On 12/12/04 11:42 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Given his lack of integrity in
my dealings with the man -- see earlier messages -- I have no
reason to think that he would pay up.

Of course he would not have to pay up if you don't pass the challenge.
That's what we all believe .

Sure, but there is a question if he would pay up if it DID pass the
"challenge" - given the track record, I am sure he would find a way to
wriggle out of it - comments to this has been ascribed to him by others on
this NG. I have no reason to disbeleive and think anyone who is as
sensational is more interested in personal promotion that promotion of
truth...

B&D wrote:


On 12/13/04 11:13 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:



Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Tip" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on
Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find
that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo"
cables, power conditioners, etc...

Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was
given

to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if you
are

given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it.


I see that MIT touts their cabl;es use by Skywalker, and there's
praise of its voodoo properties from the B&W guy,...but I have
yet to see testimony from Skywalker folk about the *sound*
of MIT cables.

Shunyata products were found to reduce noise and buzzing -- quite
non-voodoo applications in a complex electrical environment.

I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom
cabling
specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old bastion
of
non-voodoo cables .... Belden.

Belden is an excellent cable manufacturer - they do even more than audio,
too! Wonderful folks!

Not only are they wonderful folks but they may also actually "manufacture" wire
(draw copper) which as far as I can tell no high-end "maker" does. Indeed check
out the Monster cable site and see if you can find a listing or photographs of
their manufacturing facilities.

As far as I can tell no high-end "manufacturer" does more than put
terminations, or maybe networks, on the cables and it seems that many of them
don't even go that far.

I wonder where the magic sound quality improvements get manufactured when the
wire may be nothing more than a currently available wire dressed upand sold as
audio cabling. I say this because I once had an enthusiast examine Tara Labs
RSC speaker wires and exclaim "Hey I know this stuff; we used to use it at XXX
when we wound starter motors."

B&D wrote:
On 12/13/04 7:50 PM, in article , "Chung"
wrote:

B&D wrote:
On 12/12/04 11:23 AM, in article , "Billy
Shears" wrote:

In article , B&D
wrote:

Which is what you have not yet addressed. Questions about Randi's
'honesty' are a red herring.

Not exactly - a scientists only asset is honesty.

A necessary asset perhaps, but obviously not the only one.

Fair enough. Without honesty, all the knowledge in the world won't matter.

And if your only asset is honesty, well, god bless you. You are
definitely not going to be a scientist.

And if you aren't honest - you aren't going to be a scientist ... For very
long anyway.

Leaving aside the absurdity of the statement "a scientist's only asset
is honesty" for the moment, you think that a scientist who cheats on his
wife, or who cheats on his income tax, or who cheats in golf, is not a
scientist?

"B&D" wrote in message
...
On 12/13/04 11:13 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:


snip not germane to the following


I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom
cabling
specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old
bastion of
non-voodoo cables .... Belden.

Belden is an excellent cable manufacturer - they do even more than audio,
too! Wonderful folks!

Back in the early seventies, an associate and I spent tens of hours wiring
up a whole trunk full of mic cables using the heaviest duty shielded Belden
cable (can't remember the number, but recommended by Gotham Audio). All
phase tested. Never had a single problem in the field...except that every
time we worked with other audio technicians they either tried to steal or
did steal our cables and left their own pitiful cables behind.

Not only that, but Steve throws one hell of an AES party!

B&D wrote:
On 12/13/04 7:53 PM, in article , "---MIKE---"
wrote:

Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers because
they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products.

Sure - and why shouldn't they do that? It is a good business plan than to
staisfy a bunch of NG posters that seem implacable to begin with, and a very
limited # of subscribers to boot.

I couldn't give a ____ about Stereophile's business plan. What about the
truth? Are you interested?

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 12/14/2004 8:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

B&D wrote:


On 12/13/04 11:13 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:



Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Tip" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on
Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find
that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo"
cables, power conditioners, etc...

Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was
given

to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if you
are

given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it.


I see that MIT touts their cabl;es use by Skywalker, and there's
praise of its voodoo properties from the B&W guy,...but I have
yet to see testimony from Skywalker folk about the *sound*
of MIT cables.

Shunyata products were found to reduce noise and buzzing -- quite
non-voodoo applications in a complex electrical environment.

I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom
cabling
specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old
bastion
of
non-voodoo cables .... Belden.

Belden is an excellent cable manufacturer - they do even more than audio,
too! Wonderful folks!

Not only are they wonderful folks but they may also actually "manufacture"
wire
(draw copper) which as far as I can tell no high-end "maker" does. Indeed
check
out the Monster cable site and see if you can find a listing or photographs
of
their manufacturing facilities.

As far as I can tell no high-end "manufacturer" does more than put
terminations, or maybe networks, on the cables and it seems that many of them
don't even go that far.

If you have specific information I wish you would share it. Witout it this
looks like speculation. Any cable company that does this ought to be exposed
for doing it.



I wonder where the magic sound quality improvements get manufactured when the
wire may be nothing more than a currently available wire dressed upand sold
as
audio cabling.

I don't know of any cable companies claiming this. But I don't know of any
cable companies that charge a premium and advertise their product as cheap
cable with fancy dressing. If that is what is going on then it should be
specifically cited to expose it.

I say this because I once had an enthusiast examine Tara Labs
RSC speaker wires and exclaim "Hey I know this stuff; we used to use it at
XXX
when we wound starter motors."


That's what I'm talking about. There is a company called triple X?

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
B&D wrote:


On 12/13/04 11:13 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:



Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Tip" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on
Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find
that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo"
cables, power conditioners, etc...

Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was
given

to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if
you
are

given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it.


I see that MIT touts their cabl;es use by Skywalker, and there's
praise of its voodoo properties from the B&W guy,...but I have
yet to see testimony from Skywalker folk about the *sound*
of MIT cables.

Shunyata products were found to reduce noise and buzzing -- quite
non-voodoo applications in a complex electrical environment.

I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom
cabling
specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old
bastion
of
non-voodoo cables .... Belden.

Belden is an excellent cable manufacturer - they do even more than audio,
too! Wonderful folks!

Not only are they wonderful folks but they may also actually "manufacture"
wire
(draw copper) which as far as I can tell no high-end "maker" does. Indeed
check
out the Monster cable site and see if you can find a listing or
photographs of
their manufacturing facilities.

As far as I can tell no high-end "manufacturer" does more than put
terminations, or maybe networks, on the cables and it seems that many of
them
don't even go that far.

I wonder where the magic sound quality improvements get manufactured when
the
wire may be nothing more than a currently available wire dressed upand
sold as
audio cabling. I say this because I once had an enthusiast examine Tara
Labs
RSC speaker wires and exclaim "Hey I know this stuff; we used to use it at
XXX
when we wound starter motors."

This is a little like saying amp manufacturers are a fraud because they use
steel, aluminum, transformers, etc. made by others. Presumably the
manufacturers select from tens of thousands of available wire
composition/configuration combinations and then incorporate it into a
finished product. Presumably they choose it based on what they consider
superior properties in a given finished cable configuration at a given
finished price point. That is how manufacturers work.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
wrote in message
...
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm
Tom Nousaine [certainly] has abundant amounts of energy when it
comes to defending his blind-testing turf :-)

He believes people shouldn't make false claims about what they
can and can't hear.

That may be true, Mr. McKelvy, but that was not the subject of
the article referenced above. In his BAS Speaker piece, Mr.
Nousaine was presenting his hypothesis that in blind tests involving
"Same/Different" presentations, the statistical analysis
should be modified because of a purported tendency for listeners
to report "Different" more often that they report "Same."

It is fair to note that while Mr. Nousaine is proposing this idea,
it has not been adopted by other researchers, something that is
noted by the editor of the BAS Speaker.

Mr. Nousaine if free, of course, to present any ideas he feels
relevant. But I do note that his proposal represents a "raising
of the bar" when it comes to analyzing the results of blind tests.

It used to be felt that a 95% probability of a specific result
not being due to chance was sufficient -- note that some
researchers still use this standard; Floyde Toole, for example,
refers to it in a recent paper on blind comparisons of
loudspeakers. But some skeptics felt that this was not
sufficently rigorous, so the demand evolved for blind tests
of audio components to reach the 99% confidence level, ie,
1% or less probability that the result was due to chance.

I don't have any objection to this. But for Tom Nousaine, it
appears that that is still not sufficient, so he calls for the
bar to be raised again, regarding the results of blind tests of
audio products about which he is skeptical.

In the end, all one would be left with are tests that produce
null results, presumably his desired result :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On 12/15/04 8:18 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

B&D wrote:
On 12/13/04 7:53 PM, in article , "---MIKE---"
wrote:

Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers because
they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products.

Sure - and why shouldn't they do that? It is a good business plan than to
staisfy a bunch of NG posters that seem implacable to begin with, and a very
limited # of subscribers to boot.

I couldn't give a ____ about Stereophile's business plan. What about the
truth? Are you interested?

He said that he was interested in entertaining his readers. Why should he
give a ___ about satisfying our non-reader sensbilities?

wrote in message ...
B&D wrote:
On 12/13/04 7:53 PM, in article ,
"---MIKE---"
wrote:

Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers because
they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products.

Sure - and why shouldn't they do that? It is a good business plan than
to
staisfy a bunch of NG posters that seem implacable to begin with, and a
very
limited # of subscribers to boot.

I couldn't give a ____ about Stereophile's business plan. What about the
truth? Are you interested?

It might be useful if you noticed that this was written by Bromo in reply to
Mike, and had nothing to do with anything said by John Atkinson. My, the
vile do runneth over!

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ...
B&D wrote:
On 12/13/04 7:53 PM, in article ,
"---MIKE---"
wrote:

Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers because
they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products.

Sure - and why shouldn't they do that? It is a good business plan than
to
staisfy a bunch of NG posters that seem implacable to begin with, and a
very
limited # of subscribers to boot.

I couldn't give a ____ about Stereophile's business plan. What about the
truth? Are you interested?

It might be useful if you noticed that this was written by Bromo in reply to
Mike, and had nothing to do with anything said by John Atkinson. My, the
vile do runneth over!

I certainly noticed that and it was only a comment. That you chose to
interpret it as vile is evidence that you might really indeed see critics
of some high end practices as enemies. A tempest in a tea pot to be
sure.

There are plenty of those that are more critical than I and have a lifetime
of basic research about audio and human auditory perception behind them.
They must be really bad guys. ;-)

(S888Wheel) wrote:


From: (Nousaine)
Date: 12/14/2004 8:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

B&D wrote:


On 12/13/04 11:13 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:



Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Tip" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on
Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find
that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo"
cables, power conditioners, etc...

Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was
given

to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if you
are

given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it.


I see that MIT touts their cabl;es use by Skywalker, and there's
praise of its voodoo properties from the B&W guy,...but I have
yet to see testimony from Skywalker folk about the *sound*
of MIT cables.

Shunyata products were found to reduce noise and buzzing -- quite
non-voodoo applications in a complex electrical environment.

I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom
cabling
specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old
bastion
of
non-voodoo cables .... Belden.

Belden is an excellent cable manufacturer - they do even more than audio,
too! Wonderful folks!

Not only are they wonderful folks but they may also actually "manufacture"
wire
(draw copper) which as far as I can tell no high-end "maker" does. Indeed
check
out the Monster cable site and see if you can find a listing or photographs
of
their manufacturing facilities.

As far as I can tell no high-end "manufacturer" does more than put
terminations, or maybe networks, on the cables and it seems that many of
them
don't even go that far.

If you have specific information I wish you would share it. Witout it this
looks like speculation. Any cable company that does this ought to be exposed
for doing it.

See below. And have you a report from anybody who has actually visited an audio
cable "manufacturer?' Any reports of smelting or drawing of copper?


I wonder where the magic sound quality improvements get manufactured when
the
wire may be nothing more than a currently available wire dressed upand sold
as
audio cabling.

I don't know of any cable companies claiming this. But I don't know of any
cable companies that charge a premium and advertise their product as cheap
cable with fancy dressing. If that is what is going on then it should be
specifically cited to expose it.

Of course they don't "claim" this for Pete sake. Like Pro-Wrestling that's the
"secret." But that's what at least some of them do. For example check the
Monster Cable website for a list of their manufacturing facitlities. I couldn't
find any.

When I visited Transparent ...where the real company name was Transparent Audio
Marketing....the "wire" was stored in their warehouse on spools with the name
New England Wire and Cable stamped on them.

It is true that Transparent did make networks and terminate at least some of
their cables.

I say this because I once had an enthusiast examine Tara Labs
RSC speaker wires and exclaim "Hey I know this stuff; we used to use it at
XXX
when we wound starter motors."


That's what I'm talking about. There is a company called triple X?

Of course not.But what does the name of a company that winds automotive starter
motors have to do with anything?

wrote:
Michael McKelvy wrote:
wrote in message
...
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm
Tom Nousaine [certainly] has abundant amounts of energy when it
comes to defending his blind-testing turf :-)

He believes people shouldn't make false claims about what they
can and can't hear.

That may be true, Mr. McKelvy, but that was not the subject of
the article referenced above. In his BAS Speaker piece, Mr.
Nousaine was presenting his hypothesis that in blind tests involving
"Same/Different" presentations, the statistical analysis
should be modified because of a purported tendency for listeners
to report "Different" more often that they report "Same."

I made no reference to modification. This tendency is now well known and
analysis is easily compensated post test. What I object tois incomplete
analysis and 'declaration' of positive results by use of partial or
uncompensated analysis and reporting.

It is fair to note that while Mr. Nousaine is proposing this idea,
it has not been adopted by other researchers, something that is
noted by the editor of the BAS Speaker.

There was no need for this because now more advanced research uses the ABX or
ABC/Hr protocols which are free of this bias. And, you should note that this
copy was written several years ago.


Mr. Nousaine if free, of course, to present any ideas he feels
relevant. But I do note that his proposal represents a "raising
of the bar" when it comes to analyzing the results of blind tests.

The idea is to level the playing field by filtering out bias in analysis.


It used to be felt that a 95% probability of a specific result
not being due to chance was sufficient -- note that some
researchers still use this standard; Floyde Toole, for example,
refers to it in a recent paper on blind comparisons of
loudspeakers. But some skeptics felt that this was not
sufficently rigorous, so the demand evolved for blind tests
of audio components to reach the 99% confidence level, ie,
1% or less probability that the result was due to chance.

95% was and is the standard. No one ever suggested otherwise. Even so
subjectivists have never proven their case (that amps/wires/bits/parts have a
sound independent of standard measurements and listening tests) and they try so
infrequently that the issue is moot.

Practically all the recent blind testing has been conducted on Codecs and at
Harman on loudspeakers. I see no real reason for further testing on
amps/wires/bits/parts because the proponents won't conduct tests either on
thier own or when challenged.

IMO unsubstantiated claims of sonics that have no electrical and acoustical
mechanism that would alter sound quality are the responsibility of the claimant
to prove.


I don't have any objection to this. But for Tom Nousaine, it
appears that that is still not sufficient, so he calls for the
bar to be raised again, regarding the results of blind tests of
audio products about which he is skeptical.

In the end, all one would be left with are tests that produce
null results, presumably his desired result :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Actually I'm only interested in getting at things that interfere or could
improve sound quality. I'm guessing that there is so little bias controlled
experimentation from the high-end industry is because they fear the results may
contradict cherished myths that will interfere with the marketing and
publishing end of the business.

If amp or wire sound was a real phenomenon that should be easy to prove with a
simple repeatable bias controlled listening test. That was true in 1976 when
Toole/Masters found that there were no significant audible sound differences
between power amplifiers (as published in Audio Scene of Canada) as it is now.
Yet 30 years later the high-end is reduced to arguing about methods and
analysis of long past experiments that should have clearly shown amp sound
differences if they existed.

This is the line that Alien Visitation and BigFoot advocates take....extant
evidence is wrong; researchers have been biased, looked in the wrong place and
refuse to conduct definitive research.

I say when you're right just go ahead and prove it.

Arguing about details in experiments which would have been just barely positive
even when incorrectly analyzed just sounds defensive and worrying about small
confidence level differences just sounds evasive. Especially after publishing a
RCL where literally dozens of amplifiers are said to sound different from one
another in clearly audible ways.

You can't raise a bar on claimants who won't play.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in
message ...
snip
What about the claim that Shakti Stones can't
possibly do what SP's reviewer
claimed he heard them do is in your opinion, untrue?
snip
[Randi] seems to be making some minor errors, but the
essence is correct, Shakti
stones are B.S.

Hi Michael,

My post was a comment on how Randi, the publisher of
the absolute truth, is allowed to make mistakes and not
verify what he publishes, yet John Atkinson, the
publisher of opinion, is not. The only thing JA needed
to do is verify that the reviewer actually wrote the
review and what he wrote was his actual opinion. Since
the reviewer did not take measurements, there were no
measurements for JA to verify.

As for the Shatki Stones, I probably read the review
when it appeared, but I can't remember what they are
supposed to do and I don't particularly care. However,
if you were waiting for my evaluation, I recommend that
you don't buy them ;^)

snip
That's up to Mr. Atkinson. He has a faior chance to
audiotion the stones or
at least recomend some lab tests on Shakti Stones and
demonstrate a
committment to truth about the things that get
reviewed.

I'm sure that JA would be very grateful if you could
devise a lab test for him that could measure the
effectiveness of the stones (perhaps the Ghostbusters
have an instrument for that).

snip
RAHE is acting like they think it's unreasonable to
not have auditioned a
simple tweak and that it is also unreasonable to not
have some technical
oversight. If it were an amp that had been subject
to normal test bench
rigors, it would still be laughable that the reviewer
made the claims he
did, but without the tests it's just plain snake oil
endorsement.

JA probably would not have time to publish the magazine
if he had to audition every component reviewed by the
other reviewers. JA does measure components that can
be measured (and more thoroughly than anyone else I've
seen), so he will be waiting eagerly for your Shatki
Stone test procedures. If you remember the Wavac topic
of a few months ago, we saw an example of the rave
review with lousy measurements that you mentioned, and
most of us had a good laugh at Mikey, but not at JA.

Regards,
Tip

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Having spent a few hours perusing the current issues
of both Stereophile
and TAS yesterday, it seems to me Randi shoudl really
aim his guns
as Pearson & Co -- the level of audiophoolery at TAS
seems significantly
higher and more pervasive than at Stereophile, if
these issues are
an indication of their current ideologies. Jonathan
Valin's stuff alone
would provide a rich vein of nonsense to mine.

Hi Steven,

If I remember correctly, after selling Stereophile to
John Atkinson, J. Gordon Holt, the founder of
Stereophile, was so ****ed at JA for adding objective
measurements to the subjective reviews, that he left
Stereophile and joined their arch-rival TAS. TAS
founder Harry Pearson started TAS because he got fed up
waiting for JGH to publish the next issue of
Stereophile, which had a very erratic schedule in its
early years. The original Stereophile had no
measurements (because JGH could hear differences
between components that measured the same), and had no
advertisements.

I believe in an issue of Fi magazine some years ago,
Jonathan Valin's suggestion for a $10,000 system was
composed of a $1500 pair of speakers, $3500 worth of
electronics, and $5000 cables! Last year in a review
of cable "elevators" in TAS, he said cable elevators
made a bigger improvement than digital room EQ (I use
cables I bought in India - they self-levitate :^).

Regards,
Tip

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
B&D wrote:
On 12/13/04 7:53 PM, in article ,
"---MIKE---"
wrote:

Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers
because
they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products.

Sure - and why shouldn't they do that? It is a good business plan
than
to
staisfy a bunch of NG posters that seem implacable to begin with, and
a
very
limited # of subscribers to boot.

I couldn't give a ____ about Stereophile's business plan. What about
the
truth? Are you interested?

It might be useful if you noticed that this was written by Bromo in
reply to
Mike, and had nothing to do with anything said by John Atkinson. My,
the
vile do runneth over!

I certainly noticed that and it was only a comment. That you chose to
interpret it as vile is evidence that you might really indeed see critics
of some high end practices as enemies. A tempest in a tea pot to be
sure.

There are plenty of those that are more critical than I and have a
lifetime
of basic research about audio and human auditory perception behind them.
They must be really bad guys. ;-)

There is enough gutter language and gutter temperament in this world...we
don't need it in RAHE. And we certainly don't need it as a gratuitous
"comment" to the wrong people, just for effect.

There are also people out there who question aspects of the conventional
wisdom. I would suggest that they are seen as the "enemies" by those who
accept the conventional wisdom. It is always difficult to tolerate
recalcitrants when one is *sure* one is right.

On 17 Dec 2004 21:22:31 GMT, "Tip" wrote:

If I remember correctly, after selling Stereophile to
John Atkinson,

He didn't sell it to JA. He sold it to Larry Archibald.

Kal

Harry Lavo wrote:

There is enough gutter language and gutter temperament in this world...we
don't need it in RAHE. And we certainly don't need it as a gratuitous
"comment" to the wrong people, just for effect.

Perhaps the moderators should reject posts that use blanks in respect of
those who might fill them in with gutter language. ;-)

Nonetheless, I apologize for any offense.


There are also people out there who question aspects of the conventional
wisdom. I would suggest that they are seen as the "enemies" by those who
accept the conventional wisdom. It is always difficult to tolerate
recalcitrants when one is *sure* one is right.

I'm not personally sure I'm 'right' more than anyone else. But there are
probablistic odds that need to be pointed out on occasion when discussing
sensory perceptions (or the lack thereof) and how the brain may interpret
such. It can be disturbing sometimes, but eliminating it reduces broad
understanding of the whole picture. Can there be overall progress without
it? As a musician and one who has built musical instruments, I have
difficulty accepting that audio systems are musical instruments. If they
are, they are exceptionally crude because the stimulus is a recording with
all the inherent limitations thereof. There are musical instrurment builders
that use style limitation to create and/or enhance beauty, but that is not
the same concept.

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 12/16/2004 7:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote:


From: (Nousaine)
Date: 12/14/2004 8:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

B&D wrote:


On 12/13/04 11:13 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:



Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Tip" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on
Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find
that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo"
cables, power conditioners, etc...

Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was
given

to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if
you
are

given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it.


I see that MIT touts their cabl;es use by Skywalker, and there's
praise of its voodoo properties from the B&W guy,...but I have
yet to see testimony from Skywalker folk about the *sound*
of MIT cables.

Shunyata products were found to reduce noise and buzzing -- quite
non-voodoo applications in a complex electrical environment.

I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom
cabling
specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old
bastion
of
non-voodoo cables .... Belden.

Belden is an excellent cable manufacturer - they do even more than audio,
too! Wonderful folks!

Not only are they wonderful folks but they may also actually "manufacture"
wire
(draw copper) which as far as I can tell no high-end "maker" does. Indeed
check
out the Monster cable site and see if you can find a listing or photographs
of
their manufacturing facilities.

As far as I can tell no high-end "manufacturer" does more than put
terminations, or maybe networks, on the cables and it seems that many of
them
don't even go that far.

If you have specific information I wish you would share it. Witout it this
looks like speculation. Any cable company that does this ought to be exposed
for doing it.

See below.

I did. naming the xxx company sure would have added some credibility to your
story.

And have you a report from anybody who has actually visited an
audio
cable "manufacturer?' Any reports of smelting or drawing of copper?

I don't have any reports either way.




I wonder where the magic sound quality improvements get manufactured when
the
wire may be nothing more than a currently available wire dressed upand sold
as
audio cabling.

I don't know of any cable companies claiming this. But I don't know of any
cable companies that charge a premium and advertise their product as cheap
cable with fancy dressing. If that is what is going on then it should be
specifically cited to expose it.

Of course they don't "claim" this for Pete sake. Like Pro-Wrestling that's
the
"secret."

Well for someone who seems eager to bust the cable companies there's nothing
like exposing the secret with hard and complete facts. Why not do so? I am all
for it.

But that's what at least some of them do. For example check the
Monster Cable website for a list of their manufacturing facitlities. I
couldn't
find any.

That doesn't prove anything. If they are taking cheap wire and repacakging it
with claims of proprietary manufacturing that should be easy enough to prove if
you already know this based on provable facts. It would also be the right thing
to do. Again, I am all for this so long as you use facts to prove your
assertion.



When I visited Transparent ...where the real company name was Transparent
Audio
Marketing....the "wire" was stored in their warehouse on spools with the name
New England Wire and Cable stamped on them.

Would that be this cable company?
http://www.ce-mag.com/suppliers/co/01/103.html
I'm not sure that helps your argument since they seem to make custom cables. I
suppose one could call them and ask them if the cables they make for
Transparent Audio are a proprietary design and unique products.



It is true that Transparent did make networks and terminate at least some of
their cables.

I say this because I once had an enthusiast examine Tara Labs
RSC speaker wires and exclaim "Hey I know this stuff; we used to use it at
XXX
when we wound starter motors."


That's what I'm talking about. There is a company called triple X?

Of course not.But what does the name of a company that winds automotive
starter
motors have to do with anything?

It's about credibilitry and varifiablity of your story. I see no reason for you
to not name the company. So why not just name names and not leave any doubts?

Nousaine wrote:
wrote:
It is fair to note that while Mr. Nousaine is proposing this idea,
it has not been adopted by other researchers, something that is
noted by the editor of the BAS Speaker.

There was no need for this because now more advanced research uses
the ABX or ABC/Hr protocols which are free of this bias. And, you
should note that this copy was written several years ago.

Yes, it was dated December 1990, but the article also includes a note
that you added further thoughts in 2002, from which I concluded that
you still stood by the proposal.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

It seems to me after reading 2 books - "Mind Hacks" and "Mind Wide Open"
that the brain is not especially good at being objective with respect to
sensory input - and sound is especially bad (though sight isn't especially
good).

If that is true - then both subjectivists and objectivists are BOTH missing
some really big issues.

Objectivists are using repeatable measures and discarding a lot of other
influences that would be required to get the sound of a "live performance"

Subjectivists are way too trusting of impressions without isolating other
factors (mood, mental state, etc.).

IN essence, I completely agree that it is possible to "hear" a difference
when none exists in any kind of measurable way. But I also think the
converse is true - one may convince onesself that a difference is NOT there
when one really is at least measurably so.

Aside from the minutiae of specific testing types (I don't intend this to be
a discussion of DBT. ABX or whatever) - what do you guys think? Is it time
for a new way - something that acknowledges the way people perceive and
process data into a "live music experience?"

For an extreme example, if one could hire a hypnotist, and get hypnotized
into thinking that the sound studio at Skywalker Ranch sounds the same as a
cheap boombox, and then hypnotized to think a cheap boombox sounded the same
as Skywalker Ranch. Various variations of this game can be done - but the
mind is either the strongest or weakest link in a modern audio chain, I am
thinking (but who knows, I *may* have been hypnotized! :-) )

What do you guys think?

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 17 Dec 2004 21:22:31 GMT, "Tip" wrote:
If I remember correctly, after selling Stereophile to
John Atkinson,

He didn't sell it to JA. He sold it to Larry Archibald.

That's correct. The timeline was:
1982 - Gordon sells Stereophile to Larry Archibald, but stays on as
an employee.
1986 - I join Stereophile and buy into the company.
1998 - Stereophile Inc. is sold to Petersen Publishing.
1999 - Gordon Holt resigns as a fulltime employee of Stereophile,
not over my policy of publishing measurements but primarily over
my rejection of his wish for Stereophile to abandon two-channel
audio in favor of multichannel.

All this is doumented in the free on-line archives at
www.stereophile.com

Gordon left TAS at the beginning of 2004, BTW, and according to
an email exchange I had with him a few weeks back is content to
be retired.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On 17 Dec 2004 21:21:39 GMT, "Tip" wrote:

My post was a comment on how Randi, the publisher of
the absolute truth

And just when and where has Randi ever claimed to be the "publisher of
the absolute truth"? In fact I've read his stuff for years and it's
rather the opposite. So perhaps the poster will provide a reference,
or admit that he is just name calling. I won't be holding my breath
while I wait though.

Ed Seedhouse

On 17 Dec 2004 21:26:07 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

There are also people out there who question aspects of the conventional
wisdom. I would suggest that they are seen as the "enemies" by those who
accept the conventional wisdom. It is always difficult to tolerate
recalcitrants when one is *sure* one is right.

I would suggest that they are not seen as enemies at all, simply as
misguided! :-)

For those of us who accept conventional wisdom, there is absolutely no
problem with those who do not - all they have to do is prove their
case, and we'll all be very happy. Indeed, we are so happy with this
that a bunch of us clubbed together to raise a prize fund of about
$5,000, to help out those doubters who could actually prove their
case. So far, in around six years, not one single 'questioner of
conventional wisdom' has seen fit to put his questioning to the test
and claim the prize. Unusual behaviour for those who keep telling the
rest of us that they really, really do hear differences among cables
and amplifiers, dontcha think?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

B&D wrote:

Objectivists are using repeatable measures and discarding a lot of
other
influences that would be required to get the sound of a "live
performance"

What "influences" are we discarding? All we are discarding are things
like the visual appearance of the playback equipment, and knowledge of
the brand of amplification used. How are these required to get the
sound of a live performance?

Subjectivists are way too trusting of impressions without isolating
other
factors (mood, mental state, etc.).

IN essence, I completely agree that it is possible to "hear" a
difference
when none exists in any kind of measurable way. But I also think the
converse is true - one may convince onesself that a difference is NOT
there
when one really is at least measurably so.

So what?

Aside from the minutiae of specific testing types (I don't intend
this to be
a discussion of DBT. ABX or whatever) - what do you guys think? Is
it time
for a new way - something that acknowledges the way people perceive
and
process data into a "live music experience?"

Depends on what you want to know. If what you want to know is whether
two sounds are distinguishable, then we seem to have perfectly adequate
tools to test that. Sadly, too many people would rather argue about
those tools than use them, or the knowledge gleaned from them.

If what you want to know is, what does it take to make a recording
sound like a live musical performance, you'd first need some general
agreement about what "a live musical performance" sounds like. I doubt
that's achievable. I suspect everyone has his own idea--or, since a
recording can never sound like a live performance, everyone is willing
to overlook different imperfections in the recording/playback.

Researchers on speaker sound seem to focus not on the "live" question,
but a much simpler one: What do listeners tend to prefer? Using
objective techniques you pooh-pooh above, they have discovered that
there are certain characteristics of reproduction that matter more than
others. Again, it's not clear that testing methodologies are holding us
back here.

bob

B&D wrote:
It seems to me after reading 2 books - "Mind Hacks" and "Mind Wide Open"
that the brain is not especially good at being objective with respect to
sensory input - and sound is especially bad (though sight isn't especially
good).

If that is true - then both subjectivists and objectivists are BOTH missing
some really big issues.

Objectivists are using repeatable measures and discarding a lot of other
influences that would be required to get the sound of a "live performance"

Subjectivists are way too trusting of impressions without isolating other
factors (mood, mental state, etc.).

IN essence, I completely agree that it is possible to "hear" a difference
when none exists in any kind of measurable way. But I also think the
converse is true - one may convince onesself that a difference is NOT there
when one really is at least measurably so.


But failing an controlled comparison does not necessarily
lead one to *stop* hearing differences between the two components under test.
All it can really do is make one more aware of the possibility
that what one is hearing, isn't 'true'.
From my own experiences with inadvertant 'phantom switching' -- where
I thought something had changed, with a concomitant 'obvious' change
in sound, only to find that nothign had really changed -- I know that
having experienced it once doens't mean I never experience it again!


Aside from the minutiae of specific testing types (I don't intend this to be
a discussion of DBT. ABX or whatever) - what do you guys think? Is it time
for a new way - something that acknowledges the way people perceive and
process data into a "live music experience?"

Do you know of any controlled comparison where the subjects actually
reported or gave evidence of
being 'convinced' of no difference, *before* the test?

All of the ones I know of seem to consist of people trying very hard
to confirm a perceived difference. In fact, an ABX test starts with listening to
A and B, in order for the listener to determine whether, in fact ,
he hears a difference when he *knows* the input is different.

Tom Nousaine of Sound & Vision, The Audio Critic, and The
Sensible Sound wrote:
wrote:
It used to be felt that a 95% probability of a specific result
not being due to chance was sufficient -- note that some
researchers still use this standard; Floyde Toole, for example,
refers to it in a recent paper on blind comparisons of
loudspeakers. But some skeptics felt that this was not
sufficently rigorous, so the demand evolved for blind tests
of audio components to reach the 99% confidence level, ie,
1% or less probability that the result was due to chance.

95% was and is the standard. No one ever suggested otherwise.

First, I didn't respond to this in my earlier response, because
I needed to do some research. Second, for an example of someone
using the 95% confidence level, in the Toole paper I referred to
above, Floyd writes that "The tiny lines on top of the bars show
the 95% confidence intervals. If the differences in the ratings
are greater than these lines, the differences are probably
statistically significant, and not due to chance."
(See http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121,
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf)

But you have said otherwise, Mr. Nousaine, that the normally
accepted 95% confidence level _is_ inappropriate for use in
some listening tests. Now, indeed you then go on to say that:

IMO unsubstantiated claims of sonics that have no electrical
and acoustical mechanism that would alter sound quality are
the responsibility of the claimant to prove.

And it was in this context that you said that the confidence limits
should be raised to 99%, and then, in the case of Same/Different
tests, that the bar should be raised further, as described in your
1990 BAS Speaker article. And this is presumably one reason why you
felt my scoring of 13/16 correct in a 1985 blind test involving
series electrolytic capacitors should be rejected, even though this
exceeds the 95% level and approaches the 99%. And also presumably
one of the reasons you rejected the results of a blind test I took
in 1984 using an ABX box where I identified absolute polarity 18
times out of 20, which exceeds the 99% confidence level. (You have
discussed both of these tests at length on r.a.h-e and r.a.o., so
I don't feel more specific references are necessary.)

As I said, if you keep raising the bar for the results of tests
that contradict your opinions, you will indeed end up with a
situation where nothing is proved audible. But this is bad
science.

But what I fail to understand is how the statistics _know_ what
the device under test is? How, when testing loudspeakers for
example, a 95% probability of the results not being due to random
guessing can be taken as probably meaning there is a real sonic
difference, but in the case of amplifiers it cannot.

Yes, in your _opinion_, Mr. Nousaine, there is no reason for
amplifiers to sound different, but as has been pointed out before,
your opinion carries no special weight over anyone else's.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

There is only one way that the average person can come close to the
sound of a live performance. That is using earphones with a binaural
recording. Any other way adds the variables of the room and speakers
plus what the recording engineers did. Perhaps in a setting like the
Skywalker Ranch studio, a realistic presentation is possible - depending
on the recording. What a high end system CAN provide (or any reasonable
system for that matter) is a good sounding facsimile of the original
performance. Many years ago I went to a showing of Cinerama in Boston.
The sound of the orchestra was so realistic that it seemed live. Of
course, everything was carefully set up to sound this way. This is far
beyond what is practical for the average audiophile.


---MIKE---

On 12/18/04 6:32 PM, in article ,
"
wrote:

ABX box where I identified absolute polarity 18
times out of 20, which exceeds the 99% confidence level.

Isn't 18/20 90%? Still not a bad result, and one that I would start paying
attention to absolute polarity, BTW, but what is 99% confidence?

Hi Ed,

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On 17 Dec 2004 21:21:39 GMT, "Tip"
wrote:

My post was a comment on how Randi, the publisher of
the absolute truth

And just when and where has Randi ever claimed to be
the "publisher of
the absolute truth"? In fact I've read his stuff for
years and it's
rather the opposite. So perhaps the poster will
provide a reference,
or admit that he is just name calling. I won't be
holding my breath
while I wait though.

That was the impression I got from those here who have
such high esteem for him. I never stated that Randi
himself made such a claim (so perhaps the poster will
provide a reference...). If that's what you consider
to be name-calling, then I admit it, though it appears
that you have insulted him more than I ;^) I
encourage Randi in his endeavors; I just think he (and
others) could have handled this better. Sorry if I got
your dander up.

Regards,
Tip

wrote:

---MIKE--- wrote:
Since the great majority of the advertisers are promoting over
priced equipment and "snake oil", for the magazine to engage in
blind testing would discredit or offend these advertisers.

I think it fair to point out that the manufacturer of Shakti Stones,
to the best of my knowledgee, has not advertised in Stereophile, and
that Tice, outraged by Stereophile's coverage of the "Clock,"
canceled all its advertising. It would seem, therefore, that I am
not very good at following your strategy, Mike.
Or perhaps you're wrong.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


More likely John, your coverage of the "Clock" _clearly_ shows you
just how much damage that your publishing the _truth_ about these
snake oil products will do to your advertising revenue. Since your
magazine obviously makes you a good living, I cannot say I really
blame you for your decision to defer on these foolish products. It
does, however, prove that despite your posturing what truly motivates
your editorial and financial decisions.

I hope topics like these will always continue here on RAHE as they are
truly enlightening and extremely amusing!

Richard

Jumping in late as usual!

On 18 Dec 2004 23:32:41 GMT, wrote:

But what I fail to understand is how the statistics _know_ what
the device under test is? How, when testing loudspeakers for
example, a 95% probability of the results not being due to random
guessing can be taken as probably meaning there is a real sonic
difference, but in the case of amplifiers it cannot.

Yes, in your _opinion_, Mr. Nousaine, there is no reason for
amplifiers to sound different, but as has been pointed out before,
your opinion carries no special weight over anyone else's.

I can't speak for Tom, but there has been in existence for about six
years, a $5,000 prize awaiting anyone who can differentiate two cables
in a level-matched DBT, in any system of their choice and with any
music of their choice. The bar has been set at 15 or more correct out
of 20 trials, and that has not changed. Interestingly, despite many
claims of 'night and day' differences, there have been no contenders.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote in message
...
Tom Nousaine of Sound & Vision, The Audio Critic, and The
Sensible Sound wrote:
wrote:
It used to be felt that a 95% probability of a specific result
not being due to chance was sufficient -- note that some
researchers still use this standard; Floyde Toole, for example,
refers to it in a recent paper on blind comparisons of
loudspeakers. But some skeptics felt that this was not
sufficently rigorous, so the demand evolved for blind tests
of audio components to reach the 99% confidence level, ie,
1% or less probability that the result was due to chance.

95% was and is the standard. No one ever suggested otherwise.

First, I didn't respond to this in my earlier response, because
I needed to do some research. Second, for an example of someone
using the 95% confidence level, in the Toole paper I referred to
above, Floyd writes that "The tiny lines on top of the bars show
the 95% confidence intervals. If the differences in the ratings
are greater than these lines, the differences are probably
statistically significant, and not due to chance."
(See http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121,
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf)

But you have said otherwise, Mr. Nousaine, that the normally
accepted 95% confidence level _is_ inappropriate for use in
some listening tests. Now, indeed you then go on to say that:

IMO unsubstantiated claims of sonics that have no electrical
and acoustical mechanism that would alter sound quality are
the responsibility of the claimant to prove.

And it was in this context that you said that the confidence limits
should be raised to 99%, and then, in the case of Same/Different
tests, that the bar should be raised further, as described in your
1990 BAS Speaker article. And this is presumably one reason why you
felt my scoring of 13/16 correct in a 1985 blind test involving
series electrolytic capacitors should be rejected, even though this
exceeds the 95% level and approaches the 99%. And also presumably
one of the reasons you rejected the results of a blind test I took
in 1984 using an ABX box where I identified absolute polarity 18
times out of 20, which exceeds the 99% confidence level. (You have
discussed both of these tests at length on r.a.h-e and r.a.o., so
I don't feel more specific references are necessary.)

As I said, if you keep raising the bar for the results of tests
that contradict your opinions, you will indeed end up with a
situation where nothing is proved audible. But this is bad
science.

But what I fail to understand is how the statistics _know_ what
the device under test is? How, when testing loudspeakers for
example, a 95% probability of the results not being due to random
guessing can be taken as probably meaning there is a real sonic
difference, but in the case of amplifiers it cannot.

Yes, in your _opinion_, Mr. Nousaine, there is no reason for
amplifiers to sound different, but as has been pointed out before,
your opinion carries no special weight over anyone else's.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

It's all probability. Nothing sudden happens at the 95% confidence
level. But if it's difficult or expensive to run tests, there is a
premium on getting results as soon as possible. For this reason
statisticians have more or less agreed to accept results with a 95%
confidence as indicative of positive results. Note, however, that if
13 people take such a test, there's an even chance that at least one
of them is going to have positive results to the 95% level--even if
there's nothing there!
So, if you keep taking blind tests, hoping to get positive results to
the 95% confidence level, you will likely be rewarded with such
results within the first 13 attempts.

Norm Strong

On 12/19/04 11:06 AM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On 18 Dec 2004 23:32:41 GMT, wrote:

But what I fail to understand is how the statistics _know_ what
the device under test is? How, when testing loudspeakers for
example, a 95% probability of the results not being due to random
guessing can be taken as probably meaning there is a real sonic
difference, but in the case of amplifiers it cannot.

Yes, in your _opinion_, Mr. Nousaine, there is no reason for
amplifiers to sound different, but as has been pointed out before,
your opinion carries no special weight over anyone else's.

I can't speak for Tom, but there has been in existence for about six
years, a $5,000 prize awaiting anyone who can differentiate two cables
in a level-matched DBT, in any system of their choice and with any
music of their choice. The bar has been set at 15 or more correct out
of 20 trials, and that has not changed. Interestingly, despite many
claims of 'night and day' differences, there have been no contenders.

Perhaps Randi should review the experiment write up and cut the check?

On 19 Dec 2004 16:00:12 GMT, "Tip" wrote:

My post was a comment on how Randi, the publisher of
the absolute truth

And just when and where has Randi ever claimed to be
the "publisher of the absolute truth"?

That was the impression I got from those here who have
such high esteem for him.

I've read all those posts and didn't get any such impression. I don't
think that any reasonably rational person who read them without
predjudice could get any such impression.

In fact I'd say myself that it's the purveyors of so-called
"subjectivism" here, if anyone, who claim to be the "purveyors of
absolute truth". They have beliefs about sound quality that, it
appears to me, they won't change no matter how much evidence
accumulates against them.

Randi, on the other hand, is willing to let these people convince him
otherwise by a simple and straightforward test. He's willing to
change his mind if the evidence supports that. So are all the
so-called "objectivists" here as far as I can see. All they ask for
is some actual evidence. Evidence which the other viewpoint seems to
be willing to go to great lengths of rhetoric to justify not
providing.

If that's what you consider to be name-calling, then I admit it

I think any reasonably disinterested party familiar with the common
falacies of argument would call it that.

though it appears that you have insulted him more than I ;^)

Huh?

I encourage Randi in his endeavors; I just think he (and
others) could have handled this better.

In retrospect, on just about any issue at all, it will virtually
unanimously be seen that all sides could have handled things better.
Thus, your comment above appears to me to be devoid of content.

Sorry if I got your dander up.

My "dander" has nothing to do with it. Your name calling did.

Ed

On 19 Dec 2004 15:56:47 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 12/18/04 6:32 PM, in article ,
"
wrote:

ABX box where I identified absolute polarity 18
times out of 20, which exceeds the 99% confidence level.

Isn't 18/20 90%? Still not a bad result, and one that I would start paying
attention to absolute polarity, BTW, but what is 99% confidence?

No, you need to look up basic statistics. 18 correct out of twenty
'coin tosses' is *way* better than 90% probability of a detectable
difference.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

B&D wrote:
On 12/18/04 6:32 PM, in article ,
"

wrote:

ABX box where I identified absolute polarity 18
times out of 20, which exceeds the 99% confidence level.

Isn't 18/20 90%? Still not a bad result, and one that I would start
paying
attention to absolute polarity, BTW, but what is 99% confidence?

It is a concept of statistics, and has nothing to do with the
percentage you get right. What 99% confidence means is that we can be
99% sure that you did not get that great score by mere lucky guessing.
95% and 99% are the most commonly used benchmarks. (A basic rule of
statistics is that you have to declare what confidence level you will
accept *before* you do the test.)

I'm going from memory here, but I think that for 20 trials, 15 correct
would pass the 95% confidence level, and 16 the 99% confidence level.

It's important to remember that someone does occasionally guess very
lucky. And, as Norm says, the more people who try, the more likely it
is that someone will guess lucky enough to top the confidence level.
When someone does score very high, it's a good idea to re-test them to
see if it was just a fluke.

bob

What you say is true but binaural has spatial errors that ruin it for me. The
available binaural recordings and even recordings made with my onw ears and
HRTF only work satisfactorily when the sound is in the rear hemisphere (where
the sound is behind the listener.) Otherwise there is no specificity to the
spatial characteristics; you cannot tell where the source is in the frontal
plane.

B&D wrote:
On 12/19/04 11:06 AM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:


On 18 Dec 2004 23:32:41 GMT, wrote:


But what I fail to understand is how the statistics _know_ what
the device under test is? How, when testing loudspeakers for
example, a 95% probability of the results not being due to random
guessing can be taken as probably meaning there is a real sonic
difference, but in the case of amplifiers it cannot.

Yes, in your _opinion_, Mr. Nousaine, there is no reason for
amplifiers to sound different, but as has been pointed out before,
your opinion carries no special weight over anyone else's.

I can't speak for Tom, but there has been in existence for about six
years, a $5,000 prize awaiting anyone who can differentiate two cables
in a level-matched DBT, in any system of their choice and with any
music of their choice. The bar has been set at 15 or more correct out
of 20 trials, and that has not changed. Interestingly, despite many
claims of 'night and day' differences, there have been no contenders.


Perhaps Randi should review the experiment write up and cut the check?

Why would Randi cut the check? Does this have anything to do with Shatki
stones? Note that no one even attempts to pass this simple cable blind
test and claim the $5K. As a self-claimed engineer, do you believe that
Shatki stones make a sonic difference? Do you believe that Randi would
have to cut the check because someone passes the test? And tell us why.

wrote:
Tom Nousaine of Sound & Vision, The Audio Critic, and The
Sensible Sound wrote:
wrote:
It used to be felt that a 95% probability of a specific result
not being due to chance was sufficient -- note that some
researchers still use this standard; Floyde Toole, for example,
refers to it in a recent paper on blind comparisons of
loudspeakers. But some skeptics felt that this was not
sufficently rigorous, so the demand evolved for blind tests
of audio components to reach the 99% confidence level, ie,
1% or less probability that the result was due to chance.

95% was and is the standard. No one ever suggested otherwise.

First, I didn't respond to this in my earlier response, because
I needed to do some research. Second, for an example of someone
using the 95% confidence level, in the Toole paper I referred to
above, Floyd writes that "The tiny lines on top of the bars show
the 95% confidence intervals. If the differences in the ratings
are greater than these lines, the differences are probably
statistically significant, and not due to chance."
(See http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121,
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf)

But you have said otherwise, Mr. Nousaine, that the normally
accepted 95% confidence level _is_ inappropriate for use in
some listening tests. Now, indeed you then go on to say that:

IMO unsubstantiated claims of sonics that have no electrical
and acoustical mechanism that would alter sound quality are
the responsibility of the claimant to prove.

And it was in this context that you said that the confidence limits
should be raised to 99%, and then, in the case of Same/Different
tests, that the bar should be raised further, as described in your
1990 BAS Speaker article. And this is presumably one reason why you
felt my scoring of 13/16 correct in a 1985 blind test involving
series electrolytic capacitors should be rejected, even though this
exceeds the 95% level and approaches the 99%. And also presumably
one of the reasons you rejected the results of a blind test I took
in 1984 using an ABX box where I identified absolute polarity 18
times out of 20, which exceeds the 99% confidence level. (You have
discussed both of these tests at length on r.a.h-e and r.a.o., so
I don't feel more specific references are necessary.)

Nice job of obfuscation. I don't accept your 13/16 as useful "evidence" because
as you have pointed out there were clear signs of bias in the experiment. This
is a different issue.

Further those results were part of a larger body of data and you were
apparently searching for piece data that fit your preferred outcome in a null
experiment to make a declaration of positive.

That's a technique that paranormal psychology advocates employ. Further you
alone appeared to be able to "hear" capacitors .... in an experiment that YOU
designed. And those results have never been replicated.

Further isn't it interesting that you alone took the test twice (in subsequent
sessions as I recall) and even YOU called for more research at the time BUT
later you want everybody ELSE to accpet those results as a definitive example
of capacitor sound.

Yet, you seem quite amenable to re-casting these results as though it were a
positive experiment when at best it could be said that this experiment did no
more than point to further experimentation.

As to absolute polarity exactly what sources were used. How was the experiment
time-sync administered. You repeated the experiment and what were your results
then?

And why didn't Dick Greiner's work on absolute polarity (where recordings were
made to assure the polarity was completely documented) confirm those results?

You are so concerned in arguing significance levels that you conveniently gloss
over other important issues.

And you fail to consider that IF a certain sound quality were indeed
acoustically based then there is noreason that a fair unbiased experiment with
selected program material shouldn't be able to return a 99% confidence level.
But I accept 95% as a reasonable confidence interval.



As I said, if you keep raising the bar for the results of tests
that contradict your opinions, you will indeed end up with a
situation where nothing is proved audible. But this is bad
science.

What is bad science is digging through data in search of bits of data that seem
to point toward a preferred outcome and then declaring results that aren't
supported by the actual data. And failure to note following experiments that
haven't replicated those results.


But what I fail to understand is how the statistics _know_ what
the device under test is? How, when testing loudspeakers for
example, a 95% probability of the results not being due to random
guessing can be taken as probably meaning there is a real sonic
difference, but in the case of amplifiers it cannot.

Not sure of what your beef might be here.? If you cpuld produce an unbiased
experiment that is replicable to support your case that'sfine with me (95% OK.)
But in the last 30 years experimental results do not support your hoped-for
outcomes. That's not my problem and because the high-end has never been able to
conduct experiments that do that's uour problem and my advice is that you stop
arguing over 15 year old experiments and get busy with some research.

Yes, in your _opinion_, Mr. Nousaine, there is no reason for
amplifiers to sound different, but as has been pointed out before,
your opinion carries no special weight over anyone else's.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

The published results are not my opinion. And these issues are about real
evidence and just because you don't like it means it's your obligation to
produce some and stop re-interpreting history and suggesting that your
"opinion" carries special weight.