[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 16, 7:47*pm, wrote:
When not taken out of context being "heard" is about credability and not
freedom to post one's opinion. *Opinion is however quite different then
that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual.
That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer
questions. "

With all due respect, this group is not about "Science", or
the "Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the hobby by whatever
means fair or foul... as seen by others, that is. *Opinion expressed-
as-fact is as anathema as fact expressed-as-force.

When those individuals who are so wedded to their perception of "the
facts" as to preclude the ability to respect the choices of others start
driveling on about said "facts" - then there are no grounds or means for
discussion, opinion or free choice. That is a very sad state of affairs.

When someone expresses the view that his latest wire choice "throws a
broader soundstage" and at the price of $3000 per foot then we have gone
beyond "choice" and "opion" and "enjoyment" and into the realm of an
asserted objective reality. *We then want to know if that reported
perception is in the wire or in his head as a function of the ear/brain
process.

Now we have science which allows us to move beyond the "I hear it, I
really do, don't you believe me?" state of affairs. *If that wire has some
physical factor then we want to know it independent of the individual
reporting his perception.. *Don't you want to know that too and isn't part
of this hobby knowing what is really happening so assertions can be put
aside and we can enjoy the experience knowing $3000 wire adds nothing to
the experience?

This group does not exclude those whose enjoyment is in knowing such
things and discussiong of how they can be achieved. *The group does not
exclude educating ourselves about how to wade in and survive the marketing
depts. and fellow traveler hifi mags. in the sale of questionable
expectations and offering to reduce the "audio nervosa" they have produced
by following their advice and buyiing their products.

Do we want to "discuss" endlessly the virtues of that $3000 wire against a
mere $1500 wire and what double the price buys in listening experience?
The obvious first question would seem to be "is wire wire?" which makes
the above discussion premature and moot if it is.

As the above objective areas are not excluded, I have no problem having
that $3000 vs. *$1500 wire discussion but understanding that questiones
might reasonably be posed as to the psych/physical principles involved. *
That goes both ways.

With respect... There is a Latin phrase that accounts for much of all
of this: De gustibus non es disputandum.

In the matter of taste, there is no disputing - typically loosely
translated as "there is no accounting for taste".

If there are those who wish to discuss the merits of $3000
interconnects, other than an overwhelming sense of wonderous pity, I
am perfectly happy letting them have their say, with or without
measurable proof or reference to same. At those prices, there is not a
power on earth that will convince them that their beliefs are not
fully realized. Similarly with many of the other accessories of
similar cost and intent. Given this state of affairs, I would prefer
to discuss events, items or equipment at a more accessible level and
free of the trappings of revealed religion.

Again, there are a couple of truisms that need to be kept in mind:

a) All equipment from that glass-in-a-blender Original Design/Issue
Stereo 120 to that $20,000 high-end "Pure class A" amp will test
reasonably well with instruments. Look at the specifications of that
120 back in 1964/5 - whenever it was.
b) Much very expensive equipment, with specific reference to some VERY
fancy boutique tube equipment will not test (with instruments) as well
as that glass-in-a-blender Dynaco 120.

So, it is reasonable to conclude that *PURE* instrument testing does
not reveal everything.

It is also quite reasonable to conclude based on even the most
primitive comparison-testing that the 120 was/is a pretty wretched
sounding amp before Dynaco got around to correcting some of its basic
flaws. No great shakes afterwards, but for its price and niche, not
half-bad either.

So, both sighted and unsighted comparison testing does not reveal
everything.

NO single methodology reveals everything - despite entire sects and
cults built around that belief. Those that carry such beliefs as part
of their religion are incapable of any discussion, reasonable,
scientific or otherwise. They are only capable of accepting full
agreement or disputing ad-nauseum those who do not accept their
premise whole cloth. Those sorts of individuals will not change, nor
are they capable of understanding their condition. Discussions are
futile.

Getting back to the $3000/foot cabling - those who are 'in the market'
for such stuff are blessed with invincible ignorance together with the
belief that they can actually discern these things. Asking them for
proof or support for such beliefs will cause them to rear up on their
hind-legs in greatly offended, injured innocence. Do you really think
that a "reasoned discussion" based on "Scientific principles" will
make one whit of difference? Just be glad it is not you and move on.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 17, 1:53*pm, wrote:

This started when one poster said we are at an impasse with all opinions
on an equal footing. *I hastened to mention that we can move beyond
individual opinion, everyone has one, and use science to resolve the
assertions of the subjective folk. *

Opinions are on an equal footing, sadly. As in the case of what you
describe as an impasse no side (and there are several around this
issue) is inclined to lend credibility to any other that might
conflict with their closely held beliefs (AKA Revealed Religion). So
bringing "science" into the - for lack of a better term - discussion
serves to convince no one. The assertions of the "subjective folk"
will never be resolved by science much as those who believe in the
literal iterpretation of certain vintage texts have no use for the
theory of evolution.

So, science is futile, ridicule serves neither side although it may
make its purveyor feel better, invective will be "moderated" - we are
left with whatever level of reason might be maintained under those
conditions. The green magic marker crowd is invincible in its belief.
Simple as that. And the ABX crowd admits to no substitutes. Equally
simply. Mayonnaise is a mixture of oils and waters - an emulsion, not
a solution. Keep that in mind during these -discussions-... .

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:23*pm, wrote:
...if the subjective folk want to be heard they must test to show
the factor ...

No, "subjective folk" need not do anything at all to participate here
and "be heard."

When not taken out of context being "heard" is about credability and not
freedom to post one's opinion. *Opinion is however quite different then
that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual. *
That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer
questions.

With all due respect, this group is not about "Science", or the
"Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the hobby by whatever
means fair or foul... as seen by others, that is.

Not quite. From the rah-e guidelines

3.0 -- Topics Appropriate for rec.audio.high-end

Within the realm of high-end audio, as defined previously, any
topic is permitted. Theories, opinions, and questions are all
appropriate if they are concerned with the reproduction of music.

Please realize that the objective of this newsgroup is the
substantive discussion and exchange of information related to
high-end audio. Posts that do not further this objective, even if
peripherally related to an appropriate topic, may not be approved.

[C. Leeds]

wrote:

When someone expresses the view that his latest wire choice "throws a
broader soundstage" and at the price of $3000 per foot then we have gone
beyond "choice" and "opion" and "enjoyment" and into the realm of an
asserted objective reality.

Okay, let's talk about "objective reality." Let's start with your
reference to $3000/foot wire and the quote "throws a
broader soundstage."

Who are you quoting? Please cite source. Please provide manufacturer and
model number of the wire you're discussing.

Or, did you simply invent this quote and wire as part of your "objective
reality?"

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:10:11 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 16, 8:05*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Since this "debate" is irreconcilable, it comes down PRECISELY to religion
and for the same reason. It is a belief in things that cannot be quantified
or verified by any known methodology in any way which would satisfy both
sides of the question, so each side has to base their particular belief on
the assumption that they are right.

This is simply wrong. All of these things can be quantified, and what
happens in Audioland is a pseudo-debate between people who are willing
to quantify them and people who are not.

I'm afraid that you are the one who is wrong here - probably because you
didn't read what was said. I said "It is a belief in things that cannot be
quantified or verified by any known methodology in any way which would
satisfy both sides of the question..."

The operative idea here is that it cannot be quantified in a way which would
satisfy both camps"

There is no methodology that
would satisfy both geologists and flat-earthers, but that doesn't mean
their "disagreement" is a religious one.

For the flat earther, it would have to be religious. How else could they
maintain a belief in something that is so easily demonstrated as to be false?

Researchers aren't even sure that two human beings hear the same thing in
the
same way.

I suggest you study some of the research on the subject before you
venture here. Peoples' brains do indeed react to sound in the same
way; it's their interpretation of those sounds that differs--and
that's a multi-stage process. In a sense, one of the things that
objective listening tests does is to help determine whether it is the
sound itself, or the interpretation of the sound, that differs.

You're picking nits, here. The interpretation of sound is part of the hearing
process.

The ear, after all, is merely a mechanism, a transducer in fact.
The thing behind the ear, the brain, interprets the signals it hears as
sound
and we don't know to what extent those interpretations are similar from one
person to another - even if we could be sure that the mechanics of the ear
operate the same in all perfectly functioning ears, and we can't even tell
that except for simple frequency domain sensitivity tests. IOW, at the
moment, there's no way to know who's right and who's wrong in this because
we
don't know enough about the variables in the human perception of music.

"Perception of music" is part of the interpretation stage, not the
hearing stage. (There is no such physical reality as music; a sound is
musical only because you interpret it as such.) And the science is way
ahead of you on this stuff.

Again, you're picking nits and playing with semantics. We have no quarrel
here.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:51:40 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

There are a number of problems here. First and most
importantly, we *can* measure "what people hear." It's
just air compression, after all.

No we can't. You just said it yourself. We can measure
the air compression (and subsequent rarefaction), yes,
but what we can't measure is how the human brain
interprets those mechanical changes in air pressure.

Actually we can and do it all the time. It's part of how we live. We sense,
we think and we express ourselves. When we sense we measure our environment
and turn it into thoughts and memories. When we express ourselves we make
those thoughts and memories available to people and recording facilities
outside ourselves.

We might pick-up those variations in air pressure with our
ears, but we "hear" them with our brains, and that, we
cannot measure.

We surely can measure the variations in air pressure that we hear with our
ears, and in multiple dimensions. We have all kinds of standarized tests for
doing that. Hearing tests, tests of articulation, tests of knowlege that we
sense by means of hearing.

Also, I'd like for you to show me a
measuring device that can pick-up those variations of air
pressure that we call sound and then interpret them in
such a way as to tell us something about what they mean.

It's called the human brain.

IOW, can we measure the sound in a listening room in such
a way as to tell whether or not, say, speaker cables make
any difference in the way the speakers themselves
perform?

Sure we can - and simple listening tests like the ABX test let us do that.
Furthermore we know quite a bit about how to correlate electrical measures
of cable performance with the results of listening tests.

Just because we can't yet effectively hook cables directly up to people's
brains directly to do listening tests doesn't mean that we can't measure and
understand these things.

[bob]

On Jul 17, 7:53*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Researchers aren't even sure that two human beings hear the same thing in
the
same way.

I suggest you study some of the research on the subject before you
venture here. Peoples' brains do indeed react to sound in the same
way; it's their interpretation of those sounds that differs--and
that's a multi-stage process. In a sense, one of the things that
objective listening tests does is to help determine whether it is the
sound itself, or the interpretation of the sound, that differs.

You're picking nits, here. The interpretation of sound is part of the hearing
process.

I'm not picking nits, here. I'm referring to scientific investigation
that you are apparently unfamiliar with. Hearing and interpretation
are two separate, sequential mental activities, taking place in
separate areas of the brain. And it's quite possible for people to
have identical brain reactions to the hearing part of the process, but
very different reactions in the interpretation stage. The very musical
and the tone-deaf *hear* music the same way, for example.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

Again, there are a couple of truisms that need to be kept
in mind:

a) All equipment from that glass-in-a-blender Original
Design/Issue Stereo 120 to that $20,000 high-end "Pure
class A" amp will test reasonably well with instruments.

Actually, the Dyna 120 is likely to test better than the $20,000 "pure Class
A" amp.

b) Much very expensive equipment, with specific reference
to some VERY fancy boutique tube equipment will not test
(with instruments) as well as that glass-in-a-blender
Dynaco 120.

That, too.

So, it is reasonable to conclude that *PURE* instrument
testing does not reveal everything.

That's not the least bit reasonable. There's way too much missing, for
example the evidence that something sounds better than something else.

It is also quite reasonable to conclude based on even the
most primitive comparison-testing that the 120 was/is a
pretty wretched sounding amp before Dynaco got around to
correcting some of its basic flaws. No great shakes
afterwards, but for its price and niche, not half-bad
either.

The worst thing about the Dyna 120 was that it tended to destroy itself if
it got abused. Not that it sounded bad before it blew, but it surely sounded
bad (or sounded not at all) when it was damaged. One of the things that the
120 tended to do is blow half of its output stage. Since it had an output
coupling cap, that wouldn't put the supply voltage across the speakers and
blow a fuse or a speaker. Instead, the output of the amp strongly tended
towards even order distortion.

There is some probability that a lot of the anecdotes about the Dyna 120
sounding bad related to amps that had been blown.

So, both sighted and unsighted comparison testing does
not reveal everything.

If the former comment was not the least bit reasonable, this one is very
hard to describe, because it is even less reasonable. No foundation has been
laid for this conclusion, none at all.

NO single methodology reveals everything - despite entire
sects and cults built around that belief.

I don't know if the believers in sighted evaluation believe that their
methodology reveals everything, but the believers in blind testing surely
don't believe that at all.

At this point the number of exceedingly flawed premises precludes further
comment.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:15:06 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 16, 7:47*pm, wrote:
When not taken out of context being "heard" is about credability and not
freedom to post one's opinion. *Opinion is however quite different then
that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual.
That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer
questions. "

With all due respect, this group is not about "Science", or
the "Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the hobby by whatever
means fair or foul... as seen by others, that is. *Opinion expressed-
as-fact is as anathema as fact expressed-as-force.

When those individuals who are so wedded to their perception of "the
facts" as to preclude the ability to respect the choices of others start
driveling on about said "facts" - then there are no grounds or means for
discussion, opinion or free choice. That is a very sad state of affairs.

When someone expresses the view that his latest wire choice "throws a
broader soundstage" and at the price of $3000 per foot then we have gone
beyond "choice" and "opion" and "enjoyment" and into the realm of an
asserted objective reality. *We then want to know if that reported
perception is in the wire or in his head as a function of the ear/brain
process.

Now we have science which allows us to move beyond the "I hear it, I
really do, don't you believe me?" state of affairs. *If that wire has some
physical factor then we want to know it independent of the individual
reporting his perception.. *Don't you want to know that too and isn't part
of this hobby knowing what is really happening so assertions can be put
aside and we can enjoy the experience knowing $3000 wire adds nothing to
the experience?

This group does not exclude those whose enjoyment is in knowing such
things and discussiong of how they can be achieved. *The group does not
exclude educating ourselves about how to wade in and survive the marketing
depts. and fellow traveler hifi mags. in the sale of questionable
expectations and offering to reduce the "audio nervosa" they have produced
by following their advice and buyiing their products.

Do we want to "discuss" endlessly the virtues of that $3000 wire against a
mere $1500 wire and what double the price buys in listening experience?
The obvious first question would seem to be "is wire wire?" which makes
the above discussion premature and moot if it is.

As the above objective areas are not excluded, I have no problem having
that $3000 vs. *$1500 wire discussion but understanding that questiones
might reasonably be posed as to the psych/physical principles involved. *
That goes both ways.

With respect... There is a Latin phrase that accounts for much of all
of this: De gustibus non es disputandum.

In the matter of taste, there is no disputing - typically loosely
translated as "there is no accounting for taste".

If there are those who wish to discuss the merits of $3000
interconnects, other than an overwhelming sense of wonderous pity, I
am perfectly happy letting them have their say, with or without
measurable proof or reference to same. At those prices, there is not a
power on earth that will convince them that their beliefs are not
fully realized. Similarly with many of the other accessories of
similar cost and intent. Given this state of affairs, I would prefer
to discuss events, items or equipment at a more accessible level and
free of the trappings of revealed religion.

Again, there are a couple of truisms that need to be kept in mind:

a) All equipment from that glass-in-a-blender Original Design/Issue
Stereo 120 to that $20,000 high-end "Pure class A" amp will test
reasonably well with instruments. Look at the specifications of that
120 back in 1964/5 - whenever it was.
b) Much very expensive equipment, with specific reference to some VERY
fancy boutique tube equipment will not test (with instruments) as well
as that glass-in-a-blender Dynaco 120.

Well, early ST-120's suffer from a crossover notch that is both easily seen
(on an o'scope) and more importantly, easily heard. In the early 1970's, they
changed it. Replaced a lot of marginal-for-the-task-at-hand transistors (like
the 2N3055 output transistors) for more robust transistors, changed the
output bias, replaced a bunch of resistors and capacitors, and the later ones
are actually, very decent amps. But unless you have an early one that has
brought-up to later specs, it's pretty dismal and pretty unreliable at that.
(I believe a list of parts to upgrade the 120 are available on the web. I
just don't recall where.

So, it is reasonable to conclude that *PURE* instrument testing does
not reveal everything.

It is also quite reasonable to conclude based on even the most
primitive comparison-testing that the 120 was/is a pretty wretched
sounding amp before Dynaco got around to correcting some of its basic
flaws. No great shakes afterwards, but for its price and niche, not
half-bad either.

Agreed

So, both sighted and unsighted comparison testing does not reveal
everything.

NO single methodology reveals everything - despite entire sects and
cults built around that belief. Those that carry such beliefs as part
of their religion are incapable of any discussion, reasonable,
scientific or otherwise. They are only capable of accepting full
agreement or disputing ad-nauseum those who do not accept their
premise whole cloth. Those sorts of individuals will not change, nor
are they capable of understanding their condition. Discussions are
futile.

Getting back to the $3000/foot cabling - those who are 'in the market'
for such stuff are blessed with invincible ignorance together with the
belief that they can actually discern these things. Asking them for
proof or support for such beliefs will cause them to rear up on their
hind-legs in greatly offended, injured innocence. Do you really think
that a "reasoned discussion" based on "Scientific principles" will
make one whit of difference? Just be glad it is not you and move on.

Uh-huh.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 18, 9:52*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Just because we can't yet effectively hook cables directly up to people's
brains directly to do listening tests doesn't mean that we can't measure and
understand these things.

Measure, certainly. Understand the physical and "common" psycho-
acoustical aspects in some considerable detail, certainly.

But measure and understand preference, taste, expectation or
peculiarities of perception - not at all. And if you need an excellent
example, I cannot abide puddings of any nature, sweet potatoes or yams
even as miniscule 'included ingredients' and I react violently (quite
specifically) to any food or beverage that contains coffee - mocha
chocolate, coffee ice-cream, flies in my Sambuca, even decaf - but I
have no untoward reaction to tea, other caffeinated beverages, colas
and so forth. Hearing is much like that - a mixture of hard-wiring,
common physical characteristics, taste, experience, preference and so
forth.

Once again, ABX testing is useful in separating the obvious wheat from
the obvious chaff - but much as my reaction to coffee and its
deriviatives takes from 4 - 12 hours to manifest depending on
qualtity, and then lasts for something between 48 and 72 hours, ABX
testing, scrupulous measurements and complete physical understanding
does NOT cover everything - especially over any extended period.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:05:50 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 17, 7:53*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Researchers aren't even sure that two human beings hear the same thing in
the
same way.

I suggest you study some of the research on the subject before you
venture here. Peoples' brains do indeed react to sound in the same
way; it's their interpretation of those sounds that differs--and
that's a multi-stage process. In a sense, one of the things that
objective listening tests does is to help determine whether it is the
sound itself, or the interpretation of the sound, that differs.

You're picking nits, here. The interpretation of sound is part of the
hearing
process.

I'm not picking nits, here. I'm referring to scientific investigation
that you are apparently unfamiliar with. Hearing and interpretation
are two separate, sequential mental activities, taking place in
separate areas of the brain. And it's quite possible for people to
have identical brain reactions to the hearing part of the process, but
very different reactions in the interpretation stage. The very musical
and the tone-deaf *hear* music the same way, for example.

bob


While they might, indeed be two separate, sequential activities when viewed
from a purely scientific point of view, the end result is that interpretation
is perceived as being part of the "hearing" process. It is, after all the
portion of the hearing activity that is as responsible for so-called
"golden-ears" as it is for "tin-ears". Sure, we know that it's not the ears
that are golden or tin, but rather the extent to which the listener is
capable of discerning what they hear. In the case of "golden-eared
audiophiles", for instance, the ability to hear anomalies in recorded music
is a learned response, and that person's hearing is not really any better
than anyone else's. They've just trained themselves to listen for details in
the presentation that others might miss. Yet, it is commonly said that this
is part of the hearing process as it's an unconscious process and people
don't disassociate the different parts of that process in that manner.

[[email protected]]

When someone expresses the view that his latest wire choice "throws a
broader soundstage" and at the price of $3000 per foot then we have gone
beyond "choice" and "opion" and "enjoyment" and into the realm of an
asserted objective reality.

Okay, let's talk about "objective reality." Let's start with your
reference to $3000/foot wire and the quote "throws a broader soundstage."

Who are you quoting? Please cite source. Please provide manufacturer and
model number of the wire you're discussing.

Or, did you simply invent this quote and wire as part of your
objective reality?

The point was that when someone makes such an assertion it is about
objective reality independent of their internal brain perception about a
physical source outside themselves.

Therefore they are claiming that object as the source of their perception.
If so we can test that assertion by inserting and removing that specific
source to see if the asserted perception varies as the source does. If it
does not then it is in their brain and not the physical object.

Multiple such assertions can be found monthly in multiple hifi mag.
publications.

All without first having supported by such testing the reality of the
perceptions in the physical source outside of their brains.

We would all benefit greatly if they could do same first and save us all
much time and cash and "audio nervosia".

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:41:38 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


With all due respect, this group is not about "Science",
or the "Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the
hobby by whatever means fair or foul... as seen by
others, that is. Opinion expressed- as-fact is as
anathema as fact expressed-as-force.

The idea that facts destroy enjoyment and hobbies is completely false. Many
hobbies are strongly based on reliable facts, such as golf scores, lap
times, bowling games, etc.

Audio has always been inherently a technological hobby. There have always
been attempts to measure the enjoyment-producing qualities of audio
equipment. I have found it interesting to review the literature of consumer
and professional audio, which goes back to the late 1920s and early 1930s. I
started tracking audio in real time as it were in the middle 1950s.

There have been a steady and ongoing stream of attempts to quantify the
enjoyment-producing capabilities of audio systems.

Indeed there has. In the book "From Tinfoil to Stereo" By Oliver Read and
Robert Welch, I have been constantly amazed by the results, in the early days
of recorded sound, of various live vs recorded tests performed over and over
again in city after city by phonograph manufacturers in an effort to extol
the virtues of the latest models of their machines. The press coverage by
newspaper critics of every one of these tests, starting in the 1880's through
the 1920's were always very similar: "This critic was amazed by the lifelike
sound emanating from the (name phonograph make and model here). So life-like
and perfect was the reproduction, that it was virtually impossible to tell
the real performers from the recording made of them." Of course, we have all
heard old mechanical phonographs and the mechanically recorded shellac
records that were played on them. Any relationship between real music and the
scratchy, telephone-like sound these devices produced was purely in the mind
of the listener. Yet people were impressed enough to declare that the
presentation was perfect. Makes you wonder how anybody could mistake the row
of a purely mechanical phonograph with live music.

When those individuals who are so wedded to their
perception of "the facts" as to preclude the ability to
respect the choices of others start driveling on about
said "facts" - then there are no grounds or means for
discussion, opinion or free choice. That is a very sad
state of affairs.

The idea that facts destroy the means for discussion is a truly remarkable
and fanciful thought that is widely contradicted by the facts of life. Do
baseball statistics destroy the ability to have favorite baseball players?
Reality is the exact opposite, most discussions of the capabilities of
various players are dominated by recitations of relevant facts or figures.
There's a very common reason why someone doesn't want to talk about the
relevant statistics for their favorite player, and that is when the player's
statistics really suck.

I make my choices in audio on several often conflicting
levels, including pure whim, challenge and sometimes
sheer cussidness.

That's a personal choice that anybody who wants to can make. In Detroit I
can go to a car dealership and see brand new cars or I can go to the Henry
Ford Museum and see a lot of very old ones. We have an annual large scale
celebration of cars called the Woodward Dream cruise. I love it. Most of the
vehicles one sees there are most definitely not new, or current, or even in
daily use.

I am about to rebuild a first-issue
Dynaco Stereo 120 - the "glass-in-a- blender" version.
Why? Not as if I need another power-amp, but for the
simple pleasure of taking a Trabant and making it into an
almost-VW, for an automotive analogy. And I run a bunch
of tube stuff - not exactly the best 'measuring'
equipment out there. But I like it, how it sounds and
even (Oh, the SHAME of it!!) how it looks...

Again, that's a personal choice that people get to make. I happen to have a
modest amount of legacy gear, such as perfectly stock and original Dyna 120
and a CDP 101 that meet original spec, a Pioneer TX-9100 tuner, a PAT-5 and
a CJ 2 preamp, etc. However, it is what it is, and that doesn't bother me a
bit. I just don't insult people's intelligence by claiming any special
capabilities along the lines of sonic accuracy. Actually, the 120 and the
101 sound just fine despite their frequent libeling by ignorant audiophiles.

You obviously have a later model ST-120. The early ones were both unreliable
and sounded terrible. Dyna eventually fixed the amp by replacing all of the
transistors with later, more robust types with similar characteristics. Early
120's, for instance, had output and driver transistors (the drivers were
complementary NPN/PNP and the outputs were NPN) which were hand picked for
their ability to stand-off V-sub-CBs (collector-to-base voltage) as most
standard transistors of the types used would not (they were being used on the
ragged edge of those semiconductors' specs). The output transistors (2N3055),
especially, were susceptible to blowing even with the factory picked
examples. If you had a blown 120 and tried to repair it using off-the-shelf
transistors, the amp would blow again soon after power was re-applied. And
when a 120 went, it went. Usually a failure of one of the 2N3055s took not
only the other 2N3055 with it, but the two complementary driver transistors
as well! Sometime around 1970, Dyna changed the amp. They re-biased the
output stage harder into class AB to get rid of the nasty-sounding cross-over
notch that many of these amps exhibited and they changed all of the
transistors to newer types. They also made other changes of resistors and
capacitors to complete the mod. Stereo 120s made after that change, do
indeed, sound just fine.

So, please get off dividing into armed and hostile camps
- this is emphatically NOT revealed religion.

I'm not sure where this religious belief issue comes from, if not the people
who can't tell the difference between the proper place for science and the
proper place for religion and keep up mixing up the two.

Nobody's
"credibility" is at issue - except to the extent that
they fault others based on said revealed religion. And
then it is gone entirely.

Science can be a kind of religion for some people, and religion can be a
science for some people. But most people seem to have a pretty good grip on
which is which and manage their influence in their lives appropriately and
in accordance with their personal preferences.

Yeah? Tell that to people like Enid Lumley or even Harry Pearson.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:52:37 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:51:40 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

There are a number of problems here. First and most
importantly, we *can* measure "what people hear." It's
just air compression, after all.

No we can't. You just said it yourself. We can measure
the air compression (and subsequent rarefaction), yes,
but what we can't measure is how the human brain
interprets those mechanical changes in air pressure.

Actually we can and do it all the time. It's part of how we live. We sense,
we think and we express ourselves. When we sense we measure our environment
and turn it into thoughts and memories. When we express ourselves we make
those thoughts and memories available to people and recording facilities
outside ourselves.

We might pick-up those variations in air pressure with our
ears, but we "hear" them with our brains, and that, we
cannot measure.

We surely can measure the variations in air pressure that we hear with our
ears, and in multiple dimensions. We have all kinds of standarized tests for
doing that. Hearing tests, tests of articulation, tests of knowlege that we
sense by means of hearing.

Also, I'd like for you to show me a
measuring device that can pick-up those variations of air
pressure that we call sound and then interpret them in
such a way as to tell us something about what they mean.

It's called the human brain.

IOW, can we measure the sound in a listening room in such
a way as to tell whether or not, say, speaker cables make
any difference in the way the speakers themselves
perform?

Sure we can - and simple listening tests like the ABX test let us do that.
Furthermore we know quite a bit about how to correlate electrical measures
of cable performance with the results of listening tests.

Just because we can't yet effectively hook cables directly up to people's
brains directly to do listening tests doesn't mean that we can't measure and
understand these things.

You've managed to miss my point completely, Arny. My point is that we cannot
quantify the listening experience because it is an experience of
interpretation, not of the mechanical act of hearing sound. For instance,
it's altogether possible that a so-called "tin-eared" individual might not
hear the difference, in a double-blind test, between two otherwise identical
amplifiers where one is fed a clean signal and the other is fed the same
signal altered by a device designed to introduce varying amounts of
intermodulation distortion. He might be hearing the distortion just as
everyone else in the double-blind test is hearing it, but he doesn't notice
it because he (for some reason) lacks the ability to interpret what he is
hearing and the other listeners can correctly interpret what they hear as
distortion. In this case, the injected distortion can be easily measured and
many can hear it immediately, but where are the measurements to quantify a
speaker's ability, for instance, to image? Such equipment and such
quantification does not (yet) exist. That's my point.

[S D]

not a 'blind' test , but a good one Target has the Altec Lansing and
Bose speakers side by side connected to the same video game/movie loop (
this is for the pc/PS/tv , quality here is too low for music ) Bose had
more definition, but also had that soapy undersound that is one of the
problems with virtually all speakers, the ACs were cleaner and to my
ears better for the spoken word. Price : AC $50, Bose $230, choice : no
clear winner. The difference in performance could really only come into
focus with this kind of demo.SD

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:32:31 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 18, 9:52*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Just because we can't yet effectively hook cables directly up to people's
brains directly to do listening tests doesn't mean that we can't measure and
understand these things.

Measure, certainly. Understand the physical and "common" psycho-
acoustical aspects in some considerable detail, certainly.

But measure and understand preference, taste, expectation or
peculiarities of perception - not at all. And if you need an excellent
example, I cannot abide puddings of any nature, sweet potatoes or yams
even as miniscule 'included ingredients' and I react violently (quite
specifically) to any food or beverage that contains coffee - mocha
chocolate, coffee ice-cream, flies in my Sambuca, even decaf - but I
have no untoward reaction to tea, other caffeinated beverages, colas
and so forth. Hearing is much like that - a mixture of hard-wiring,
common physical characteristics, taste, experience, preference and so
forth.

Once again, ABX testing is useful in separating the obvious wheat from
the obvious chaff - but much as my reaction to coffee and its
deriviatives takes from 4 - 12 hours to manifest depending on
qualtity, and then lasts for something between 48 and 72 hours, ABX
testing, scrupulous measurements and complete physical understanding
does NOT cover everything - especially over any extended period.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

When it comes to cables, listening, even in a double-blind test, is jus not
necessary. The laws of electronics tell us all we need to know about cables
and interconnects. The very low frequencies that make up the audio signal
passband (DC to 100KHz) tells us that there is not enough resistance,
capacitive reactance or inductive reactance in any commercially available
interconnect or cable to affect the signal IN ANY KNOWN WAY and to insist
that there might just be "something" about either a complex musical signal or
wire that science has, somehow, overlooked is simply naive.

[Harry Lavo]

"S D" wrote in message
...
not a 'blind' test , but a good one Target has the Altec Lansing and
Bose speakers side by side connected to the same video game/movie loop (
this is for the pc/PS/tv , quality here is too low for music ) Bose had
more definition, but also had that soapy undersound that is one of the
problems with virtually all speakers, the ACs were cleaner and to my
ears better for the spoken word. Price : AC $50, Bose $230, choice : no
clear winner. The difference in performance could really only come into
focus with this kind of demo.SD

Your last sentence is an assumption. It would be quite possible for an
experienced reviewer of speakers to pick out the problem you cite (which I
don't understand from your description) without having two speakers
side-by-side. The fact that you feel you couldn't is not "truth" with a
capital "T".

[[email protected]]

"Once again, ABX testing is useful in separating the obvious wheat from
the obvious chaff - but much as my reaction to coffee and its
deriviatives takes from 4 - 12 hours to manifest depending on
qualtity, and then lasts for something between 48 and 72 hours, ABX
testing, scrupulous measurements and complete physical understanding
does NOT cover everything - especially over any extended period."

Abx has been made into something of a strawman. Flaws are said to exist,
without being able by counter testing to demonstrate, and when the straw
lies covering the floor all testing is said to be a dead issue.

Using something as simple as putting a cloth over connections to remove
which bit of gear is active, that stubborn failure to tell which bit is
the source of which claimed effect just insists to occur again and again.

One can with abx or any such blind testing listen as long as desired,
using musical sources of the listeners choice and prformed in their system
in their listening room.

One somewhat famous example of a few years ago had an audio dealer in his
store system with his musical choices while using a nelson pass amp he
said to know inside and out for its sonic attributes, failed to be able to
spot it from an older integrated yamaha amp.

One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours hearing that amp
and should know it in a snap compared to the cheaper spread.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


Once again, ABX testing is useful in separating the
obvious wheat from the obvious chaff - but much as my
reaction to coffee and its deriviatives takes from 4 - 12
hours to manifest depending on quality, and then lasts
for something between 48 and 72 hours, ABX testing,
scrupulous measurements and complete physical
understanding does NOT cover everything - especially over
any extended period.

Speaking as one of the several persons who have done extended ABX testing...

It works, but it does not contradict the outcomes of shorter tests, and it
can be a little less sensitive.

The original ABX Comparator had a battery backup for the test data to
facilitated long term experiments where power might be lost.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 20, 12:01*am, wrote:

One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours hearing that amp
and should know it in a snap compared to the cheaper spread.

Sheesh... you heard the engine, saw the headlights, but still missed
the truck.

Clearly from _that_ ABX test, the two amps were indistinguishable. So,
it only remains as to which amp the individual prefers in a few weeks
to a few months.

The human brain is a funny thing. It is entirely capable of holding
two (or more) mutually exclusive ideas in itself at the same time.
Until that condition changes, no single type of testing - be it ABX or
Sighted, either/neither/both will tell the entire story. Searching for
absolutes in any human activity, most especially one that also must
account for individual perception and taste is both futile and
silly.

No straw men (or dogs) here.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[[email protected]]

One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours hearing that amp
and should know it in a snap compared to the cheaper spread.

"Sheesh... you heard the engine, saw the headlights, but still missed
the truck.

Clearly from _that_ ABX test, the two amps were indistinguishable. So,
it only remains as to which amp the individual prefers in a few weeks
to a few months."

I could be wrong in my recall, this was not an abx test but of the kind
where a cloth was placed over connections to make it blind. Days and
months was the basis by which the audio dealer said he could easily pick
the nelson pass amp by its by then easily spotted audio attributes. He
could not spot it beyond chance.

"The human brain is a funny thing. It is entirely capable of holding two
(or more) mutually exclusive ideas in itself at the same time. Until that
condition changes, no single type of testing - be it ABX or Sighted,
either/neither/both will tell the entire story. Searching for absolutes in
any human activity, most especially one that also must account for
individual perception and taste is both futile and silly."

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of such
a "futile and silly brain.

Obfuscational remarks aside, the vicissitudes of the human brain need not
be involved. If tests show a stable repeated outcome of not being able to
spot some bit of gear it says the brain is stable also in its inability
because the reported perception event is not associated with the alleged
bit of hifi gear in question. In the case you assert, it would from test
to test show random results of some times being able to do so and others
not.

Preference and taste need not have anything to do with it. One could
assert that some bit of gear had a "midrange bloom" that "stank" or was
"glorious". If that bit of gear could not be spotted such would remain
irrelevant.

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 20, 12:01*am, wrote:

One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours hearing that amp
and should know it in a snap compared to the cheaper spread.

Sheesh... you heard the engine, saw the headlights, but still missed
the truck.

Clearly from _that_ ABX test, the two amps were indistinguishable. So,
it only remains as to which amp the individual prefers in a few weeks
to a few months.

Suggesting that whatever preference forms, is not really due to a
sonic difference. That's quite understandable. We get to
prefer audio gear for reasons other than its special sound.

But if he listener insists the preference *is* due to sonic difference,
despite the initial negative ABX, then the way to prove that is
*another* ABX, done after the putative 'acclimation' has been
achieved. Simply claiming 'I've lived with these long enough
to hear a difference' is not sufficient evidence, and anyone with
an inkling of clue about scientific method would know this.

Sighted biases exist whether listeing is 'short term' or 'long term'
The only way to nullify them is to do a blind comparison.

What is so blinkin' hard to understand about that?

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:01:26 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

"Once again, ABX testing is useful in separating the obvious wheat from
the obvious chaff - but much as my reaction to coffee and its
deriviatives takes from 4 - 12 hours to manifest depending on
qualtity, and then lasts for something between 48 and 72 hours, ABX
testing, scrupulous measurements and complete physical understanding
does NOT cover everything - especially over any extended period."

Abx has been made into something of a strawman. Flaws are said to exist,
without being able by counter testing to demonstrate, and when the straw
lies covering the floor all testing is said to be a dead issue.

Using something as simple as putting a cloth over connections to remove
which bit of gear is active, that stubborn failure to tell which bit is
the source of which claimed effect just insists to occur again and again.

One can with abx or any such blind testing listen as long as desired,
using musical sources of the listeners choice and prformed in their system
in their listening room.

One somewhat famous example of a few years ago had an audio dealer in his
store system with his musical choices while using a nelson pass amp he
said to know inside and out for its sonic attributes, failed to be able to
spot it from an older integrated yamaha amp.

One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours hearing that amp
and should know it in a snap compared to the cheaper spread.

Even though I generally agree that ABX and other double-blind testing
methodologies are very scientific and should be very telling, I can relate,
from personal experience at least one instance where it doesn't work. I HATE
Pepsi Cola. I find it a vile and disgusting beverage with an unpleasant,
salty aftertaste. OTOH, I love Coca-Cola and am, in fact, a "Coca-holic". All
my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable
difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind
tests to prove it to me. They would fill styrofoam cups, 1 with

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:50:27 -0700, Sonnova wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:01:26 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

"Once again, ABX testing is useful in separating the obvious wheat from
the obvious chaff - but much as my reaction to coffee and its
deriviatives takes from 4 - 12 hours to manifest depending on
qualtity, and then lasts for something between 48 and 72 hours, ABX
testing, scrupulous measurements and complete physical understanding
does NOT cover everything - especially over any extended period."

Abx has been made into something of a strawman. Flaws are said to exist,
without being able by counter testing to demonstrate, and when the straw
lies covering the floor all testing is said to be a dead issue.

Using something as simple as putting a cloth over connections to remove
which bit of gear is active, that stubborn failure to tell which bit is
the source of which claimed effect just insists to occur again and again.

One can with abx or any such blind testing listen as long as desired,
using musical sources of the listeners choice and prformed in their system
in their listening room.

One somewhat famous example of a few years ago had an audio dealer in his
store system with his musical choices while using a nelson pass amp he
said to know inside and out for its sonic attributes, failed to be able to
spot it from an older integrated yamaha amp.

One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours hearing that amp
and should know it in a snap compared to the cheaper spread.

Even though I generally agree that ABX and other double-blind testing
methodologies are very scientific and should be very telling, I can relate,
from personal experience at least one instance where it doesn't work. I HATE
Pepsi Cola. I find it a vile and disgusting beverage with an unpleasant,
salty aftertaste. OTOH, I love Coca-Cola and am, in fact, a "Coca-holic". All

my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable
difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind
tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam
cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a
diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They
wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then
cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the
cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered
the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was
where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell
which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out,
but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I
couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged
more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke
and Pepsi. But there is. I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So many
people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress fails
to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I
cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for Coke."

"We don't have Coke, we sell Pepsi."
"You should have told me that when I ordered, please take this away and bring
me iced tea."

At this "test" I have NEVER failed, I can always tell Coke from Pepsi under
THESE circumstances.

How does that fit in with definitive double-blind test scenario? (before you
answer, I already know why I have failed the double-blind cola tests so often
yet can always tell when I've been served Pepsi in place of Coke in a
restaurant).

* I wondered what happened to this. I accidently hit some key and it was
gone. This gives me an opportunity to finish it. Thanks, Moderators!

[bob]

On Jul 20, 6:15*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Even though I generally agree that ABX and other double-blind testing
methodologies are very scientific and should be very telling, I can relate,
from personal experience at least one instance where it doesn't work. I HATE
Pepsi Cola. I find it a vile and disgusting beverage with an unpleasant,
salty aftertaste. OTOH, I love Coca-Cola and am, in fact, a "Coca-holic". All
my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable
difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind
tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam

cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a
diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They
wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then
cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the
cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered
the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was
where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell
which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out,
but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I
couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged
more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke
and Pepsi. But there is.

From your description, this sounds like a somewhat more difficult test
than ABX. The ABX version would be two cups of the same soda, and a
third cup of the other, and you'd have to figure out which was the odd
man out (or which two were the same). I suspect you'd have no trouble
doing that (unless you suffer from performance anxiety!).

I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So many
people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress fails
to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I
cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for Coke."

"We don't have Coke, we sell Pepsi."
"You should have told me that when I ordered, please take this away and bring
me iced tea."

At this "test" I have NEVER failed, I can always tell Coke from Pepsi under
THESE circumstances.

How does that fit in with definitive double-blind test scenario? (before you
answer, I already know why I have failed the double-blind cola tests so often
yet can always tell when I've been served Pepsi in place of Coke in a
restaurant).

In this case, it's a binary problem. There are only two possibilities,
never three. So it could be easier than the taste test you were
doing.

Also, if you *were* fooled in a restaurant, how would you know?

bob

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:27:03 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 20, 6:15*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Even though I generally agree that ABX and other double-blind testing
methodologies are very scientific and should be very telling, I can relate,
from personal experience at least one instance where it doesn't work. I
HATE
Pepsi Cola. I find it a vile and disgusting beverage with an unpleasant,
salty aftertaste. OTOH, I love Coca-Cola and am, in fact, a "Coca-holic".
All
my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable
difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind
tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled
styrofoam

cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually
a
diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They
wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then
cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the
cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered
the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was
where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell
which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out,
but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I
couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged
more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke
and Pepsi. But there is.

From your description, this sounds like a somewhat more difficult test
than ABX. The ABX version would be two cups of the same soda, and a
third cup of the other, and you'd have to figure out which was the odd
man out (or which two were the same). I suspect you'd have no trouble
doing that (unless you suffer from performance anxiety!).

I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So many
people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress
fails
to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I
cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for
Coke."

"We don't have Coke, we sell Pepsi."
"You should have told me that when I ordered, please take this away and
bring
me iced tea."

At this "test" I have NEVER failed, I can always tell Coke from Pepsi under
THESE circumstances.

How does that fit in with definitive double-blind test scenario? (before you
answer, I already know why I have failed the double-blind cola tests so
often
yet can always tell when I've been served Pepsi in place of Coke in a
restaurant).

In this case, it's a binary problem. There are only two possibilities,
never three. So it could be easier than the taste test you were
doing.

Also, if you *were* fooled in a restaurant, how would you know?

bob


Because I can always tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi UNLESS I am
tasting the two together. In that case, the taste of the first one (doesn't
matter which) ruins my ability to identify the second one. That's why I often
fail the D-B test but will always be able to tell Coke from Pepsi on the
first taste in a restaurant setting.

[Steven Sullivan]

bob wrote:
On Jul 20, 6:15?pm, Sonnova wrote:

Even though I generally agree that ABX and other double-blind testing
methodologies are very scientific and should be very telling, I can relate,
from personal experience at least one instance where it doesn't work. I HATE
Pepsi Cola. I find it a vile and disgusting beverage with an unpleasant,
salty aftertaste. OTOH, I love Coca-Cola and am, in fact, a "Coca-holic". All
my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable
difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind
tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam

cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a
diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They
wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then
cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the
cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered
the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was
where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell
which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out,
but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I
couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged
more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke
and Pepsi. But there is.

From your description, this sounds like a somewhat more difficult test
than ABX. The ABX version would be two cups of the same soda, and a
third cup of the other, and you'd have to figure out which was the odd
man out (or which two were the same). I suspect you'd have no trouble
doing that (unless you suffer from performance anxiety!).

I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So many
people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress fails
to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I
cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for Coke."

"We don't have Coke, we sell Pepsi."
"You should have told me that when I ordered, please take this away and bring
me iced tea."

At this "test" I have NEVER failed, I can always tell Coke from Pepsi under
THESE circumstances.

How does that fit in with definitive double-blind test scenario? (before you
answer, I already know why I have failed the double-blind cola tests so often
yet can always tell when I've been served Pepsi in place of Coke in a
restaurant).

In this case, it's a binary problem. There are only two possibilities,
never three. So it could be easier than the taste test you were
doing.

Also, if you *were* fooled in a restaurant, how would you know?

bob

The idea that Coke and Pepsi are indistinguishable in blind comparison is a strawman.

The gist of the famous "Pepsi Challenge' was that in blind sip tests, people tended to prefer Pepsi - thus obviously
there was *difference*. The flaw in the Pepsi challenge (again, a test of PREFERENCE) was that , like presenting two
audio similar audio clips where one is louder than the other, in the SHORT term (a sip test), the sweeter taste of Pepsi
will often 'win' , but might not over the long term. Ditto the louder of two audio presentations...exciting in the
short term, possibly annoying in the long term.

None of this is particularly germane to ABX tests for sheer difference. It's actually RECOMMENDED that such audio DBTs
include a 'training' period, to *increase* sensitivity to possibly subtle differences. The crucial methodological point
remains that when it comes time to actually identify X, it be done blind.

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam
cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some
other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat
of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt
marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then
cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some
third party move the cups around from the position that
they person who marked them and covered the markings left
them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was
where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that
I couldn't tell which of the major colas were which. The
diet Cola I was able to pick out, but the Coke from the
Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I
couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and
I've been challenged more than once) it would seem that
there is no real difference between Coke and Pepsi.

IME the anecdote above is one of the reasons why we invented the ABX test.
In the ABX version of the test above, you would have correctly-labelled
bottles of Coke and Pepsi to compare to. I think you would find that it
makes all the difference in the world.

It is easy to get over-confident, be afflicted by performance anxiety, and
make dumb mistakes.

The same things happen during sighted evaluations, but the visual clues
conceal the errors.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


On Jul 20, 12:01 am, wrote:

One somewhat famous example of a few years ago had an audio dealer in his
store system with his musical choices while using a nelson pass amp he
said to know inside and out for its sonic attributes, failed to be able
to
spot it from an older integrated yamaha amp.

One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours
hearing that amp and should know it in a snap compared
to the cheaper spread.

Clearly from _that_ ABX test, the two amps were
indistinguishable. So, it only remains as to which amp
the individual prefers in a few weeks to a few months.

What ABX test?

I see no mention of an ABX test in the car dealer anecdote, above.

What am I missing?

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Because I can always tell the difference between Coke and
Pepsi UNLESS I am tasting the two together. In that case,
the taste of the first one (doesn't matter which) ruins
my ability to identify the second one. That's why I often
fail the D-B test but will always be able to tell Coke
from Pepsi on the first taste in a restaurant setting.

This makes a lot of sense. The explanation is obvious - our sense of taste
has a lot of latency. IOW, I sometimes enjoy the flavor of certain spicy or
sweet foods or meals for more than an hour after I eat. Case in point is
some sweet onion salsa my wife and I were enjoying last week. I'm not
talking about dyspepsia, I'm talking about residual flavor in the mouth and
tongue.

Hearing at moderate levels seems to have far less latency, hardly any
latency at all.

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:

my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable
difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind
tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam
cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a
diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They
wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then
cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the
cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered
the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was
where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell
which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out,
but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I
couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged
more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke
and Pepsi. But there is. I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So many
people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress fails
to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I
cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for Coke."


I took some of those tests in the New Coke Test era. Basically, the
cups were too small to generate aftertaste. And putting the product
into a cup changed the relative ratio of CO2 content (which differed).

One time I demanded ... and got ... whole cans. Then, I could
reliably tell the difference.

I can tell the difference between real ("Mexican") Coke
and fructose Coke only after two or three cans. But after
several cans, its really obvious. There is an aftertaste difference.
Normally, however, I drink Diet Coke. No matter how many cans
I drink, I cannot tell the difference between Aspartame and Splenda,
unless of course the Aspartame has hydrolyzed (yuck!).

Doug McDonald

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:07:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Because I can always tell the difference between Coke and
Pepsi UNLESS I am tasting the two together. In that case,
the taste of the first one (doesn't matter which) ruins
my ability to identify the second one. That's why I often
fail the D-B test but will always be able to tell Coke
from Pepsi on the first taste in a restaurant setting.

This makes a lot of sense. The explanation is obvious - our sense of taste
has a lot of latency. IOW, I sometimes enjoy the flavor of certain spicy or
sweet foods or meals for more than an hour after I eat. Case in point is
some sweet onion salsa my wife and I were enjoying last week. I'm not
talking about dyspepsia, I'm talking about residual flavor in the mouth and
tongue.

Hearing at moderate levels seems to have far less latency, hardly any
latency at all.



In D-B wine tastings, they often provide a carafe of water or perhaps some
saltine crackers to "clear the palate" between samples of wine. Whether this
would work for cola tastings, I don't know.

And you are right. As far as I know, there is no such holdover for sound as
there is for tastes that linger on the tongue.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:12:59 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

bob wrote:
On Jul 20, 6:15?pm, Sonnova wrote:

Even though I generally agree that ABX and other double-blind testing
methodologies are very scientific and should be very telling, I can
relate,
from personal experience at least one instance where it doesn't work. I
HATE
Pepsi Cola. I find it a vile and disgusting beverage with an unpleasant,
salty aftertaste. OTOH, I love Coca-Cola and am, in fact, a "Coca-holic".
All
my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable
difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind
tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled
styrofoam

cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola,
usually a
diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They
wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then
cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move
the
cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered
the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was
where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell
which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out,
but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes
I
couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been
challenged
more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke
and Pepsi. But there is.

From your description, this sounds like a somewhat more difficult test
than ABX. The ABX version would be two cups of the same soda, and a
third cup of the other, and you'd have to figure out which was the odd
man out (or which two were the same). I suspect you'd have no trouble
doing that (unless you suffer from performance anxiety!).

I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So many
people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress
fails
to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I
cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for
Coke."

"We don't have Coke, we sell Pepsi."
"You should have told me that when I ordered, please take this away and
bring
me iced tea."

At this "test" I have NEVER failed, I can always tell Coke from Pepsi under
THESE circumstances.

How does that fit in with definitive double-blind test scenario? (before
you
answer, I already know why I have failed the double-blind cola tests so
often
yet can always tell when I've been served Pepsi in place of Coke in a
restaurant).

In this case, it's a binary problem. There are only two possibilities,
never three. So it could be easier than the taste test you were
doing.

Also, if you *were* fooled in a restaurant, how would you know?

bob

The idea that Coke and Pepsi are indistinguishable in blind comparison is a
strawman.

No it's not - see below. Many people have told me that they cannot tell the
difference and that was the source of the many times that I have been
challenged on my assertion that I hate Pepsi and love Coke.

The gist of the famous "Pepsi Challenge' was that in blind sip tests, people
tended to prefer Pepsi

The "Pepsi Challenge" is a marketing gimmick. How do you know that any such
challenge was actually performed? Besides, if the two are tasted together,
NOBODY could tell the difference because the taste of the first one lingers
in the mouth destroying one's ability to taste the second unless the palate
were somehow cleared with something totally dissimilar between tastes.

- thus obviously
there was *difference*. The flaw in the Pepsi challenge (again, a test of
PREFERENCE) was that , like presenting two
audio similar audio clips where one is louder than the other, in the SHORT
term (a sip test), the sweeter taste of Pepsi

Once the taste buds were coated with corn sweetener from one cola, the
tasters would be unlikely to be able to discern a sweetness difference in the
second.

will often 'win' , but might not over the long term. Ditto the louder of two

audio presentations...exciting in the
short term, possibly annoying in the long term.

None of this is particularly germane to ABX tests for sheer difference. It's

actually RECOMMENDED that such audio DBTs
include a 'training' period, to *increase* sensitivity to possibly subtle
differences. The crucial methodological point
remains that when it comes time to actually identify X, it be done blind.

My purpose in pointing this out was not cast any aspersions on D-B tests in
audio Ð I think that boat has pretty-much sailed. But it was rather to show a
real D-B test situation where D-B tests don't really work which suggests that
their might be others.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:13:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam
cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some
other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat
of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt
marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then
cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some
third party move the cups around from the position that
they person who marked them and covered the markings left
them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was
where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that
I couldn't tell which of the major colas were which. The
diet Cola I was able to pick out, but the Coke from the
Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I
couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and
I've been challenged more than once) it would seem that
there is no real difference between Coke and Pepsi.

IME the anecdote above is one of the reasons why we invented the ABX test.
In the ABX version of the test above, you would have correctly-labelled
bottles of Coke and Pepsi to compare to. I think you would find that it
makes all the difference in the world.

I don't follow you. How can the test be double-blind if the participants can
see from the labels which they are drinking? In the test above, the samples
were correctly labeled, but the labels were covered and the line-up of the
three samples was scrambled by someone who didn't see the labels before they
were covered.

It is easy to get over-confident, be afflicted by performance anxiety, and
make dumb mistakes.

True, but none of those is the flaw in this test. The flaw in this test is
that the tastes of these soft drinks linger on the palate obfuscating one's
ability to tell whether or not the second taste is different from the first.

The same things happen during sighted evaluations, but the visual clues
conceal the errors.

Apparently.

[C. Leeds]

wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of such
a "futile and silly brain.

Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:47:41 -0700, lid wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable
difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind
tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled
styrofoam
cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually
a
diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They
wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then
cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move
the
cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered
the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was
where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell
which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out,
but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes
I
couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been
challenged
more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke
and Pepsi. But there is. I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So
many
people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress
fails
to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I
cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for
Coke."


I took some of those tests in the New Coke Test era. Basically, the
cups were too small to generate aftertaste. And putting the product
into a cup changed the relative ratio of CO2 content (which differed).

One time I demanded ... and got ... whole cans. Then, I could
reliably tell the difference.

I can tell the difference between real ("Mexican") Coke
and fructose Coke only after two or three cans. But after
several cans, its really obvious. There is an aftertaste difference.
Normally, however, I drink Diet Coke. No matter how many cans
I drink, I cannot tell the difference between Aspartame and Splenda,
unless of course the Aspartame has hydrolyzed (yuck!).

Doug McDonald

Well, I've tried both the Aspartame Coke and the Splenda Coke and while both
are vile, the Splenda product has NOTHING in common with real Coca Cola. But
I do agree with you about Mexican Coke made with real sugar. I can get that
at my local Smart & Final store and I pay the extra and buy it. It's so much
better (and better for you) than fructose.

But getting back to audio, is it possible that (some of) the same pitfalls
that occur in a taste-test such as those we've been discussing could also be
present in D-B test for audio components?

[[email protected]]

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no. However
simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag. of the
subjective variety will serve. They do not start "auditions" with such a
self declaration but certainly leave the reader by article's end with the
firm impression that such ability to wrap their ears around some supposed
sonic attributes is absolute.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities
regardless of such a "futile and silly brain.

Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?

One of the the leading subjectivist audio journals in the world calls itself
"The Absolute Sound".

The notion of subjectivist reviewing seems kinda self-contradictory. If a
person's perceptions are unique and relevant only to that person, why would
anybody else be interested in them?

[bob]

On Jul 21, 10:31*pm, Sonnova wrote:

But getting back to audio, is it possible that (some of) the same pitfalls
that occur in a taste-test such as those we've been discussing could also be
present in D-B test for audio components?

No more than either of them would share the same pitfalls as DB
medical trials. You're talking about very different biological
mechanisms here. The aftertaste problem suggests that taste tests
might require some "palate cleansing" between tastes. Whereas for
listening tests, any gap between samples decreases the sensitivity of
the test.

It may be that you're drawing too strong a conclusion from the taste
tests you ran yourself. I'm sure you tried to be as scientific as
possible, but there may be a better test design that would produce a
different result.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:13:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam
cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some
other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat
of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt
marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then
cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some
third party move the cups around from the position that
they person who marked them and covered the markings
left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola
was where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to
admit that I couldn't tell which of the major colas
were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out, but
the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I
could and sometimes I couldn't. By the scientific
results of these tests (and I've been challenged more
than once) it would seem that there is no real
difference between Coke and Pepsi.

IME the anecdote above is one of the reasons why we
invented the ABX test. In the ABX version of the test
above, you would have correctly-labelled bottles of Coke
and Pepsi to compare to. I think you would find that it
makes all the difference in the world.

I don't follow you. How can the test be double-blind if
the participants can see from the labels which they are
drinking?

The fluids for reference purposes are clearly labelled. The fluids for taste
testing still have their indentities concealed.

This is exactly what ABX testing entails, and there have never been any
serious complaints about it.

Additionally, ABX testing includes user-defined periods of silence between
the alternatives. The idea was to address sonic latency if such an effect
exists, or to address latency in the equipment.

It was found that the ear is far more sensitive when the periods of silence
are minimized. If the periods of silence are a second or more, listener
reliability and sensitivity fall off pretty dramatically.