Wow! I've tried to follow the discussion, and so far I've come to these
conclusions:
1. Competent testing (DBT, ABX, etc.) would be wonderful for the world of
high end. Even though I believe that there are better and worse components,
even better and worse cables/wires, I also know that there is so much
puffery in advertising and personal bias toward the most exotic and
expensive components that unbaised reviews and comparisions are difficult to
find.
2. This competent testing is almost never performed on audio components.
3. If it were there would be endless arguments about test protocols, so
faith in the results would be centered in the persons conducting the tests.
4. Even if somehow there were a universally accpted testing system there are
so many components and so many new components that testing and cross
comparison would be a monumental task.
I conclude that there is no hope for this topic to have any effect
whatsoever on anybody's choice of high end components.
This is a very fine topic for whetting the debating skills of the
participants, but it almost seems to have reached it peak in its ability to
effect that end, as I think I detect the beginning of repititiousness in the
responses.

Wylie Williams

In article ,
Wylie Williams wrote:
Wow! I've tried to follow the discussion, and so far I've come to these
conclusions:

Unfortunately, you missed the big one: that for selection of
components by individuals for their own use and enjoyment, ANY
method that suits THAT individual is 100% suited for THAT
individual.

The reason I bring this up is twofold:

1. Because there are some who insist that rigid blind testing is
REQUIRED for selection and, more insidiously,

2. because there are some who repeatedly insists that OTHERS
claim that selection of components for personal use requires
the use of rigid blind testing.

The latter we too often see raised as an invalid strawman
against the entire concept of rigid testing.

Note that this is but one common misrepresentation, untruth and
myth that many of those who are often both anti-science and
scitentifically illiterate use in their irrational and
misdirected campaigns.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:59:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:BX5Ta.116804$ye4.86510@sccrnsc01...
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:29:04 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

You requoted that anecdote in full and added it to other similar
anecdotes about Pinkerton and Krueger. And...? So what? Do you know
what a reference is?: Name of the mag, author, year, month, page?

Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive ABX
results on several occasions, plus Arny's PCABX website is well-known
within this community, and is an excellent resource for those who wish
to know the *truth* about detecting sonic differences using
douyble-blind protocols, as opposed to your verbose denials.

Mr.Pinkerton I'm well aware of your RAHE postings. I said at least
twice in the past that hearing the differences between amplifiers is
the least I'd expect of a well-trained subjects like yourself. Why?
Because there ARE differences between amplifiers audible to some
listeners and you are one of them. Even when ABXing. Congratulations.

Please note that I have also posted several *negative* ABX results on
amplifiers. While many amps do sound different, many others sound the
same (to me, in my system yada yada).

This should not be a surprise to anyone familiar with the parlous
dearth of real design skills in the so-called 'high end'.

As far from a peer-repeatable TEST as you can get.

No, my tests are eminently repeatable - that's the whole point of such
tests.

That is why I'm asking for *references*. Reference means precise quote
to a peer-reviewed published article with results of component
comparisons.

Actually, a reference is simply something which refers to something
else, no more and no less. You keep changing the rules to exclude
every test with which you've been presented. It is however unlikely
that *any* test will confirm your prejudices.

But that's too much to hope for, as you well know, so I'd settle for
any publication with 10 or more panelists, decent statistical
criteria, detailed tables of individual results etc.
Why? Because all such published material hitherto (30 years
experience) showed that most ABXed listeners hear no differences
between anything and anything else. MOST but not ALL. It varies from
individual to individual.

But only within well-defined boundaries. For example, *no one* has yet
demonstrated an ability to hear 'cable sound' under controlled
conditions, despite many vociferous claims under sighted conditions.

But invariably the proctors' conclusion was in favour of majority.
When one or two, exceptionally gifted performers heard difference
between cables like Greenhill's "golden ear" this is discarded because
it doesn't suit the dogma.

Absolute nonsense. *You* are the one who attempted to 'cherry pick'
results to suit your own agenda, as has been shown ad nauseam in this
forum.

Till there is EXPERIMENTAL evidence that ABX does not interfere with
some subjects ability to discern I'll hold to my opinion and you to
yours.

I have reliable and repeatable evidence to back my opinion. Where's
yours?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
Wow! I've tried to follow the discussion,

What a masochist! :-)

and so far I've come to these
conclusions:
1. Competent testing (DBT, ABX, etc.) would be wonderful for the world of
high end. Even though I believe that there are better and worse components,
even better and worse cables/wires, I also know that there is so much
puffery in advertising and personal bias toward the most exotic and
expensive components that unbaised reviews and comparisions are difficult to
find.
2. This competent testing is almost never performed on audio components.
3. If it were there would be endless arguments about test protocols, so
faith in the results would be centered in the persons conducting the tests.
4. Even if somehow there were a universally accpted testing system there are
so many components and so many new components that testing and cross
comparison would be a monumental task.
I conclude that there is no hope for this topic to have any effect
whatsoever on anybody's choice of high end components.

Don't be so sure. I started reading RAHE years ago because I wanted to
know what I should be listening for when comparing amplifiers. I
couldn't hear any real differences between them, and I wondered what I
was missing. I figured the folks here could shed some light on that.
Boy, did they!

There are two basic reasons why the testing you propose doesn't
happen. First, from a scientific point of view, it's old news.
Nobody's going to get tenure anywhere based on controlled comparisons
of Krell and Bryston amps. Second, it's not in anyone's financial
interest. Most audiophiles appear perfectly happy to ignore the
science and go on believing that "everything makes a difference." And
the industry is perfectly happy to feed that belief. Many of those who
doubt this credo, on the other hand, eventually reach the point where
we just assume the sonic similarity of many components, and
concentrate on the things that we know really make a difference.

bob

(Nousaine) wrote in message .net...
(Audio Guy) wrote:

I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
times.

In article QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes

..snip remainder....

It's interesting that the argument that ABX or ABC/hr style double blind
testing is "not useful" for evaluating audio components fails to recognize that
it is THE recognized test of choice for evaluating codec performance where the
finding of often incredibly subtle defect is required.

But, in the general context, I can agree that no listening test of any kind is
required for modern amplifiers and wires. Even nominally competent models can
be expected to be perfectly transparent in a normally reverberant environment.

IOW enough controlled listening tests have been conducted that we should expect
no sonic failures when the product is being used within design limits.

The quote below was posted in a fourm. I was curious your response as
to the validity of the statement?

"Every so often the AES does double blind a/b tests to prove to
themselves that there is no sonic difference between audio components.
Only about 2% can actually hear a difference, which they conclude is
statistically insignificant, and therefore supports their premise that
there is no difference. The interesting thing is, that when you take a
closer look at their data, that 2% are about 98% accurate, many can
actually identify the equipment being used (I'd venture to say that
less than 2 in 100 people can tell the differences in wine vintages).
"

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:0KgTa.118670$ye4.86843@sccrnsc01...
In article kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04,

Mr. Pierce goes on:
Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
deliver?"

Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others,
irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.

I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades.

Well now, that's the point, isn't it? Despite thousands of lines of
posting, you actually have *never* produced a shred of evidence in
support of your own position. You simply bluster and waffle about how
bad ABX tests are, without noting that they are at least superior to
*any* kind of sighted 'test'.

Except
that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the
audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors.
Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous
personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see
the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or
anyone else.

Scurrilous personal attack? Hardly............

Dick was simply pointing out the obvious: *you* created a scurrilous
and unjustified thread title, then you failed to provide *any*
evidence to back it up. Dick simply pointed out this anomaly, and
suggested a logical remedy.

Just for the record. The thread was not started by me and the thread
title is not mine. Falsification/dyslexia is making disciples.

I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and
asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared
in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think
that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded
treatment or an answer to the problem.

You don't *want* even-handed treatment. You want your own hand-waving
and bluster to be accepted without complaint. That isn't going to
happen. Keep making illogical and baseless claims, and they will
continue to be exposed as such.

Mr. Pinkerton, complain all you want. Expose all you want
On the 23rd you posted such a complaint exposing my non- p.c. views in
civilised terms. You got a civilised answer today (25th)

This is not the subject at issue here.
The subject is not whether I am right or not but whether postings
containing personal invective AND NO OTHER SUBSTANCE should continue
to appear in RAHE.
Your today's text shows that once that is allowed it can not be
stopped. Especially if some indiciduals are given a licence to revert
to type.
Talk about hand-waving! Wouldn't you like a little censorship thrown
in?
Your tactics are effective. People with politically incorrect views
drop out of RAHE one by one rather than be subjected to a stream of
invective. They barely dare to send me a message of support by email.

For your information. I am sick to death of hearing about DBTs and
gladly would not say another word on the subject.
But having grown up with thought police- and worse- around me I'm
grateful that verbal bullying is the worst you can do.
And as long as I see the idiotic challenges to people, who point out
that ABX is geared towards a negative result, to "prove it"- how?- by
subjecting themselves to the ABX test - count on me to respond Mr.
Pinkerton
Ludovic Mirabel

There are two basic reasons why the testing you propose doesn't
happen. First, from a scientific point of view, it's old news.

Really? Then there must be some old peer reviewed published tests on the
subject yes? From a scientific point of view it is unimortant. Too unimportant
to warrent valid scientific research. it isn't news at all from a scientific
point of view.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:54:04 GMT, (randyb)
wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message .net...
(Audio Guy) wrote:

I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
times.

In article QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes

..snip remainder....

It's interesting that the argument that ABX or ABC/hr style double blind
testing is "not useful" for evaluating audio components fails to recognize that
it is THE recognized test of choice for evaluating codec performance where the
finding of often incredibly subtle defect is required.

But, in the general context, I can agree that no listening test of any kind is
required for modern amplifiers and wires. Even nominally competent models can
be expected to be perfectly transparent in a normally reverberant environment.

IOW enough controlled listening tests have been conducted that we should expect
no sonic failures when the product is being used within design limits.

The quote below was posted in a fourm. I was curious your response as
to the validity of the statement?

"Every so often the AES does double blind a/b tests to prove to
themselves that there is no sonic difference between audio components.
Only about 2% can actually hear a difference, which they conclude is
statistically insignificant, and therefore supports their premise that
there is no difference. The interesting thing is, that when you take a
closer look at their data, that 2% are about 98% accurate, many can
actually identify the equipment being used (I'd venture to say that
less than 2 in 100 people can tell the differences in wine vintages).
"

I believe that this quote can be filed under 'bull****'. Firstly, the
AES does not conduct double-blind tests with any such predetermined
desire. Secondly, please specify *exactly* where such experimental
data is to be had. Finally, please note that it's a fundamental
property of statistics that you *can* flip a coin twenty times and
have it come up heads 16 times out of that twenty - it just doesn't
happen very often. If such a result occurs, then the correct thing to
do is to gather those 'golden ears' together and run the test series
again. You'll find that the second set of results will be very
different. Statistics 101.......

Note that the above applies to those common conditions where the UUTs
actually are sonically indistinguishable. Where there are *real* sonic
differences, such as for SETs, then results are pretty close to 100%
accurate for most listeners.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(S888Wheel) wrote in message ...

There are two basic reasons why the testing you propose doesn't
happen. First, from a scientific point of view, it's old news.

Really? Then there must be some old peer reviewed published tests on the
subject yes? From a scientific point of view it is unimortant. Too unimportant
to warrent valid scientific research. it isn't news at all from a scientific
point of view.

It's old news in the sense that the limitations of human hearing have
been extensively documented, and comparing the sound of two amplifiers
would not advance that knowledge in any way. Any comparison would, we
expect, merely confirm what we already know about humans' ability to
distinguish sounds.

Now, there are two circumstances that could change this:

1. Somebody could perform a properly controlled listening test that
produced an unexpected result, confirming an audible difference where
none was expected. That would set off an effort to determine the cause
of that difference.

2. Somebody could discover a heretofore unrecognized parameter of
amplifier performance. In that case, we'd want to examine whether this
parameter has an audible effect.

But don't hold your breath.

bob

Bob said


There are two basic reasons why the testing you propose doesn't
happen. First, from a scientific point of view, it's old news.


I said

Really? Then there must be some old peer reviewed published tests on the
subject yes? From a scientific point of view it is unimortant. Too
unimportant
to warrent valid scientific research. it isn't news at all from a
scientific
point of view.

Bob said

It's old news in the sense that the limitations of human hearing have
been extensively documented, and comparing the sound of two amplifiers
would not advance that knowledge in any way. Any comparison would, we
expect, merely confirm what we
already know about humans' ability to
distinguish sounds.

Interesting. Did these tests that looked at human thresholds of hearing
consider all the current differences in measured performance of amplifiers?
Have we taken every measurable parameter of amplifier sound and compared it's
acoustic effect, using a sufficient variety of speakers, against the
established thresholds of human hearing? If so, do we have any published peer
reviewed papers documenting such tests since we are talking about old news from
a "scientific" perspective?

Bob said


Now, there are two circumstances that could change this:


Change what? Given there were no cited Peer reviewed published papers
establishing a valid scientific point of view on the sound of amplifiers The
only thing I see that can be changed is the lack of a position that is what we
might call old news in the world of science.

Bob said

1. Somebody could perform a properly controlled listening test that
produced an unexpected result, confirming an audible difference where
none was expected. That would set off an effort to determine the cause
of that difference.

I think we need to have a body of evidence that scientists would recognize as
valid before we can talk about scientific beliefs being changed. Like I said,
it does not appear to be old news scientifically speaking as much as it seems
to be no news scientifically speaking.

Bob said


2. Somebody could discover a heretofore unrecognized parameter of
amplifier performance. In that case, we'd want to examine whether this
parameter has an audible effect.


Well then I have to ask again. Have we taken every measurable parameter of
amplifier sound and compared it's acoustic effect, using a sufficient variety
of speakers, against the established thresholds of human hearing?

Bob said


But don't hold your breath.


I won't.

(S888Wheel) wrote in message ...
Bob said

It's old news in the sense that the limitations of human hearing have
been extensively documented, and comparing the sound of two amplifiers
would not advance that knowledge in any way. Any comparison would, we
expect, merely confirm what we
already know about humans' ability to
distinguish sounds.

Interesting. Did these tests that looked at human thresholds of hearing
consider all the current differences in measured performance of amplifiers?
Have we taken every measurable parameter of amplifier sound and compared it's
acoustic effect, using a sufficient variety of speakers, against the
established thresholds of human hearing?

You are missing some really basic concepts here. Your ears cannot hear
amplifiers; they can only hear sounds. And yes, I think it's safe to
assume that the research on human hearing (which consists of more than
just listening tests, by the way) has looked at every aspect of sound
we know about.

So we can look at any measurable parameter of amplifier performance,
map its effect on the sound that the system will produce, and predict
whether that effect will be sufficient to be audible.

If so, do we have any published peer
reviewed papers documenting such tests since we are talking about old news from
a "scientific" perspective?

Better. We have whole textbooks on psychoacoustics. Suggest you start
with one.

Bob said


Now, there are two circumstances that could change this:


Change what? Given there were no cited Peer reviewed published papers
establishing a valid scientific point of view on the sound of amplifiers The
only thing I see that can be changed is the lack of a position that is what we
might call old news in the world of science.

See above. Amplifiers are just part of one means of producing sound.
Musical instruments also produce sound. So do fingernails on
chalkboards. Your hearing works the same way in all cases. That's why
it's utterly unnecessary to do extensive tests with amplifiers to know
how they will affect the sound of a system. We know how amplifiers
work, and we know how ears work, and we put two and two together.


Bob said

1. Somebody could perform a properly controlled listening test that
produced an unexpected result, confirming an audible difference where
none was expected. That would set off an effort to determine the cause
of that difference.

I think we need to have a body of evidence that scientists would recognize as
valid before we can talk about scientific beliefs being changed. Like I said,
it does not appear to be old news scientifically speaking as much as it seems
to be no news scientifically speaking.

We do have a body of scientific evidence that real scientists regard
as valid. Audiophiles who remain willfully ignorant of this evidence
seem to be the only ones who deny its existence. Their loss.

bob

(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Wylie Williams wrote:
Wow! I've tried to follow the discussion, and so far I've come to these
conclusions:

Unfortunately, you missed the big one: that for selection of
components by individuals for their own use and enjoyment, ANY
method that suits THAT individual is 100% suited for THAT
individual.

The reason I bring this up is twofold:

1. Because there are some who insist that rigid blind testing is
REQUIRED for selection and, more insidiously,

2. because there are some who repeatedly insists that OTHERS
claim that selection of components for personal use requires
the use of rigid blind testing.

The latter we too often see raised as an invalid strawman
against the entire concept of rigid testing.

Note that this is but one common misrepresentation, untruth and
myth that many of those who are often both anti-science and
scitentifically illiterate use in their irrational and
misdirected campaigns.

Let's follow into the Master's footsteps and ask sternly:
(Quoted from Mr. D. Pierce July 8, "Why DBTs do not deliver")
"And precisely WHO said this. Please, if you will, QUOTE the
people who said this. Don't paraphrase, please QUOTE, so that we
may understand FROM THEM what THEY said, not from YOU what you
THINK they said".
Who are those paranoid "some" who "repeatedly" "insist" that "OTHERS"
claim... And so on and on?
What "some", like for instance the undersigned "claim", is that
whenever an opinion ( underline OPINION) about certain components is
voiced one or another of the "others" will pipe out, of course as a
representative of Ms. Science, demanding a "controlled test" to
"prove" the said opinion.
If YOU don't then it is nice to hear the news- but I suggest you speak
for yourself.
Look at the message just below yours in the Google to see what one of
the "others" IS saying. Want more quotes? Plenty in any month.
As for myself I see stacks of material suggesting that any protocol
for "proving" what any one individual hears or does not hear, when
listening to a musical signal, is a tenuous hypothesis in bad need of
being proved. Most of the "controlled testees" opinions when
undergoing a "controlled test" are not worth the paper they are
written on. Still others are a joke sighted, single, double or triple
blind. Others, sighted or blinded, are sharp, and often validated by
past record, .
An opinion is an opinion is an opinion. Whose?- is all that matters .
Ludovic Mirabel

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
previous text below:

Quoting literally from the "objectivist" Greenhill text about his
"golden ears' (Greenhill's own words)performer is "cherry picking"?
Let's see who IS cherry picking.
And while we're at it let's see about my "changing the rules". For
over 2 years Mr. Pinkerton has been asked to give an author, mag.,
page, reference to a properly documented, independently proctored,
properly published with all the relevant statistical data, and
decent-sized panel, positive component comparison test. He found just
a SINGLE ONE for the 30 years of ABX existence.
Namely his own "research", proctored by who? You guessed it. By Mr.
Pinkerton, of course. Published where? Here on the RAHE-for an RAHE
"peer review".
And his peers have spoken up. Mr. Nousaine, the authority on ABX
disagrees; electrically competent amplifiers all sound the same to
him- his tests are negative. Mr. Krueger, the presumed inventor of ABX
after some waffling agrees with Nousaine and disagrees with Pinkerton.
And so does the last available panel review in the 1984 St. Review
Should you subscribe to Pinkerton "cherry picking" Mr. Pinkerton, just
because he shouts very loud about his "eminently repeatable" test?
Repeatable by whom? Not by Nousaine ,not by Krueger and not by anyone
else: not by audio mag panel reviews.,not by audio societies.
Talk about "absolute nonsense".

I have "no evidence" because I am not proposing a "test". You are. I
just observe that every ABX researcher insists that the subjects must
be selected and trained because some individuals do abysmally badly,
some exceptionally well and most fall into the "random guess" middle.
Outcome with an average "audiophile" panel? "They all sound the
same"and another null result.
It is up to the ABX proponents to show that an ABX result of an
ABX-inept subject, like myself is more valid (because it is ABXed)
than a result of a violinist listening to different amps for the
differences between them in reproducing violin music.
Nor do I have any evidence that the other side of the moon is not made
of green cheese, that the Sasquatch doesn't visit B.C. and that hand
waving and shouting loudly "absolute nonsense" is not exactly a
valuable contribution to a debate.
Ludovic Mirabel

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:59:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:BX5Ta.116804$ye4.86510@sccrnsc01...
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:29:04 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

You requoted that anecdote in full and added it to other similar
anecdotes about Pinkerton and Krueger. And...? So what? Do you know
what a reference is?: Name of the mag, author, year, month, page?

Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive ABX
results on several occasions, plus Arny's PCABX website is well-known
within this community, and is an excellent resource for those who wish
to know the *truth* about detecting sonic differences using
douyble-blind protocols, as opposed to your verbose denials.

Mr.Pinkerton I'm well aware of your RAHE postings. I said at least
twice in the past that hearing the differences between amplifiers is
the least I'd expect of a well-trained subjects like yourself. Why?
Because there ARE differences between amplifiers audible to some
listeners and you are one of them. Even when ABXing. Congratulations.

Please note that I have also posted several *negative* ABX results on
amplifiers. While many amps do sound different, many others sound the
same (to me, in my system yada yada).

This should not be a surprise to anyone familiar with the parlous
dearth of real design skills in the so-called 'high end'.

As far from a peer-repeatable TEST as you can get.

No, my tests are eminently repeatable - that's the whole point of such
tests.

That is why I'm asking for *references*. Reference means precise quote
to a peer-reviewed published article with results of component
comparisons.

Actually, a reference is simply something which refers to something
else, no more and no less. You keep changing the rules to exclude
every test with which you've been presented. It is however unlikely
that *any* test will confirm your prejudices.

But that's too much to hope for, as you well know, so I'd settle for
any publication with 10 or more panelists, decent statistical
criteria, detailed tables of individual results etc.
Why? Because all such published material hitherto (30 years
experience) showed that most ABXed listeners hear no differences
between anything and anything else. MOST but not ALL. It varies from
individual to individual.

But only within well-defined boundaries. For example, *no one* has yet
demonstrated an ability to hear 'cable sound' under controlled
conditions, despite many vociferous claims under sighted conditions.

But invariably the proctors' conclusion was in favour of majority.
When one or two, exceptionally gifted performers heard difference
between cables like Greenhill's "golden ear" this is discarded because
it doesn't suit the dogma.

Absolute nonsense. *You* are the one who attempted to 'cherry pick'
results to suit your own agenda, as has been shown ad nauseam in this
forum.


Till there is EXPERIMENTAL evidence that ABX does not interfere with
some subjects ability to discern I'll hold to my opinion and you to
yours.

I have reliable and repeatable evidence to back my opinion. Where's
yours?

In article ctqUa.132328$OZ2.26337@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:bforbp01hem@en
ews1.newsguy.com...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:0KgTa.118670$
ye4.86843@sccrnsc01...
In article kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04,

Mr. Pierce goes on:
Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
deliver?"

Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others,
irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.

I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades.

Well now, that's the point, isn't it? Despite thousands of lines of
posting, you actually have *never* produced a shred of evidence in
support of your own position. You simply bluster and waffle about how
bad ABX tests are, without noting that they are at least superior to
*any* kind of sighted 'test'.

Except
that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the
audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors.
Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous
personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see
the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or
anyone else.

Scurrilous personal attack? Hardly............

Dick was simply pointing out the obvious: *you* created a scurrilous
and unjustified thread title, then you failed to provide *any*
evidence to back it up. Dick simply pointed out this anomaly, and
suggested a logical remedy.

Just for the record. The thread was not started by me and the thread
title is not mine. Falsification/dyslexia is making disciples.

True, but since you have seem to have posted more to this thread than
anyone else, I can understand his mistake.

I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and
asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared
in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think
that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded
treatment or an answer to the problem.

You don't *want* even-handed treatment. You want your own hand-waving
and bluster to be accepted without complaint. That isn't going to
happen. Keep making illogical and baseless claims, and they will
continue to be exposed as such.

Mr. Pinkerton, complain all you want. Expose all you want
On the 23rd you posted such a complaint exposing my non- p.c. views in
civilised terms. You got a civilised answer today (25th)

This is not the subject at issue here.
The subject is not whether I am right or not but whether postings
containing personal invective AND NO OTHER SUBSTANCE should continue
to appear in RAHE.

It was commentary on your method of "debating" and IMHO totally
appropriate. It was not "personal invective" since it was about your
debating style and not about you. I guess he should follow your lead
and do as you do below and throw in "ABX" a couple of times since
that makes your post completely about audio and not just about
another author's comments.

Your today's text shows that once that is allowed it can not be
stopped. Especially if some indiciduals are given a licence to revert
to type.
Talk about hand-waving! Wouldn't you like a little censorship thrown
in?

It seems your are the one advocating censorship, not him. You are the
one asking that his post should not have been accepted, he just
commented on how useless your posts are.

Your tactics are effective. People with politically incorrect views
drop out of RAHE one by one rather than be subjected to a stream of
invective. They barely dare to send me a message of support by email.

And your tactics wouldn't cause someone to avoid reading the group
due to your continued repetition of the same tired argument over and
over again?

For your information. I am sick to death of hearing about DBTs and
gladly would not say another word on the subject.
But having grown up with thought police- and worse- around me I'm
grateful that verbal bullying is the worst you can do.

This explains a lot, you equate those who advocate blind testing of
audio components as "thought police".

And as long as I see the idiotic challenges to people, who point out
that ABX is geared towards a negative result, to "prove it"- how?- by
subjecting themselves to the ABX test - count on me to respond Mr.
Pinkerton

And as long as you continue to post "idiotic challenges" to the DBT
advocates to present test results that meet your constantly
escalating requirements for "acceptability", count on others and
myself to continue to respond to you.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

Nor do I have any evidence that the other side of the moon is not made
of green cheese, that the Sasquatch doesn't visit B.C. and that hand
waving and shouting loudly "absolute nonsense" is a valuable
contribution to a debate.

As ever, you place the burden of evidence in entirely the wrong place.
There are many results of reasonably well conducted tests available,
which you choose to ignore. The wide engineering and scientific
community would suggest that most amps do sound the same, and that
*all* cables sound the same, so it is *you* who requires to provide
proof that they do not, rather than continually ranting against an
experimental technique which is used *every working day* by some of
the most respected names in high fidelity music reproduction.

As noted, why do you not *deliver* on all this ranting? Where is your
*proof* that ABX is not a valuable (even indispensible) tool?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In an exchange Nousaine said

Well if this is true why hasn't any manufacturer, enthusiast, wholesaler,
retailer or other interested party provided a replicable, peer reviewed
experiment that shows amplifers or wires have any of the sonic attributes
ascribed to them?

I wouldn't dream of entering into the discussion of how to conduct such an
experiment, but let me suggest that the reason these experiments are not
being performed by manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers is that they
don't need to do that. In any business you spend money to make money. Only
academics and enthusiasts spend money without the profit goal. And we have
seen that the academic world ignores experiments to show sonic attributes of
audio components.

So it's up to the enthusiasts. However, if the debate in RAHE is any
predictor the results would just fuel even more debate, generating
sufficient confusion to obscure any potential benefit.

"Keith A. Hughes" wrote in message ...
Wylie Williams wrote:

snip

... In any business you spend money to make money. Only
academics and enthusiasts spend money without the profit goal. And we have
seen that the academic world ignores experiments to show sonic attributes of
audio components.

Well...the point is that, given the 'debate' in the high-end world
about cable/amp/puck/etc. 'sound', having hard empirical evidence
to support that *your* product *actually* provides a sonic
improvement (or at least a reproducible sonic change that one may
prefer or not) should provide a competitive advantage. Hence money
spent on such testing would clearly fall under the general
"marketing" category.

So it's up to the enthusiasts. However, if the debate in RAHE is any
predictor the results would just fuel even more debate, generating
sufficient confusion to obscure any potential benefit.

Indeed, and such debate would only provide *more* exposure to the
company whose results were published and debated (i.e., additional
"free" advertising). *IF* the products perform as currently
"claimed", what then is the downside? Surely the cost of such
tests (bearing in mind they would use existing stock, and even
existing employees, since removal of sighted bias also removes
conflict of interest bias - as long as the company is honest at
least) is negligible relative to the overall marketing budget?

Keith Hughes

What about audio societies such Boston A.S.,Detroit A.S. ( isn't Mr.
Krueger a member?) that one knows have many DBT enthusiasts for
members.? This should not be beyond their scope. I know for instance
that two years ago The Washington State A.S. was engaged in preparing
such a session. But it seems the project either didn't pan out or the
results were not liked.
One way or the other without proper continuing test reports the
subject is rather academic and the evidence a matter of
conviction/faith rather than science, isn't it?
Ludovic Mirabel

(randyb) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
t.net...
(Audio Guy) wrote:

I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
times.

In article QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes

..snip remainder....

It's interesting that the argument that ABX or ABC/hr style double blind
testing is "not useful" for evaluating audio components fails to recognize
that
it is THE recognized test of choice for evaluating codec performance where
the
finding of often incredibly subtle defect is required.

But, in the general context, I can agree that no listening test of any kind
is
required for modern amplifiers and wires. Even nominally competent models
can
be expected to be perfectly transparent in a normally reverberant
environment.

IOW enough controlled listening tests have been conducted that we should
expect
no sonic failures when the product is being used within design limits.

The quote below was posted in a fourm. I was curious your response as
to the validity of the statement?

"Every so often the AES does double blind a/b tests to prove to
themselves that there is no sonic difference between audio components.
Only about 2% can actually hear a difference, which they conclude is
statistically insignificant, and therefore supports their premise that
there is no difference. The interesting thing is, that when you take a
closer look at their data, that 2% are about 98% accurate, many can
actually identify the equipment being used (I'd venture to say that
less than 2 in 100 people can tell the differences in wine vintages).
"

To the best of my knowledge the AES has never conducted ant kind of test under
its banner. There have been presentations of kinds at conventions and an
occasional 'exhibit' (such as a cassette tape manufacturer comparing copiers of
their cassettes vs the cd sopurce) but those are not "AES" tests.

I've examined practically every blind listening test ever published and so far
none of them have discovered subjects at the tails of the distribution with
scores that were obscured by the total. That's the beauty of statistical
analysis; if there are high scoring individuals that occur at a rate greater
than those one would expect due to chance alone the overall results will be
statistically significant.

It is true that in one Stereophile test the administrator "declared" that a
score of 5 of 7 was somehow indicative of 'something' although it's not
statistically significant by itself and would be noticed from time to time when
the devices could not truly be identified by sound alone.

Of course, if enough subjects scored 5 of 7 THEN the overall test would have
significant results IF the devices were distinguishable by sound. But that's a
different thing.

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
In an exchange Nousaine said

Well if this is true why hasn't any manufacturer, enthusiast, wholesaler,
retailer or other interested party provided a replicable, peer reviewed
experiment that shows amplifers or wires have any of the sonic attributes
ascribed to them?

I wouldn't dream of entering into the discussion of how to conduct such an
experiment, but let me suggest that the reason these experiments are not
being performed by manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers is that they
don't need to do that. In any business you spend money to make money.

Very true. Such tests would risk killing the goose that laid the
golden ear.

Only
academics and enthusiasts spend money without the profit goal.

Lumping academics and enthusiasts in the same category is probably not
a wise thing to do . . .

And we have
seen that the academic world ignores experiments to show sonic attributes of
audio components.

.. . .because then you wind up saying something nonsensical like this.
The academic world isn't ignoring anything. In the academic world,
these questions were asked and answered long ago.

It's the enthusiasts--some of them, at least--who are ignoring what's
already been learned on the subject.

So it's up to the enthusiasts.

No, it's not up to them either, unless they'd like to try and refute
what the scientific community figured out way back when. Funny thing
though: All the people who carp about how science has it wrong never,
ever offer ANY solid counterevidence.

However, if the debate in RAHE is any
predictor the results would just fuel even more debate, generating
sufficient confusion to obscure any potential benefit.

Given that the "most amps sound different" crowd hasn't deigned to
provide us with a single shred of repeatable evidence to back that up,
we can't really know how the "most amps sound the same" crowd would
react, now, can we?

bob

Wylie Williams said

... In any business you spend money to make money. Only
academics and enthusiasts spend money without the profit goal. And we have
seen that the academic world ignores experiments to show sonic attributes
of
audio components.

Keith said

Well...the point is that, given the 'debate' in the high-end world
about cable/amp/puck/etc. 'sound', having hard empirical evidence
to support that *your* product *actually* provides a sonic
improvement (or at least a reproducible sonic change that one may

prefer or not) should provide a competitive advantage. Hence money
spent on such testing would clearly fall under the general
"marketing" category.

Regardless of what I believe about audibility I think your position doesn't
hold water from an advertising POV. Those who laready believe the differences
exist are not interested in such tests. Those who do not are not likely to
believe claims of manufacturers of positive results. If I were in the business
of advertising that is what my position would be. companies that do use blind
testing don't seem to make it an advertising priority.

Wylie Williams said


So it's up to the enthusiasts. However, if the debate in RAHE is any
predictor the results would just fuel even more debate, generating
sufficient confusion to obscure any potential benefit.

Keith said

Indeed, and such debate would only provide *more* exposure to the
company whose results were published and debated (i.e., additional
"free" advertising). *IF* the products perform as currently
"claimed", what then is the downside?

The downside would be the effort and money it would take. again, those who
already believe in the differences don't need to be courted with such tests and
those who don't are not likely to take positive results at face value. Further
lets say for argument's sake that a manufacturer of an expensive amplifier
showed that it was sonically distinguishable from an inexpensive amp with DBTs.
How many of you will now buy that expensive amp? A part of advertising is
knowing who isn't a potential customer and not wasting time and money trying to
court their business.

Keith said

Surely the cost of such
tests (bearing in mind they would use existing stock, and even
existing employees, since removal of sighted bias also removes
conflict of interest bias - as long as the company is honest at
least) is negligible relative to the overall marketing budget?

Sounds a bit like "Can't we all just get along?" The very people you suggest
will posibly be swayed by such tests are the same people who are likely not to
trust the honesty of manufacturers of expensive amps and the like. So, "as long
as the company is honest" is a matter that is not likely to be agreed upon.

I think one would need a disinterested party to conduct such tests for there to
be any chance of mutual trust of such tests. there in lies a problem.
Disinterested parties are...disinterested.

(Audio Guy) wrote in message .net...
And as long as you continue to post "idiotic challenges" to the DBT
advocates to present test results that meet your constantly
escalating requirements for "acceptability", count on others and
myself to continue to respond to you.

I do hope you mean it and don't quit on me. I do need your penetrating
analysis of my character deficiencies that disable me from seeing the
true light. I do need your masterful, factual demonstration of ABX
infallibility as a scientific test, proved by JJ's recollections and
Pinkerton's private panel testing. That will teach me for my "
constantly escalating requirements" such as asking for one, single
reference to a published, proctored ABX comparison test on any
comparable components at all- with a positive outcome.
Do stick around.
Ludovic Mirabel

In article ctqUa.132328$OZ2.26337@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:bforbp01hem@en
ews1.newsguy.com...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:0KgTa.118670$
ye4.86843@sccrnsc01...
In article kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04,

Mr. Pierce goes on:
Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
deliver?"

Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others,
irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.

I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades.

Well now, that's the point, isn't it? Despite thousands of lines of
posting, you actually have *never* produced a shred of evidence in
support of your own position. You simply bluster and waffle about how
bad ABX tests are, without noting that they are at least superior to
*any* kind of sighted 'test'.

Except
that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the
audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors.
Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous
personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see
the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or
anyone else.

Scurrilous personal attack? Hardly............

Dick was simply pointing out the obvious: *you* created a scurrilous
and unjustified thread title, then you failed to provide *any*
evidence to back it up. Dick simply pointed out this anomaly, and
suggested a logical remedy.

Just for the record. The thread was not started by me and the thread
title is not mine. Falsification/dyslexia is making disciples.

True, but since you have seem to have posted more to this thread than
anyone else, I can understand his mistake.

I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and
asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared
in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think
that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded
treatment or an answer to the problem.

You don't *want* even-handed treatment. You want your own hand-waving
and bluster to be accepted without complaint. That isn't going to
happen. Keep making illogical and baseless claims, and they will
continue to be exposed as such.

Mr. Pinkerton, complain all you want. Expose all you want
On the 23rd you posted such a complaint exposing my non- p.c. views in
civilised terms. You got a civilised answer today (25th)

This is not the subject at issue here.
The subject is not whether I am right or not but whether postings
containing personal invective AND NO OTHER SUBSTANCE should continue
to appear in RAHE.

It was commentary on your method of "debating" and IMHO totally
appropriate. It was not "personal invective" since it was about your
debating style and not about you. I guess he should follow your lead
and do as you do below and throw in "ABX" a couple of times since
that makes your post completely about audio and not just about
another author's comments.

Your today's text shows that once that is allowed it can not be
stopped. Especially if some indiciduals are given a licence to revert
to type.
Talk about hand-waving! Wouldn't you like a little censorship thrown
in?

It seems your are the one advocating censorship, not him. You are the
one asking that his post should not have been accepted, he just
commented on how useless your posts are.

Your tactics are effective. People with politically incorrect views
drop out of RAHE one by one rather than be subjected to a stream of
invective. They barely dare to send me a message of support by email.

And your tactics wouldn't cause someone to avoid reading the group
due to your continued repetition of the same tired argument over and
over again?

For your information. I am sick to death of hearing about DBTs and
gladly would not say another word on the subject.
But having grown up with thought police- and worse- around me I'm
grateful that verbal bullying is the worst you can do.

This explains a lot, you equate those who advocate blind testing of
audio components as "thought police".

And as long as I see the idiotic challenges to people, who point out
that ABX is geared towards a negative result, to "prove it"- how?- by
subjecting themselves to the ABX test - count on me to respond Mr.
Pinkerton

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

Nor do I have any evidence that the other side of the moon is not made
of green cheese, that the Sasquatch doesn't visit B.C. and that hand
waving and shouting loudly "absolute nonsense" is a valuable
contribution to a debate.

As ever, you place the burden of evidence in entirely the wrong place.
There are many results of reasonably well conducted tests available,
which you choose to ignore. The wide engineering and scientific
community would suggest that most amps do sound the same,

We'll stop at this point to watch Mr. Pinkerton groping for a
life-line. The topic was: "Quote ANY published ABX component
comparison testing with a positive outcome".
Just 2 days ago he responded (loud and emphatic as ever)
Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive
ABX results on several occasions...
And what did he post? HIS DBT results confirming that SOME amplifiers
do sound different. to HIM using HIS ears, HIS ABX training level,
HIS musical experience.
Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"
A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"-
the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
REPEATABILITY.
So what do we do? Simple. It is no longer a FEW outstanding amps.
we're talking about in this audio.high-end forum. We're talking about
"MOST" .that "...the wide engineering and scientific community would
suggest do sound the same"
Talk about rediscovering America! We badly needed "..the wide
engineering nd scientific community" to "suggest" that H-K, Technics,
Sanyo, Citizen etc differ only in the degree of awfulness they
produce. Talk about changing the subject!
Cables? Mr. Pinkerton, it is not only cables that "do sound the same"
to the majority of panelists in ALL the published ABX component
comparison "testing"- with outcome invariably proclaimed to be
negative by the proctors- because like you they refused to "cherry
pick" between the good and the bad performers. (Unless, of course, it
is Mr. Pinkerton cherry picking himself) . It is amps., preamps, cd
players, dacs, distortion up to 2%, volume difference up to 1,75 db.
It is EVERYTHING ever ABX tested by an "audiophile" panel.
That is the nature of the "test" you have on offer. And for a note of
black humour you ask me to provide "proof" against it. You already
have. You showed/confirmed that the results of your "test" depend on
WHO is testing WHOM ,
Ludovic Mirabel
A note about "verbosity". In a different debating culture where people
respect each other enough to grant some basic assumptions, some
"givens" a lot of repetitive material could be spared. In RAHE they
wait in ambush to hook onto any incomplete or awkwardly worded
sentence. And you Mr. Pinkerton should know all about that.

and that *all* cables sound the same, so it is *you* who requires to provide
proof that they do not, rather than continually ranting against an
experimental technique which is used *every working day* by some of
the most respected names in high fidelity music reproduction.

Did you take a poll? My polling result is that even more "respected
names" couldn't care less.
As noted, why do you not *deliver* on all this ranting? Where is your
*proof* that ABX is not a valuable (even indispensible) tool?

Nousaine wrote:
To the best of my knowledge the AES has never conducted ant kind of test under
its banner. There have been presentations of kinds at conventions and an
occasional 'exhibit' (such as a cassette tape manufacturer comparing copiers of
their cassettes vs the cd sopurce) but those are not "AES" tests.

I've examined practically every blind listening test ever published and so far
none of them have discovered subjects at the tails of the distribution with
scores that were obscured by the total. That's the beauty of statistical
analysis; if there are high scoring individuals that occur at a rate greater
than those one would expect due to chance alone the overall results will be
statistically significant.

But, as I've am asked periodically by irritated 'subjectivists', what if *one*
person consitently scores 99% correct and all the others score no better than chance?

Are you saying something like that's never occurred? Or that it would require more
than one such individual in a test, to conclude 'difference'?

It is true that in one Stereophile test the administrator "declared" that a
score of 5 of 7 was somehow indicative of 'something' although it's not
statistically significant by itself and would be noticed from time to time when
the devices could not truly be identified by sound alone.

Of course, if enough subjects scored 5 of 7 THEN the overall test would have
significant results IF the devices were distinguishable by sound. But that's a
different thing.

--
-S.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:27:20 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

Nor do I have any evidence that the other side of the moon is not made
of green cheese, that the Sasquatch doesn't visit B.C. and that hand
waving and shouting loudly "absolute nonsense" is a valuable
contribution to a debate.

As ever, you place the burden of evidence in entirely the wrong place.
There are many results of reasonably well conducted tests available,
which you choose to ignore. The wide engineering and scientific
community would suggest that most amps do sound the same,

We'll stop at this point to watch Mr. Pinkerton groping for a
life-line. The topic was: "Quote ANY published ABX component
comparison testing with a positive outcome".

I did, my own, published right here on this forum. Please quote *any*
evidence you have which supports your own position.

Just 2 days ago he responded (loud and emphatic as ever)
Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive
ABX results on several occasions...
And what did he post? HIS DBT results confirming that SOME amplifiers
do sound different. to HIM using HIS ears, HIS ABX training level,
HIS musical experience.

Yes. And your point is?

Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"
A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"-
the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
REPEATABILITY.

Sure it's repeatable - but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and
Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got.
There's no inconsistency here - unless you are a Mirabel with an
agenda. Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate
to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic
differences.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Nousaine wrote:
To the best of my knowledge the AES has never conducted ant kind of test
under
its banner. There have been presentations of kinds at conventions and an
occasional 'exhibit' (such as a cassette tape manufacturer comparing
copiers of
their cassettes vs the cd sopurce) but those are not "AES" tests.

I've examined practically every blind listening test ever published and so
far
none of them have discovered subjects at the tails of the distribution with
scores that were obscured by the total. That's the beauty of statistical
analysis; if there are high scoring individuals that occur at a rate
greater
than those one would expect due to chance alone the overall results will be
statistically significant.

But, as I've am asked periodically by irritated 'subjectivists', what if
*one*
person consitently scores 99% correct and all the others score no better than
chance?

Are you saying something like that's never occurred? Or that it would require
more
than one such individual in a test, to conclude 'difference'?

I've carefully investigated subjects who have taken part in more than one test
and have yet to find an individual who appears to have a Golden Ear.

But if "One" did appear that would do it for me. Because humans without hearing
damage fit within a reasonably small performance distribution finding one such
subject would surely mean there are more.

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

This has been an interesting exchange. Some see it as futile, others
valiantly debate on.

"Killing the goose" - Certainly it is not in the interests of the audio
industry to have definitive tests, as some of the products are merely new,
not different, and others may be different (even better) but not
sufficiently better for everyone in every system to hear the difference. But
as audiophiles (we are audiophiles, aren't we?) we should be more tolerant
to those who are sensitive to small differences. I'm sure that not one of
us is free from friends, acquaintances or relatives who think us very
strange,at best, for this obsession.

These tests have already been conducted? I am not in the scientific
community, but it would be nice to see results written and available, but it
might not be a good idea. Members of the scientific community have been
known to turn on their own for love of quibbling.

Has all this been proved before? Not for specific audio components, which
is what I think is the issue. Imagine the time (money) required to make
even a general survey that covered the major interconnects on the market.
Let us say it proves that no interconnect under test is distinguishable
from any other interconnect. There will always be a new wave of products
claiming (truly and/or falsely) to be "new and improved". Extrapolate that
to speaker wire. CD players, preamps, amplifiers, speakers. Then consider
that combinations of components are considered to interact, and mentally
calculate the time (money) required to do all the testing. Then visualize
the debate over the results.

Wylie Williams

You are describing the process of merchandising commodity grade products. Basic
electrical audio equipment such as amplifiers and accessories like wires are
sold in the same way that large companies promote and sell laundry detergent.

Some different perfume and color combines with "New, Improved" plus vague
performance claims like "Cleans Your Clothes Better" to help turn over product.

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:HU%Va.23635$uu5.3018@sccrnsc04

How seldom on RAHE do we encounter the idea that audio
systems are for the enjoyment of music. And that enjoyment resides in
different places in each of us.

I don't think that the "different places" that the enjoyment of music
resides in properly falls outside the act of just listening to music.

The controversy about sighted versus blind listening tests finds the
proponents of sighted listening tests tacitly saying that a significant part
of their enjoyment of music falls outside the act of listening to music.
They have to see the equipment playing the music in order to differentiate
or properly appreciate their music listening experiences.

In contrast, the proponents of blind listening tests, in contrast are
tacitly saying that their enjoyment of music falls fully within the act of
listening to music. They have zero need to see the equipment playing the
music to differentiate and/or appreciate their music listening experiences.
In fact, they don't want to do anything but "just listen".

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:PhaWa.29049$uu5.3459@sccrnsc04...
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:HU%Va.23635$uu5.3018@sccrnsc04

How seldom on RAHE do we encounter the idea that audio
systems are for the enjoyment of music. And that enjoyment resides in
different places in each of us.

I don't think that the "different places" that the enjoyment of music
resides in properly falls outside the act of just listening to music.


Your continual obstinence in insisting that all subjective comments about
our hobby must be abx'd if they are to be taken seriously as more than "mere
preference" is what this is a reaction against. And he is right..it is a
hobby and there is much to enjoy, including sharing impressions of the
equipment we use.

The controversy about sighted versus blind listening tests finds the
proponents of sighted listening tests tacitly saying that a significant
part
of their enjoyment of music falls outside the act of listening to music.
They have to see the equipment playing the music in order to differentiate
or properly appreciate their music listening experiences.


This is just bull****, Arnie, and you know it. This is what you and some
other objectivists here keep saying about us..it is what you want to
believe. You completely ignore all the practical problems of dbx'ng
components at home in a relaxed environment as well as some of the
advantages of proto-monadic testing in a known audio environment that we
raise here. You are the one with an "agenda", not us.

In contrast, the proponents of blind listening tests, in contrast are
tacitly saying that their enjoyment of music falls fully within the act of
listening to music. They have zero need to see the equipment playing the
music to differentiate and/or appreciate their music listening
experiences.
In fact, they don't want to do anything but "just listen".


And you completely ignore the number of subjectivists who say they enjoy
most listening in the dark. Or those of us who close our eyes at a live
concert. As has been pointed out many times here, Arnie. The fact is music
is a subjective experience. There is no such objective thing as the sound
of music. There is sound. And after processing by the brain, there is
music. And enjoyment (or not) of that music is subject to any number of
inputs and developmental filters. So some people pay close attention to
rhythm. Others to high frequencies. Others to dimensionality. Others to
tonality. In assessing music reproduction. Through equipment. As part of
a hobby. And they don't necessarily give a rat's ass about comparing the
sound of two solid state amplifiers to determine minute differences. They
are more interested in what a casual insertion and evaluation into their
listening environment produces in the overall sonic gestalt that they value.
Why is that so hard for you to accept?

Arny,
You are right, and both camps are right. Much of the enjoyment many
audiophiles get from their audio systems is visual and psychological/
emotional: the joy of owning great toys. And that is legitimate.
The pride of ownership of the new technology, the masculine joy of having
a beefy new component, the glow of the tube, the swing of the meter: all
these have great sway on many owners. I have no doubt that viewing an
impressive looking system would be conducive to believing that it sounds
great.
This is part of what I mean by referring to the "different places" the
enjoyment may reside. There are others: the love of overetched detail, the
EQ with the smily face settings, the Bose 901's cranked to max on a Radio
Shack receiver, etc. After all the audio system to most of us is a device to
create pleasure, not generate scientific datum. If yours pleases you you
have the right one. If it doesn't. it is not the right one, no matter how
well it tests.

Wylie Williams

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:PhaWa.29049$uu5.3459@sccrnsc04...
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:HU%Va.23635$uu5.3018@sccrnsc04

How seldom on RAHE do we encounter the idea that audio
systems are for the enjoyment of music. And that enjoyment resides in
different places in each of us.

I don't think that the "different places" that the enjoyment of music
resides in properly falls outside the act of just listening to music.

The controversy about sighted versus blind listening tests finds the
proponents of sighted listening tests tacitly saying that a significant
part
of their enjoyment of music falls outside the act of listening to music.
They have to see the equipment playing the music in order to differentiate
or properly appreciate their music listening experiences.

In contrast, the proponents of blind listening tests, in contrast are
tacitly saying that their enjoyment of music falls fully within the act of
listening to music. They have zero need to see the equipment playing the
music to differentiate and/or appreciate their music listening
experiences.
In fact, they don't want to do anything but "just listen".

Keith,

You make a good point. If *you* could prove that *your* products were
superior to the others on the market to the satisfaction of the skeptics you
could open up that market, but I haven't heard of it being done by anyone.
As to why I can only speculate: is it that nobody feels their products
actually is superior? They don't think skeptics are enough of a market to
justify the time and trouble?

All we seem to know is that nobody is comparing components with DBTs. Or if
they are they are keeping the results very very quiet.

Wylie Williams

"Keith A. Hughes" wrote in message
news:GX%Va.24355$o%2.14663@sccrnsc02...
Wylie Williams wrote:

This has been an interesting exchange. Some see it as futile, others
valiantly debate on.

"Killing the goose" - Certainly it is not in the interests of the audio
industry to have definitive tests, ...

snip

This misses the point. I'm not claiming *anything* about being
good for "the industry". Quite the contrary in fact. Marketing (by
individuals) is for the express purpose of paring down "the
industry", as much as possible, to just YOU.

If *I* can provide evidence that *my* products sound different
than the products produced by the rest of the industry (or more
typically, by my direct competitors), then my marketing strategy
is clear: There are two sonically distinguishable products (wires,
s/s amps, etc. - makes no difference) out there, *Mine* and *All
Others*. Having firmly established a dichotomy, I then need only
make the pitch "Why waste your money on X, Y, or Z products that
all have the same dull, lifeless sound, when for only a gazillion
more, you can have My wonderful product preferred 10 to 1 by all
my family and friends".

Establishing the dichotomy is the only way to expand the market to
the untapped crowd of cynics. Cynics typically want data, and if
you can provide reasonable data to show difference, then you can
make a case for better/worse preference, with concomitant impetus
for experimentation (i.e. shopping) that currently does not exist.
That is a competitive advantage - entry into an untapped
demographic.

Keith Hughes

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:b8mWa.37408$YN5.33241@sccrnsc01
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:PhaWa.29049$uu5.3459@sccrnsc04...
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:HU%Va.23635$uu5.3018@sccrnsc04

How seldom on RAHE do we encounter the idea that audio
systems are for the enjoyment of music. And that enjoyment resides
in different places in each of us.

I don't think that the "different places" that the enjoyment of music
resides in properly falls outside the act of just listening to music.

Your continual obstinence in insisting that all subjective comments
about our hobby must be abx'd if they are to be taken seriously as
more than "mere preference" is what this is a reaction against.

Where did I say that all subjective comments must be ABX'd if they are taken
seriously?

I've always taken the following positions that contradict this claim:

(1) ABX is not the only valid form of DBT. In fact other forms of DBTs are
more valid when certain very common questions are being asked. My
www.pcabx.com web site proudly distributes non-ABX listening test management
software as well as ABX listening test management software. Therefore any
claims that I favor the use of only the ABX DBT listening test methodology
are clearly false.

(2) When the differences between sonic alternatives are generally agreed
upon to be large and clearly audible, particularly when this can be
demonstrated by some DBT listening test method, or technical test, then
there's no need for blind testing to support claims of most if not all kinds
of audible differences. For example my friends Clark and Nousaine are
proponents of a listening evaluation methodology called LTT which does not
include blinding the listener in any way. I have never criticized them for
this practice and I expect I never will. I also support the use of AES
standard 20, http://www.aes.org/standards/b_pub/aes20-1996.pdf which does
not include blinding the listener in any way.

Therefore we can see that Mr. Lavo is very poorly informed about my
activities and opinions, and might consider correcting himeself in this
matter.

And he is right..it is a hobby and there is much to enjoy, including
sharing impressions of the equipment we use.

Since when have I ever said that music shouldn't be enjoyed?

The controversy about sighted versus blind listening tests finds the
proponents of sighted listening tests tacitly saying that a
significant part of their enjoyment of music falls outside the act
of listening to music. They have to see the equipment playing the
music in order to differentiate or properly appreciate their music
listening experiences.

This is just bull****, Arnie, and you know it.

I can't believe that inflamatory talk like this has passed moderation. I
decline to further respond to this kind of thing. Please comment further
when proper restraint can be exercised.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:iW%Va.24701$YN5.23392@sccrnsc01...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:27:20 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

Snip previous discussion that underwent surgical treatment already

Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"
A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"-
the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
REPEATABILITY.

Sure it's repeatable - but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and
Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got.
There's no inconsistency here - unless you are a Mirabel with an
agenda. Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate
to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic
differences.

I get it. It is after all possible to duplicate that one and one only
epoch-making positive ABX result of yours but.... only if one has the
same equipment as you do. So Mr. Nousaine pouring ridicule on the
"amplifier sound" has been making a mistake for the last was it 20 or
30 years. Mr. Nousaine didn't buy Apogee Duettes and Krell amplifier.
Had he done so he would hear how different the amplifiers sound and
recant his sins.
A little problem remains though. Let's say Nousaine does get your
equipment and still hears no "amplifier sound". You might say (in fact
you almost certainly would) that it is well known that speakers of the
same manufacture can differ, Nothing would remain but make a
collection for Nousaine to travel to your castle and listen there.
This "reproducible test" is beginning to run into money. And it does
seem to be somewhat limited in its usefulness for the average
audiophile peasantry that owns all kinds of Goodness knows what. Let
alone the problem of getting Apogees from an extinct manufacturer.
(One of these blood-sucking billionaire high-end designers who can be
exposed only by valiant ABXers)
Or have you just been kidding all these years?
Ludovic Mirabel
Sorry no "evidence" to give. Mr. Pinkerton, only opinions. How can I
convey to you (and others) that I don't believe any individual has a
"test" valid for other individuals for comparing components for their
musical qualities. You believe Duettes allow you to recognise
differences? Good for you. But not for me. You're sure your opinion is
better than mine? Everybody's opinion is better than everybody else's.
They are not testable. In no other sphere of life do people talk about
a "test" to compare differences- only in this little audio courtyard.
Why we should be so favoured God only knows.

In article YoKVa.10282$Oz4.4141@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message .net...
And as long as you continue to post "idiotic challenges" to the DBT
advocates to present test results that meet your constantly
escalating requirements for "acceptability", count on others and
myself to continue to respond to you.

Note: This paragraph was created by taking Ludovic's paragraph quoted
at the end of this post and changing it from anti-DBT to pro-DBT. Due
to his continuing habit of not interspersing his new text with the
applicable quoted text it is likely most didn't get this.

I do hope you mean it and don't quit on me. I do need your penetrating
analysis of my character deficiencies that disable me from seeing the
true light.

Mine are no more so than your typical comments, and I am not the one
who fails to place his new text after the appropriate quoted text so
that the flow of the discussion is obvious. Is there a reason you
almost always fail to do so? Methinks so.

I do need your masterful, factual demonstration of ABX
infallibility as a scientific test, proved by JJ's recollections and
Pinkerton's private panel testing.

Both are much better evidence than your constant declarations of "I
am a poor ABXer, so ABX must be deficient". Pretty poor evidence on
your part I would say.

That will teach me for my "
constantly escalating requirements" such as asking for one, single
reference to a published, proctored ABX comparison test on any
comparable components at all- with a positive outcome.

They've been provided many times to you, but you refuse to investigate
them. Nousaine and others have mentions quite a few in the "Blindtest
question" thread. Have you looked at any of them?

Do stick around.

Count on it.

Ludovic Mirabel

In article ctqUa.132328$OZ2.26337@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:bforbp01hem@en
ews1.newsguy.com...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:0KgTa.118670$
ye4.86843@sccrnsc01...
In article kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04,

Mr. Pierce goes on:
Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
deliver?"

Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others,
irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.

I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades.

Well now, that's the point, isn't it? Despite thousands of lines of
posting, you actually have *never* produced a shred of evidence in
support of your own position. You simply bluster and waffle about how
bad ABX tests are, without noting that they are at least superior to
*any* kind of sighted 'test'.

Except
that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the
audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors.
Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous
personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see
the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or
anyone else.

Scurrilous personal attack? Hardly............

Dick was simply pointing out the obvious: *you* created a scurrilous
and unjustified thread title, then you failed to provide *any*
evidence to back it up. Dick simply pointed out this anomaly, and
suggested a logical remedy.

Just for the record. The thread was not started by me and the thread
title is not mine. Falsification/dyslexia is making disciples.

True, but since you have seem to have posted more to this thread than
anyone else, I can understand his mistake.

I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and
asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared
in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think
that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded
treatment or an answer to the problem.

You don't *want* even-handed treatment. You want your own hand-waving
and bluster to be accepted without complaint. That isn't going to
happen. Keep making illogical and baseless claims, and they will
continue to be exposed as such.

Mr. Pinkerton, complain all you want. Expose all you want
On the 23rd you posted such a complaint exposing my non- p.c. views in
civilised terms. You got a civilised answer today (25th)

This is not the subject at issue here.
The subject is not whether I am right or not but whether postings
containing personal invective AND NO OTHER SUBSTANCE should continue
to appear in RAHE.

It was commentary on your method of "debating" and IMHO totally
appropriate. It was not "personal invective" since it was about your
debating style and not about you. I guess he should follow your lead
and do as you do below and throw in "ABX" a couple of times since
that makes your post completely about audio and not just about
another author's comments.

Your today's text shows that once that is allowed it can not be
stopped. Especially if some indiciduals are given a licence to revert
to type.
Talk about hand-waving! Wouldn't you like a little censorship thrown
in?

It seems your are the one advocating censorship, not him. You are the
one asking that his post should not have been accepted, he just
commented on how useless your posts are.

Your tactics are effective. People with politically incorrect views
drop out of RAHE one by one rather than be subjected to a stream of
invective. They barely dare to send me a message of support by email.

And your tactics wouldn't cause someone to avoid reading the group
due to your continued repetition of the same tired argument over and
over again?

For your information. I am sick to death of hearing about DBTs and
gladly would not say another word on the subject.
But having grown up with thought police- and worse- around me I'm
grateful that verbal bullying is the worst you can do.

This explains a lot, you equate those who advocate blind testing of
audio components as "thought police".

And as long as I see the idiotic challenges to people, who point out
that ABX is geared towards a negative result, to "prove it"- how?- by
subjecting themselves to the ABX test - count on me to respond Mr.
Pinkerton

Noussaine wrote

You are describing the process of merchandising commodity grade products.
Basic
electrical audio equipment such as amplifiers and accessories like wires
are
sold in the same way that large companies promote and sell laundry
detergent.

Some different perfume and color combines with "New, Improved" plus vague
performance claims like "Cleans Your Clothes Better" to help turn over
product.


Well, it is a business for all manufacturers, large and small, and there
are only so many sales methods to choose from. Back as far as the days on
mono hi-fi I recall speakers were advertised as producing sound
indistinguishable from the real event, and amplifiers with distortion too
low to be detected.
It seems to me that the worst offenders in advertising claims are not
the makers of the commodity grade items, but some of the high end producers.
Some of the claims are little short of amazing, but I am sure that most of
us take them with the proverbial grain of salt.

Wylie Williams

P.S.- In the above I did not mention Bose at all. Bose is an exceptional
product and company in many ways.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:59:55 GMT, (Audio Guy)
wrote:

In article YoKVa.10282$Oz4.4141@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

I do need your masterful, factual demonstration of ABX
infallibility as a scientific test, proved by JJ's recollections and
Pinkerton's private panel testing.

Both are much better evidence than your constant declarations of "I
am a poor ABXer, so ABX must be deficient". Pretty poor evidence on
your part I would say.

Unfortunately, we only have Ludovic's word that he is a poor ABX'er.
He might actually be very good at it, but his problem is that he goes
into the test 'knowing' that things 'should' sound different, so when
they don't, he blames the test. Some of us actually *do* 'trust our
ears', and accept that, despite our previous prejudices, all cables
really do sound the same, and so do many amps.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:57:41 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:iW%Va.24701$YN5.23392@sccrnsc01...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:27:20 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

Snip previous discussion that underwent surgical treatment already

Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"
A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"-
the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
REPEATABILITY.

Sure it's repeatable - but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and
Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got.
There's no inconsistency here - unless you are a Mirabel with an
agenda. Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate
to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic
differences.

I get it. It is after all possible to duplicate that one and one only
epoch-making positive ABX result of yours but.... only if one has the
same equipment as you do.

Not epoch-making at all, as Arny has also posted lots of positive ABX
results. Indeed, he has a whole website full of them.

So Mr. Nousaine pouring ridicule on the
"amplifier sound" has been making a mistake for the last was it 20 or
30 years.

Not what I said at all, as you well know.

Mr. Nousaine didn't buy Apogee Duettes and Krell amplifier.

He also didn't compare the same amps that I did.

Had he done so he would hear how different the amplifiers sound and
recant his sins.

Note that the Audiolab 8000P and Hafler XL600 did *not* sound
different from the Krell. You really must abandon all this posturing,
and try to come up with some kind of rational defence for your
position.

A little problem remains though. Let's say Nousaine does get your
equipment and still hears no "amplifier sound". You might say (in fact
you almost certainly would) that it is well known that speakers of the
same manufacture can differ,

Not at all. I might simply accept that I have better hearing! :-)

However, I would be very surprised if Tom and I did not come up with
very similar results if taking part in the same tests. IME, human
hearing doesn't have anything like the variation that you guys try to
claim. Try the 'hearing tests' on Arny's website, and you'll find a
pretty sharp change from 'undectable' to '100% detectable' which is
consistent for most listeners. Heck, that's how JJ et al go about
*designing* all those nice codecs like AAC and MP3!

Sorry no "evidence" to give. Mr. Pinkerton, only opinions. How can I
convey to you (and others) that I don't believe any individual has a
"test" valid for other individuals for comparing components for their
musical qualities.

No, Ludovic, your problem is that *no* test will confirm your own
prejudices. Just because you *think* that two components should sound
different, doesn't mean that they actually do.

You believe Duettes allow you to recognise
differences?

So do lots of other speakers - where there is a *real* difference.
There is however *no* speaker which will allow you to hear the
difference between two 'audiophile' cables.......................

Good for you. But not for me. You're sure your opinion is
better than mine? Everybody's opinion is better than everybody else's.
They are not testable.

Sure they are - you just don't like the results!

In no other sphere of life do people talk about
a "test" to compare differences- only in this little audio courtyard.

I take it that you have never heard of the pharmaceutical industry?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Wylie Williams wrote:

Keith,

You make a good point. If *you* could prove that *your* products were
superior to the others on the market to...

Now, now...that's not exactly what I said. You only have to
*prove* a difference. Once you establish the difference (not
currently accepted by 'skeptics', insofar as rocks, blocks, and
wires are concerned at least), you are free to wax rhapsodic about
the wonders of your product. You don't have to *prove* any
superiority, as at that point, the better/worse debate is strictly
one of individual preference.

the satisfaction of the skeptics you
could open up that market, but I haven't heard of it being done by anyone.
As to why I can only speculate: is it that nobody feels their products
actually is superior?

In the case of "high end" cables, I personally seriously doubt
(though claim no evidence in that regard) that most manufacturers
really believe any of their own hyperbole. So, certainly, they
have no incentive to do such testing. That's the crux of the
argument. *If* they were certain their cables were sonically
distinguishable from other high-end cables, then proving such
could confer a marketing advantage. Yet they have not.

They don't think skeptics are enough of a market to
justify the time and trouble?

While, again, claiming no numerical evidence, I suspect the
skeptics are the vast majority of the market. That is not to say,
however, that "skeptics" are immune from high pressure sales
tactics, and/or marketing technobabble, so I suspect that there is
considerable market penetration for a number of these products.
OTOH, verifiable evidence of the sonic differences of cables would
provide the already "experienced" sales force with a valuable,
persuasive, tool for pushing a *specific* product.

All we seem to know is that nobody is comparing components with DBTs. Or if
they are they are keeping the results very very quiet.

Well, the audiophiles I know personally are mostly like me. For
example, at a local HiFi Expo, I attended a cable demo put on by
Audioquest. In the demo, I was *clearly* able to distinguish
between Monster speaker cable, and the high end Audioquest cable.
The differences were not subtle either (ring a bell?). These
results were, however, inconsistent with my knowledge of
electrical theory and solid state physics. So, I did SBT's of
interconnects and cables, the same cables observed in the demo, at
home in my system. Under SBT conditions, I could distinguish no
differences...nada. And yes, I was surprised at how
comprehensively my expectations had affected my perceptions (damn!
*only* human I guess). So, I use the low end Audioquest speaker
cable (cause its flat) and Rat Shack gold interconnects (because
they're built better than the el cheapos).

However, the amplifier I use for my main system is a Meridian 557.
At $2400, it's not cheap, but not exorbitant either. Did I DBT it
with an equivalently rated, cheaper amp to see if perhaps a $1K
expenditure would have "sufficed"? No. Why? I don't care. I like
the way it looks, it's built very well, and does what I need it
to. I don't *need* to feel that it's superior to, or different
from, a Rotel for e.g., to justify my purchase. It meets my sonic
criteria, and other factors/features justify, for me, any
'additional' associated costs.

This is why I say that all the 'Audiophiles' I know personally
(and I suspect even two or three others) are like me; they buy
components *they* like, for a variety of reasons, and don't do any
SBT/DBT evaluations. They buy electronics based on the entirety of
their features, and usually the "coolest" one they can afford (it
*is* a hobby after all). They also don't waste money on exotic
cables and interconnects because a) they don't (in our
experiences) make any difference, and b) they're hidden away
(typically), so Pride of Ownership plays an insignificant role.

So, you do not see me posting 'requirements' for DBT'ing
components, as some people are fond of claiming that *we* skeptics
do, because *I* don't use DBT's, and I don't know anyone who
typically does (for selection of personal audio gear). Nor do I
make claims about the sonic performance of equipment that I have
no data to support. Were I to make such claims, then it would be
incumbent on me to perform a series of rigorous tests to support
my assertions. Such do I expect from others making claims that are
a) unpredicted, or unsupportable by current scientific
data/theory, and/or b) contradict commonly understood results or
methodologies.

Keith Hughes

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:P8mWa.36590$Ho3.6492@sccrnsc03

You are right, and both camps are right. Much of the enjoyment many
audiophiles get from their audio systems is visual and psychological/
emotional: the joy of owning great toys. And that is legitimate.

Of course. Their money, their time, their preferences.

I'm trying to suggest that part of the conflict is semantic. People who
confuse various kinds of experiences in their statements will of course not
always be properly understood.

The pride of ownership of the new technology, the masculine joy of
having a beefy new component, the glow of the tube, the swing of the
meter: all these have great sway on many owners. I have no doubt that
viewing an impressive looking system would be conducive to believing
that it sounds great.

IME that's true for a time. Eventually the perception of the glitter becomes
routine, and sound quality issues may reassert themselves.

This is part of what I mean by referring to the "different
places" the enjoyment may reside. There are others: the love of
overetched detail, the EQ with the smily face settings, the Bose
901's cranked to max on a Radio Shack receiver, etc. After all the
audio system to most of us is a device to create pleasure, not
generate scientific datum.

Exactly. However there are people, perhaps a great many people, for whom
sound quality in the narrow sense is of primary importance. There needs to
be some way that they can be communicated with.

If yours pleases you have the right
one. If it doesn't. it is not the right one, no matter how well it
tests.

IME that isn't always cast in cement. The knowledge that performance is as
good as it can possibly be can also enhance the quality of the experience.

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
. net...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Nousaine wrote:
To the best of my knowledge the AES has never conducted any kind of
test
under
its banner. There have been presentations of kinds at conventions and
an
occasional 'exhibit' (such as a cassette tape manufacturer comparing
copiers of
their cassettes vs the cd source) but those are not "AES" tests.

I've examined practically every blind listening test ever published and
so
far
none of them have discovered subjects at the tails of the distribution
with
scores that were obscured by the total. That's the beauty of
statistical
analysis; if there are high scoring individuals that occur at a rate
greater
than those one would expect due to chance alone the overall results
will be
statistically significant.

But, as I've am asked periodically by irritated 'subjectivists', what if
*one*
person consitently scores 99% correct and all the others score no better
than
chance?

Are you saying something like that's never occurred? Or that it would
require
more
than one such individual in a test, to conclude 'difference'?

I've carefully investigated subjects who have taken part in more than one
test
and have yet to find an individual who appears to have a Golden Ear.


How about describing how you went about the "careful investigation". Did
you compare their performance on different tests? In absolute? Relative to
the means? Did you combine the tests in some fashion? Did you interview the
subjects? Inquiring minds want to know.

Yes I've watched the scoring of individuals across multiple tests both my
individual experiments, PSACS and SMWTMS to find individuals who scored
significantly when the overall results were null (found none), who appeared to
score more highly in different tests (no long term golden ears) and offered
retests for subjects who wanted them (few) or when I asked them or trial
extension for subjects who wanted them (one.)

A more interesting phenomenon is getting subjects to finish an experiment. When
strong proponents find they are unable to easily detect "clearly audible" when
nothing more than the pre-knowledge of the equipment playing is withheld they
sometimes want to quit.

Thus, I typically ask subjects to agree to complete at least 10 trials before
they begin and I pay them as well.

I have always asked if subjects wanted a retest. Few do. In one case I repeated
a test of wires using a different set of equipment where the subject claimed
there would be an obvious difference between cheap rcas and his designer
cables. Null there too.

I think that many subjectivists think that these tests are somehow designed to
'hide' differences when, in fact, they are intended to uncover audible (but,
ONLY audible) difference.

I'm a professional and a hard core enthusiast. I have no need to hide truly
audible difference. Why would I, or anybody, want to do that?

But I see no rational reason to insist others accept 'differences' that exist
only in the minds of people who can't show they have sonic cause.

I want to maximize the sonic quality and throughput of my systems with an
optimal deployment of resources. Why not?

"Keith A. Hughes" wrote:

...snippage of generally fully agreed on post; to specific point for
eleboration....


Well, the audiophiles I know personally are mostly like me. For
example, at a local HiFi Expo, I attended a cable demo put on by
Audioquest. In the demo, I was *clearly* able to distinguish
between Monster speaker cable, and the high end Audioquest cable.
The differences were not subtle either (ring a bell?). These
results were, however, inconsistent with my knowledge of
electrical theory and solid state physics. So, I did SBT's of
interconnects and cables, the same cables observed in the demo, at
home in my system. Under SBT conditions, I could distinguish no
differences...nada. And yes, I was surprised at how
comprehensively my expectations had affected my perceptions (damn!
*only* human I guess).

Many are not aware of the human and group dynamics and presentation bias that
enter demonstrations.

Let's start with presentaion methods. The normal technique is to present a
sonic experience; turn the gain all the way down and then make the next
presentation by readjutsing the volume control without verification of gain.

Because humans will report 'differences' when given two identical sound
presentation and will generally intepret small changes in level as changes in
quality it's easy to see how an effective presenter can easily manipulate (even
at the subconscious level) presentations to achieve a certain result.

And the hidden assumptions and group dynamics of demonstrations are often
apparent in these situations. For example, the presenter oftens tells the
audience what they're supposed to hear up front and then asks the audience:
"Which sounds better to you?" or "Which one did you like best?" or something
similar that carries with it the hidden assumption that there actually was a
true difference.

As for the audience; how many people at an audio event want to admit they
could hear a difference between two sound presentations? Be honest in your
answer.

What typically happens is that someone in the audience 'offers' a comment and
then others chip in. (I've actually seen audience 'plants' used)

Sometimes there'll be a 'difference' of opinion. Now the presenter might say
"Let's try it again with better material" and repeats the sequence. If he gets
the 'right' answer then the demo is complete.

If he doesn't then he often tries again with negotiation: "Well perhaps you
didn't hear the unhooded midrange but SURELY you heard the increased smoothness
in the lower treble!"

All of these dynamics are operating under the key question: "Which one did you
like better?" Once a person answers that question he has internally agreed
that they did sound different. It's an old and very effective sales technique.

Sometimes the audience will negotiate with each other. I once attended a Press
Event at the CES. Two sound presentations were given, the host asked "which one
was better?". The guy sitting next to me leaned over and said that he didn't
hear X but Y was obvious. I didn't hear either X or Y but I responded with
something that I just made up, call it Z.

By then the Host had readied the repeat. Afterwards the guy next to me now
admitted that he had indeed heard Y again but had also noted Z. He also seemed
a little peeved that I hadn't agreed to hear Y with him.

This kind of group dynamics happen all the time and afterward people will
report they actually 'heard' whatever effect was being pitched without
reservation. It's very effective and begins with the proper tense and phrasing
of that initial question with the hidden assumption of sonic difference where
no sonic cause was present.