic of great interest,
based on how frequently they post in these threads...


You think the objectivists ever let an assertion of heard differences
pass
without comment or challenge?

Try this:

I, Tom Nousaine, analyzed nearly 2 dozen published controlled listening
tests
of power amplifiers that had been conducted to that time, of which only 2
(both
high-output impedance tubed amplifiers; one of which was authored by Arny
Krueger) had confirmed positives for audibility.

Prior and subsequent to that time I've personally confirmed that more than
a
dozen amplifiers I've owned (or used) all sound exactly the same when
operated
within their power limits (Heathkit (2), Parasound (3), Stewart (2) ,
Fidek,
Samson, Adcom, Bryston (4), B&K, SUMO, PASS and Yamaha) either to me or
the
several dozens of subjects employed under listening bias controlled
conditions;
even when conditions were maximally implemented to high-light possible
differences.

But whenever I mention any given experiment subjectivists never let that
pass
without challenge.

The above suggests two possible conclusions:

1) there are no sound differences between amplifiers, except possibly
between tube and solid state based on the output impedance of the tube amp,
or:

2) the test used interferes with and confuses the normal ear-brain
interpretation of music that audiophiles normally use, and therefore is
insensitive to any but the grossest and simplest differences (eg. large
two-dimensional differences in volume or frequency response).

You and other converted believers simply ignore the latter possibility and
have never attempted to validate the adequacy of your preferred tests.

I and other subjectivists over the years have argued the case for the
possibility that number two is the operative factor, and have argued for
alternative tests, only to have it fall on deaf ears.

Subsequently, most subjectivists have simple given up and gone on making
choices their own way and living happily ever after. I and Mike and Wheel
and a few others have chosen to stay, and stay vocal...but without letting
it ruin our enjoyment of the hobby.

Sure; do whatever you want. That's exactly what I do. But why encourage
lurkers to ignore the current body of evidence (none of which you have
supplied) and throw energy and resources at 'problems' that, at best, 'may'
exist in a very small number of special circumstances?

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:81y1c.33527$ko6.326528@attbi_s02...
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:w241c.28038$PR3.503763@attbi_s03...
(snip)

If you would like, go to an audio shop that carries used products
of
this kind, and ask to take them home. Hook them up to a set of Stax
Lambdas through a transformer such as the SRD-7.

Then you will hear the differences.

Not necessarily, plus I've already pointed out that this is a *bad*
method for comparing amps, since the load is not representative of
normal operation.

Since I actually DO use the amp to power the earspeakers, it is indeed
a perfectly valid test, in fact the most important test. If it sounds
bad with the Stax, I can't use it.

You must understand listening over speakers is somewhat less useful,
as the resolution is lower in speakers, and coloration of the room
enters into it. If you want to know what an amp REALLY sounds like,
connect it to a Stax transformer and earspeakers.

How then different model Stax cast recordings differently. Even if Stax
listening is a measure of how good or bad recordings might be (which in
my
experience does not reveal whole picture) different listeners are again
have
differing evaluations. (Perhaps I didn't pick up which model Stax you
are
using, I use the SRM 313 which drives my SR-303 and SR-X MarkIII
simultaneously.)

The Stax unit I use is driven directly by the power amp through a
transformer, called SRD-7. The one you have has a power amp supplied
by Stax. You chose what you want in a power amp, and the sonic
character of the power amp is revealed quite clearly by this set-up.

Here is a similar set-up:


http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...photoho sting

and here is the SRD-7 by itself:

http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...ategory=32 74

If you click on the bottom picure, you can see the power amp taps.

The SR-X Mark III headphones which I have came with the SRD-7 (and it'
flickering neon lamp). I have driven the SRD-7 with all the amps I've ever
owned, Marantz 16B, ARC D76A, GAS Ampzillas, Adcom 555). (I never even
dreamed of taking the time and trouble of hooking up my Bryston 7B STs to
it.) Using those SR-X headphones, and to the best of my recollection, the
sound I heard was no better or different from that using an inexpensive
Kenwood receiver. Of course the Stax Lambda headphones cost about 10X more
than the Stax I used, and are undoubtedly a better and more critical
listening device. The bothersome part of the SRD-7 "transformer", in
addition to its flickering neon lamp which Stax assured was normal for a
neon lamp, is that it is also a switching devise having terminals for
connection to a loudspeaker system. The nature of those terminals being no
better than those found on any Radio Shack amp, it always bothered me as to
what loudspeaker system Stax envisaged being used with that SRD-7. My
feeling about the SRD-7 is that it really isn't very good at all.

The missapplication of the razor responce fails because it also requires
that the whole knot be comprehended. If one puts a cloth over connections
and reported perceptions of the kind you provide are random, then we
account for the larger knot of both the possibility of hardware sources
and mental process sources related to knowledge of what is active. An
accepted explanatorytheory is the one which is the simplest and accounts
for the most information at the same time. The appeal to "repeated and
consistant" are meaningless because they were done with full knowledge of
which amp was active. The appeal to not knowing about some unknown, not
accurate bty, process fails also. If one does the false test where one
amp is used but it is thought two are being switched and results of the
kind you report occurs demands that the effect lies in the perception
process and not the hardware, The razor cuts again, it accounts for both
the hardware as possible source and perception process and provides
unambiguous results. Dbt usage works, that is the razor edge so sharp as
to cause discomfort when the knot of the "obvious" falls away.

"The 'extraordinary claim' is yours, not mine. Occam's principle: that
nature does not act in a more complicated fashion than necessary,
supports the supposition that those who claim to hear gross
differences between components actually hear gross differences in the
performance of components themselves. The reason is that you must
account for a rather complicated behavior for my mind to 'create', ex
nihilo, 7 distinctly different sounds for 7 different amps, and be
able to re-create these sonic 'signatures' exactly and repeatedly, and
only when the amp in question is being listened to, without confusing
them.

What you're claiming, is that I 'invent' a sonic signature for the
Harmon-Kardon, Hafler, 2 different Sony, PS Audio, Denon, and Bryston
amps, and not only that, but also keep them consistent over a long
period of time, and unconfused.

To claim some psychological mechanism (as yet unexplained) is
responsible staggers the imagination. Surely THAT is a far more
'extraordinary claim' than my modest claim: the amps sound different
because they are different."

(Mkuller) wrote:
Can you spell *v-a-l-i-d-a-t-i-o-n t-e-s-t*?


(Nousaine) wrote:
I've done the validation test on several occasions. One of the more well
knowmn
ones was conducted at a hi-fi store where the owner claimed to have been able
to easily identify amplifiers in his reference system under even blind
conditions.

Turns out that he was unable to reliably identify his 10k+ monoblock
amplifiers
from a used $500 integrated amplifier with nothing more than a opague cloth
draped over the terminals so he wasn't able to visually identify which of the
amplifiers was driving his Dunlavy speakers even though they both remained in
full sight.

He was given a subsequent chance to repeat the experiment with an ABX
switchbox
the following day and again failed to reliably identify the same two
amplifiers
(both of which had remained accessible to him overnight.)

This validates the technique and protocol and tells us that under even the
most
perfect of conditions (personal reference system, personally chosen programs,
single listener with total control over every factor except visual
identification, 'interloper' amplifier that would normally be as different as
a
personal reference as one could get) that "amplifier" sound doesn't really
exist.


Your *validation test* is like M. Scarpitti saying he listened to his
amplifiers a second time and got the same results.

What needs to validated is that your DBT doesn't get in the way of identifying
subtle audible differences, particularly in more than one dimension (gross
frequency response or loudness). It would appear that it *does* from all of
the results I've seen.
Regards,
Mike

chung wrote :
Then prove it in a blind test. There is a pool of between 4 and 5
thousand dollars waiting to be collected by anyone who can do this.
You may be interested to know that in the five years or so that it's
been around, no one has even *tried* to collect it.


"Frank O. Hodge" wrote:
Good Lord, that much money riding on telling cables apart? Sooner or
later I'd have to hit it. Well worth the necessary reiterative effort.


Don't get too excitied about winning this money because it's not going to
happen. I put in $500 myself. First DBTs with audio components and music
aren't sensitive enough to show differences between amplifiers, much less
cables. They obscure the subtle differences. And second, to hedge his bet,
Pinkerton added the requirement the the cables in such a test have to measure
withing 0.1db of each other. LOL.
Regards,
Mike

In article ,
(Michael Scarpitti) writes:

If (in separate, isolated trials) seven test subjects are are left
alone in a room with 7 different amps and a Stax Lambda and SRD-7
connected to a high-quality source (I owned the Stax cartidge at the
time, on a Magnepan arm and Thorens turntable), with familiarity of
how to connect these to the amps, and after these subjects are given
however long they want to listen to the set-ups, and all the test
subjects report that the Bryston sounds dull and the PS Audio sounds
bright, and the Harmon Kardon sounds kind of flat and lifeless, and
the Hafler sounds kind of flabby, and the Denon sounds good in most
respects but not outstanding in any, would that be good enough for
you?

Then do it. They will.

I think the fact that he used a turntable as his source may explain
the differences he heard since the phono preamps in different
amplifiers can certainly sound different. If there are any amps that
do sound different it is certainly phono preamps.

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:81y1c.33527$ko6.326528@attbi_s02...
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:w241c.28038$PR3.503763@attbi_s03...
(snip)

If you would like, go to an audio shop that carries used products
of
this kind, and ask to take them home. Hook them up to a set of Stax
Lambdas through a transformer such as the SRD-7.

Then you will hear the differences.

Not necessarily, plus I've already pointed out that this is a *bad*
method for comparing amps, since the load is not representative of
normal operation.

Since I actually DO use the amp to power the earspeakers, it is indeed
a perfectly valid test, in fact the most important test. If it sounds
bad with the Stax, I can't use it.

You must understand listening over speakers is somewhat less useful,
as the resolution is lower in speakers, and coloration of the room
enters into it. If you want to know what an amp REALLY sounds like,
connect it to a Stax transformer and earspeakers.

How then different model Stax cast recordings differently. Even if Stax
listening is a measure of how good or bad recordings might be (which in
my
experience does not reveal whole picture) different listeners are again
have
differing evaluations. (Perhaps I didn't pick up which model Stax you
are
using, I use the SRM 313 which drives my SR-303 and SR-X MarkIII
simultaneously.)

The Stax unit I use is driven directly by the power amp through a
transformer, called SRD-7. The one you have has a power amp supplied
by Stax. You chose what you want in a power amp, and the sonic
character of the power amp is revealed quite clearly by this set-up.

Here is a similar set-up:


http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...photoho sting

and here is the SRD-7 by itself:

http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...ategory=32 74

If you click on the bottom picure, you can see the power amp taps.


Perhaps I should be asking you a more important and meaningful question: In
the time it requires to carefully unwire and re-wire two different amps
(avoiding any "shorts") how is it possible to have the exact mental picture
of their differing sound characteristics. Additionally the amps under test
comparison cannot be called upon to put out anything near that used to drive
most loudspeakers to any reasonably loud level. So what use is any headphone
listening test?

On 4 Mar 2004 17:16:21 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

(Mkuller) wrote:
Why not admit the fact that your application of the DBT *most likely* is
fatally flawed.


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Because it's not a fact - and I can prove it.


mkuller wrote:
...until a someone provides a
*validation test* for open-ended audio component comparisons with music as
the
program - your strong beliefs are just speculation.

Finally! That's just what we've all been waiting for - let's see your
so-called *proof*.

*Real proof* would convince all of us skeptics, that you and the other few
objectivists are right and leave no doubt whatsover to anyone, finally
ending
the "endless debate". Show us what you got...


Bruce Abrams wrote:
Several months you were presented the results of a Swedish Audio Society (or
similarly named audiophile group) paper detailing the results of a blind
listening test of CD players. The results showed a statistically positive
result in the participants being able to distinguish between certain of the
players under test. You were asked to respond to those results in light of
a "validation test" and failed to do so. Perhaps you'd like to now?

In this particular test, one of the CD players was described as sounding
"brighter" than the other; i.e. the differences were large enough in one single
dimension that they could even be identified in an open-ended DBT with music as
the source.

Actually, it just means that the differences were real, and were
identified using the most sensitive test available - DBT. No measure
of the *scale* of the differences is possible from the comments.

Please explain how one single example of a positive DBT could possibly
*validate* the test in all audio component comparison applications - when the
differences are not as large or are multi-dimensional (e.g. imaging).

It appears that what you're looking for is a test which validates your
sighted preconceptions in the absence of any actual difference in the
physical soundfield. Alas, no such test exists.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Michael Scarpitti wrote:


To claim some psychological mechanism (as yet unexplained) is
responsible staggers the imagination. Surely THAT is a far more
'extraordinary claim' than my modest claim: the amps sound different
because they are different.


I went through some of my posts last year and found one which was a
response to one of yours. You said, in that post, that you could hear
green CD pen changes, with no problem at all. Now do you believe that it
is because there is physcial change to the sound (after application of
the green pen on CD), or is the effect due to some psychological
mechanism? What would Occam's rule say about your observation, given
that the whole "green pen" idea started as a joke?

Would the subjectivists among us give Mr. Scarpitti the benefit of the
doubt and agree with him that indeed there was change in the sound? Or
would they now start to ask for a more careful (dare I say controlled)
listening test?

Here's that post of Mr. Scarpitti's:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...s3.newsguy.com

On 3 Mar 2004 17:16:51 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Are you unfamiliar with Stax electrostatic headphones? They are called
'earspeakers'.

That's what Stax calls them. Everyone else calls them headphones......

You simply attach the cables coming from the Stax
transformer to the speaker outputs of your power amp. The headphones
are polarized by AC current, and the power amp supplies the signal.
They are extremely accurate and fast transducers. If you have a chance
to listen to them, do so.

I have listened to them many times, and I have a particular affection
for the Lambda. Perhaps it's a certain lack of familiarity with the
Stax *range* which prompted your challenging the question, since not
all Stax 'phones are self-polarising. Also, the questioner may have
wondered if you had hooked up a dummy speaker load in parallel with
the 'phones, in order to provide a more rigorous test of the power amp
while at the same time using a highly sensitive listening tool.
Clearly, you did not.

However, this has nothing to do with your refusal to understand that
*sighted* testing is useless for the discrimination of subtle sonic
differences. Also, unless you are intending to use *only* the Stax
'phones with that power amp, it's a very poor test of a power amp,
since hardly any power is required to drive them.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 04:18:17 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

wrote in message news:8Ot1c.108407$Xp.466829@attbi_s54...

The scientific community has shown what it has and it corresponds qquite
well to physical reality; what better validation then it works is required
for this backwater of research in the perception of electronic
reproduction. If any showing need be done it is on the part of those
making extraordinary claims that they and the few like them are exceptions
and that they can continue in the comfort of not having done even a
controlled test at all. It is enough to say "it might be true", as though
that truism carries the day on behalf of their mutual/self confirming
experience/speculation. Until they test their claim to being exceptions,
it is no better then any opinion one can get at any corner bar on any
evening. It is easy to show how the ear/brain can be tricked, it is the
norm in fact that this is a part of everyday experience; it happens in the
perception process, not in the hardware.

The 'extraordinary claim' is yours, not mine. Occam's principle: that
nature does not act in a more complicated fashion than necessary,
supports the supposition that those who claim to hear gross
differences between components actually hear gross differences in the
performance of components themselves.

Actually, Occam's Razor suggest that all nominally competent
amplifiers do indeed sound the same.

In the light of many decades of psy research which shows that our
perceptions aree very easily fooled, Occam's Razor also suggests that
the simplest explanation for your claims is that the perceived
differences existed only inside your skull. Of course, that may not be
the case for every amplifier, but without a blind test, you'll never
know for sure.

The reason is that you must
account for a rather complicated behavior for my mind to 'create', ex
nihilo, 7 distinctly different sounds for 7 different amps, and be
able to re-create these sonic 'signatures' exactly and repeatedly, and
only when the amp in question is being listened to, without confusing
them.

It's easily accounted for, and can easily be explained to you by any
1st year psy student. Your refusal to accept this possibility can also
be explained to you by any 1st year psy student........

What you're claiming, is that I 'invent' a sonic signature for the
Harmon-Kardon, Hafler, 2 different Sony, PS Audio, Denon, and Bryston
amps, and not only that, but also keep them consistent over a long
period of time, and unconfused.

Yup, ragazine reviewers do this all the time, re the 'airiness' of
tube amps. the 'bass slam' of Krell amps, the 'inner detail' of SET
amps, ets etc etc. This classification and reinforcement is something
that we humans do all the time, which is why we must control for bias
when performing listening tests.

To claim some psychological mechanism (as yet unexplained) is
responsible staggers the imagination.

It has been explained to you ad nauseam. The mechanism underlying your
denial can also be explained............

Surely THAT is a far more
'extraordinary claim' than my modest claim: the amps sound different
because they are different.

Nope, because your methodology is *known* to be fatally flawed, and
the flaw is easily proven.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:G6y1c.453075$I06.5123397@attbi_s01...
"Harry Lavo"

...snip to content..... Now Harry, how does the word "recommend" become
"insist"?


The insistance is that the test be a blind comparative a-b or a-b-x test
rather than a serial, modadic, evaluative test that happens to be blind.

Seems to me that the insistence comes from you. Nobody objects to a serial,
modadic, evaluative blind test. You are the only person who "insists" a test
that is this involved and requires months and multiple subjects, and have not
bothered to do same yourself.

When do we start?


As far as I am concerned, you don't have to do any controlled testing.
You can pick amps/cables based on whatever criteria. However, when you
want to convince others that there is real, audible, difference between
them, you should use controlled testing like DBT to make sure that
expectation bias (and other stuff like mismatched levels) does not
invalidate your listening tests. DBT is the standard methodology on
difference detection for such a long time, that I don't see any reason
why Michael would have problem with it.


He may not have a problem with it. Other than to consider it a waste of
time. But he certainly didn't expect to be told that he was wrong, wrong,
wrong to have thought he heard different sound characteristics from the amps
because he didn't do the test double blind. He might or might not have
heard such characteristics...he was given no benefit of the doubt.

Why should he have been given a 'benefit'? Those of us who have gone the extra
mile (actually putting the question to our and others ears under bias
controlled conditions) get no quarter from him (or you) about results.

What difference is there between listening to two or more amps in
succession about which I know nothing (other than their name) and
listening to two or more amps in succession whose names I do not know?

What you're suggesting is that merely knowing the names of these
products -- and ONLY that -- will 'create' a whole sonic 'signature'
for each!

That's preposterous on its face.

Remember, I knew nothing about any of these amps whatsoever, except
what in one case: what I read in the Harmon-Kardon literature.

If I were 'prone' to hear differences between them that may or may not
have there (your claim), that same 'bias' (your term) should be
equally present regardless of my 'knowledge' of which amp I was
listening to.

In other words, why should I be MORE 'biased' (your term) by the name
'PS Audio' than 'A'?

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 04:12:19 GMT, "Frank O. Hodge"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Then prove it in a blind test. There is a pool of between 4 and 5
thousand dollars waiting to be collected by anyone who can do this.
You may be interested to know that in the five years or so that it's
been around, no one has even *tried* to collect it.

Good Lord, that much money riding on telling cables apart? Sooner or
later I'd have to hit it. Well worth the necessary reiterative effort.

You do hit the nail neatly on the head, as it's certainly *possible*
to toss 16 heads out of twenty tosses. However, the odds are pretty
good that the coin was loaded, so we're happy to take that chance.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 3 Mar 2004 22:28:56 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

Understand, the listening scenario I suggested is not to
imply I could pick out a wire by name brand...however,
in the quiet listening space of my own audio system I
can detect which cable fits best in that audio environment..
..in the intial stages..the brand is not a factor. Naturally
I would need to know that, should I desire to go to a
vendor to purchase it. Grasp that the initial stage of this
scenario is the important one...not attaching a vendor
name to the wire.

The problem with your scenario is that not one single person has yet
been found who can actually tell the difference between two wires of
very roughly equivalent LCR parameters, under blind conditions. As is
well known, a healthy prize awaits the first person who can
demonstrate this ability.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 3 Mar 2004 17:42:51 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:w241c.28038$PR3.503763@attbi_s03...
(snip)

If you would like, go to an audio shop that carries used products of
this kind, and ask to take them home. Hook them up to a set of Stax
Lambdas through a transformer such as the SRD-7.

Then you will hear the differences.

Not necessarily, plus I've already pointed out that this is a *bad*
method for comparing amps, since the load is not representative of
normal operation.

Since I actually DO use the amp to power the earspeakers, it is indeed
a perfectly valid test, in fact the most important test. If it sounds
bad with the Stax, I can't use it.

You must understand listening over speakers is somewhat less useful,
as the resolution is lower in speakers, and coloration of the room
enters into it. If you want to know what an amp REALLY sounds like,
connect it to a Stax transformer and earspeakers.

That is only true if you're *not* going to use it with speakers. If
that's so in your case, then fine. This however still leaves the basic
point that *sighted* listening is known (and is easily provable) to be
*useless* for the determination of subtle sonic differences, such as
you might find among nominally competent amplifiers.

BTW, I have indeed listened to various Stax models over the years, and
the Lamdas are excellent 'phones by any standard. However, I
frequently don't hear the differences you claim, when I don't *know*
what's connected. To paraphrase your claim above - try a blind test,
then you will not hear those differences. Note that I'm not saying
that *all* amps sound the same, just that many do.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Mkuller wrote:
chung wrote :
Then prove it in a blind test. There is a pool of between 4 and 5
thousand dollars waiting to be collected by anyone who can do this.
You may be interested to know that in the five years or so that it's
been around, no one has even *tried* to collect it.


"Frank O. Hodge" wrote:
Good Lord, that much money riding on telling cables apart? Sooner or
later I'd have to hit it. Well worth the necessary reiterative effort.


Don't get too excitied about winning this money because it's not going to
happen. I put in $500 myself. First DBTs with audio components and music
aren't sensitive enough to show differences between amplifiers, much less
cables.

How have you *validated* that claim?

They obscure the subtle differences.

How have you *validated* that claim?

And second, to hedge his bet,
Pinkerton added the requirement the the cables in such a test have to measure
within 0.1db of each other. LOL.

Gosh, Mr. Kuller, are you saying that one can predict the sound of cables
from this *spec*? I thought such measurements simply *couldn't* capture
teh real sonic differences bettween components?

My money says that cables which *do* measure to within 0.1 dB *have* been
perceived as sounding different, by 'audiophiles'....but *won't* be
when proper controls are instituted.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

chung wrote in message news:u3L1c.477230$na.1146724@attbi_s04...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:


To claim some psychological mechanism (as yet unexplained) is
responsible staggers the imagination. Surely THAT is a far more
'extraordinary claim' than my modest claim: the amps sound different
because they are different.


I went through some of my posts last year and found one which was a
response to one of yours. You said, in that post, that you could hear
green CD pen changes, with no problem at all.

Correct. I can. It's subtle, but real. Audible with the Stax Lambda's.

Now do you believe that it
is because there is physcial change to the sound (after application of
the green pen on CD), or is the effect due to some psychological
mechanism?

Some CD's were affected, some not.

What would Occam's rule say about your observation, given
that the whole "green pen" idea started as a joke?

That regardless of that 'fact' the difference is real. Basically, the
effect of the green pen is reduced hiss, no more, no less.


Would the subjectivists among us give Mr. Scarpitti the benefit of the
doubt and agree with him that indeed there was change in the sound? Or
would they now start to ask for a more careful (dare I say controlled)
listening test?

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:sIK1c.458953$I06.5174369@attbi_s01...

I think the fact that he used a turntable as his source may explain
the differences he heard since the phono preamps in different
amplifiers can certainly sound different. If there are any amps that
do sound different it is certainly phono preamps.

As stated:

These were all power amps, all driven through the same pre-amp, and
not through a phono section, as I was using the Stax electret
cartridge which has its own amplifier built in. With this cartridge,
you use aux inputs.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:02:50 GMT, chung wrote:

Michael Scarpitti wrote:


To claim some psychological mechanism (as yet unexplained) is
responsible staggers the imagination. Surely THAT is a far more
'extraordinary claim' than my modest claim: the amps sound different
because they are different.


I went through some of my posts last year and found one which was a
response to one of yours. You said, in that post, that you could hear
green CD pen changes, with no problem at all. Now do you believe that it
is because there is physcial change to the sound (after application of
the green pen on CD), or is the effect due to some psychological
mechanism? What would Occam's rule say about your observation, given
that the whole "green pen" idea started as a joke?

Would the subjectivists among us give Mr. Scarpitti the benefit of the
doubt and agree with him that indeed there was change in the sound? Or
would they now start to ask for a more careful (dare I say controlled)
listening test?

Here's that post of Mr. Scarpitti's:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...s3.newsguy.com

As it happens, a very long time ago, before the scales fell from my
eyes, a group of us actually did try a very carefully controlled
experiment involving 6 CDs from the same batch of pressings of Dave
Brubeck's 'Late Night Brubeck', played through Naim electronics into
Epos ES11 speakers ( the shop demo system of the guy who owned the
record store which naturally had lots of those discs). The 'green
penned' discs sounded exactly the same as the untreated discs -
although a couple of the original batch were rejected because for no
known reason they did not sound the same as the other four.
Scarpitti's claim is extraordinary at best.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:35:15 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

chung wrote :
Then prove it in a blind test. There is a pool of between 4 and 5
thousand dollars waiting to be collected by anyone who can do this.
You may be interested to know that in the five years or so that it's
been around, no one has even *tried* to collect it.

"Frank O. Hodge" wrote:
Good Lord, that much money riding on telling cables apart? Sooner or
later I'd have to hit it. Well worth the necessary reiterative effort.


Don't get too excitied about winning this money because it's not going to
happen. I put in $500 myself.

A wonderful confirmation of the depth of your belief, but has no other
value.

First DBTs with audio components and music
aren't sensitive enough to show differences between amplifiers, much less
cables.

Well, that would be because there *are* no audible differences,
whatever you might care to believe. That's why so many people were
happy to contribute to the pot.

They obscure the subtle differences. And second, to hedge his bet,
Pinkerton added the requirement the the cables in such a test have to measure
withing 0.1db of each other. LOL.

This is a trivial requirement which will allow 50 cents a foot 12AWG
'zipcord' and $1,000 a foot Kimber Black Pearl into the same test with
no extra components. Also any nominally competent amplifier. Are you
claiming that they will therefore sound the same?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:56:09 GMT, chung wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:

Nor is it often possible when comparing amps,
without a very expensive control box which may itself interfere with the
speaker/amp/cable interaction.

The "very expensive" control box simply contains a relay or a manual
switch. If you are concerned that the relay/switch *must* add
distortion, then simply do a control test to eliminate that fear. You
can listen to the system with the control box bypassed or not bypassed,
and see if you can detect any difference, blind, of course. Also
remember that if there is any contribution at all (which there should
not be if the control box is carefully designed), that contribution
applies to all the amps.

This is an old saw that gets dragged out every time the subjectivists
are backed into a corner. It is however interesting to note that in
perhaps the most notorious DBT, the so-called 'Sunshine Trials', the
listener first tried simple cable substitution, and found that he
could no longer hear the 'night and day' differences he had claimed,
so he then switched to the ABX box because he felt it was *more*
senitive due to the ability to fast-switch. Of course, he still failed
to tell any differences.

Still, at least he *tried* a blind test to discover the truth of the
matter, he did not simply claim that it was *impossible* for him to be
mistaken about what he heard in sighted tests.....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
(Mkuller) wrote:



(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:
If anyone says 'the fact that you knew which product you were
listening to invalidates any audible evaluation you may have made' is
ludicrous.


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
No, it's a simple fact, easily supported by experiment in the case of
subtle differences, such as among nominally competent amplifiers. Why
are you so adamant in refusing to accept simple truths?


Truth? It's your opinion stated as fact... I have never heard two
amplifiers
that sound the same - the greatest differences were between tubed and
solid
state amps - competent ones - and you deny those differences exist.

Nope, your comparison method is faulty. The odds are that some of them
did indeed sound different, but others did not.

I can demonstrate a tube amp and a SS amp which sound obviously and
vastly different to a room full of audiioophiles - and I won't
actually have to change the connections for them to 'hear' the
difference.............


So what?

Why will you not accept the plain fact that sighted comparisons are
fatally flawed, and at least *try* it for yourself. What are you
afraid of? Will your ego not admit even the possibility of error?


Why not admit the fact that your application of the DBT *most likely* is
fatally flawed. Will your ego not admit even the possibility of error?

Of course it was consistent, when you *knew* which one was connected!
It's called reinforcement, and any first-year psy student can explain
it to you. This isn't new knowledge, nor is it even in dispute in
medical circles, which is why double-blind testing is *always* used in
medical research.


Yes it used in medical and other research. But until a someone provides
a
*validation test* for open-ended audio component comparisons with music
as
the
program - your strong beliefs are just speculation.

The point is, it is simply not worth my time to converse with those
who deny that such differences can be heard at all.


Not denying anything of the sort, merely pointing out that your
comparison method is fatally flawed. Try it again under blind
conditions, and you'll find that many of those 'night and day'
diferences magically disappear. Those that remain are *real*
differences, and you will have achieved something. At the moment, you
are sticking your fingers firmly in your ears................


Can you spell *v-a-l-i-d-a-t-i-o-n t-e-s-t*?
Regards,
Mike

I've done the validation test on several occasions. One of the more well
knowmn
ones was conducted at a hi-fi store where the owner claimed to have been
able
to easily identify amplifiers in his reference system under even blind
conditions.

Turns out that he was unable to reliably identify his 10k+ monoblock
amplifiers
from a used $500 integrated amplifier with nothing more than a opague
cloth
draped over the terminals so he wasn't able to visually identify which of
the
amplifiers was driving his Dunlavy speakers even though they both remained
in
full sight.

He was given a subsequent chance to repeat the experiment with an ABX
switchbox
the following day and again failed to reliably identify the same two
amplifiers
(both of which had remained accessible to him overnight.)

This validates the technique and protocol and tells us that under even the
most
perfect of conditions (personal reference system, personally chosen
programs,
single listener with total control over every factor except visual
identification, 'interloper' amplifier that would normally be as different
as a
personal reference as one could get) that "amplifier" sound doesn't really

exist.

Tom, you know darn well that if the technique itself interferes with normal
musical ear-brain processing, the above anecdotal test doesn't "validate"
anything. It simply is one case of the test showing a "null:" while sighted
listening did not. If the test is valid, the result is valid. If the test
is not valid, the result is not valid. It's as simple as that. And years
of audiologist research into perceptual levels does not validate it for this
purpose either, as has been discussed here many times.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:KvQ1c.44925$PR3.895219@attbi_s03...

snip, not particularly relevant to following

As it happens, a very long time ago, before the scales fell from my
eyes, a group of us actually did try a very carefully controlled
experiment involving 6 CDs from the same batch of pressings of Dave
Brubeck's 'Late Night Brubeck', played through Naim electronics into
Epos ES11 speakers ( the shop demo system of the guy who owned the
record store which naturally had lots of those discs). The 'green
penned' discs sounded exactly the same as the untreated discs -
although a couple of the original batch were rejected because for no
known reason they did not sound the same as the other four.
Scarpitti's claim is extraordinary at best.

Of course, no "social interaction" effect there, eh Stewart?

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

.....snip to content ......


This validates the technique and protocol and tells us that under even the
most
perfect of conditions (personal reference system, personally chosen
programs,
single listener with total control over every factor except visual
identification, 'interloper' amplifier that would normally be as different
as a
personal reference as one could get) that "amplifier" sound doesn't really

exist.

Tom, you know darn well that if the technique itself interferes with normal
musical ear-brain processing, the above anecdotal test doesn't "validate"
anything. It simply is one case of the test showing a "null:" while sighted
listening did not. If the test is valid, the result is valid. If the test
is not valid, the result is not valid. It's as simple as that. And years
of audiologist research into perceptual levels does not validate it for this
purpose either, as has been discussed here many times.

So Harry; when are you going to 'validate' open testing sensitivity to
acoustical difference without confounding factors? Single and double blind
tests are the vehicles that separate anecdote, wishful thinking, merchandising
and even well intentioned common human bias from perceptual errors that assign
acoustical cause to non-acoustical factors.

When obvious 'differences' evaporate when nothing more than a cloth is placed
over I/O terminals what would be the acoustical masking mechanism? If the
"sound" was real then how can simple bias controls (not applied to the signal
path) possibly mask them?

In the 35 years of The Great Debate why hasn't any amp/wire advocate ever been
able to produce a replicable experiment, free of known human bias mechanisms,
that validates their claims?

Your position seems to be simply arguing the extant results without bringing
new data of interest to the table. If you have some evidence that the human
tendency to report difference when given 2 identical stimuli then let's see if.
If you have some evidence that humans do NOT confuse small differences in
loudness with changes in quality why not share that with us, as well.

If you have some evidence (other than anecdotes) that acoustical factors
previously unknown affect human perception why not let us in on the secret?

It is true that ".... years
of audiologist research into perceptual levels does not validate it for this
purpose either, as has been discussed here many times" because, IMO "this
purpose" has no acoustical basis.

There's nothing wrong with that but I'm wondering why the subjectivists just
can't leave it at that. It would seem that if there were acoustical cause for
amp/cable/tweak differences it would be impossible for any set of acoustically
based bias controls to stop any given subject from "hearing" them.

Just my guess.

wrote in message ...
Simply put a cloth over the connections of the active item under test,
everything else you suggest below is satisfied; you just don't know what
is connected when. The cloth can in no way change ability to do pattern
recognition. With or without the cloth this remains a purely "simply use
your ears" test. Ability to speculate about some maybe thing is not the
same as you doing the test. The below is both a strawman and a red
herring. It is your speculation, the burden of proof is on you, otherwise
the long held testing approaches have nothing to undermine their continued
use and the excellent track record they have to now displayed.

"How about pattern recognition and hard-wired emotional responses, things
that may be operation even below "thresholds of hearing" much like small
signal recognition below noise level. Don't think pattern recognition has
anything to do with it. How about "that sounds real" versus "something is
wrong". Those are not responses to a single two-dimensional volume
difference. Those are strong, recalled patterns that experience and live
music associate with a cluster of related characteristics that together
signals "sounds real" or "something wrong". Likewise the anomalies that
result in a lack of rhythmic response versus the normal "toe tapping" to a
rhythmic piece of music? None of this has been researched with regard to
blind comparative test interference, versus monadic, evaluative testing
and ordinary music listening. Until that is done, the scientific work on
"thresholds" just doesn't amount to much."


I think you misunderstand me. I have nothing against "blind"; I do have a
lot against comparative and particularly abx, which is the test of choice
here. I've already proposed a blind, monadic, evaluative test as a
validating "bridge" between the double-blind abx or comparative ab test
(better) and a monadic, evaluative sighted test. Your approach would allow
that. But it does require a second person to set up, record the
configuration, reward the responses. And the evaluative process would take
me at minimum a copy of days. As a bachelor, that makes for a tough
condition. Unfortunately, the quick-switch approach for amplifiers is
requires special equipment and is cumbersome. And I am not much interested
in cables.

Tom's response in another post to "let's start" is the first positive
response to my validation proposal, where I proposed he, I, and another
person do all three tests to "shake out" the procedures. But unfortunately
the sighted testing requires at least a dozen and a half or so "takers" in
order to build an appropriate statistical base, and even that number is very
low compared to the ideal (of a minimum 100).

But it's a start. Perhaps we are getting somewhere.

"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message news:gQK1c.458979$I06.5174464@attbi_s01...


Perhaps I should be asking you a more important and meaningful question: In
the time it requires to carefully unwire and re-wire two different amps
(avoiding any "shorts") how is it possible to have the exact mental picture
of their differing sound characteristics.

I repeated the trials several times.

Additionally the amps under test
comparison cannot be called upon to put out anything near that used to drive
most loudspeakers to any reasonably loud level. So what use is any headphone
listening test?

Huh? I would be using the selected amp with these headphones. I also
connected them to and listened to the speakers, which showed similar,
but less dramatic differences.

(Mkuller) wrote:




(Mkuller) wrote:
Can you spell *v-a-l-i-d-a-t-i-o-n t-e-s-t*?


(Nousaine) wrote:
I've done the validation test on several occasions. One of the more well
knowmn
ones was conducted at a hi-fi store where the owner claimed to have been
able
to easily identify amplifiers in his reference system under even blind
conditions.

Turns out that he was unable to reliably identify his 10k+ monoblock
amplifiers
from a used $500 integrated amplifier with nothing more than a opague cloth
draped over the terminals so he wasn't able to visually identify which of
the
amplifiers was driving his Dunlavy speakers even though they both remained
in
full sight.

He was given a subsequent chance to repeat the experiment with an ABX
switchbox
the following day and again failed to reliably identify the same two
amplifiers
(both of which had remained accessible to him overnight.)

This validates the technique and protocol and tells us that under even the
most
perfect of conditions (personal reference system, personally chosen
programs,
single listener with total control over every factor except visual
identification, 'interloper' amplifier that would normally be as different
as
a
personal reference as one could get) that "amplifier" sound doesn't really
exist.


Your *validation test* is like M. Scarpitti saying he listened to his
amplifiers a second time and got the same results.

What needs to validated is that your DBT doesn't get in the way of
identifying
subtle audible differences, particularly in more than one dimension (gross
frequency response or loudness). It would appear that it *does* from all of
the results I've seen.
Regards,
Mike

I followed that experiment with one designed to maximize possible un-validated
high-end difference mechanisms including high-end vacumn tubes, specialty
interconnects and wires, outboard DAC, high-end amplifier, vibration reduction
device, ultra careful wire dress compared to a $99 kit ss pre-amp (20 years
old); $200 (used) solid state amplifier, junk box interconnects, 16-gauge
car-speaker wire with especially careless wire dress.

With cable swaps not one of 9 hard-core, experienced audiophiles (and one
female junior high school teacher) could reliably differentiate those systems
in single listener listening tests with nothing more than the loudspeaker
terminals being covered with a black cloth.

IMO if amp/cable/tweak differences are soooo subtle that a blanket, covering
terminals wtihout any acoustical effect, will "mask" them from the perception
of experienced audiophiles,then they aren't important enough for serious audio
enthusiasts to worry over.

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

....snip......

He might or might not have
heard such characteristics...he was given no benefit of the doubt.

Why should he have been given a 'benefit'? Those of us who have gone the
extra
mile (actually putting the question to our and others ears under bias
controlled conditions) get no quarter from him (or you) about results.

What difference is there between listening to two or more amps in
succession about which I know nothing (other than their name) and
listening to two or more amps in succession whose names I do not know?

Whose names you do not know? If I'm mistaken you did know the brands of
amplifiers when you brought them home did you not?

Knowing the brand isn't an issue ....reducing decisions on sound quality to
sonic attributes alone is.


What you're suggesting is that merely knowing the names of these
products -- and ONLY that -- will 'create' a whole sonic 'signature'
for each!

Big over-generalization. No one has ever suggested that.


That's preposterous on its face.

Remember, I knew nothing about any of these amps whatsoever, except
what in one case: what I read in the Harmon-Kardon literature.

That makes one wonder why you were 'looking.' But who cares. Just for the
record I'm used to seeing the name Harman spelled without an "o". Am I missing
something?

If I were 'prone' to hear differences between them that may or may not
have there (your claim), that same 'bias' (your term) should be
equally present regardless of my 'knowledge' of which amp I was
listening to.

Could be; but there are other possible bias factors involved such as input
sensitivities or otherwise un-matched levels or dissimilar programs.


In other words, why should I be MORE 'biased' (your term) by the name
'PS Audio' than 'A'?

Don't know; never said that you were. Appearance is another good mechanism. But
to answer the specific question more specifically much of human bias (not tobe
confused with acoustical bias) is held at the subconscious level and
technically not directly 'known' to the subject at a conscious level. So what?

I'm only concerned with acoustically-based results. Which is why I prefer
listening that does everything it can, given a set-up, to reduce sound quality
and acoustical performance to acoustical factors as much as possible.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:09:25 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

chung wrote in message news:u3L1c.477230$na.1146724@attbi_s04...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:


To claim some psychological mechanism (as yet unexplained) is
responsible staggers the imagination. Surely THAT is a far more
'extraordinary claim' than my modest claim: the amps sound different
because they are different.


I went through some of my posts last year and found one which was a
response to one of yours. You said, in that post, that you could hear
green CD pen changes, with no problem at all.

Correct. I can. It's subtle, but real. Audible with the Stax Lambda's.

Now this one is easily answered, since I actually have taken part in
such a test, and that was *before* I discovered that the whole thing
started as a practical joke in the newsgroups. It does *not* make any
kind of difference whatever. Further, there is no mechanism by which
it possibly *could* make a difference. You were, as with your claims
about amplifier sound, simply imagining the 'difference'.

Now do you believe that it
is because there is physcial change to the sound (after application of
the green pen on CD), or is the effect due to some psychological
mechanism?

Some CD's were affected, some not.

None were, in fact, affected at all.

What would Occam's rule say about your observation, given
that the whole "green pen" idea started as a joke?

That regardless of that 'fact' the difference is real. Basically, the
effect of the green pen is reduced hiss, no more, no less.

Impossible, and absolute nonsense.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 02:17:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:KvQ1c.44925$PR3.895219@attbi_s03...

snip, not particularly relevant to following

As it happens, a very long time ago, before the scales fell from my
eyes, a group of us actually did try a very carefully controlled
experiment involving 6 CDs from the same batch of pressings of Dave
Brubeck's 'Late Night Brubeck', played through Naim electronics into
Epos ES11 speakers ( the shop demo system of the guy who owned the
record store which naturally had lots of those discs). The 'green
penned' discs sounded exactly the same as the untreated discs -
although a couple of the original batch were rejected because for no
known reason they did not sound the same as the other four.
Scarpitti's claim is extraordinary at best.

Of course, no "social interaction" effect there, eh Stewart?

Of course not, since it was a double-blind test. Sorry, I should have
made that clear. There were four listeners, one of whom was the store
owner, and he set up the test precisely so that he could prove to us
that the green pens he sold were effective. It was only much later
that I discovered that the whole 'green pen' thing was a practical
joke atarted by Jim Johnson. In point of fact, when you look at the
science, there is no possible mechanism by which a green edge can
possibly make a difference to CD replay.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:35:15 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:


chung wrote :

Then prove it in a blind test. There is a pool of between 4 and 5

thousand dollars waiting to be collected by anyone who can do this.
You may be interested to know that in the five years or so that it's
been around, no one has even *tried* to collect it.

"Frank O. Hodge" wrote:
Good Lord, that much money riding on telling cables apart? Sooner or
later I'd have to hit it. Well worth the necessary reiterative effort.


Don't get too excitied about winning this money because it's not going to
happen. I put in $500 myself.


A wonderful confirmation of the depth of your belief, but has no other
value.


[snip]

It's got value of another $500 right in my pocket, that's what. Some
$5000, for telling cables apart? Perhaps five cables, 60 seconds for
each audition (because the differences will be subtle but obvious), 25
permutations, a couple of pots of coffee and associated breaks, and
there's merely a light afternoon's work. All I infer is that I've got
to guess them right, one time only, not that I've got to write a memo or
any such thing.

If one would include throwing a cloth over the subjects, or not, then,
sure, that would double the work but for $5000 it would remain
manageable for the afternoon.

I'd endorse the check with a green CD pen. Not that I'm going to start
coloring on my CDs with one. The children can try to do that by themselves.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:KvQ1c.44925$PR3.895219@attbi_s03...

As it happens, a very long time ago, before the scales fell from my
eyes, a group of us actually did try a very carefully controlled
experiment involving 6 CDs from the same batch of pressings of Dave
Brubeck's 'Late Night Brubeck', played through Naim electronics into
Epos ES11 speakers ( the shop demo system of the guy who owned the
record store which naturally had lots of those discs). The 'green
penned' discs sounded exactly the same as the untreated discs -
although a couple of the original batch were rejected because for no
known reason they did not sound the same as the other four.
Scarpitti's claim is extraordinary at best.

The Stax Lambdas allow one to hear things that most transducers do
not. What is 'extraordinary' is their clarity. With these devices, I
can hear the difference on some CD's, with the green-pen treatment.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:95L1c.42957$PR3.843082@attbi_s03...


Actually, Occam's Razor suggest that all nominally competent
amplifiers do indeed sound the same.

Question-begging. What is 'competent'? The ones that sound the same?

In the light of many decades of psy research which shows that our
perceptions aree very easily fooled, Occam's Razor also suggests that
the simplest explanation for your claims is that the perceived
differences existed only inside your skull. Of course, that may not be
the case for every amplifier, but without a blind test, you'll never
know for sure.

....and just HOW does the perception into which I am thus 'fooled'
unfold itself in such explicit detail, that highs are rolled off on
one amp, transients ring on another, and dynamic compression occurs on
a third? How creative I must be to do this all in my head! And how
consistent I must be to be able to reproduce these 'phenomena'
precisely 4 months later, when after the amp I selected kept blowing
up, and I repeated the auditions! Occam's razor does, in fact, support
my interpretation much more than yours.

The reason is that you must
account for a rather complicated behavior for my mind to 'create', ex
nihilo, 7 distinctly different sounds for 7 different amps, and be
able to re-create these sonic 'signatures' exactly and repeatedly, and
only when the amp in question is being listened to, without confusing
them.

It's easily accounted for, and can easily be explained to you by any
1st year psy student. Your refusal to accept this possibility can also
be explained to you by any 1st year psy student........

Then do it. In detail, please. I want you to account for ALL of the
phenomena I heard: the Bryston's bass-heaviness, the H-K's reticence,
the Sony TA-N88B's extreme clarity. Explain away!


What you're claiming, is that I 'invent' a sonic signature for the
Harmon-Kardon, Hafler, 2 different Sony, PS Audio, Denon, and Bryston
amps, and not only that, but also keep them consistent over a long
period of time, and unconfused.

Yup, ragazine reviewers do this all the time, re the 'airiness' of
tube amps. the 'bass slam' of Krell amps, the 'inner detail' of SET
amps, ets etc etc. This classification and reinforcement is something
that we humans do all the time, which is why we must control for bias
when performing listening tests.

You forget I had no prior experience or opinion of these products.
Tube amps DO sound different, because they add distortions that are
different from transistor distortions.


To claim some psychological mechanism (as yet unexplained) is
responsible staggers the imagination.

It has been explained to you ad nauseam. The mechanism underlying your
denial can also be explained............

No, not even once. I want mechanisms that create a specific sound
signature, nothing less, or else you offer nothing.


Surely THAT is a far more
'extraordinary claim' than my modest claim: the amps sound different
because they are different.

Nope, because your methodology is *known* to be fatally flawed, and
the flaw is easily proven.

Then prove it. You cannot, of course.

(Nousaine)
So Harry; when are you going to 'validate' open testing sensitivity to
acoustical difference without confounding factors?

No one needs to *validate* open-ended observational listening because no one is
claiming it is *perfect*, like you seem to claiming about your audio DBTs. It
is prefereable, in our opinion, to risk a possible *false positive* in
observational listening, rather than face the *certainty* of a false negative
in a DBT when subtle differences are involved.

Single and double blind
tests are the vehicles that separate anecdote, wishful thinking,
merchandising
and even well intentioned common human bias from perceptual errors that
assign
acoustical cause to non-acoustical factors.

When obvious 'differences' evaporate when nothing more than a cloth is placed
over I/O terminals what would be the acoustical masking mechanism? If the
"sound" was real then how can simple bias controls (not applied to the signal
path) possibly mask them?


The differences don't disappear until the listener is required to match the
sound to an unknown 'X'. The decision-making brain functions appear to get in
the way of recalling audible memory of subtle differences.

In the 35 years of The Great Debate why hasn't any amp/wire advocate ever
been
able to produce a replicable experiment, free of known human bias mechanisms,
that validates their claims?


Because you required test obscures the differences.

Your position seems to be simply arguing the extant results without bringing
new data of interest to the table. If you have some evidence that the human
tendency to report difference when given 2 identical stimuli then let's see
if.
If you have some evidence that humans do NOT confuse small differences in
loudness with changes in quality why not share that with us, as well.

If you have some evidence (other than anecdotes) that acoustical factors
previously unknown affect human perception why not let us in on the secret?

It is true that ".... years
of audiologist research into perceptual levels does not validate it for this
purpose either, as has been discussed here many times" because, IMO "this
purpose" has no acoustical basis.

There's nothing wrong with that but I'm wondering why the subjectivists just
can't leave it at that. It would seem that if there were acoustical cause for
amp/cable/tweak differences it would be impossible for any set of
acoustically
based bias controls to stop any given subject from "hearing" them.

Just my guess.


You and the few objectivists here seem to be denying the results of over 35
years of careful "observational listening results", published in every audio
equipment review magazine. That's pretty extraordinary.
Regards,
Mike

Mkuller wrote:
the way of recalling audible memory of subtle differences.

In the 35 years of The Great Debate why hasn't any amp/wire advocate ever
been
able to produce a replicable experiment, free of known human bias mechanisms,
that validates their claims?


Because you required test obscures the differences.

Joy in repetition!



You and the few objectivists here seem to be denying the results of over 35
years of careful "observational listening results", published in every audio
equipment review magazine. That's pretty extraordinary.

Not if the 'careful' listening tests, really weren't. And by scientific standards,
they were *grossly* NOT careful.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:34:56 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:


Your *validation test* is like M. Scarpitti saying he listened to his
amplifiers a second time and got the same results.

What needs to validated is that your DBT doesn't get in the way of identifying
subtle audible differences, particularly in more than one dimension (gross
frequency response or loudness). It would appear that it *does* from all of
the results I've seen.

What validation test and results would prove that DBT is not working?
It sounds to me as if this an important piece of information in order
to get this discussion any further.

Per Stromgren.

What validation test and results would prove that DBT is not working?
It sounds to me as if this an important piece of information in order
to get this discussion any further.


That is easy. One can insert something that will generate a *known subtle
audible difference* into the random samples. If the listeners fail to reliably
identify that difference the test isn't working.

S888Wheel wrote:
What validation test and results would prove that DBT is not working?
It sounds to me as if this an important piece of information in order
to get this discussion any further.


That is easy. One can insert something that will generate a *known subtle
audible difference* into the random samples.

What's a *known subtle audible difference* that *hasn't* been determined
by controlled comparison methods?

Any examples you'd care to offer?

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director