To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

wrote:
To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:


I don't believe anyone here denies that sighted bias exists. The question is
how to eliminate or control for it in audio component comparisons, without
obscuring what you are testing for in the first place. DBTs applied in the
manner suggested by the objectivists do not seem to be the solution.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.


I read the article you linked but I failed to see the part about which
amplifier the rats preferred ;-).
Regards,
Mike

One person here says it is as simple as placing a cloth over connections
of the item under test, all other visual clues remaining. Just turn out
the lights, or more conventionally, a dbx setup where all visual clues are
present at all times and the test is in full control of the testee.
Removing knowledge of visual clues is simple, not knowing which item is
under test is the thing that makes the results the same as random choice
would produce. What the artcle shows is the perception of "real
difference" can be explained by the adjacent perception process of hearing
and seeing in the physical brain. The tests which remove knowing which
visual clue goes with which hearing event makes this process random, or
more likely it doesn't happen at all because visual clues remain the same
while hearing clues change without the testee's knowledge. This can be
reversed too, in the instance where hearing and seeing clues remain the
same but the testee is told a switch is made, we know that produces
results based on another kind of bias of expectation which is entirely the
product of the perception process cut off from the actual clues as intake.

I don't believe anyone here denies that sighted bias exists. The question is
how to eliminate or control for it in audio component comparisons, without
obscuring what you are testing for in the first place. DBTs applied in the
manner suggested by the objectivists do not seem to be the solution.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.


I read the article you linked but I failed to see the part about which
amplifier the rats preferred ;-).
Regards,
Mike

On 20 Feb 2004 20:58:02 GMT, wrote:

What the artcle shows is the perception of "real
difference" can be explained by the adjacent perception process of hearing
and seeing in the physical brain.

The article as given (not the original publication, btw) only suggests
a possible physical basis for your proposition. It does not explain
it.

Kal

I don't take your point, the two terms in this context seems a case of a
difference without a distinction. Any scientific "explanation" is at the
same time a "suggestion" of an application of an observed principle.
Brain activity in the seeing area spills over into the hearing area,
exciting perceptions that are not inherent in the physical sound waves as
they arive at the ear. Remove the adjacent excitation and the perception
receeds in the hearing area, that is the thesis as the research
suggests/explains. That is why the subjectivist can claim with such vigor
that something is really happening, it is, but only as a perception
product and not a realistic experience of the physical event. The
perception experience is so vivid as to motivate the adoption of any
number of explanations/suggestions in an attempt to tie it back into the
physical realm. The oft repeated "just trust yyour ears" is in fact
perhaps not an appeal to the function of the ear but the spill over in
adjacent areas that are down stream of ears.

The article as given (not the original publication, btw) only suggests
a possible physical basis for your proposition. It does not explain
it.

Kal

wrote:
I don't take your point, the two terms in this context seems a case of a
difference without a distinction. Any scientific "explanation" is at the
same time a "suggestion" of an application of an observed principle.

I've read the paper and the page you cited. One could use it to speculate
that sight might be necessary to *increase* hearing sensitivity by activating
those 'border' neurons, and vice
versa. It could be used as well as to speculate that it gie a basis for
the *spuriousness* of sighed perceptions sound, as you have done.
But in fact neither thing was actually tested.

Brain activity in the seeing area spills over into the hearing area,
exciting perceptions that are not inherent in the physical sound waves as
they arive at the ear. Remove the adjacent excitation and the perception
receeds in the hearing area, that is the thesis as the research
suggests/explains.

But in a real DBT, the adjacent excitation is not necessarily removed at all.
Most DBT subjects aren't literally deprived of visual input.

It seems to me that using the study to support either view, is premature.

That is why the subjectivist can claim with such vigor
that something is really happening, it is, but only as a perception
product and not a realistic experience of the physical event. The
perception experience is so vivid as to motivate the adoption of any
number of explanations/suggestions in an attempt to tie it back into the
physical realm. The oft repeated "just trust yyour ears" is in fact
perhaps not an appeal to the function of the ear but the spill over in
adjacent areas that are down stream of ears.

But there is no evidence that the border visual neurons *aren't* firing in a DBT
too, or are firing any differently than in a 'sighted' test.
What the paper shows is that when visual , somatosensory (touch)
or audio input is present, there is robust activity in the expected
cortical areas, and there is also low-level
neural activity in cortical areas that are unexpected, based on the
parcelling paradigm. Some of these neurons actually appear to be
'multisensory' -- they respond to stimulus of more than one kind.

Note that the visual input in this case is flashes or moving bars of light
against a dark background (or its negative image) , i.e., a
'moving' or 'active' or 'tracking' visual stimulus...which
is hardly representative of what is going on in audio comparison.
Teh audio stimulus consisted of hisses, clicks, chirps and other
'complex;' sounds', but not, I suspect, music. ;
It's interesting that hisses and clicks and chirps were usedm
since one might think that things like hissing and chirping
would set of all kinds of instinctual alarms in a rat.

Btw, somatosensory stimulus consisted of deflections of hair or
skin using a camel's hair brush ...or,far more
ominously, of 'stimulation of deep tissue by using probes and manual
manipulation.' Anyone care to discuss the implications of THAT
for audio comparison? ;

--

-S.

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

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:05:35 GMT, wrote:

I don't take your point, the two terms in this context seems a case of a
difference without a distinction. Any scientific "explanation" is at the
same time a "suggestion" of an application of an observed principle.

It is the difference between reading the findings or the discussion of
a scientific paper. In the former, the data is presented. In the
latter, the significance of the data is discussed with, one hopes,
reasonable speculation of the meaning.

Brain activity in the seeing area spills over into the hearing area,
exciting perceptions that are not inherent in the physical sound waves as
they arive at the ear. Remove the adjacent excitation and the perception
receeds in the hearing area, that is the thesis as the research
suggests/explains.

I think that is what the electrical recordings can suggest but without
correlated psychophysics. (Unless I missed such reference.) As I
said, this is a second-hand report and there may be more in the real
paper although it is the speculations that are usually pumped up in
the popular reports.

That is why the subjectivist can claim with such vigor
that something is really happening, it is, but only as a perception
product and not a realistic experience of the physical event. The
perception experience is so vivid as to motivate the adoption of any
number of explanations/suggestions in an attempt to tie it back into the
physical realm. The oft repeated "just trust yyour ears" is in fact
perhaps not an appeal to the function of the ear but the spill over in
adjacent areas that are down stream of ears.

No argument with this thesis and the relevance of the report but,
again, I fail to see any proof of the thesis. The overlap in what
have been regarded as specialised cortical areas and, indeed, their
plasticity is now accepted and a hot area of investigation.

Kal

wrote:



To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

So if I want to change the sound of my Parasound amplifier, all I have to do is
put a Pass next to it? How about a photograph of a Pass? I'd call that a great
example of "equalization."

wrote in message news:IqsZb.23804$Xp.103599@attbi_s54...
To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

I can hear differences between cables.

I can hear differences between amps.

Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access. Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias. The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

When I conduct comparative tests, I always use extended in-the-dark
listening.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
wrote in message news:IqsZb.23804$Xp.103599@attbi_s54...
To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

I can hear differences between cables.

I can hear differences between amps.

But you don't know if those differences are real.

Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access. Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias. The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

Is that a fact? It's wonder they don't douse the lights completely at
concerts, then.

When I conduct comparative tests, I always use extended in-the-dark
listening.

Fine, but where's the evidence that that avoids the pitfalls of *knowing*
which DUT is in the circuit?


--

-S.

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

Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access. Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias. The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

Is that a fact? It's wonder they don't douse the lights completely at
concerts, then.

Not if you realize that concerts serve an experience that includes seeing
musicians perform. Seeing musicians perform allows one to appreciate a
performance that hearing it alone, no matter how clearly it is heard that way,
does not allow. Keep the lights on at concerts please. Even if it makes for a
less pure listening experience

S888Wheel wrote:
Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access. Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias. The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

Is that a fact? It's wonder they don't douse the lights completely at
concerts, then.

Not if you realize that concerts serve an experience that includes seeing
musicians perform. Seeing musicians perform allows one to appreciate a
performance that hearing it alone, no matter how clearly it is heard that way,
does not allow.


By the same token, seeing the components allows one to 'appreciate' a system's
performance in a way that hearing them alone, does not. But that
'appreciation' has nothing necessarily to with determining audible difference.
It's just another way to enjoy your experience.

Keep the lights on at concerts please. Even if it makes for a
less pure listening experience

Ever notice that orchestra auditions these days involve a blind
judging component?




--

-S.

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

Steven Sullivan wrote:

....large snips....

Keep the lights on at concerts please. Even if it makes for a
less pure listening experience

Ever notice that orchestra auditions these days involve a blind
judging component?


Interesting. Can you expand on this some more?

By the same token, seeing the components allows one to 'appreciate' a
system's
performance in a way that hearing them alone, does not. But that
'appreciation' has nothing necessarily to with determining audible
difference.
It's just another way to enjoy your experience.

I agree with this. I enjoy good looking equipment and I enjoy a aesthetically
pleasing listening envirement. It does make for a better experience over all.



Ever notice that orchestra auditions these days involve a blind
judging component?

I have never been to such an audition.

Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system. It is suggested
that visual knowledge of which gear is active provides the overlap in the
hearing and seeing parts of the brain, in addition to the anticipation
bias of which is thought to provide some difference beforehand. Dark
listening only eliminates one of the perception altering sources. The
thing to do would be dark listening without knowing which bit of gear is
active, which would remove the anticipation bias also. One way to remove
the visual input would be to have both bits of gear contained in boxes of
identical appearence, or just put a cloth over the connections obscuring
which is active; as has been suggested. If removing this knowledge
produces results tending to random, as it apparently does, then we know
knowledge of what is active is a perception distorting input.

If someone wants to test level of illumination as a varible, it can be
tested, but I fear it a waste of time. This has been done already in
another form. It has been shown that blind folk do no better in hearing
differences then do sighted people when knowledge of what gear is active
is absent.

wrote in message news:e4P_b.6984$AL.139593@attbi_s03...
Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system.

You are simply asserting something that is not known to be true. I
claim that 'sighted' listening is less accurate NOT because you 'know'
what's in the system, but because your brain is using a lot of energy
on vision. If I litsen during the day, I close my eyes....

You have submitted no evidence for your claim that 'bias' is at fault,
when I have offered a mechanism known to exist...

On 27 Feb 2004 16:53:40 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

wrote in message news:e4P_b.6984$AL.139593@attbi_s03...
Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system.

You are simply asserting something that is not known to be true.

Actually, it *is* known to be true, and can easily be demonstrated.

I claim that 'sighted' listening is less accurate NOT because you 'know'
what's in the system, but because your brain is using a lot of energy
on vision. If I litsen during the day, I close my eyes....

That however, is indeed an assertion which is known to be untrue.

You have submitted no evidence for your claim that 'bias' is at fault,

There is a mass of such evidence available - why do you choose to
ignore it? Solipsism is no substitute for hard evidence....

when I have offered a mechanism known to exist...

Your mechanism does indeed exist, but it won't allow you to hear
differences which are below audibility, such as those among cables, or
good amplifiers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote in message news:e4P_b.6984$AL.139593@attbi_s03...
Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system.

Prove it! There is NO evidence to prove that the senses are influenced
by 'knowledge'.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
wrote in message news:e4P_b.6984$AL.139593@attbi_s03...
Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system.

Prove it! There is NO evidence to prove that the senses are influenced
by 'knowledge'.


I wonder what the authors of this reference book would make of that claim:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0849...23#reader-link

You can view the Table of Contents at Amazon.
Notice particularly the section headings of Chapter 4,
"Factors Influencing Sensory Verdicts'.
For somre reason, Mssrs. Meilgaard et al., who are on their third edition
of this book, PERSIST in including discussion
of such fictions as 'expectation bias' and 'mutual suggestion'.

And why do you suppose the esteemed authors of *this* well-regarded tome
on psychoacoustics, Drs. Zwicker and Fastl, discuss 'bias'
in the in the 'Methods and Procedures' section, so early on in the book?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

And why, pray tell, does this dictionary of psychological testing
contain an entry for the term 'blind study'?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books


Please, someone write to these authors and let them know it's all a
mistake. Michael Scarpitti says so.



--

-S.

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

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:42:20 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

wrote in message news:e4P_b.6984$AL.139593@attbi_s03...
Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system.

Prove it! There is NO evidence to prove that the senses are influenced
by 'knowledge'.

This is arrant nonsense. There is a *vast* slew of such evidence,
starting with the classic 'false sighted' test where nothing is
actually changed, but enthusiastic audiophiles duly report 'night and
day' differences when they *think* that a tube amp or magical cable
has been introduced.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in news:aiq0c.3858
$ko6.13127@attbi_s02:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:42:20 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

wrote in message news:e4P_b.6984$AL.139593
@attbi_s03...
Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system.

Prove it! There is NO evidence to prove that the senses are influenced
by 'knowledge'.

This is arrant nonsense. There is a *vast* slew of such evidence,
starting with the classic 'false sighted' test where nothing is
actually changed, but enthusiastic audiophiles duly report 'night and
day' differences when they *think* that a tube amp or magical cable
has been introduced.

I too have observed sighted bias in a group of people as well as read
reports describing the effects. In addition, it is the rare individual
that does not succumb to peer pressure, arrogance, and other social
factors which would then influnce the conclusion or reporting of his
findings.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

On 24 Feb 2004 17:01:06 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

I can hear differences between cables.

So you claim, but you provide no reliable evidence that this is so.

I can hear differences between amps.

So you claim, but you provide no reliable evidence that this is so.

Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access.

So can everyone else - if such differences actually exist. Of course,
we can also imagine so many things when it's dark................

Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias.

No, it's a well-established and easily proved problem.

The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

True, but irrelevant to the question.

When I conduct comparative tests, I always use extended in-the-dark
listening.

As do most of us, I'm sure. This however has *nothing* to do with
'sighted' testing, which is concerned only with *knowledge* of which
item is connected.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:01:06 +0000, Michael Scarpitti wrote:

wrote in message news:IqsZb.23804$Xp.103599@attbi_s54...
To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

I can hear differences between cables.

I can hear differences between amps.

Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access. Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias. The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

When I conduct comparative tests, I always use extended in-the-dark
listening.
__________________________________________________ _____

Michael..

I hear differences between some cables..others sound
identical..some are "acceptable"..but, not so good. Some
sound better.

I hear differences between some amps...some sound about
the same...some sound "not so good". Some are better.

Now, having said that, I am aware that some participants
of this forum...long since committing themselves to a
basic "...all sound the same..there is no difference..."
mindset..will pile into this somewhat humorous fray.

They will be very adamant in knowing what "you" can
and can't hear! The humor of that stance comes to
play when one can easily follow the logic that you
or I, nor anyone knows what another individual's
mental processes are doing to the interpretive
processes. This is unique to each individual.

Perhaps, we have a group that missed their calling...
..neuro-research..or some study of the myriad of
variables in the mental processes on the analysis of
input from external sources.

The Universe is so much "neater" when one knows
what others are experiencing..and can tell them so
with an adamancy all rolled up in an agenda that
was committed to long ago! We are learning more
as the years go by. Our knowledge of the mental
processes is still in its infancy.

So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance
here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears
cable or amplifier differences..so be it!

If one prefers to see the logo on an amplifier..maybe,
shine a spotlite on it..and feels a comfort from that..
.... again "so be it". If less light makes thing better
for you..all is well with that! But, do be aware of these
agenda laden, strangely humorous types that know what you
need and how you intrepret things..Not so..this is
a strange mindset. Read these meanderings, with a
sense of humor and go about with your own decisions.

Only you will be listening to your system, day in and day out.
Not someone on a newsgroup with an arrogant agenda!
Trust your own sentiments and decisions.

Be happy, enjoy the music.

Leonard..

P.S. For those that disagree with these sentiments..

Go to Home Depot and check out the latest cheap
wire that might have come in. Also, Circuit City
has a great receiver (digital amp) sounds fine
with the volume level a 9 o'clock..missing
something on the low end..but, it is the epitomy
of the low end. A lot of receiver for $229.00.
It just seems to be missing something to my ears.

Purchase of these articles will help one confirm,
in their mind, that all sound the same. Be happy
living the "..all is the same agenda". I commend
you for this ability. You're happy...we're happy.
No one attacks you for having this wonderful
ability.

lcw999 wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:01:06 +0000, Michael Scarpitti wrote:

wrote in message news:IqsZb.23804$Xp.103599@attbi_s54...
To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

I can hear differences between cables.

I can hear differences between amps.

Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access. Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias. The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

When I conduct comparative tests, I always use extended in-the-dark
listening.
__________________________________________________ _____

Michael..

I hear differences between some cables..others sound
identical..some are "acceptable"..but, not so good. Some
sound better.

I hear differences between some amps...some sound about
the same...some sound "not so good". Some are better.

Now, having said that, I am aware that some participants
of this forum...long since committing themselves to a
basic "...all sound the same..there is no difference..."
mindset..will pile into this somewhat humorous fray.

They will be very adamant in knowing what "you" can
and can't hear! The humor of that stance comes to
play when one can easily follow the logic that you
or I, nor anyone knows what another individual's
mental processes are doing to the interpretive
processes. This is unique to each individual.

Perhaps, we have a group that missed their calling...
..neuro-research..or some study of the myriad of
variables in the mental processes on the analysis of
input from external sources.

The Universe is so much "neater" when one knows
what others are experiencing..and can tell them so
with an adamancy all rolled up in an agenda that
was committed to long ago! We are learning more
as the years go by. Our knowledge of the mental
processes is still in its infancy.

So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance
here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears
cable or amplifier differences..so be it!

If one prefers to see the logo on an amplifier..maybe,
shine a spotlite on it..and feels a comfort from that..
.... again "so be it". If less light makes thing better
for you..all is well with that! But, do be aware of these
agenda laden, strangely humorous types that know what you
need and how you intrepret things..Not so..this is
a strange mindset. Read these meanderings, with a
sense of humor and go about with your own decisions.

Only you will be listening to your system, day in and day out.
Not someone on a newsgroup with an arrogant agenda!
Trust your own sentiments and decisions.

Be happy, enjoy the music.

Leonard..

P.S. For those that disagree with these sentiments..

Go to Home Depot and check out the latest cheap
wire that might have come in. Also, Circuit City
has a great receiver (digital amp) sounds fine
with the volume level a 9 o'clock..missing
something on the low end..but, it is the epitomy
of the low end. A lot of receiver for $229.00.
It just seems to be missing something to my ears.

Purchase of these articles will help one confirm,
in their mind, that all sound the same. Be happy
living the "..all is the same agenda". I commend
you for this ability. You're happy...we're happy.
No one attacks you for having this wonderful
ability.


You seem to have totally missed the point here. No one is arguing that
Michael can hear those differences sighted. The argument is whether
those differences are still there, if he does not know what is being
played. Michael believes that there is no way that expectation bias can
lead to differences, despite the body of research that indicates that
indeed such biases exist and overwhelm subtle differences. Michael's
viewpoint is being challenged here, not his ability to hear or not hear
differences sighted.

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:18:11 +0000, chung wrote:

You seem to have totally missed the point here. No one is arguing that
Michael can hear those differences sighted. The argument is whether
those differences are still there, if he does not know what is being
played. Michael believes that there is no way that expectation bias can
lead to differences, despite the body of research that indicates that
indeed such biases exist and overwhelm subtle differences. Michael's
viewpoint is being challenged here, not his ability to hear or not hear
differences sighted.

The ability of knowledge and/or belief to influence how a person perceives
something is well established. For example, that is the reason that
placebos are used in the trials of new pharmaceuticals. Depending on what
is being tested, up to 40% of the people taking the placebo report
improvement in their medical condition (and also side effects.) This is
completely based on the =expectation= that the drug will make them better.
As such, the "real" drug under test must do significantly statistically
better than the fake one.

The same thing applies to auditioning audio equipment, whether amps,
speakers, cables or whatever. If you know which piece of equipment you are
listening to at any given moment, your knowledge and beliefs about that
item are going to influence your perception no matter how many times you
tell yourself otherwise.

That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing your beliefs to
enhance your enjoyment of music when using a particular item. Just don't
confuse that enjoyment with the results of a double-blind test under
carefully controlled conditions. They are two different animals.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Wheels wrote:

I am listening for the joy of listening to music. Part of that joy lies in
parts of the sound that is often lost in bad recordings and playback. none
of
it is ever completely captured even in the best recordings and playback.
You
may hear the inflections and other important aspects of a vocal performance
but
it is affected by the poor recording. It changes the affect of the
performance.
It changes the affect of the music as a whole. That is why the art of the
music
and the sound of the playback are inseperable.

This is only true for the tiny minority of music lovers in the world who are
audiophiles. The vast majority of music lovers do not find mediocre sound
reproduction to bother them in any way, or to detract from their
appreciation and enjoyment of music. For them, art and sound ARE quite
separable, and they care far more about the former. Perhaps they are the
lucky ones.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963

"W. Oland" wrote in message ...


The ability of knowledge and/or belief to influence how a person perceives
something is well established. For example, that is the reason that
placebos are used in the trials of new pharmaceuticals. Depending on what
is being tested, up to 40% of the people taking the placebo report
improvement in their medical condition (and also side effects.) This is
completely based on the =expectation= that the drug will make them better.
As such, the "real" drug under test must do significantly statistically
better than the fake one.

It cannot make a Harmon-Kardon amp sound consistently(!) different
from a Hafler amp, especially when I have no idea how each is supposed
to sound. It cannot make five different amps sound different from each
other, and consistently so.


The same thing applies to auditioning audio equipment, whether amps,
speakers, cables or whatever. If you know which piece of equipment you are
listening to at any given moment, your knowledge and beliefs about that
item are going to influence your perception no matter how many times you
tell yourself otherwise.

I have said this before, and I am going to say it again, for the LAST
time:

I had NO beliefs about how these amps were supposed to sound. It was a
'blind' trial, in the sense that I had not listened to any of the amps
before bringing them home for listening tests.

Hafler
PS Audio
Harmon-Kardon
Bryston
Sony

They all sounded different.

How can my 'beliefs' affect my judgement, when I had no 'beliefs' to
start with?!

I listened with Stax electrostatic earspeakers connected directly to
the power amps. Perhaps your system is not as critical.

But DON'T tell me I cannot hear differences between amps this way.
Hellen Keller could hear them!

"W. Oland" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:18:11 +0000, chung wrote:

You seem to have totally missed the point here. No one is arguing that
Michael can hear those differences sighted. The argument is whether
those differences are still there, if he does not know what is being
played. Michael believes that there is no way that expectation bias can
lead to differences, despite the body of research that indicates that
indeed such biases exist and overwhelm subtle differences. Michael's
viewpoint is being challenged here, not his ability to hear or not hear
differences sighted.

The ability of knowledge and/or belief to influence how a person perceives
something is well established. For example, that is the reason that
placebos are used in the trials of new pharmaceuticals. Depending on what
is being tested, up to 40% of the people taking the placebo report
improvement in their medical condition (and also side effects.) This is
completely based on the =expectation= that the drug will make them better.
As such, the "real" drug under test must do significantly statistically
better than the fake one.

You must also understand the drugs are tested on people who are ill
and are not necessarily the best judges of the effects.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a typical study, on Zoloft:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Table II
Treatment-Emergent Adverse Experience Incidence in
Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Patients Reporting
Zoloft Placebo Difference
Adverse Experience (N=861) (N=853) Percentage
Autonomic Nervous System Disorders
Mouth Dry 16.3 9.3 7.0
Sweating Increased 8.4 2.9 5.5
Cardiovascular
Palpitations 3.5 1.6 1.9
Chest Pain 1.0 1.6 -0.6
Central and Peripheral Nervous System Disorders
Headache 20.3 19.0 1.3
Dizziness 11.7 6.7 5.0
Tremor 10.7 2.7 8.0
Paresthesia 2.0 1.8 0.2
Hypoesthesia 1.7 0.6 1.1
Twitching 1.4 0.1 1.3
Hypertonia 1.3 0.4 0.9
Disorders of Skin and Appendages
Rash 2.1 1.5 0.6
Gastrointestinal Disorders
Nausea 26.1 11.8 14.3
Diarrhea/Loose Stools 17.7 9.3 8.4
Constipation 8.4 6.3 2.1
Dyspepsia 6.0 2.8 3.2
Vomiting 3.8 1.8 2.0
Flatulence 3.3 2.5 0.8
Anorexia 2.8 1.6 1.2
Abdominal Pain 2.4 2.2 0.2
Appetite Increased 1.3 0.9 0.4
General
Fatigue 10.6 8.1 2.5
Hot Flushes 2.2 0.5 1.7
Fever 1.6 0.6 1.0
Back Pain 1.5 0.9 0.6
Metabolic and Nutritional Disorders
Thirst 1.4 0.9 0.5
Musculo-Skeletal System Disorders
Myalgia 1.7 1.5 0.2
Psychiatric Disorders
Insomnia 16.4 8.8 7.6
Sexual Dysfunction-
Male (1) 15.5 2.2 13.3
Somnolence 13.4 5.9 7.5
Agitation 5.6 4.0 1.6
Nervousness 3.4 1.9 1.5
Anxiety 2.6 1.3 1.3
Yawning 1.9 0.2 1.7
Sexual Dysfunction-
Female (2) 1.7 0.2 1.5
Concentration Impaired 1.3 0.5 0.8
Reproduction
Menstrual Disorder (2) 1.0 0.5 0.5
Respiratory System Disorders
Rhinitis 2.0 1.5 0.5
Pharyngitis 1.2 0.9 0.3
Special Senses
Vision Abnormal 4.2 2.1 2.1
Tinnitus 1.4 1.1 0.3
Taste Perversion 1.2 0.7 0.5
Urinary System Disorders
Micturition Frequency 2.0 1.2 0.8
Micturition Disorder 1.4 0.5 0.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*Events reported by at least 1% of patients treated with
Zoloft are included.
(1)% based on male patients only: 271 Zoloft and 271 placebo
patients. Male sexual dysfunction can be broken down into
the categories of decreased libido, impotence and ejaculatory
delay. In this data set, the percentages of males in the
Zoloft group with these complaints are 4.8%, 4.8% and 8.9%,
respectively. It should be noted that since some Zoloft
patients reported more than one category of male sexual
dysfunction, the incidence of each category of male sexual
dysfunction combined is larger than the incidence for the
general category of male sexual dysfunction, in which each
patient is counted only once.
(2)% based on female patient only: 590 Zoloft and 582 placebo
patients.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Other events observed during the premarketing evaluation of
sertraline:
During its premarketing assessment, multiple doses of sertraline were
administered to 2710 subjects. The conditions and duration of exposure
to sertraline varied greatly, and included (in overlapping categories)
clinical pharmacology studies, open and double-blind studies,
uncontrolled and controlled studies, inpatient and outpatient studies,
fixed-dose and titration studies, and studies for indications other
than depression. Untoward events associated with this exposure were
recorded by clinical investigators using terminology of their own
choosing. Consequently, it is not possible to provide a meaningful
estimate of the proportion of individuals experiencing adverse events
without first grouping similar types of untoward events into a smaller
number of standardized event categories.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The same thing applies to auditioning audio equipment, whether amps,
speakers, cables or whatever.

Unwarranted claim. No basis from generalization from drugs to audio.
They are completely different sorts of experiences.

If you know which piece of equipment you are
listening to at any given moment, your knowledge and beliefs about that
item are going to influence your perception no matter how many times you
tell yourself otherwise.

What knowledge? What belief? What did I know about Harmon Kradon, PS
Audio, or Denon BEFORE I tried them? Nothing! I did not listen to
these products before I tried them out.

That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing your beliefs to
enhance your enjoyment of music when using a particular item. Just don't
confuse that enjoyment with the results of a double-blind test under
carefully controlled conditions. They are two different animals.

I have no 'beliefs'.

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:32:27 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

Now, having said that, I am aware that some participants
of this forum...long since committing themselves to a
basic "...all sound the same..there is no difference..."
mindset..will pile into this somewhat humorous fray.

They will be very adamant in knowing what "you" can
and can't hear! The humor of that stance comes to
play when one can easily follow the logic that you
or I, nor anyone knows what another individual's
mental processes are doing to the interpretive
processes. This is unique to each individual.

The humour is however somewhat dissipated when you consider that what
is being said is analagous to my stating as an absolute fact that
*you* cannot run a mile in three minutes.

The point of course is that no human can do this, in the same way that
there is *no* evidence that *any* human can tell apart two nominally
competent cables (i.e. not comparing 8AWG to 28AWG or other such
silliness).

Perhaps, we have a group that missed their calling...
..neuro-research..or some study of the myriad of
variables in the mental processes on the analysis of
input from external sources.

Indeed so - and there has been a raft of research over the last
century into human hearing thresholds and acuity, all of which
supports the notion that 'wire is wire'.

So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance
here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears
cable or amplifier differences..so be it!

However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know*
what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:vcL0c.95418$4o.117983@attbi_s52...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:32:27 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

Now, having said that, I am aware that some participants
of this forum...long since committing themselves to a
basic "...all sound the same..there is no difference..."
mindset..will pile into this somewhat humorous fray.

They will be very adamant in knowing what "you" can
and can't hear! The humor of that stance comes to
play when one can easily follow the logic that you
or I, nor anyone knows what another individual's
mental processes are doing to the interpretive
processes. This is unique to each individual.

The humour is however somewhat dissipated when you consider that what
is being said is analagous to my stating as an absolute fact that
*you* cannot run a mile in three minutes.

The point of course is that no human can do this, in the same way that
there is *no* evidence that *any* human can tell apart two nominally
competent cables (i.e. not comparing 8AWG to 28AWG or other such
silliness).


Gosh, Stewart, how long did it take you to test every human and every piece
of wire ever used by them, and then verifying "competency" tests on those
that might have sounded different, to prove you point. Or might this be,
just might it be, and assertion, a judgement, your considered opinon?

Naw, it surely is a "fact".

Perhaps, we have a group that missed their calling...
..neuro-research..or some study of the myriad of
variables in the mental processes on the analysis of
input from external sources.

Indeed so - and there has been a raft of research over the last
century into human hearing thresholds and acuity, all of which
supports the notion that 'wire is wire'.


Last I looked, this thread was about amplifiers and what Michael feels he
heard in comparing five of them.

So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance
here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears
cable or amplifier differences..so be it!

However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know*
what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced.

Gosh, Stewart, what happened to the *properly designed* and *nominally
competent* disclaimers?
A few more opinions slipping into fact?

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:11:08 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:vcL0c.95418$4o.117983@attbi_s52...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:32:27 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

Now, having said that, I am aware that some participants
of this forum...long since committing themselves to a
basic "...all sound the same..there is no difference..."
mindset..will pile into this somewhat humorous fray.

They will be very adamant in knowing what "you" can
and can't hear! The humor of that stance comes to
play when one can easily follow the logic that you
or I, nor anyone knows what another individual's
mental processes are doing to the interpretive
processes. This is unique to each individual.

The humour is however somewhat dissipated when you consider that what
is being said is analagous to my stating as an absolute fact that
*you* cannot run a mile in three minutes.

The point of course is that no human can do this, in the same way that
there is *no* evidence that *any* human can tell apart two nominally
competent cables (i.e. not comparing 8AWG to 28AWG or other such
silliness).

Gosh, Stewart, how long did it take you to test every human and every piece
of wire ever used by them, and then verifying "competency" tests on those
that might have sounded different, to prove you point.

I don't have to, since all existing evidence and all medical and
engineering knowledge, says that I am right about this. If *you* wish
to claim otherwise, then that is an extraordinary claim, and the
burden of proof is on *you*.

Or might this be,
just might it be, and assertion, a judgement, your considered opinon?

It's a considered opinion based on a *total* lack of evidence to
support the existence of 'cable sound'.

Naw, it surely is a "fact".

It surely is a good working premise - unless you can offer *any* shred
of evidence in rebuttal.

Perhaps, we have a group that missed their calling...
..neuro-research..or some study of the myriad of
variables in the mental processes on the analysis of
input from external sources.

Indeed so - and there has been a raft of research over the last
century into human hearing thresholds and acuity, all of which
supports the notion that 'wire is wire'.

Last I looked, this thread was about amplifiers and what Michael feels he
heard in comparing five of them.

Clearly, you didn't look at the thread title. Michael is claiming that
he can't possibly be mistaken in what he thinks he hears in sighted
tests, we are pointing out that it's not only possible, it's highly
likely.

So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance
here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears
cable or amplifier differences..so be it!

However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know*
what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced.

Gosh, Stewart, what happened to the *properly designed* and *nominally
competent* disclaimers? A few more opinions slipping into fact?

Merely brevity - the disclaimers still apply to amps, but may safely
be extended to *all* so-called 'audiophile' cable.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:vcL0c.95418$4o.117983@attbi_s52...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:32:27 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

Now, having said that, I am aware that some participants
of this forum...long since committing themselves to a
basic "...all sound the same..there is no difference..."
mindset..will pile into this somewhat humorous fray.

They will be very adamant in knowing what "you" can
and can't hear! The humor of that stance comes to
play when one can easily follow the logic that you
or I, nor anyone knows what another individual's
mental processes are doing to the interpretive
processes. This is unique to each individual.

The humour is however somewhat dissipated when you consider that what
is being said is analagous to my stating as an absolute fact that
*you* cannot run a mile in three minutes.

This is precisely what is at question: whether we can hear the
differences. You're simply begging the question.

The point of course is that no human can do this, in the same way that
there is *no* evidence that *any* human can tell apart two nominally
competent cables (i.e. not comparing 8AWG to 28AWG or other such
silliness).

Begging the question.

Perhaps, we have a group that missed their calling...
..neuro-research..or some study of the myriad of
variables in the mental processes on the analysis of
input from external sources.

Indeed so - and there has been a raft of research over the last
century into human hearing thresholds and acuity, all of which
supports the notion that 'wire is wire'.

Occam.....


So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance
here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears
cable or amplifier differences..so be it!

However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know*
what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced.

The simplest explanation to account for audible differences among
components is audible differences among components....the burden of
proof is therefore upon YOU, not me....and I am not satisfied with the
mere assertions you have presented so far...

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:02:38 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:vcL0c.95418$4o.117983@attbi_s52...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:32:27 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know*
what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced.

The simplest explanation to account for audible differences among
components is audible differences among components....the burden of
proof is therefore upon YOU, not me....and I am not satisfied with the
mere assertions you have presented so far...

You are completely incorrect, and you are burying your head in the
sand. What, you think that the 'ojectivists' were not at one time
'true believers'? Both Tom Nousaine and I have related how we shared
your view of personal infallibility - right up to the point when we
were caught out by not listening to what we thought we were listening
to (if you follow...).

That is why we now use blind tests, and it's why we *know* that
sighted testing is fatally flawed, since expectation bias totally
swamps any *real* differences. This is easily proven by the 'false
sighted' test that you have been told about many times. No Michael,
both measurements and many decades of psy research prove that *you*
are the one who is in the wrong here, and that sighted listening can
simply *not* be given any credence for cable or amplifier comparisons.

Why are you so afraid to simply *try* a blind comparison? You will
find it to be a learning experience - if you wish to learn.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:23:23 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:32:27 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

Now, having said that, I am aware that some participants
of this forum...long since committing themselves to a
basic "...all sound the same..there is no difference..."
mindset..will pile into this somewhat humorous fray.

They will be very adamant in knowing what "you" can
and can't hear! The humor of that stance comes to
play when one can easily follow the logic that you
or I, nor anyone knows what another individual's
mental processes are doing to the interpretive
processes. This is unique to each individual.

The humour is however somewhat dissipated when you consider that what
is being said is analagous to my stating as an absolute fact that
*you* cannot run a mile in three minutes.

In the realm of "Ethics-Philosophy" this is akin to tossing
out a known given...then attempting to spread all that
"known" quality over the issue in question...it treads very
close to what is termed a "silligism" in that realm of study.
My stance is an absolute...yours is shaky..this all takes
on a quality of immaturity.

The point of course is that no human can do this, in the same way that
there is *no* evidence that *any* human can tell apart two nominally
competent cables (i.e. not comparing 8AWG to 28AWG or other such
silliness). oops..a qualification slips out.

Whup!...here comes the flow of "absolutes"..things like "no human"
and the like...NO evidence. Gads...in who's book?..what mindset?..
..this redundant flow of absolutes. Sorry, these newsgroups are
full of this. A bit overworked...perhaps trite? Not convincing!

Perhaps, we have a group that missed their calling...
..neuro-research..or some study of the myriad of
variables in the mental processes on the analysis of
input from external sources.

Indeed so - and there has been a raft of research over the last
century into human hearing thresholds and acuity, all of which
supports the notion that 'wire is wire'.

Granted there might well be research on hearing "thresholds"
and "acuity"...but, this issue is not about thresholds and
acuity....those studies had to do with detecting a frequency
range upwards of 10 to 15k cycles...mainly in factories..I
have discussed that issue with those that administered those
test and one would not believe the variables in frequency
range that first detection occurs...there is a lot of difference
in the populace out there and their ability to hear even
up to 10K cycles. (Hertz in the current vernacular). Just
one of the variables I keep bringing up. Oh well...these
facts are wasted here!


So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance
here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears
cable or amplifier differences..so be it!

However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know*
what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced.

Gads...we've missed the point, as always....it is not "knowing what
is connected"..it is about one cable sounding a bit better or worse
than another. Simple issue, but hard to grasp?

Leonard...

" However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know*
what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced.

Gads...we've missed the point, as always....it is not "knowing what
is connected"..it is about one cable sounding a bit better or worse
than another. Simple issue, but hard to grasp?"

It is about knowing, more important how we know what we know; gads. If
one tests you and you hear a difference in wire and then by putting a
cloth over the wire connections you are no longer able to do better then
random, we now know something; gads. What we know we now know is that the
perception of difference is directly related to knowledge of which wire is
connected; gads. We then are justified to deduce that the "better/worse"
is produced in the brain and not in the properties of the wire; gads. If
we in fact know something else in that instance, please do tell us that we
may grasp; gads.