In article t%b0b.184348$uu5.34906@sccrnsc04,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:


Mr. Pearce, I do not know who "claims that blind tests desensitise the
listener". It certainly is not myself.
..

All I say is that the ABX protocol, specifically, MAY BE a hurdle for
many. I listed my rasons many times- the main one being that the panel
listening tests to whatever under the audio sun result in a negastive
outcome by a thumping majority.

OK, if it doesn't "desensitise the listener", then what is your
explanation what the "hurdle" is? Your only defense so far is that
the ABX results don't agree with the results of sighted tests. You
need some thing more than that to prove your point. You certainly
won't accept the possibility that there weren't any differences in
the test run so far, even if it is the most likely explanation.

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:

On 18 Aug 2003 05:26:49 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:

I set up a series of 20 trials of each amp, with my wife doing the
switching. She flipped a coin 20 times, and noted on a score sheet
whether it was heads or tails. She set the 'X' switch to A for heads
and B for tails after each test. I'd satisfy myself as to the identity
of X and mark it on a score sheet, my wife would enter the room, reset
the identity of 'X' and leave the room while I conducted the next
test.

To we terminally tweaky/freaky we'd have you leave the room when the switch
was
made as well. 20 trials is a good number.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I turned my back when I called her in
and turned back when she closed the door, to minimise interaction.
There's only one door to that room, so leaving would not IMHO have
improved isolation.

In "To Tweak or Not" I had the subject leave the room when systems were
switched and Ieft the room during listening but kept sight of the subject
through a doorway at the top of a staircase.

Both "system hooked up" and subject scores were recorded on cards and dropped
in a slotted box after each trial. Subjects were encouraged to verify hook-up
after each trial. There were only a few that ever bothered.

I'm just elaborating for the lurkers at how setting up and conducting a
controlled listening test isn't the arduous task it's often made out to be.


The end result was that the Denons (fave rave reviews in all the rags
at the time) and the Rega were instantly tossed for rough treble, the
MF was instantly tossed for a 'veiled' sound with recessed treble, the
Yamaha 2090 and Arcam were tossed for slightly bright treble, while
the remaining amps were too close to call.

So you have results for all these comparisons? The next obvious question is
what was the reference for any given device? Krell? What was the reference
"toss'' point for the *******, as it were

I don't have the raw scores, but I recall that the the first-round
'*******' were 20/20 - it wasn't that subtle!

The Krell was A for the first round, and B for the second round, and a
score of 15/20 was considered to be significant. The Yamaha AX-570 was
absolutely borderline, and I'm pretty sure that it would have been
indistinguishable on the Tannoys.

But it seems that you didn't confirm frequency response into the load
either.
Not a critical issue but one that I generally care for by checking level
match
at 100, 1000 and 10,000 Hz.

Agreed that I level-matched at 1kHz only, although I'd previously
checked the Krell as flat from 10Hz to 30kHz. This was part of a
buying decision, so it would have been a waste of time to run checks
on droopy or rising treble for the '*******', as they would still be
tossed!

IMO a quick frequency response test is a faster way to toss the ******* than a
20 trial controlled listening test.

Also I've never found a moderately competent amplifier that had significant
operating errors into even to the weird loads some of my enthusiast
speaker-builder friends have cooked up. Maybe amplifiers work under stricter
rules of conduct in midwest America

But do you have some impedance data on your speakers? If you have a load that
tends to introduce errors in low output impedance amplifiers it would be great
to define it.

The Hafler, probably the best
all-rounder as it was very powerful as well as quiet and sonically
impeccable, was rejected on the grounds of its horrendously noisy
cooling fan,

This is a REAL reason for rejection and needs no corollary tests. But if it
was sonically impeccable (I would guess that would be transparent to
whatever
amplifier which was the comparative reference?)

Yes, that would be my definition.

and could be placed in a sealed
cabinet or adjacent room it would then be acceptable.

Unfortunately, the wall behind the TV system is an exterior wall (and
13" thick!). Plus of course the Audiolab does the job just fine, and
100 W/channel is more than adequate for these 90dB/w/m speakers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Oh sure. It might not be acceptable in that application but could be successful
in others.

BTW I have the world's worst sounding amplifier in my possession the Fidek FPA
3002. It has a noisy fan and transformer that excite the cover panels and
sounds horrible just being turned on and not playing music. It sounds
marginally better with dynamic program material because the music masks the
acoustic sound coming from the amplifier.

No; I don't own this piece. It's a tosser without measurement or listening test
with music material

(Mkuller) wrote in message news:BXb0b.183627$YN5.135766@sccrnsc01...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
:
4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
perversion of "testing".


(Bob Marcus)
Date: 8/17/03 4:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:
wrote:
"Ignoring the minority who DO have fewer and less severe colds after
megadosing vitamin C is a perversion of testing."

See how silly that argument is? So stop using it.


Bob, your analogy comparing DBTs to medical research is wrongheaded.

No, just inexact, as all analogies seem to turn out to be. (Perhaps
RAHE should ban them.) I meant to give Mr. Mirabel an example of the
kind of cherry-picking and selection bias he practices.

If one
person in the Greenhill group, or any other group reliably identifies a
difference - then it proves a difference exists!

Granted. Although Mr. Mirabel cannot point to a single case in which
this occurred (absent willful misreading, of course).

The fact that the others or a
vast majority are not able to reliably identify it under THAT test and THOSE
test conditions means next to nothing. It's a null - 0 - meaningless.

So why aren't there any blind tests published which show differences?

Except for Greenhill's five, and Arny's old article. Let's be fair,
Mike. There have been a few.

(1) Blind testing seems to filter out subtle audible differences. Even the
experts agree that music is not a very sensitive source and it is the only
meaningful one to audiophiles.

True, but if it's not a sensitive source for blind tests, then it's
not a sensitive source for sighted tests either. (Unless you have some
theory for how your ear-brain mechanism works differently when you
know which cable is connected.)

(2) The only people who care about blind testing are the "debunkers" who are
trying to show "there are no differences" to the unwashed audiophile masses
(most of whom couldn't care less)

And just why do you think anyone is "trying" to show this? What have
any of us to gain by it?

bob

(S888Wheel) wrote:

....snips.....

Tom said


That's fair enough; but neither you nor any interested party nor Stewart has
delivered a smoking gun on amp or wire sound.

IF these 'differences' truly existed than there would have been clear
verification by now. This is not a new question nor is in soluable.



If you always choose not to accept evidence of positive tests on the grounds
of
"uniqueness" of the results, those results will retain their "uniqueness"
every
time they are presented in a new test.

No they won't. If they get replicated then they become the new standard. But
"cold fusion" remains unique. Do we have to accept it for that reason? But
events and experiments that remain 'unique' do so for a reason.

Discounting any test on the grounds of
the results is very unscientific. That is a choice you have made. Not me.

Ok then you tell me; if Stewart's experiment is taken at face value it says
that a wide variety of modern amplifiers are sonically indistingushable and
those that aren't are "*******" does it not? The corollary becomes: amplifiers
sonically transparent to a $$$ Krell are available at far less cost.

IF you want to cling to the amp-sound theory this experiment and the conclusion
by the experimentor says that IF an amplifier can be identified by sound alone
it is DEFICIENT.



Tom said


You are reduced to 'searching' for evidence, any evidence, that seems to
support your position. But you just can't seem to find it and are reduced to
championing anecdotes that look attractive to you.


Nope. I haven't rejected any test on the grounds that the results were
unexpected or unique. That is what you are doing. The fact of the matter is
the
question is usually to broad and black and white. When one asks the broad
question "do all amplifiers sound the same?" There are lots of variables
beyond
the amps in this question.

You mean the personal bias of people like you; or the features (lack of fan)
required of others.

But no one has ever said that all amplifiers sound the same. My position is
that modern amplifiers nominally competent for a given load will sound like a
straight wire with gain.


Good fishing.


I see you already have your big fish story.

Like my amplifier sounds just like yours? What a boastful position. Let's race.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:55:45 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

If one
person in the Greenhill group, or any other group reliably identifies a
difference - then it proves a difference exists!

That would be true - HOWEVER, that's not what happened in the
Greenhill tests, except in the fertile imagination of Ludovic Mirabel.

The fact that the others or a
vast majority are not able to reliably identify it under THAT test and THOSE
test conditions means next to nothing. It's a null - 0 - meaningless.

So is the one statistically significant result - unless it can be
repeated. You think that the same subject would get the same results
in a retest? If he did, then that *would* be good evidence, but if you
look at the basic stats of the situation, he could have got those
results (as part of that larger group), by tossing coins. Same thing
happened in the TAG McLaren tests.

So why aren't there any blind tests published which show differences?

There are.

(1) Blind testing seems to filter out subtle audible differences. Even the
experts agree that music is not a very sensitive source and it is the only
meaningful one to audiophiles.

No, *any* source which shows differences is meaningful to audiophiles
(castanets, pink noise, violin solo, whatever). Blind testing in fact
*reveals* subtle audible differences which would otherwise be swamped
by sighted bias. Unfortunately for some here, there is *no* test which
will reliably and repeatably reveal differences which do not exist in
the physical world, such as 'cable sound'.

(2) The only people who care about blind testing are the "debunkers" who are
trying to show "there are no differences" to the unwashed audiophile masses
(most of whom couldn't care less)

Nope, people who care about blind testing want to *reveal* what really
sounds different. This does of course also show what is mere snake
oil, but that's reality for you...............

Note that *no* reliable and repeatable test has *ever* shown that
there are sonic differences among 'audiophile' cables. Not one, not
ever.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:59:53 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

Mr. Pearce, I do not know who "claims that blind tests desensitise the
listener". It certainly is not myself.

That would be Mike Kuller, this very day, among others............

Of course, you *are* the one who started the thread entitled 'why does
ABX not deliver', to which this thread is a rebuttal.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 04:47:56 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

IMO a quick frequency response test is a faster way to toss the ******* than a
20 trial controlled listening test.

Not if you are only interested in how they sound........... :-)

Also I've never found a moderately competent amplifier that had significant
operating errors into even to the weird loads some of my enthusiast
speaker-builder friends have cooked up. Maybe amplifiers work under stricter
rules of conduct in midwest America

But do you have some impedance data on your speakers? If you have a load that
tends to introduce errors in low output impedance amplifiers it would be great
to define it.

They're a fairly flat 3 to 3.5 ohms across most of the audio band,
with a slight hump to 6 or 7 ohms in the octave centred on 800Hz. It's
a first-order crossover, so that's fairly typical.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:0He0b.184753$Ho3.25747@sccrnsc03...
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:G680b.182959$uu5.34042@sccrnsc04...

Bob has demonstrated quite well on his own how your "interpretations"
of Greenhill's comments are misinterpretations.

So let's have no interpreting. Just poor Greenhill's own words, word
for word and literally and Marcus own words, word for word and
literally.

Marcus first:
Anyone tempted to take Mirabel's assertion here at face value should
consult the original article and read for himself that Greenhill said
no such thing.

bob

This is what Greenhill said reporting the outcome of his cable
comparison test: ("The Stereo Review, August 1982):
"Final significant conclusion one can draw is that at least one
genuine "golden ear" exists. Obviously certain listeners whether
through talent, training or experience can hear small differences
between components"

Apparently the only way you can argue your case is to juxtapose my
words with something I was not responding to (and which did not even
appear in the post you pulled my comment from). A rather pitiful act
of desperation, I'd say.

bob

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:tcX%a.173930$Ho3.23369@sccrnsc03...

Let me first of all say that I truly appreciate your text. It is
what I believe a discussion should be: with serious content,
courteously written- not clowning for the audience, picking on single
words to score points and listing your opponent's personal
deficiences. I also do not doubt your good faith and considerable
investment of time and money in this subject. But...
Ludovic has posted earlier that he though that past controlled listening
research had "hidden" positive scoring subjects with overall null results and
that I had been avoiding him about that issue. I recently responded but my post
was rejected. So here’s a straight reply to the "hidden audibility" claim.

First, there have been no hidden positive subject scoring in any research that
I’ve been able to note. In spite of the repeat claims that the Greenhill wire
test had high scoring individuals whose results were concealed by averaging
there is no data that either confirms or suggests this conclusion. This has
been covered quite extensively in this newsgroup and in recent threads.

Let me shift the emphasis. It is not on individuals ( such as
Greenhill's own "golden ear"). It is on the indisputable fact that the
individual performances in the reported tests vary enormously,
Example: Your witness Sean Olive's results in his "listening room" pdf
(www.revelspeakers.- address quoted from memory). One of his
supertrained professionals' was scoring around 30% , a few 50% or
thereabouts, most reached (how many repeats?), significant 70% or
more.
Greenhill: all scored brillianly ( almost all were 100%
correct) recognising 1.75db. volume difference between a thick and a
thin cable- as long as the pink noise was played.
The same people failed to recognise (within Greenhill's statistical
validity criteria- ie had much lower "correct" scores) the same volume
difference once music replaced pink noise.
You or others said that it only proves that pink noise is a better
"test" signal. Sorry: doesn't wash with me. The subject is
reproduction of MUSIC by audio components- not pink noise. in fact
saying that ABX performs better with pink noise than music, amounts to
saying that ABX is an inappropriate test for assessing MUSICAL
reproduction differences between components.
Is a "test" that has such variable individual results an appropriate
test for audiophile use? How can you be certain that the failure of
most of your subjects to recognise differences was not due to the
nature of your test?
Especially as you must agree that training in ABXing improves
individual results. How does an audiophile know if he had enough
training?

Next; of the tests I have personally designed, proctored or have been a subject
there has been no cadre of ‘those who hear’ compared to the general subject
population. IOW there has never been an experiment where a few significant
scoring individuals were concealed by the average. Indeed with a reasonably
sized sample often a single significant result would be enough to make the
overall results positive.

Of the tests I’ve designed and conducted subject count has varied from 1 to
31 with sample sizes ranging from 10 to 431. Programs were selected by subjects
in the ‘challengeâ€à ƒÂ‚™ experiments where subjects had claimed to already have
confirmed differences. Otherwise programs were selected from a collection of 63
musical and voice selections (including many with acoustical instrumentation)
that had been chosen because they represent specific reproduction challenges to
audio systems.

Every experiment was extensively examined for internal significance. Most of
them allowed subjects to extend the test with more trials to improve scores.
This was seldom asked for and no individual improved his score enough to attain
significance with additional trials OR a repeat of the entire experiment.
There were NO individual significant scores in any experiment that wasn't
significant overall.

I'd have to know what you played to them, what were their ages
and sex, their ABX training, their musical interests and exposure- a
thousand details- before I could say that you ruled out with
significant validity the possibility that you missed that rare bird
who was not only a great listener but also a great ABX performer. ONE
is enough. It is not about pleasing the crowd. It is about "high-end".
Something like Mr. Pinkerton- an ABX upholder whom you did not
convince that there are no differences between amps. Nor , of course
did he convince you.
However in the case of Flying Blind (Audio Magazine) a subject who was unable
to discern whether a given program contained a confirmed audible level of
distortion in 16 weeks of long term listening was able to reliably identify
same with a 6 second segment of that program using the ABX technique.

But any ofd this notwithstanding I'm still not fully understanding why some
individual, some company or some 3rd party has ever been able to confirm "amp"
and "wire" sound under any set of conditions with even modest listening bias
controls implemented.

Even IF someone was withholding the Truth why hasn't someone else willfully or
even by accident confirmed it? If these 'differences' are so evident that
people like Ludovic are so certain of their existence WHY hasn't some party,
interested or otherwise, stumbled across the body instead of just the rumors?

It just doesn't seem likely that people as smart as Earl Geddes, Floyd Toole,
David Clark, David Rich, Sean Olive, Stan Lip****z, John Vanderkooy, Dan
Shanefiled, Rich Cabot, John Eargle, Dick Pierce, et al would have ALL
overlooked even the minutest of evidence of true audibility.

All your notables to the best of my knowledge did not report
component comparisons- where there is NO OBJECTIVE END-POINT- but
rather reasearch about perception of KNOWN induced artefact-is the
answer right or not. Usually by selected, trained audiences at that.
Apples and oranges.
Ludovic Mirabel

(Mkuller) wrote
(1) Blind testing seems to filter out subtle audible differences. Even
the
experts agree that music is not a very sensitive source and it is the only
meaningful one to audiophiles.


(Bob Marcus)
wrote:
True, but if it's not a sensitive source for blind tests, then it's
not a sensitive source for sighted tests either. (Unless you have some
theory for how your ear-brain mechanism works differently when you
know which cable is connected.)

Ah, your misguided logic rear its ugly head once again. In sighted tests, most
trained listeners can hear and reliably identify differences between amps (for
example). Those differences disappear in blind tests. Do you have proof (or
just your "logical" inference) that the test itself is not filtering out the
differences? I'll leave the theories about ear-brain mechanisms with music and
blind tests to the real scientists (not the engineers, statisticians or
pseudo-scientists).

(2) The only people who care about blind testing are the "debunkers" who
are
trying to show "there are no differences" to the unwashed audiophile masses
(most of whom couldn't care less)

And just why do you think anyone is "trying" to show this? What have
any of us to gain by it?

So you tell us all - why do you and the other pro-DBTers persist in
this endless debate? Proving you're right? Winning the debate?
Getting in the last post?
Regards,
Mike

(Mkuller) wrote in message ...
(Mkuller) wrote
(1) Blind testing seems to filter out subtle audible differences. Even
the
experts agree that music is not a very sensitive source and it is the only
meaningful one to audiophiles.


(Bob Marcus)
wrote:
True, but if it's not a sensitive source for blind tests, then it's
not a sensitive source for sighted tests either. (Unless you have some
theory for how your ear-brain mechanism works differently when you
know which cable is connected.)

Ah, your misguided logic rear its ugly head once again. In sighted tests, most
trained listeners can hear and reliably

No, they can't do this reliably. If you have any data to prove
otherwise, please share it.

identify differences between amps (for
example). Those differences disappear in blind tests. Do you have proof (or
just your "logical" inference) that the test itself is not filtering out the
differences?

I'd say the complete lack of evidence that people can "reliably" hear
these differences in any other form of comparison constitutes pretty
strong evidence that there's nothing to filter out.

I'll leave the theories about ear-brain mechanisms with music and
blind tests to the real scientists (not the engineers, statisticians or
pseudo-scientists).

(2) The only people who care about blind testing are the "debunkers" who
are
trying to show "there are no differences" to the unwashed audiophile masses
(most of whom couldn't care less)

And just why do you think anyone is "trying" to show this? What have
any of us to gain by it?

So you tell us all - why do you and the other pro-DBTers persist in
this endless debate? Proving you're right? Winning the debate?
Getting in the last post?

Answer my question. Then I'll answer yours.

bob

Mkuller wrote:
(Mkuller) wrote
(1) Blind testing seems to filter out subtle audible differences. Even
the
experts agree that music is not a very sensitive source and it is the only
meaningful one to audiophiles.


(Bob Marcus)
wrote:
True, but if it's not a sensitive source for blind tests, then it's
not a sensitive source for sighted tests either. (Unless you have some
theory for how your ear-brain mechanism works differently when you
know which cable is connected.)

Ah, your misguided logic rear its ugly head once again. In sighted tests, most
trained listeners can hear and reliably identify differences between amps (for
example). Those differences disappear in blind tests. Do you have proof (or
just your "logical" inference) that the test itself is not filtering out the
differences?

Do you have *proof* that it does? Your evidence from sighted
listening to amps doesn't begin to be sufficient. That's because
we have tons of proof that sighted bias exists and is *common*.
We have no proof that 'filtering' of the sort you posit
exists. We also have proof that blind testing
does not always result in 'no difference'. Components such as speakers
can routinely 'pass' blind tests. Components such as cables, cannot.

You speak of logic. Your logic is utterly flawed. Your 'evidence' -- that sighted
listeners can reliably identify differences between amps -- amoutns to
a giant *duh* from a psychoacoustics perspective.
All 'explanations' are not created equal'; the exercise of rationality
involves evaluating which ones
are supported by the existing evidence and which are not.

When you have provided *evidence* that 'filtering' exists, it will
leave the realm of pure speculation. For now, it's a distinctly
less rational explanation than sighted bias, for the
disparity between 'perception' and reality.

I'll leave the theories about ear-brain mechanisms with music and
blind tests to the real scientists (not the engineers, statisticians or
pseudo-scientists).

Er...you do know taht real scientists acknowledge the existence of perceptual bias every
day in their work, right?

(most of whom couldn't care less)

And just why do you think anyone is "trying" to show this? What have
any of us to gain by it?

So you tell us all - why do you and the other pro-DBTers persist in
this endless debate? Proving you're right? Winning the debate?
Getting in the last post?

So tell us, Mike -- *who started this thread*? And *why*?

--
-S.

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:


But do you have some impedance data on your speakers? If you have a load
that
tends to introduce errors in low output impedance amplifiers it would be
great
to define it.

They're a fairly flat 3 to 3.5 ohms across most of the audio band,
with a slight hump to 6 or 7 ohms in the octave centred on 800Hz. It's
a first-order crossover, so that's fairly typical.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Doesn't seem to be especially difficult then, does it? Are there other
interesting characteristics?

(Mkuller) wrote:

(Mkuller) wrote
(1) Blind testing seems to filter out subtle audible differences. Even
the
experts agree that music is not a very sensitive source and it is the only
meaningful one to audiophiles.


(Bob Marcus)
wrote:
True, but if it's not a sensitive source for blind tests, then it's
not a sensitive source for sighted tests either. (Unless you have some
theory for how your ear-brain mechanism works differently when you
know which cable is connected.)

Ah, your misguided logic rear its ugly head once again. In sighted tests,
most
trained listeners can hear and reliably identify differences between amps
(for
example).

You can't say they can reliably identify differences because the 'answers' are
known in advance and are directly subject to conditions and internal human bias
mechanisms.

Those differences disappear in blind tests. Do you have proof (or
just your "logical" inference) that the test itself is not filtering out the
differences?

How can you even suggest that draping a cloth over component terminations or
supplying a comparison device that allows access to all alternatives in close
time proximity would somehow 'slam' ears 'shut?'

Can you tell me how simple listener bias controls affect the sound being
generated? Hint: if sound quality differences are real they will remain so
when listeners close their eyes.

I'll leave the theories about ear-brain mechanisms with music
and
blind tests to the real scientists (not the engineers, statisticians or
pseudo-scientists).

How about pseudo-listeners? In the high-end listening is nearly always
contaminated with sight and outside influence (the latter may have been
supplied outside the current evaluation.)


(2) The only people who care about blind testing are the "debunkers" who
are
trying to show "there are no differences" to the unwashed audiophile
masses
(most of whom couldn't care less)

And just why do you think anyone is "trying" to show this? What have
any of us to gain by it?

So you tell us all - why do you and the other pro-DBTers persist in
this endless debate? Proving you're right? Winning the debate?
Getting in the last post?
Regards,
Mike

Actually it's people like you that continue the endless debate. If you had any
evidence that you were right than the 'debate' would stop instantly.

Many people have tried with great effort to 'verify' high-end sound and the
results have never confirmed same. So the 'debate' laies in your court. WHEN
you have some replicable evidence using listener bias control please put it on
the table.

On 19 Aug 2003 20:48:00 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

(Mkuller) wrote
(1) Blind testing seems to filter out subtle audible differences. Even
the
experts agree that music is not a very sensitive source and it is the only
meaningful one to audiophiles.


(Bob Marcus)
wrote:
True, but if it's not a sensitive source for blind tests, then it's
not a sensitive source for sighted tests either. (Unless you have some
theory for how your ear-brain mechanism works differently when you
know which cable is connected.)

Ah, your misguided logic rear its ugly head once again. In sighted tests, most
trained listeners can hear and reliably identify differences between amps (for
example). Those differences disappear in blind tests. Do you have proof (or
just your "logical" inference) that the test itself is not filtering out the
differences? I'll leave the theories about ear-brain mechanisms with music and
blind tests to the real scientists (not the engineers, statisticians or
pseudo-scientists).

There is one classic indicator of the origin of these 'differences' in
sighted tests. That's the 'false sighted' test where the audience is
told that amp A has been changed for amp B, but in actual fact nothing
is changed.

The audience duly frowns thoughtfully, records the superior
smoothness, greater inner detail, blah blah blah of amp B (or A), and
tends to be highly offended when the truth is revealed. This is
especially good fun with magazine reviewers! :-)


(2) The only people who care about blind testing are the "debunkers" who are
trying to show "there are no differences" to the unwashed audiophile masses
(most of whom couldn't care less)

And just why do you think anyone is "trying" to show this? What have
any of us to gain by it?

So you tell us all - why do you and the other pro-DBTers persist in
this endless debate? Proving you're right? Winning the debate?
Getting in the last post?

Pointing out that you should spend the majority of your system budget
on the speakers, and nothing on cables..............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 04:24:08 GMT, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Mkuller wrote:

So you tell us all - why do you and the other pro-DBTers persist in
this endless debate? Proving you're right? Winning the debate?
Getting in the last post?

So tell us, Mike -- *who started this thread*? And *why*?

Check the header, Steven! I started *this* thread, but it's an obvious
rebuttal of Ludovic's 'why does ABX not deliver' attack thread.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 20 Aug 2003 05:24:37 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:

But do you have some impedance data on your speakers? If you have a load that
tends to introduce errors in low output impedance amplifiers it would be great
to define it.

They're a fairly flat 3 to 3.5 ohms across most of the audio band,
with a slight hump to 6 or 7 ohms in the octave centred on 800Hz. It's
a first-order crossover, so that's fairly typical.

Doesn't seem to be especially difficult then, does it? Are there other
interesting characteristics?

No, it just takes more current than most across the wide audio
spectrum. No nasty phase shifts. I do find them very revealing, but
you can say that of lots of other speakers, such as the ATCs and B&W
N80x range.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:IJC0b.203356$o%2.94507@sccrnsc02...
Mkuller wrote:
(Mkuller) wrote
(1) Blind testing seems to filter out subtle audible differences. Even
the
experts agree that music is not a very sensitive source and it is the only
meaningful one to audiophiles.


(Bob Marcus)
wrote:
True, but if it's not a sensitive source for blind tests, then it's
not a sensitive source for sighted tests either. (Unless you have some
theory for how your ear-brain mechanism works differently when you
know which cable is connected.)

Ah, your misguided logic rear its ugly head once again. In sighted tests, most
trained listeners can hear and reliably identify differences between amps (for
example). Those differences disappear in blind tests. Do you have proof (or
just your "logical" inference) that the test itself is not filtering out the
differences?

Do you have *proof* that it does? Your evidence from sighted
listening to amps doesn't begin to be sufficient. That's because
we have tons of proof that sighted bias exists and is *common*.
We have no proof that 'filtering' of the sort you posit
exists. We also have proof that blind testing
does not always result in 'no difference'. Components such as speakers
can routinely 'pass' blind tests. Components such as cables, cannot.

You speak of logic. Your logic is utterly flawed. Your 'evidence' -- that sighted
listeners can reliably identify differences between amps -- amoutns to
a giant *duh* from a psychoacoustics perspective.
All 'explanations' are not created equal'; the exercise of rationality
involves evaluating which ones
are supported by the existing evidence and which are not.

When you have provided *evidence* that 'filtering' exists, it will
leave the realm of pure speculation. For now, it's a distinctly
less rational explanation than sighted bias, for the
disparity between 'perception' and reality.

I'll leave the theories about ear-brain mechanisms with music and
blind tests to the real scientists (not the engineers, statisticians or
pseudo-scientists).

Er...you do know taht real scientists acknowledge the existence of perceptual bias every
day in their work, right?

(most of whom couldn't care less)

And just why do you think anyone is "trying" to show this? What have
any of us to gain by it?

So you tell us all - why do you and the other pro-DBTers persist in
this endless debate? Proving you're right? Winning the debate?
Getting in the last post?

So tell us, Mike -- *who started this thread*? And *why*?

Mr. Stewart Pinkerton on July 26th under this title. Direct the "why?"
question to the right address.
Ludovic Mirabel

(Nousaine)
wrote:
Actually it's people like you that continue the endless debate. If you had
any
evidence that you were right than the 'debate' would stop instantly.


Uh, Tom, perhaps you aren't paying attention (or maybe it's just wishful
thinking). Both sides have been providing "evidence" of their positions for
years and no one on the other side has changed their mind or switched sides.
The endless debate continues... It's mental masturbation, and one-upsmanship;
nothing more.
Regards,
Mike

(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
news:tcX%a.173930$Ho3.23369@sccrnsc03...

Let me first of all say that I truly appreciate your text. It is
what I believe a discussion should be: with serious content,
courteously written- not clowning for the audience, picking on single
words to score points and listing your opponent's personal
deficiences. I also do not doubt your good faith and considerable
investment of time and money in this subject. But...
Ludovic has posted earlier that he though that past controlled listening
research had "hidden" positive scoring subjects with overall null results
and
that I had been avoiding him about that issue. I recently responded but my
post
was rejected. So hereÃ_¢Ã_Â_Ã_Â_s a straight reply to the "hidden
audibility" claim.

First, there have been no hidden positive subject scoring in any research
that
IÃ_¢Ã_Â_Ã_Â_ve been able to note. In spite of the repeat claims that the
Greenhill wire
test had high scoring individuals whose results were concealed by averaging
there is no data that either confirms or suggests this conclusion. This has
been covered quite extensively in this newsgroup and in recent threads.

Let me shift the emphasis. It is not on individuals ( such as
Greenhill's own "golden ear"). It is on the indisputable fact that the
individual performances in the reported tests vary enormously,

We'll of course. Individuals guessing will form a distribution with tals. Even
when there is no difference a large sample or individuals retested there will
be a distribution with tails toeither side.

Ludovic wants us to consider any subject who scores better much than 50% as a
person who "heard" something whether the individual score or overall score
suggests this was the case.

Example: Your witness Sean Olive's results in his "listening room" pdf
(www.revelspeakers.- address quoted from memory). One of his
supertrained professionals' was scoring around 30% , a few 50% or
thereabouts, most reached (how many repeats?), significant 70% or
more.

OK? So what? Given a chance result we'de find a distribution and we'd find a
buried Golden Ear according tjo Ludovic's reasoning. Why are there no lucky
coins in his experiments?

Greenhill: all scored brillianly ( almost all were 100%
correct) recognising 1.75db. volume difference between a thick and a
thin cable- as long as the pink noise was played.
The same people failed to recognise (within Greenhill's statistical
validity criteria- ie had much lower "correct" scores) the same volume
difference once music replaced pink noise.
You or others said that it only proves that pink noise is a better
"test" signal. Sorry: doesn't wash with me. T

Why not? Noise is the single most effective signals for revealing small audible
differences

he subject is
reproduction of MUSIC by audio components- not pink noise. in fact
saying that ABX performs better with pink noise than music, amounts to
saying that ABX is an inappropriate test for assessing MUSICAL
reproduction differences between components.
Is a "test" that has such variable individual results an appropriate
test for audiophile use? How can you be certain that the failure of
most of your subjects to recognise differences was not due to the
nature of your test?
Especially as you must agree that training in ABXing improves
individual results. How does an audiophile know if he had enough
training?

Next; of the tests I have personally designed, proctored or have been a
subject
there has been no cadre of Ã_¢Ã_Â_Ã_Â_those who hearÃ_¢Ã_Â_Ã_Â_ compared
to the general subject
population. IOW there has never been an experiment where a few significant
scoring individuals were concealed by the average. Indeed with a reasonably
sized sample often a single significant result would be enough to make the
overall results positive.

Of the tests IÃ_¢Ã_Â_Ã_Â_ve designed and conducted subject count has
varied from 1 to
31 with sample sizes ranging from 10 to 431. Programs were selected by
subjects
in the Ã_¢Ã_Â_Ã_Â_challengeÃ_¢Ã_Â_Ã_Â_ experiments where subjects had
claimed to already have
confirmed differences. Otherwise programs were selected from a collection
of 63
musical and voice selections (including many with acoustical
instrumentation)
that had been chosen because they represent specific reproduction
challenges to
audio systems.

Every experiment was extensively examined for internal significance. Most
of
them allowed subjects to extend the test with more trials to improve
scores.
This was seldom asked for and no individual improved his score enough to
attain
significance with additional trials OR a repeat of the entire experiment.
There were NO individual significant scores in any experiment that wasn't
significant overall.

But .....


I'd have to know what you played to them, what were their ages
and sex, their ABX training, their musical interests and exposure- a
thousand details- before I could say that you ruled out with
significant validity the possibility that you missed that rare bird.

Soo exactly what are the characteristics of a 'rare bird'? What age group?
What training? What musical interests? what thousand details ... can you list
them? If not how am Is upposed toknow what meets your criteria? And how my
subjects were not qualified.

who was not only a great listener but also a great ABX performer. ONE
is enough. It is not about pleasing the crowd. It is about "high-end".
Something like Mr. Pinkerton- an ABX upholder whom you did not
convince that there are no differences between amps. Nor , of course
did he convince you.
However in the case of Flying Blind (Audio Magazine) a subject who was
unable
to discern whether a given program contained a confirmed audible level of
distortion in 16 weeks of long term listening was able to reliably identify
same with a 6 second segment of that program using the ABX technique.

But any ofd this notwithstanding I'm still not fully understanding why some
individual, some company or some 3rd party has ever been able to confirm
"amp"
and "wire" sound under any set of conditions with even modest listening
bias
controls implemented.

Even IF someone was withholding the Truth why hasn't someone else willfully
or
even by accident confirmed it? If these 'differences' are so evident that
people like Ludovic are so certain of their existence WHY hasn't some
party,
interested or otherwise, stumbled across the body instead of just the
rumors?

It just doesn't seem likely that people as smart as Earl Geddes, Floyd
Toole,
David Clark, David Rich, Sean Olive, Stan Lip****z, John Vanderkooy, Dan
Shanefiled, Rich Cabot, John Eargle, Dick Pierce, et al would have ALL
overlooked even the minutest of evidence of true audibility.

All your notables to the best of my knowledge did not report
component comparisons-

So you have to be controlled test or ABX qualified to exist? OK I'll buy that.
What aew the qualifications of yourself or reference listeners?

where there is NO OBJECTIVE END-POINT- but
rather reasearch about perception of KNOWN induced artefact-is the
answer right or not. Usually by selected, trained audiences at that.
Apples and oranges.
Ludovic Mirabel

Why don't you give us a list of researcjh that refutes what we already know
about amps and wires?

(S888Wheel) "debates" endlessly:

Tom said
That's fair enough; but neither you nor any interested party nor Stewart
has
delivered a smoking gun on amp or wire sound.

IF these 'differences' truly existed than there would have been clear
verification by now. This is not a new question nor is in soluable.

I said

If you always choose not to accept evidence of positive tests on the
grounds
of
"uniqueness" of the results, those results will retain their "uniqueness"
every
time they are presented in a new test.


Tom said


No they won't. If they get replicated then they become the new standard. But
"cold fusion" remains unique. Do we have to accept it for that reason? But
events and experiments that remain 'unique' do so for a reason.

I guess you didn't get the point. They will remain unique if you keep
rejecting
them for uniqueness.

Please. If there are replicable experiments confirming Stewart's results they
will make the new standard. It's exactly like Cold Fusion; why hasn't that been
confirmed? And why should we accept it as a 'given' until it has?

In this case we've had a couple dozen experiments with other resiults. And
we've had a couple+ positive experiments that have confirmed lack of nominal
competence.

Why should we give this experiment more weight that the remaining evidence? If
you have a good reason, other than you are uncomfortable with the other
evidence, please tell us.

You get to keep starting the count at zero with that
method.

Not true. No one does that silly game except you. You get one un-replicated and
un-documented anecdote and then want us to ignore ALL the other evidence.

Your analogy with cold fusion is way off base. One would not have to
do
the equivelant of inventing cold fusion to come up with an amp that sounds
different.

For sure. Just 'invent' a triode with high output impedance or put a series
resistor in the output leg of any competent amplifier and you can get
'difference.'

An equalizer is lots easier and much faster. So?


I said


Discounting any test on the grounds of
the results is very unscientific. That is a choice you have made. Not me.


Tom said


Ok then you tell me; if Stewart's experiment is taken at face value it says
that a wide variety of modern amplifiers are sonically indistingushable and
those that aren't are "*******" does it not? The corollary becomes:
amplifiers
sonically transparent to a $$$ Krell are available at far less cost.


That isn't what Stewert's test tells us it is what Stewert tells us.

Oh; he's not qualified to analyze his own experiment? That may be true but
what are your qualifications?

He is
entitled to his opinion on what is and is not a "tosser" but one cannot make
global subjective claims.

"Global claims" of what? AFAICT he's never made those. And AFAICT you've
provided not a single shred of credible evidence that supports your position.

I believe Stwewert has only spoken for himself on
that issue. Does his test suggest that some amps sound the same in his
system?
Yep. Does that also suggest that the math in many of the tests you have
sighted
may be screwed up on the assumption that the issue is black and white?

What????

Maybe.

Tom said


IF you want to cling to the amp-sound theory this experiment and the
conclusion
by the experimentor says that IF an amplifier can be identified by sound
alone
it is DEFICIENT.

One of these days you may actually get it right when characterizing my
opinions
on the subject. So far you are 0 for many.

Please. I didn't say this WAS your position. I said that a rational person
would have to make certain conclusions based on the extant evidence

Tom said


You are reduced to 'searching' for evidence, any evidence, that seems to
support your position. But you just can't seem to find it and are reduced
to
championing anecdotes that look attractive to you.

I said

Nope. I haven't rejected any test on the grounds that the results were
unexpected or unique. That is what you are doing. The fact of the matter is
the
question is usually to broad and black and white. When one asks the broad
question "do all amplifiers sound the same?" There are lots of variables
beyond
the amps in this question.

Tom said


You mean the personal bias of people like you; or the features (lack of fan)
required of others.


Nope. That isn't what I mean but at least you are being consistant in
mischaracterizing what I mean in these posts.

Tom said


But no one has ever said that all amplifiers sound the same.

I haven't said you have said this.

Let's be exactly direct on what I've said: No one has ever shown in a
replicable listener-bias controlled experiment that nominally competent
amplifers or cables not driven into overload are not sonically transparent.

I've never said all amplifiers sound the same. It's obvious that some
high-output impedance amplifiers (some listed on a magazine Recommended
Components List) do not transport an input signal to the loudspeaker
transparently.

So what?


Tom said

My position is
that modern amplifiers nominally competent for a given load will sound like
a
straight wire with gain.

And so the story changes again. Is the nominally reverberant room in or out
of
the equation this week?

Holy Cow: do I have to make the observation in full detail every time? Are your
claims not based on a normally reverberant environment ?

Why don't YOU make a full disclosure of exactly wnat YOUR position might be?

That way we CAN tell if it changes over time.


Tom said


Good fishing.


I said



I see you already have your big fish story.

Tom said


Like my amplifier sounds just like yours? What a boastful position. Let's
race.



Why don't you just say my amplifier sounds just like your unless it doesn't?
And theat depends on the speakers and the reverb of the room? Eventually you
really aren't saying much at all.

That's true. I am not saying anything other than golden-ears have never
provided a single repeatable experiment that a nominally competent wire/amp
driving any load has any sound of its own.

Please prove me wrong. I'm ready anytime.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 04:24:08 GMT, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Mkuller wrote:

So you tell us all - why do you and the other pro-DBTers persist in
this endless debate? Proving you're right? Winning the debate?
Getting in the last post?

So tell us, Mike -- *who started this thread*? And *why*?

Check the header, Steven! I started *this* thread, but it's an obvious
rebuttal of Ludovic's 'why does ABX not deliver' attack thread.

Yup, the thread I was referring to was the parent 'Why do the anti-ABX folks not
deliver' thread, sorry.

--
-S.

Nousaine wrote:
(Mkuller) wrote:

(Mkuller) wrote
(1) Blind testing seems to filter out subtle audible differences. Even
the
experts agree that music is not a very sensitive source and it is the only
meaningful one to audiophiles.


(Bob Marcus)
wrote:
True, but if it's not a sensitive source for blind tests, then it's
not a sensitive source for sighted tests either. (Unless you have some
theory for how your ear-brain mechanism works differently when you
know which cable is connected.)

Ah, your misguided logic rear its ugly head once again. In sighted tests,
most
trained listeners can hear and reliably identify differences between amps
(for
example).

You can't say they can reliably identify differences because the 'answers' are
known in advance and are directly subject to conditions and internal human bias
mechanisms.


All he can say is that when listeners know which component is playing...
they can 'reliably' say which component is playing. Hence the 'duh'
aspect. If he says otherwise, he doesnt' understand what is meant
by 'sighted' test.


___
-S.

Tom said


(S888Wheel) "debates" endlessly:


It takes two to debate Tom.


Tom said
That's fair enough; but neither you nor any interested party nor Stewart
has
delivered a smoking gun on amp or wire sound.

IF these 'differences' truly existed than there would have been clear
verification by now. This is not a new
question nor is in soluable.


I said

If you always choose not to accept evidence of positive tests on the
grounds
of
"uniqueness" of the results, those results will retain their "uniqueness"
every
time they are presented in a new test.



Tom said


No they won't. If they get replicated then they become the new standard.
But
"cold fusion" remains unique. Do we have to accept it for that reason? But
events and experiments that remain 'unique' do so for a reason.

I said


I guess you didn't get the point. They will remain unique if you keep
rejecting
them for uniqueness.


Tom said




Please. If there are replicable experiments confirming Stewart's results they
will make the new standard.

Really? So if Stewert did the same tests and got the same results you would now
consider this to be the new standard?

Tom said

It's exactly like Cold Fusion;

Nope. Cold fusion claim was actually put to the test by scientists doing
scientifically valid tests.


Tom said

why hasn't that been
confirmed?

See above.

Tom said

And why should we accept it as a 'given' until it has?

Who said you should accept cold fusion as real? Especially now that it has
failed real scientific investigation.

Tom said


In this case we've had a couple dozen experiments with other resiults.

Yes you have a couple dozen anecdotal tests, scientifically speaking, that have
used a multitude of protocols, in some cases introduced multiple variables with
no need, in some cases used no varification protocols for other possible cases
of nulls and seem to make common unfounded assumptions about listener skills,
and a crazy idea that it is an either or propostion when it comes to amps
sounding the same or different. Stewerts conclusions do at least have the
unique distinction of considering the possibility that some amps may sound the
same and some may sound different and that fact may depend on the speakers
used.


Tom said

And
we've had a couple+ positive experiments that have confirmed lack of nominal
competence.

Competence is a matter of opinion in this case.

Tom said


Why should we give this experiment more weight that the remaining evidence?

Who said it should get *more* weight? Why should it get less weight? In your
case you seem to be giving it zero weight. It looks like your criteria is the
result and only the result. That is bad science 101.

Tom said

If
you have a good reason, other than you are uncomfortable with the other
evidence, please tell us.

Reason for what? You are the one picking and choosing your anecdotal evidence.
I don't see much reason to give Stewert's tests more or less weight than the
ones you like.

I said


You get to keep starting the count at zero with that
method.

Tom said



Not true. No one does that silly game except you.

Balony. Cite an example of me doing this. You are still very consistant in
mischaracterizing my opinions. You are still 0 for many.

Tom said

You get one un-replicated and
un-documented anecdote and then want us to ignore ALL the other evidence.


Balony. Never said I want you or anyone else to ignore any evidence. Try to get
the facts straight some time in this debate. Also none of the tests you believe
to be valid have been "replicated" and Stewert's tests, as Stewert has said,
are documented here on this forum. It is you and only you who wishes to pick
and choose your evidence. I have not suggested that *any* evidence be ignored
or given more weight.

I said


Your analogy with cold fusion is way off base. One would not have to
do
the equivelant of inventing cold fusion to come up with an amp that sounds
different.

Tom said


For sure. Just 'invent' a triode with high output impedance or put a series
resistor in the output leg of any competent amplifier and you can get
'difference.'

Then we agree that the cold fusion analogy is bogus.

Tom said


An equalizer is lots easier and much faster. So?

See above.


I said


Discounting any test on the grounds of
the results is very unscientific. That is a choice you have made. Not me.



Tom said


Ok then you tell me; if Stewart's experiment is taken at face value it says
that a wide variety of modern amplifiers are sonically indistingushable and
those that aren't are "*******" does it not? The corollary becomes:
amplifiers
sonically transparent to a $$$ Krell are available at far less cost.


I said


That isn't what Stewert's test tells us it is what Stewert tells us.


Tom said


Oh; he's not qualified to analyze his own experiment?

Sure he is. I never said he wasn't. But his subjective conclusions on what is a
"tosser' is valid for his personal listening pleasure and is not a global
truth. He never said it was either.

"Mkuller" wrote in message


Ah, your misguided logic rear its ugly head once again. In sighted
tests, most trained listeners can hear and reliably identify
differences between amps (for example). Those differences disappear
in blind tests.

Talk about misguided logic! In a sighted evaluation anybody with normal
sight can reliably identify differences between amps (for example), even
with the power turned off no source, and speakers disconnected.

Listener training has been conclusively shown to be absolutely not required
during sighted evaluations, which should please certain of our posters who
have been railing against listening tests that benefit from listener
training.

Do you have proof (or just your "logical" inference)
that the test itself is not filtering out the differences?

I have absolute proof that sighted evaluations aren't listening tests, using
the very criteria proposed above. All persons with normal sight can reliably
identify differences between just about any kind of audio products in a
sighted evaluation, even with no power, and no input signal applied to the
equipment being evaluated. Loudspeakers need not be used either. Therefore,
we can conclude that sighted evaluations aren't listening tests since the
results can be the same when listening is intentionally excluded.

I'll leave the theories about ear-brain mechanisms with music and blind
tests to the real scientists (not the engineers, statisticians or
pseudo-scientists).

No theories about ear-brain mechanisms are required to prove that sighted
evaluations aren't listening tests.

(2) The only people who care about blind testing are the
"debunkers" who re
trying to show "there are no differences" to the unwashed
audiophile masses (most of whom couldn't care less)

And just why do you think anyone is "trying" to show this? What have
any of us to gain by it?

So you tell us all - why do you and the other pro-DBTers persist in
this endless debate?

There appears to be considerable agreement on this point. We pro-DBTers
persist in this endless debate because the anti-DBT forces restart it again
and again.

Proving you're right?

It appears that according to the criteria you provided Mr. Kuller, DBTs are
the only listening tests around.

Winning the debate?

When there is only one option, there is no debate to win, right?

Getting in the last post?

It can't be known a priori whether one gets the last post due to irrelevant,
disinterest, or delivery of a overwhelming argument.

On 20 Aug 2003 16:38:28 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

(Mkuller) wrote

So you tell us all - why do you and the other pro-DBTers persist in
this endless debate? Proving you're right? Winning the debate?
Getting in the last post?

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
Pointing out that you should spend the majority of your system budget
on the speakers, and nothing on cables..............

So Stewart, how does a High End system like your sound with NO cables? Liquid,
I'll bet....

Absolutely, and thanks for falling for the gag. Of course, since you
believe in 'cable sound', that was kinda predictable..........

Buy a system from any dealer, and he'll throw in 'freebie' cables to
make it all work. Hence, you spend nothing on cables.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:53:05 GMT, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 04:24:08 GMT, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Mkuller wrote:

So you tell us all - why do you and the other pro-DBTers persist in
this endless debate? Proving you're right? Winning the debate?
Getting in the last post?

So tell us, Mike -- *who started this thread*? And *why*?

Check the header, Steven! I started *this* thread, but it's an obvious
rebuttal of Ludovic's 'why does ABX not deliver' attack thread.

Yup, the thread I was referring to was the parent 'Why do the anti-ABX folks not
deliver' thread, sorry.

I do believe you just did it again! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:46:19 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

(Nousaine)
wrote:
Actually it's people like you that continue the endless debate. If you had
any
evidence that you were right than the 'debate' would stop instantly.


Uh, Tom, perhaps you aren't paying attention (or maybe it's just wishful
thinking). Both sides have been providing "evidence" of their positions for
years and no one on the other side has changed their mind or switched sides.
The endless debate continues... It's mental masturbation, and one-upsmanship;
nothing more.

Actually, that's just the problem. You and your ilk have shown
absolutely *zero* evidence for the existence of 'cable sound'. Heck,
Tom has even been shafted by cable *manufacturers* who promised that
they would show some evidence!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:53:05 GMT, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 04:24:08 GMT, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Mkuller wrote:

So you tell us all - why do you and the other pro-DBTers persist in
this endless debate? Proving you're right? Winning the debate?
Getting in the last post?

So tell us, Mike -- *who started this thread*? And *why*?

Check the header, Steven! I started *this* thread, but it's an obvious
rebuttal of Ludovic's 'why does ABX not deliver' attack thread.

Yup, the thread I was referring to was the parent 'Why do the anti-ABX folks not
deliver' thread, sorry.

I do believe you just did it again! :-)

I do believe you're right! Parent *of the* etc, is what I meant.

Anyway, you get the idea -- replace 'anti-ABX' with 'DBT', and also see
the forthcoming post documenting who started what threads about ABX.

--
-S.

ludovic mirabel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:IJC0b.203356$o%2.94507@sccrnsc02...
So tell us, Mike -- *who started this thread*? And *why*?

Mr. Stewart Pinkerton on July 26th under this title. Direct the "why?"
question to the right address.

Youa re having a 'forest for the trees' problem, Ludovic. A perceptual error, perhaps.
Allow me to help/

Here is the tree: Stewart spawned this thread off of 'Why DBTs in audio do not deliver'

And here is the forest: a survey uniquely-named threads with 'ABX'
in their subject lines since Jan 1 2002 (i.e, not including those spawned
branches of Subject : X which are named Subject X, but
including *renamed* threads that have 'ABX' in the new name)

Summary:

initial posts (either contained ABX in subject, or was later
renamed to contain ABX in subject):

8 anti ABX
4 pro ABX
2 neutral about ABX
1 not about ABX

renamed thread, containing 'ABX'

11 anti ABX
3 pro ABX


data (in chronological order of parent thread;
renamed threads are nested under their parents):

//
not about ABX
From: islakit )
Subject: Help!
Date: 2001-12-04 09:57:56 PST

not about ABX
renamed from Help!
From: jim )
Subject: Snobbish replies (was Help!)
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Date: 2001-12-05 09:35:43 PST

anti
renamed from Snobbish replies
From: Ernst Raedecker )
Subject: Hearing capabilities and ABX tests (was: Snobbish replies)
Date: 2002-01-06 17:51:01 PST

//

anti
From: )
Subject: testing ABX testing
Date: 2002-01-11 13:42:36 PST

pro
renamed from testing ABX testing
From: )
Subject: Categories of Preference (was testing ABX testing)
Date: 2002-01-16 11:09:57 PST


//
anti
From: Emerson Wood )
Subject: slower discussion of DBT/ABX
Date: 2002-01-12 20:53:01 PST

//
anti
From: ludovic mirabel )
Subject: ABX- THE NEW HORIZONS.
Date: 2002-05-18 11:05:27 PST

anti
renamed from ABX- THE NEW HORIZONS.
From: Mkuller )
Subject: ABX- THE VOCAL FEW
Date: 2002-09-04 18:12:55 PST

anti
renamed from: ABX-THE VOCAL FEW
From: Mkuller )
Subject: ABX- REMOVING MORE THAN SIGHTED BIAS
Date: 2002-09-17 11:35:30 PST

pro
renamed from: ABX-THE NEW HORIZONS
From: )
Subject: Abx and straw
Date: 2002-06-04 12:50:26 PST

//

pro
From: Darryl Miyaguchi )
Subject: Sequential ABX test
Date: 2002-08-28 09:05:54 PST

//
anti
From: ludovic mirabel )
Subject: HOW TO GET A POSITIVE ABX TEST.
Date: 2002-09-24 11:05:34 PST

anti
renamed from HOW TO GET A POSITIVE ABX TEST.
From: BEAR )
Subject: Now: HOW TO GET A LIST OF POSITIVE ABX TESTs.
Date: 2002-11-14 10:15:21 PST

anti
renamed from: HOW TO GET A POSITIVE ABX TEST
From: bear )
Subject: Now: WHO CAN GET A POSITIVE ABX TEST?
Date: 2002-10-25 16:07:20 PST

//

pro
From: Bruce Abrams )
Subject: DBT, ABX & Blind Reviewing
Date: 2002-09-19 12:05:25 PST

anti
renamed from DBT, ABX and Blind REviewing
From: BEAR )
Subject: DBT, ABX & Blind Reviewing - Upside down?
Date: 2002-09-19 22:25:42 PST

//
pro
From: Arny Krueger )
Subject: AES papers on CD, ABX, and 24/96
Date: 2002-10-17 11:07:46 PST


//
anti
From: Harry Lavo )
Subject: Significance of Inadible High Frequencies to Musical Enjoyment and Relaxation
Date: 2002-11-10 18:51:37 PST

anti
renamed from Signficance of Inaudible
From: BEAR )
Subject: Significance of Inadible Now: non linear distortion & ABX
Date: 2002-11-12 17:25:42 PST


//

anti
From: BEAR )
Subject: WHY GET A POSITIVE ABX TEST --- summarized again
Date: 2002-11-19 14:33:56 PST

anti
renamed from WHY GET A POSITIVE ABX TEST --- summarized again
From: Mkuller )
Subject: POSITIVE ABX TEST with MUSIC
Date: 2002-11-20 15:21:50 PST


//

anti
From: BEAR )
Subject: Popper & ABX
Date: 2002-12-03 14:22:02 PST

anti
renamed from Popper and ABX
From: Mkuller )
Subject: ABX
Date: 2002-12-08 11:42:05 PST

anti
From: ludovic mirabel )
Subject: Re Popper and ABX. Follow up to Ferstler's message.
Date: 2002-12-27 21:52:42 PS


//

neutral
From: Sven Berendsen )
Subject: Do we need the X in the ABX-Test?
Date: 2002-12-14 10:00:57 PST

//

pro
From: Mark Ovchain )
Subject: ABX Tests (and DBT's) are not "insensitive to music".
Date: 2002-12-16 11:15:15 PST

//

neutral
From: Juha Posti )
Subject: ABX'ing power cords?
Date: 2003-04-07 08:50:21 PST

//

anti
From: Ernst Raedecker )
Subject: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something
Date: 2003-06-09 19:35:19 PST

anti
From: Ernst Raedecker )
Subject: Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-
something)
Date: 2003-06-17 22:35:38 PST

pro
renamed from: Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
From: Stewart Pinkerton )
Subject: Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
Date: 2003-07-25 14:35:05 PST

//

(Mkuller) wrote:


(Nousaine)
wrote:
Actually it's people like you that continue the endless debate. If you had
any
evidence that you were right than the 'debate' would stop instantly.


Uh, Tom, perhaps you aren't paying attention (or maybe it's just wishful
thinking). Both sides have been providing "evidence" of their positions for
years and no one on the other side has changed their mind or switched sides.
The endless debate continues... It's mental masturbation, and
one-upsmanship;
nothing more.
Regards,
Mike

This is simply not true. No subjectivist has supplied any bias-controlled
evidence supporting amp or wire sound that confirms that a nominally competent
device (in a room, drivign speakers) have any sound of their own. (Arny Krueger
has supplied some evidence that minor differences may be audible with
headphones.)

What that side gives is unsupported anecdotes and when asked to veryify the
sound have never been able to do so with even the simplest bias controls
employed.

On the other hand. there were 2 dozen+ bias controlled listening tests
published by the early 90s. There have been documented tests on wires and
capacitors but none that have verified wire sound.

It's not a battle of conflicting evidence. The subjectivist (rather Golden-Ear)
crowd has no evidence only anecdotes and conjecture.

The "debate" rages because the subjectivists have no evidence and are reduced
to argument alone.

Steven Sullivan wrote:


Nousaine wrote:
Holy Cow: do I have to make the observation in full detail every time? Are
your
claims not based on a normally reverberant environment ?

Always meant to ask (hope I haven't asked before) does this exclude
headphone listening?



--
-S.

Doesn't have to. But I know of no one who would claim that his Pass Aleph
sounds better on headphones only. The normally reverberant environment is only
important in end-usage.

If pcabx can elicit subtle differences between a Paraound and Bryston amplifier
that can be heard with specially recorded programs in .wav files played back
over headphones that's very interesting. But when those same two amplifiers
turn out to be indistinguishable from each other when using loudspeakers in a
listening room what does that say about the size and the importance of those
differences?

There's another place where a reverberant environment is important. Absolute
Polarity can be demonstrated with classic test signals listened to on
headphones. But it is not audible in a normally reverberant environment with
loudspeakers using the same program.

Once we know the truth of the matter and the way in which the devices will be
used then we can make more informed choices.

"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:BXb0b.183627$YN5.135766@sccrnsc01...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
:
4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
perversion of "testing".


(Bob Marcus)
Date: 8/17/03 4:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:
wrote:
"Ignoring the minority who DO have fewer and less severe colds
after
megadosing vitamin C is a perversion of testing."

See how silly that argument is? So stop using it.


Bob, your analogy comparing DBTs to medical research is wrongheaded.
If one
person in the Greenhill group, or any other group reliably
identifies a
difference - then it proves a difference exists! The fact that the
others or a
vast majority are not able to reliably identify it under THAT test
and THOSE
test conditions means next to nothing. It's a null - 0 -
meaningless.

That simply isn't true. All it proves is that the individual in
question got results that can be expected only once out of 20 tries
relying on guesswork alone--approximately 8 correct out of 10 tries.

What conclusion would you draw if an individual got 8 out of 10 wrong!

Norm Strong

(Nousaine) wrote in message .net...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
news:tcX%a.173930$Ho3.23369@sccrnsc03...

Let me first of all say that I truly appreciate your text. It is
what I believe a discussion should be: with serious content,
courteously written- not clowning for the audience, picking on single
words to score points and listing your opponent's personal
deficiences. I also do not doubt your good faith and considerable
investment of time and money in this subject. But...
Ludovic has posted earlier that he though that past controlled listening
research had "hidden" positive scoring subjects with overall null results
and
that I had been avoiding him about that issue. I recently responded but my
post
was rejected. So here�_�¢�_�_�_�_s a straight reply to the "hidden
audibility" claim.

First, there have been no hidden positive subject scoring in any research
that
I�_�¢�_�_�_�_ve been able to note. In spite of the repeat claims that the
Greenhill wire
test had high scoring individuals whose results were concealed by averaging
there is no data that either confirms or suggests this conclusion. This has
been covered quite extensively in this newsgroup and in recent threads.

I said:
Let me shift the emphasis. It is not on individuals ( such as
Greenhill's own "golden ear"). It is on the indisputable fact that the
individual performances in the reported tests vary enormously,

Nousaine answered:
We'll of course. Individuals guessing will form a distribution with tals. Even
when there is no difference a large sample or individuals retested there will
be a distribution with tails toeither side.

Exactly. You've said it. This is a "test" that invariably produces
wildly divergent results between participants. This is a "test" that
has no objective reference point to check individual results against.
So how do you decide who is "right"? The only way that makes sense to
me is to establish criterion of validity such as Greenhill's: For the
result to count as positive the subject had to be right at least 75%
of the time (In his case minimum 12 times out of 15 tries.).
But oddly enough instead of acknowledging that the few who met their
own criteria were "right"- ie. detected a difference- the proctors of
those tests would reverse themselves in their conclusions and take the
inept aggregate performance of the majority as the true outcome.
And in this strange way they'd get null, negative result every time.
Because most people- not all- are inept at ABXing and you have no
evidence in each individual case how much of it is due to the nature
of your "test". Worse: your subjects don't know either.
Question: what is the practical usefulness to an audiophile of a
"test" that has a "distribution with tails"? Not very repeatable, is
it?

Ludovic wants us to consider any subject who scores better much
than 50% as a
person who "heard" something whether the individual score or overall score
suggests this was the case.

Ludovic does not and never did hold such moronic views. I'm
disappointed that you'd want to attribute them to me. Read above re
"statistical validity criteria". On the contrary, Ludovic has been
trying to explain to a Mr. Marcus for the last two years that adding
up the bad, the average and the good together does not a "positive
result" make. Unsuccessfully it would seem because he came back with
it this very week.

Example: Your witness Sean Olive's results in his "listening room" pdf
(www.revelspeakers.- address quoted from memory). One of his
supertrained professionals' was scoring around 30% , a few 50% or
thereabouts, most reached (how many repeats?), significant 70% or
more.

OK? So what? Given a chance result we'de find a distribution and we'd find a
buried Golden Ear according to Ludovic's reasoning. Why are there no lucky
coins in his experiments?

The correct guesses between 70 and 80% of a few of his subjects are
golden
enough, for his test tasks, no? Don't really follow your point.

Greenhill: all scored brillianly ( almost all were 100%
correct) recognising 1.75db. volume difference between a thick and a
thin cable- as long as the pink noise was played.
The same people failed to recognise (within Greenhill's statistical
validity criteria- ie had much lower "correct" scores) the same volume
difference once music replaced pink noise.
You or others said that it only proves that pink noise is a better
"test" signal. Sorry: doesn't wash with me. T

Why not? Noise is the single most effective signals for revealing small audible differences

The subject is
reproduction of MUSIC by audio components- not pink noise. in fact
saying that ABX performs better with pink noise than music, amounts to
saying that ABX is an inappropriate test for assessing MUSICAL
reproduction differences between components.
Is a "test" that has such variable individual results an appropriate
test for audiophile use? How can you be certain that the failure of
most of your subjects to recognise differences was not due to the
nature of your test?
Especially as you must agree that training in ABXing improves
individual results. How does an audiophile know if he had enough
training?

Next; of the tests I have personally designed, proctored or have been a
subject
there has been no cadre of �_�¢�_�_�_�_those who hear�_�¢�_�_�_�_ compared
to the general subject
population. IOW there has never been an experiment where a few significant
scoring individuals were concealed by the average. Indeed with a reasonably
sized sample often a single significant result would be enough to make the
overall results positive.

Of the tests I�_�¢�_�_�_�_ve designed and conducted subject count has
varied from 1 to
31 with sample sizes ranging from 10 to 431. Programs were selected by
subjects
in the �_�¢�_�_�_�_challenge�_�¢� _�_�_�_ experiments where subjects had
claimed to already have
confirmed differences. Otherwise programs were selected from a collection
of 63
musical and voice selections (including many with acoustical
instrumentation)
that had been chosen because they represent specific reproduction
challenges to
audio systems.

Every experiment was extensively examined for internal significance. Most
of
them allowed subjects to extend the test with more trials to improve
scores.
This was seldom asked for and no individual improved his score enough to
attain
significance with additional trials OR a repeat of the entire experiment.
There were NO individual significant scores in any experiment that wasn't
significant overall.

But .....


I'd have to know what you played to them, what were their ages
and sex, their ABX training, their musical interests and exposure- a
thousand details- before I could say that you ruled out with
significant validity the possibility that you missed that rare bird.

So exactly what are the characteristics of a 'rare bird'? What age group?
What training? What musical interests? what thousand details ... can you list
them? If not how am Is upposed toknow what meets your criteria? And how my
subjects were not qualified.

O.K. You're testing how different amps handle the cello sound. You get
a significant sample (say 10) of experienced chamber music lovers,
selected for their proven ABX training and ability.
And by pot luck: I answered already: this shy, modest listener Mr.
Pinkerton for one. Greenhill's golden ear for two. Keep trying. Since
I believe that ABXing is a skill on its own I can't predict who'll be
good at it. Krueger should have a few such by now.
who was not only a great listener but also a great ABX performer. ONE
is enough. It is not about pleasing the crowd. It is about "high-end".
Something like Mr. Pinkerton- an ABX upholder whom you did not
convince that there are no differences between amps. Nor , of course
did he convince you.

However in the case of Flying Blind (Audio Magazine) a subject who was
unable
to discern whether a given program contained a confirmed audible level of
distortion in 16 weeks of long term listening was able to reliably identify
same with a 6 second segment of that program using the ABX technique.

But any ofd this notwithstanding I'm still not fully understanding why some
individual, some company or some 3rd party has ever been able to confirm
"amp"
and "wire" sound under any set of conditions with even modest listening
bias
controls implemented.

Even IF someone was withholding the Truth why hasn't someone else willfully
or
even by accident confirmed it? If these 'differences' are so evident that
people like Ludovic are so certain of their existence WHY hasn't some
party,
interested or otherwise, stumbled across the body instead of just the
rumors?

It just doesn't seem likely that people as smart as Earl Geddes, Floyd
Toole,
David Clark, David Rich, Sean Olive, Stan Lip****z, John Vanderkooy, Dan
Shanefiled, Rich Cabot, John Eargle, Dick Pierce, et al would have ALL
overlooked even the minutest of evidence of true audibility.

All your notables to the best of my knowledge did not report
component comparisons-

So you have to be controlled test or ABX qualified to exist? OK I'll buy that.
What aew the qualifications of yourself or reference listeners?

(I amended my answer below for lucidity L.M.)
where there is NO OBJECTIVE END-POINT- but
rather reasearch about perception of KNOWN induced artefact- the question and answer are straightforward-did he
hear right or not. Usually by selected, trained audiences at that.
Apples and oranges.
Ludovic Mirabel

Why don't you give us a list of researcjh that refutes what we already know
about amps and wires?

Because I have not a clue what the future research will bring. And if
it does I may not understand it. My knowledge of electronics is very
limited.
I think it is up to you to prove that the individual ,human
perceptions are directly related to electronic testing . I seem to
recall that there still is a lot of controversy amongst the engineers
abot what makes an amp. run. It used to be THD, then slew rates , then
ability to adjust to low impedances, now other learned tests that are
way above my head. I lost count.
Ludovic Mirabel

mkuller wrote:
Both sides have been providing "evidence" of their positions for
years and no one on the other side has changed their mind or switched sides.

The endless debate continues... It's mental masturbation, and
one-upsmanship;
nothing more.


Tom Nousaine wrote:
This is simply not true. No subjectivist has supplied any bias-controlled
evidence supporting amp or wire sound that confirms that a nominally
competent
device (in a room, drivign speakers) have any sound of their own. (Arny
Krueger
has supplied some evidence that minor differences may be audible with
headphones.)

What that side gives is unsupported anecdotes and when asked to veryify the
sound have never been able to do so with even the simplest bias controls
employed.

On the other hand. there were 2 dozen+ bias controlled listening tests
published by the early 90s. There have been documented tests on wires and
capacitors but none that have verified wire sound.

It's not a battle of conflicting evidence. The subjectivist (rather
Golden-Ear)
crowd has no evidence only anecdotes and conjecture.

The "debate" rages because the subjectivists have no evidence and are reduced
to argument alone.


What you mean to say is "no evidence you will accept". I suppose you haven't
presented sufficient evidence to the other side either, or they would be
convinced. The only "bias control method" your side accepts is the DBT and
over the years many have provided evidence here why DBTs with music are
inappropriate and simply do not work to identify subtle audible differences.
Your ignoring all of that doesn't make it go away.

In fact, believing as you do - that virtually all equipment except speakers
sound the same - would seem to disqualify one from claiming to be an
audiophile, wouldn't it?
Regards,
Mike

(S888Wheel) wrote:

Tom said

And
we've had a couple+ positive experiments that have confirmed lack of nominal
competence.

Competence is a matter of opinion in this case.

Not true. A frequency response measurement made at the speaker terminals would
have verified one element of competence.


Tom said


Why should we give this experiment more weight that the remaining evidence?

Who said it should get *more* weight? Why should it get less weight? In your
case you seem to be giving it zero weight. It looks like your criteria is the
result and only the result. That is bad science 101.

I give it the weight it deserves in light of the other experiments most of
which have verified level matching and frequency response and supplied a full
set of statistical data and results.

Stewart's test verified only level-matching at a single frequency. It is what
it is; BUT it is NOT your smoking gun.

Tom said

If
you have a good reason, other than you are uncomfortable with the other
evidence, please tell us.

Reason for what? You are the one picking and choosing your anecdotal
evidence.

Anecdotes? I'll bet you haven't bothered to acquire copies of the Audio Amateur
experiment published in 1980 have you?

Do you consider the Masters piece an 'anecdote?' How about "To Tweak..."?

I don't see much reason to give Stewert's tests more or less weight than the
ones you like.

But of that work has an inside loop on the real truth why hasn't someone
duplicated that? I don't mean that they have to use the same devices but only
that those results haven't been obtained by anyone else? Why not?

I'm guessing for the same reason that no one has duplicated the Cold Fusion
experiment.


I said


You get to keep starting the count at zero with that
method.

Tom said



Not true. No one does that silly game except you.

Balony. Cite an example of me doing this. You are still very consistant in
mischaracterizing my opinions. You are still 0 for many.

I'd say you are much better at mischaracterizing others positions and even MORE
adept at misintepreting evidence.

But, none-the-less, you have put no new information on the table. The test
results overwhelmingly show that under normal conditions amps is amps and you
have nothing but an incompletely documented report that says otherwise.

Again IF Stewart's experiment has a line on the real truth why hasn't someone
else also discovered same?

Tom said

You get one un-replicated and
un-documented anecdote and then want us to ignore ALL the other evidence.


Balony. Never said I want you or anyone else to ignore any evidence. Try to
get
the facts straight some time in this debate. Also none of the tests you
believe
to be valid have been "replicated"

Oh yes they have. Time and again.

and Stewert's tests, as Stewert has said,
are documented here on this forum. It is you and only you who wishes to pick
and choose your evidence. I have not suggested that *any* evidence be ignored
or given more weight.

Then the score still runs 20 to 1 in my favor then doesn't it if you want to
play that silly game.


I said


Your analogy with cold fusion is way off base. One would not have to
do
the equivelant of inventing cold fusion to come up with an amp that sounds
different.

Tom said


For sure. Just 'invent' a triode with high output impedance or put a series
resistor in the output leg of any competent amplifier and you can get
'difference.'

Then we agree that the cold fusion analogy is bogus.

Nope. We can easily corrupt an amplifier to make it sound different. But we
can't do that if we level-match and verify competence and apply listening bias
controls.

I'm all for quitting this argument. There is no amount of contrary evidence
that will be enough to satisfy you because you seemto be a True Believer and
are willing to cling to Faith (Belief without evidence) even in the face of
overwheming contrary evidence.

That's why the 'debate' continues. Golden Ears instead of producing new
evidence to support the Faith just keep arguing against the existing contrary
evidence and casting about for anything that appears to be favorably leaning
toward the wished-for data.

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:0He0b.184753$Ho3.25747@sccrnsc03...
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:G680b.182959$uu5.34042@sccrnsc04...

Bob has demonstrated quite well on his own how your "interpretations"
of Greenhill's comments are misinterpretations.

So let's have no interpreting. Just poor Greenhill's own words, word
for word and literally and Marcus own words, word for word and
literally.

Marcus first:
Anyone tempted to take Mirabel's assertion here at face value should
consult the original article and read for himself that Greenhill said
no such thing.

bob


bob

This is how things went in this thread.
Nousaine had said that "NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment
that confirms "amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias
controls implemented.
NO One' Ever!!!!....
...Deliver some evidence to support your argument and then we can
talk' actually
IF you deliver the evidence than we won't 'talk' I'll admit you were
right.
Do it!!!!! Now !!!!!

I said in reply :
According to your ABX coworker L. Greenhill (Stereo Review August
1982) one of his subjects did that very thing. So much for "NO one!
Ever!!!!!"
It is your privilege to disagree with Greenhill- you two ABXers fight it
out.

On Aug 14 (message 62 in Google) -QUOTING THE ABOVE EXCHANGE : (see
footnote for requote) Marcus commented:

"Elsewhere today you tell us you are a published writer. Fiction a
specialty?
Anyone tempted to take Mirabel's assertion here at face value should
consult the original article and read for himself that Greenhill said
no such thing."

Thereupon I quoted Greenhill's words, word for word:
("The Stereo Review, August 1982):
"Final significant conclusion one can draw is that at least one
genuine "golden ear" exists. Obviously certain listeners whether
through talent, training or experience can hear small differences
between components" (ie. cables in this cable comparison test)

And got this reply from Marcus
Apparently the only way you can argue your case is to juxtapose my
words with something I was not responding to (and which did not even
appear in the post you pulled my comment from). A rather pitiful act
of desperation, I'd say.

As on many previous occasions one wonders if he takes his readers for
one of the more moronic jurymen to be befuddled with minimum effort
or if he really believes what he's saying.
The second possibility is more to his credit.. . I think.
Ludovic Mirabel

** " Isn't that funny. No one can ever "prove a negative". So what?
We should then
ignore the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment that confirms
"amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias controls implemented.
NO One' Ever!!!!

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:0He0b.184753$Ho3.25747@sccrnsc03...
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:G680b.182959$uu5.34042@sccrnsc04...

Bob has demonstrated quite well on his own how your "interpretations"
of Greenhill's comments are misinterpretations.

So let's have no interpreting. Just poor Greenhill's own words, word
for word and literally and Marcus own words, word for word and
literally.

Marcus first:
Anyone tempted to take Mirabel's assertion here at face value should
consult the original article and read for himself that Greenhill said
no such thing.

bob


bob

This is how things went in this thread.
Nousaine had said that "NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment
that confirms "amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias
controls implemented.
NO One' Ever!!!!....
...Deliver some evidence to support your argument and then we can
talk' actually
IF you deliver the evidence than we won't 'talk' I'll admit you were
right.
Do it!!!!! Now !!!!!

I said in reply :
According to your ABX coworker L. Greenhill (Stereo Review August
1982) one of his subjects did that very thing. So much for "NO one!
Ever!!!!!"
It is your privilege to disagree with Greenhill- you two ABXers fight it
out.

On Aug 14 (message 62 in Google) -QUOTING THE ABOVE EXCHANGE : (see
footnote for requote) Marcus commented:

"Elsewhere today you tell us you are a published writer. Fiction a
specialty?
Anyone tempted to take Mirabel's assertion here at face value should
consult the original article and read for himself that Greenhill said
no such thing."

Thereupon I quoted Greenhill's words, word for word:
("The Stereo Review, August 1982):
"Final significant conclusion one can draw is that at least one
genuine "golden ear" exists. Obviously certain listeners whether
through talent, training or experience can hear small differences
between components" (ie. cables in this cable comparison test)

And got this reply from Marcus
Apparently the only way you can argue your case is to juxtapose my
words with something I was not responding to (and which did not even
appear in the post you pulled my comment from). A rather pitiful act
of desperation, I'd say.

As on many previous occasions one wonders if he takes his readers for
one of the more moronic jurymen to be befuddled with minimum effort
or if he really believes what he's saying.
The second possibility is more to his credit.. . I think.
Ludovic Mirabel

** " Isn't that funny. No one can ever "prove a negative". So what?
We should then
ignore the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment that confirms
"amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias controls implemented.
NO One' Ever!!!!

(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

...snips...

Let me shift the emphasis. It is not on individuals ( such as
Greenhill's own "golden ear"). It is on the indisputable fact that the
individual performances in the reported tests vary enormously,

Nousaine answered:
We'll of course. Individuals guessing will form a distribution with tals.
Even
when there is no difference a large sample or individuals retested there
will
be a distribution with tails toeither side.

Exactly. You've said it. This is a "test" that invariably produces
wildly divergent results between participants. This is a "test" that
has no objective reference point to check individual results against.

It doesn't need an objective reference point. It only needs to confirm that
subjects had reliable scores that showed they heard a difference.

Isn't that your position.....common objective measurements fail to reveal real
audible differences?

So how do you decide who is "right"? The only way that makes sense to
me is to establish criterion of validity such as Greenhill's: For the
result to count as positive the subject had to be right at least 75%
of the time (In his case minimum 12 times out of 15 tries.).
But oddly enough instead of acknowledging that the few who met their
own criteria were "right"- ie. detected a difference- the proctors of
those tests would reverse themselves in their conclusions and take the
inept aggregate performance of the majority as the true outcome.

This is certainly not true. There were no individuals in that test that
reliably demonstrated an ability to differentiate those wires with music.

But if you repeated this test endlessly comparing the same wire to itself you'd
still get the random distribution of results. And even if you used the same
subjects in a million trials you'd find the distribution of scores but NOT a
pattern based on individual performances.

And in this strange way they'd get null, negative result every time.

Not if there were truly audible differences. If you take your argument to its
logical end you would argue that we should only "count" results that conform
with your previously held beliefs.

Because most people- not all- are inept at ABXing and you have no
evidence in each individual case how much of it is due to the nature
of your "test".

Actually when real differences are present scores quickly become
near-universally positive. To expand, when audibility is truly present there is
still a distribution BUT most subjects score positively on individual scores.

Worse: your subjects don't know either.
Question: what is the practical usefulness to an audiophile of a
"test" that has a "distribution with tails"? Not very repeatable, is
it?

Oh yes it IS very repeatable. If there is no audbile difference then you'll get
a random distribution.

If there is a true difference then you get a distribution that is not random.
Both may have tails.

Let me give you an example. I helped a friend set-up a blind test that compared
two devices the person believed were sonically identical.

I auditioned the comparison as set-up and he said "they sound alike, do they
not?" I said I think they sound different.

He then handed me the remote control for the QSC ABX comparitor. I then ran 3
sessions and scored 21/23, 17/19, 16/20 showing that they did sound different.

He, after pulling hair he no longer had, began investigating and discovered
that although he had level matched the devices at the black-box output he
hadn't level-matched at the speaker terminals and there was a level difference.

A level match at the speaker terminals delivered sound that I could no longer
reliably identify. The distribution of my scores fell to between 30 and 60 %
correct, which one would expect with a non-audible difference.



Ludovic wants us to consider any subject who scores better much
than 50% as a
person who "heard" something whether the individual score or overall score
suggests this was the case.

Ludovic does not and never did hold such moronic views. I'm
disappointed that you'd want to attribute them to me.

As much as you claim otherwise what you have specifically asked for is that we
accept non-significant, but seemingly high, results on individual subjects as
real data "hidden" in the averages.

This hasn't ever happened and as far as I can tell has not shown up in any
published experimental results.

Read above re
"statistical validity criteria". On the contrary, Ludovic has been
trying to explain to a Mr. Marcus for the last two years that adding
up the bad, the average and the good together does not a "positive
result" make. Unsuccessfully it would seem because he came back with
it this very week.

So you would have us only 'count' high scores even if they fall within a
distribution that we'd get when people were only guessing.

Example: Your witness Sean Olive's results in his "listening room" pdf
(www.revelspeakers.- address quoted from memory). One of his
supertrained professionals' was scoring around 30% , a few 50% or
thereabouts, most reached (how many repeats?), significant 70% or
more.

OK? So what? Given a chance result we'de find a distribution and we'd find
a
buried Golden Ear according to Ludovic's reasoning. Why are there no lucky
coins in his experiments?

The correct guesses between 70 and 80% of a few of his subjects are
golden
enough, for his test tasks, no? Don't really follow your point.

That's because you don't understand experimental design and analysis. No; 70
to 80% correct will be found in many distributions. So will 20 and 30% scores.

You seemingly only want to 'count' those scores that will support your
previously held biases.



Greenhill: all scored brillianly ( almost all were 100%
correct) recognising 1.75db. volume difference between a thick and a
thin cable- as long as the pink noise was played.
The same people failed to recognise (within Greenhill's statistical
validity criteria- ie had much lower "correct" scores) the same volume
difference once music replaced pink noise.
You or others said that it only proves that pink noise is a better
"test" signal. Sorry: doesn't wash with me.

Why not? It's pretty obvious from this and other experiments.

T

Why not? Noise is the single most effective signals for revealing small
audible differences

The subject is
reproduction of MUSIC by audio components- not pink noise. in fact
saying that ABX performs better with pink noise than music, amounts to
saying that ABX is an inappropriate test for assessing MUSICAL
reproduction differences between components.

No sir. But the logical fallout from those results is that noise is
'overly-sensitive' to audible difference. And it IS compared to music.


Is a "test" that has such variable individual results an appropriate
test for audiophile use? How can you be certain that the failure of
most of your subjects to recognise differences was not due to the
nature of your test?

The "test" has the same conditions under which people happily form subjective
difference opinions. The "sound" doesn't change only the knowledge over which
component is in the chain or is "X" is withheld.

It is true that it's much harder to identify which of 2 identical sounding
products is driving the loudspeakers when the blindfolds come out. So? None of
that changes the "sound being reproduced.

If the ability to distinguish an amplifier under blindfolded conditions (either
figurately or literally) disappears when bias controls are introduced then it
cannot be said that the device sounds "different."

If the subject then insists that the devices were sonically different the
conclusion can ONLY be attributed to listener bias.


Especially as you must agree that training in ABXing improves
individual results. How does an audiophile know if he had enough
training?

When he can 'hear' inaudible differences? Ludovic why not try an ABX test
yourself? What you'll find is that 1-2-minutes of "training" is entirely
adequate. Have you actually ever taken an ABX or other controlled listening
test? pcabx for example?

If the answer is "no" I'd say you fall into the same corner that 'audiophiles'
always try to back skeptics into. "Have you heard this component? If not HOW
DARE YOU question my evaluation?"


Next; of the tests I have personally designed, proctored or have been a
subject
there has been no cadre of
Ã?_Ã?ÀšÃ‚¢Ãƒ?_Ã?_Ã?_Ã?_those who
hearÃ?_Ã?ÀšÃ‚¢Ãƒ?_Ã?_Ã?_Ã? _ compared
to the general subject
population. IOW there has never been an experiment where a few
significant
scoring individuals were concealed by the average. Indeed with a
reasonably
sized sample often a single significant result would be enough to make
the
overall results positive.

Of the tests IÃ?_Ã?ÀšÃ‚¢Ãƒ?_Ã?_Ã?_Ã?_ve designed and
conducted
subject count has
varied from 1 to
31 with sample sizes ranging from 10 to 431. Programs were selected by
subjects
in the
Ã?_Ã?ÀšÃ‚¢Ãƒ?_Ã?_Ã?_Ã?_challe ngeÃ?_Ã?ÀšÃ‚¢Ã
ƒÆ’?_Ã?_Ã?_Ã?_
experiments where subjects had
claimed to already have
confirmed differences. Otherwise programs were selected from a
collection
of 63
musical and voice selections (including many with acoustical
instrumentation)
that had been chosen because they represent specific reproduction
challenges to
audio systems.

Every experiment was extensively examined for internal significance.
Most
of
them allowed subjects to extend the test with more trials to improve
scores.
This was seldom asked for and no individual improved his score enough to
attain
significance with additional trials OR a repeat of the entire
experiment.
There were NO individual significant scores in any experiment that
wasn't
significant overall.

But .....


I'd have to know what you played to them, what were their ages
and sex, their ABX training, their musical interests and exposure- a
thousand details- before I could say that you ruled out with
significant validity the possibility that you missed that rare bird.

So exactly what are the characteristics of a 'rare bird'? What age group?
What training? What musical interests? what thousand details ... can you
list
them? If not how am Is upposed toknow what meets your criteria? And how my
subjects were not qualified.

O.K. You're testing how different amps handle the cello sound. You get
a significant sample (say 10) of experienced chamber music lovers,
selected for their proven ABX training and ability.
And by pot luck: I answered already: this shy, modest listener Mr.
Pinkerton for one. Greenhill's golden ear for two. Keep trying. Since
I believe that ABXing is a skill on its own I can't predict who'll be
good at it. Krueger should have a few such by now.
who was not only a great listener but also a great ABX performer.

So how does a person who has not demonstrated and ability to 'hear' inaudible
differences qualify under your criteria. All of my ABX subjects have been great
listeners and great ABX performers.

You want "ABX significant scores" on components that sound the same? Those
people don't exist; but are still "great" subjects.


ONE
is enough. It is not about pleasing the crowd. It is about "high-end".

Pinkerton is right "high-end" only means high-price, high-margin and often
sub-par performance.

Something like Mr. Pinkerton- an ABX upholder whom you did not
convince that there are no differences between amps. Nor , of course
did he convince you.

All you or Mr Pinkerton has to do is deliver some corroborating evidence.

However in the case of Flying Blind (Audio Magazine) a subject who was
unable
to discern whether a given program contained a confirmed audible level
of
distortion in 16 weeks of long term listening was able to reliably
identify
same with a 6 second segment of that program using the ABX technique.

But any ofd this notwithstanding I'm still not fully understanding why
some
individual, some company or some 3rd party has ever been able to confirm
"amp"
and "wire" sound under any set of conditions with even modest listening
bias
controls implemented.

Even IF someone was withholding the Truth why hasn't someone else
willfully
or
even by accident confirmed it? If these 'differences' are so evident
that
people like Ludovic are so certain of their existence WHY hasn't some
party,
interested or otherwise, stumbled across the body instead of just the
rumors?

It just doesn't seem likely that people as smart as Earl Geddes, Floyd
Toole,
David Clark, David Rich, Sean Olive, Stan Lip****z, John Vanderkooy,
Dan
Shanefiled, Rich Cabot, John Eargle, Dick Pierce, et al would have ALL
overlooked even the minutest of evidence of true audibility.

All your notables to the best of my knowledge did not report
component comparisons-

So you have to be controlled test or ABX qualified to exist? OK I'll buy
that.
What aew the qualifications of yourself or reference listeners?

(I amended my answer below for lucidity L.M.)
where there is NO OBJECTIVE END-POINT- but
rather reasearch about perception of KNOWN induced artefact- the question
and answer are straightforward-did he
hear right or not. Usually by selected, trained audiences at that.
Apples and oranges.
Ludovic Mirabel

Why don't you give us a list of researcjh that refutes what we already know
about amps and wires?

Because I have not a clue what the future research will bring. And if
it does I may not understand it. My knowledge of electronics is very
limited.
I think it is up to you to prove that the individual ,human
perceptions are directly related to electronic testing .

Why is that incumbent on me? I've only tested the subjective quality of the
SOUND that has been attributed to certain components. No electronic testing
other than verifying level matchin and flat response into the load, has ever
been invollved.

I seem to
recall that there still is a lot of controversy amongst the engineers
abot what makes an amp. run. It used to be THD, then slew rates , then
ability to adjust to low impedances, now other learned tests that are
way above my head. I lost count.
Ludovic Mirabel

Grow up. There is no controversey amongst anybody except the engineering/
marketing departments of "high-end" companies.

The rest of us know what's true and, except for arguing with people like you,
don't waste time, energy or dollars on things that have been shown to not
contribute to sound quality improvements.

Nousaine wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Nousaine wrote:
Holy Cow: do I have to make the observation in full detail every time? Are
your
claims not based on a normally reverberant environment ?

Always meant to ask (hope I haven't asked before) does this exclude
headphone listening?



--
-S.

Doesn't have to. But I know of no one who would claim that his Pass Aleph
sounds better on headphones only. The normally reverberant environment is only
important in end-usage.

If pcabx can elicit subtle differences between a Paraound and Bryston amplifier
that can be heard with specially recorded programs in .wav files played back
over headphones that's very interesting. But when those same two amplifiers
turn out to be indistinguishable from each other when using loudspeakers in a
listening room what does that say about the size and the importance of those
differences?

Not much, but if nothing else this give 'difference' lovers a
way to save face -- they can always hope that their amp will sound different
under the microscope of headphone listening.

--
-S.