Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:19:05 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
wrote: On Jan 17, 12:14*pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote: Shhhh! said: So which is it going to be John, are you going for the million bucks or the Nobel prize? Do you always have to resort to strawmen when someone rattles one of your pet beliefs, GOIA? Yes, of course he does. It's part of the Krooborg's firmware. Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal? At least he has stopped claiming that his neglected, rarely updated, almost-never-promoted websites get as much traffic as Stereophile's or that his recordings are as commercially available as my own. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Now there'sa measurement of validity of argument that's really convincing. Mine is bigger than yours. Forget that there are statistical methods to answer these questions. Really on the word of the guy selling them. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:44:05 -0500, Walt
wrote: John Atkinson wrote: Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal? Ok. So you've been quoted in the WSJ. So have Uri Geller and Ken Lay. What's your point? So has Osama Bin Laden. The point is that he's devoid of a sound argument. //Walt |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On Jan 17, 5:15*pm, Oliver Costich wrote:
In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of listeners more than half can pick the better cable. So, I'd say "that's hardly that". I'm curious what percent of the "best informed" got. I mean, you could mix in hot dog vendors, the deaf, people who might try to fail just to be contrary, you, and so on, and get different results. Apparently JA and MF did better than random chance. The real issue to me is "who cares". People who want expensive cables, wires, cars, clothes, or whatever, will buy them. People who want to tell other people what they should or shouldn't buy will come out of the woodwork to bitch about it. ;-) This seems to have really gotten your dander up. Why? |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On Jan 17, 5:25*pm, Oliver Costich wrote:
Don't count on it. *From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. *39 trials. 50-50 chance. *How statistically significant is 61%? *You do the math. Why is this important to you, so much so that you have blasted so many posts in this thread? Is this really, really important? (HINT: it ain't.) OK then. ;-) |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Shhhh! said to McInturd: The real issue to me is "who cares". People who want expensive cables, wires, cars, clothes, or whatever, will buy them. People who want to tell other people what they should or shouldn't buy will come out of the woodwork to bitch about it. ;-) This seems to have really gotten your dander up. Why? Because John Atkinson is the Devil. (The real one, not that poseur who called himself Roy Briggs.) |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Oliver Costich wrote: Back to reality: 61% correct in one experiment fails to reject that they can't tell the difference. 61% is statistically close enough as doesn't matter to pure 50-50% random choice. Try flicking coins and see if you get a perfect 50-50 distribution for any given sample size. You WON'T. In fact pure 50-50 would be the exception by a mile. No, 61% is as good as proof that there's NO difference. Which there ISN'T of course. Copper is copper is copper. High pricing, alleged magic and phoney marketing doesn't make if any different. Graham |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
John Atkinson wrote: but what was later revealed to be the more expensive cable sounded less congested at signal peaks. CHARLATAN ! What the ****** is 'congested*. Another stupid means-nothing word like speed, pace, delivery, darkness, depth et al. Of course if you used a technical word it would be disprovable so you LIE to promote this idiocy using made-up phoney concepts that you use to bamboozle and confuse the public with. Graham |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Poopie brayed hysterically: but what was later revealed to be the more expensive cable sounded less congested at signal peaks. CHARLATAN ! What the ****** is 'congested*. Another stupid means-nothing word like speed, pace, delivery, darkness, depth et al. Of course if you used a technical word it would be disprovable so you LIE to promote this idiocy using made-up phoney concepts that you use to bamboozle and confuse the public with. Poopie, in all seriousness, are you tanked? If not, maybe you should get a rabies booster shot. You're raving like a loonyborg. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On Jan 17, 4:04 pm, Walt wrote:
John Atkinson wrote: The listener didn't know what he was listening to or comparing. All he had was a remote with 2 buttons, labeled A and B. All he could see were the loudspeakers and the amplifier volume display. Levels were matched. The listener listened on his own and could switch between A and B for as long as he wished. He didn't know what was being compared until after he had handed in his results. Of its type, it was quite a well-designed test. So why were there two CD players if you were comparing speaker cables? I have no idea. I didn't design the test, not did I look at the playback system. I was a listening subject. If you read the article in the WSJ, you will see that Lee Gomes did other comparisons, not just cables. But the only test I took part in involved cables.. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
"George M. Middius" wrote: Poopie brayed hysterically: but what was later revealed to be the more expensive cable sounded less congested at signal peaks. CHARLATAN ! What the ****** is 'congested*. Another stupid means-nothing word like speed, pace, delivery, darkness, depth et al. Of course if you used a technical word it would be disprovable so you LIE to promote this idiocy using made-up phoney concepts that you use to bamboozle and confuse the public with. Poopie, in all seriousness, are you tanked? If not, maybe you should get a rabies booster shot. You're raving like a loonyborg. **** OFF |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote Arny Krueger wrote: More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than defective double blind tests. From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound." Only 5% ? Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination. How can that be so? From the article, it said, "... 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." At what percentage do you consider it imagination, and when it is not. Somehow, this showdown at the CES looked like a DBT sans blackbox. Could it be that due to poor component mismatches, the system would have sounded better and higher than just 5% ? 0% seems about right. That would be about right for someone like Howard ferstler who has a known, and by his own admission, hearing deficiency. When it comes to discerning differences, Ferstler gets 0. You put two and two together and you'll see why he's fuming all the time. snip I recall some cables costing more made my system sounding less natural. Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination. I don't follow your thought because you are abviously keep on guessing as you go. If you're not guessing, can you form realistic idea exposing that the percieved differences I heard while swapping cables did not physically exist ? |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Oliver Costich wrote:
Very little of the claims about people being able to discern differences in cables is supported by such testing. I take it you don't recommend testing for such purposes. Ok then... |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Oliver Costich wrote:
Walt wrote: vinylanach wrote: So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon? Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50 chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math. (HINT: it ain't.) Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) .5. Null hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level. Well yes, Mr. Costich, the test results aren't scientifically valid but it didn't disproved that the sound differences heard by participants did not physically exist. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Oliver Costich wrote:
Now there'sa measurement of validity of argument that's really convincing. Mine is bigger than yours. Mr. Costich, there is no such valid *measurement* that will *validly* measure a response against strawman arguments. Forget that there are statistical methods to answer these questions. Rely on the word of the guy selling them. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Oliver Costich wrote:
Walt wrote: John Atkinson wrote: Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal? Ok. So you've been quoted in the WSJ. So have Uri Geller and Ken Lay. What's your point? So has Osama Bin Laden. The point is that he's devoid of a sound argument. Mr. Costich, there is no sound argument to improve upon a strawman arguments. It just doesn't exist. //Walt Incidentally Mr. Costich, how well do you know Arny Krueger if you don't mind me asking so. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Oliver Costich wrote:
I think that the Nobel Prize also pays a million bucks. I'd go for the double play:-) What sort of test should one have in mind for this type of opportunity to ensure success, Mr. Costich ? |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Shhhh! wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote: In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of listeners more than half can pick the better cable. So, I'd say "that's hardly that". I'm curious what percent of the "best informed" got. I mean, you could mix in hot dog vendors, the deaf, people who might try to fail just to be contrary, you, and so on, and get different results. Well asked. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
"Oliver Costich" wrote in
message On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:32:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Somewhere in your college education, you skipped the class in logic, I guess. In my several years of graduate school in mathemeatics, I skipped neither the logic nor the statistics classes. Nor did I. I did extensive undergraduate and postgraduate work in math and statistics. One of the inspirations for the development of double blind testing was my wife who has a degree in experimental psychology. Another was a friend with a degree in mathematics. Logic is on the side of not making decisions about human behavior without sufficient testing using good design of experiment method and statistical analysis. 4 of the 6 ABX partners had technical degrees ranging from BS to PhD. Very little of the claims about people being able to discern differences in cables is supported by such testing. When it comes to audible differences between cables that is not supported by science and math, which is what this thread is about, none of it is supported by well-designed experiments. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
In article , Oliver Costich wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:56:23 -0500, Walt wrote: wrote: On Jan 16, 10:52?am, John Atkinson wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in... Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable." So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon? Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50 chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math. (HINT: it ain't.) Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) .5. Null hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level. Welcome to the group! Out of curiosity, what significance level does 61% support? You haven't formed the question properly. 61% is statisically signifcant or not, depending on the total number of trials. |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message On Jan 17, 12:14 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote: Shhhh! said: So which is it going to be John, are you going for the million bucks or the Nobel prize? Do you always have to resort to strawmen when someone rattles one of your pet beliefs, GOIA? Yes, of course he does. It's part of the Krooborg's firmware. Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal? This is not logical discussion or even just rhetoric, this is abuse. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Why are Golden Ears Congenitally Ignorant?
"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: JBorg, Jr. wrote Arny Krueger wrote: More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than defective double blind tests. From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound." Only 5% ? Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination. How can that be so? From the article, it said, "... 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." At what percentage do you consider it imagination, and when it is not. Well Borg, this post is more evidence that ignorance of basic statistics is a common problem among golden ears. It's not a well-formed question. It's not the percentage of correct answers that defines statistical signicance, its both the percentage of correct answers and the total number of trials. And, that's all based on the idea that basic experiment was well-designed. The most fundamental question is whether the experiment was well-designed. Somehow, this showdown at the CES looked like a DBT sans blackbox. Nope. This comment is even more evidence that ignorance of basic experimental design is a common problem among golden ears. The basic rule of double blind testing is that no clue other than the independent variable is available to the listener. In this alleged test, the person who controlled the cables interacted with the listeners. In a proper DBT, nobody or anything that could possibly reveal the indentity of the object chosen for comparison is acessible in any way to the listener. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
Well yes, Mr. Costich, the test results aren't scientifically valid but it didn't disproved that the sound differences heard by participants did not physically exist. That was another potential flaw in the tests. I see no controls that ensured that the listeners heard the indentically same selections of music. Therefore, the listeners may have heard differences that did physically exist - unfortunately they were due to random choices by the experimenter, not audible differences that were inherent in the cables. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Oliver Costich" wrote in message On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:32:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Somewhere in your college education, you skipped the class in logic, I guess. In my several years of graduate school in mathemeatics, I skipped neither the logic nor the statistics classes. Nor did I. I did extensive undergraduate and postgraduate work in math and statistics. One of the inspirations for the development of double blind testing was my wife who has a degree in experimental psychology. Another was a friend with a degree in mathematics. Logic is on the side of not making decisions about human behavior without sufficient testing using good design of experiment method and statistical analysis. 4 of the 6 ABX partners had technical degrees ranging from BS to PhD. Very little of the claims about people being able to discern differences in cables is supported by such testing. When it comes to audible differences between cables that is not supported by science and math, which is what this thread is about, none of it is supported by well-designed experiments. Well, then rather than "braying and flaying" why don't you communicate the statistics. As reported 61% of 39 people chose the correct cable. That according to my calculator was 24 people. According to my Binomial Distribution Table, that provides less than a 5% chance of error...in other words the percentage is statistically significant. In fact, it is significant at the 98% level....a 2% chance of error. Had one more chosen correctly, the error probability would have been less than 1%, or "beyond a shadow of a doubt". So presumably John and Michael did at least this well to be singled out by the reporter. Is this why you are desparately flaying at the test, Arny...inventing "possibibilites" without a single shred of evidence to support your conjectures? Because you know (if you truly do know math and statistics) that the test statistics hold up (but don't have the integrity to say so)? |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , Oliver Costich wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:56:23 -0500, Walt wrote: wrote: On Jan 16, 10:52?am, John Atkinson wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in... Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable." So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon? Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50 chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math. (HINT: it ain't.) Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) .5. Null hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level. Welcome to the group! Out of curiosity, what significance level does 61% support? You haven't formed the question properly. 61% is statisically signifcant or not, depending on the total number of trials. Okay, in 39 trials, what level of significance does 61% indicate? In this case nothing, because the basic experiment seems to be so flawed. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
Incidentally Mr. Costich, how well do you know Arny Krueger if you don't mind me asking so. I seriously doubt that we've ever seen each other or corresponded, other than what you see here on Usenet. Paranoid much? |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
As reported 61% of 39 people chose the correct cable. That according to my calculator was 24 people. As reported, the experiment was invalid. No further analysis is necesary. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , Oliver Costich wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:56:23 -0500, Walt wrote: wrote: On Jan 16, 10:52?am, John Atkinson wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in. .. Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable." So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon? Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50 chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math. (HINT: it ain't.) Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) .5. Null hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level. Welcome to the group! Out of curiosity, what significance level does 61% support? You haven't formed the question properly. 61% is statisically signifcant or not, depending on the total number of trials. Okay, in 39 trials, what level of significance does 61% indicate? In this case nothing, because the basic experiment seems to be so flawed. In a perfectly designed test with 39 trials, what level of significance does 61% indicate? It is on the web - do your own research. |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
On Jan 17, 5:25 pm, Oliver Costich wrote: Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50 chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math. Why is this important to you, so much so that you have blasted so many posts in this thread? I've blasted "so many posts"? WTF? I count three. This will make four. You must have me confused with somebody else. //Walt |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
"Walt" wrote in message
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote: On Jan 17, 5:25 pm, Oliver Costich wrote: Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50 chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math. Why is this important to you, so much so that you have blasted so many posts in this thread? I've blasted "so many posts"? WTF? I count three. This will make four. You must have me confused with somebody else. I think I counted 7 posts to this thread from ****R. The interesting question about the Middiot Clique is which of them is less self-aware. Right now Stephen, Jenn, ****R and the Middiot himself are duking it out for the dishonor. ;-) |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On 17 Ian, 20:17, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote: Clyde Slick said: Arny dreams of voltmeters. That is the extent of Arny's imagination. My imagination centers upon a certain city bus I think the repetitions have conditioned Turdy to flinch when he detects a bus rolling in his vicinity. I switched my bet to "getting electrocuted by lightning". The odds on this bet are considerably better. Personally, I like choking on a ham sandwich. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On 18 Ian, 00:15, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:52:40 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in... Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable." So that's that, then. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile From the article: Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally good. I couldn't hear a difference and was a wee bit suspicious that anyone else could. But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable. Back to reality: 61% correct in one experiment fails to reject that they can't tell the difference. If the claim is that listeners can tell the better cable more the half the time, then to support that you have to be able to reject that the in the population of all audio interested listeners, the correct guesses occur half the time or less. 61% of 39 doesn't do it. (Null hypothesis is p=.5, alternative hypothesis is p.5. The null hypthesis cannot be rejected with the sample data given.) In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of listeners more than half can pick the better cable. So, I'd say "that's hardly that". you seem to be mixing difference with preference, you reference both, for the same test. And just what is the general population of listeners. Are you testing the 99% who don't give a rat's ass anyway? If so, so what. Or are you testing people who actually care. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On 18 Ian, 00:20, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:32:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message m... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message om "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in... Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable." It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who is ignorant of the well-known failings of single blind tests. Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level of *assurance* that the test is fully blind. No, DBT it removes a relevant significant variable that is well-known to exist. No, Arny. *That *could* or *may* exist. Saying that takes a ton of suspended disbelief. But from reading your posts over the years Harry, I'm sure you have it in you. Somewhere in your college education, you skipped the class in logic, I guess. In my several years of graduate school in mathemeatics, I skipped neither the logic nor the statistics classes. Logic is on the side of not making decisions about human behavior without sufficient testing using good design of experiment method and statistical analysis. Very little of the claims about people being able to discern differences in cables is supported by such testing. Harry, it doesn't take a degree in philosophy to understand proper experiemental design. However Harry, its not your fault that your knowlege about experimental design was based on OJT at what, a cereal company? Just about one of the most sophisticated companies in the world when it came to consumer testing....yeah, over ten years of test planning, design, and interpretation. That's strange considering all of your rants against their objectivity. Beats ashtrays. I have no idea how that relates to the current discussion. Since I've never smoked, my interest in ashtrays could be less, but I don't know how.- Ascunde citatul - - Afișare text în citat -- Ascunde citatul - - Afișare text în citat - you missed the session on common sense, too bad. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On 18 Ian, 14:20, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
One of the inspirations for the development of double blind testing was my wife I am touched that you find your wife to be such an inspiriational experience. BTW. just what other woman did you double blind test her against? |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On 18 Ian, 14:23, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal? This is not logical discussion or even just rhetoric, this is abuse. HUH????? |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Clyde Slick said: Arny dreams of voltmeters. That is the extent of Arny's imagination. My imagination centers upon a certain city bus I think the repetitions have conditioned Turdy to flinch when he detects a bus rolling in his vicinity. I switched my bet to "getting electrocuted by lightning". The odds on this bet are considerably better. Personally, I like choking on a ham sandwich. It's your money to risk as you choose. The bookie I use doesn't offer odds on that possibility, but he does offer a line on the Krooborg drowning in a municipal sewage tank. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
Clyde Slick said to McInturd: Are you testing the 99% who don't give a rat's ass anyway? If so, so what. Or are you testing people who actually care. Good point to bring out on, LOt"S. The 'borg viewpoint is that nobody should be allowed to care about things that 'borgs can't afford to own. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:42:13 -0800, "JBorg, Jr."
wrote: Oliver Costich wrote: Very little of the claims about people being able to discern differences in cables is supported by such testing. I take it you don't recommend testing for such purposes. Ok then... I don't recommend badly designed tests and I don't recommend making statistically invalid claims based on any kind of test. But the only way to statistically support (or reject) claims about human behavior is through well designed experiments and real statistical analysis. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:10:59 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Oliver Costich" wrote in message On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:32:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Somewhere in your college education, you skipped the class in logic, I guess. In my several years of graduate school in mathemeatics, I skipped neither the logic nor the statistics classes. Nor did I. I did extensive undergraduate and postgraduate work in math and statistics. One of the inspirations for the development of double blind testing was my wife who has a degree in experimental psychology. Another was a friend with a degree in mathematics. Logic is on the side of not making decisions about human behavior without sufficient testing using good design of experiment method and statistical analysis. 4 of the 6 ABX partners had technical degrees ranging from BS to PhD. Very little of the claims about people being able to discern differences in cables is supported by such testing. When it comes to audible differences between cables that is not supported by science and math, which is what this thread is about, none of it is supported by well-designed experiments. Well, then rather than "braying and flaying" why don't you communicate the statistics. As reported 61% of 39 people chose the correct cable. That according to my calculator was 24 people. According to my Binomial Distribution Table, that provides less than a 5% chance of error...in other words the percentage is statistically significant. In fact, it is significant at the 98% level....a 2% chance of error. I did in other posts but here's a summary. Hypothesis test of claim that p.5 (p is the probability that more the half of listeners can do better than guessing). Null hypothesis is p=.5. The P-value is .0748 but would need to be below .05 to support the claim at the 95% Confidence Level. You rounded off .054 to .05. You would need to get a probability of less than .05 to assert the claim, and NO, .054 isn't "close enough" for statistical validity. I don't know where you got the 98% from. Had one more chosen correctly, the error probability would have been less than 1%, or "beyond a shadow of a doubt". If it had been 25 instead of 24 it would have supported the claim at the 95% level but not at 97% or higher. But that's the point. You don't get to wiggle around the numbers so you get what you want. If it had been one less, you you still make the claim? What about if 39 more people did the experiment and only 20 got it right. You can only draw so much support for a claim from a single sample. And nothing that can only be tested statistically is "beyond a shadow of a doubt" unless you mean "supported at a very high level of confidence" which isn't the case here, even with another correct "guess". Statistics can only be used to support a claim up to the probability (1-confidence level) of falsely supporting an invalid conclusion. The underlying model for determining whether binary selection is random is tossing a coin. Tossing a coin 39 times and getting 24 heads doesn't mean the coin is baised towards heads. So presumably John and Michael did at least this well to be singled out by the reporter. Who obviously was deeply knowledgable about statistics. Is this why you are desparately flaying at the test, Arny...inventing "possibibilites" without a single shred of evidence to support your conjectures? Because you know (if you truly do know math and statistics) that the test statistics hold up (but don't have the integrity to say so)? |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message om As reported 61% of 39 people chose the correct cable. That according to my calculator was 24 people. As reported, the experiment was invalid. No further analysis is necesary. Bertrand Russell once pointed out that one of Augustine's seven arguments for God's existence was valid. That doesn't mena God exists. Similarly, even if this experiment were valid, the data doesn't support the claim. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Cable Test at CES
On 18 Ian, 18:00, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:10:59 -0500, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Oliver Costich" wrote in messagenews:7eovo350khiqqsqqk5iisucqn7s7d1pd8s@4ax .com On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:32:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Somewhere in your college education, you skipped the class in logic, I guess. In my several years of graduate school in mathemeatics, I skipped neither the logic nor the statistics classes. Nor did I. I did extensive undergraduate and postgraduate work in math and statistics. One of the inspirations for the development of double blind testing was my wife who has a degree in experimental psychology. Another was a friend with a degree in mathematics. Logic is on the side of not making decisions about human behavior without sufficient testing using good design of experiment method and statistical analysis. 4 of the 6 ABX partners had technical degrees ranging from BS to PhD. Very little of the claims about people being able to discern differences in cables is supported by such testing. When it comes to audible differences between cables that is not supported by science and math, which is what this thread is about, none of it is supported by well-designed experiments. Well, then rather than "braying and flaying" why don't you communicate the statistics. As reported 61% of 39 people chose the correct cable. *That according to my calculator was 24 people. According to my Binomial Distribution Table, that provides less than a 5% chance of error...in other words the percentage is statistically significant. *In fact, it is significant at the 98% level....a 2% chance of error. I did in other posts but here's a summary. Hypothesis test of claim that p.5 (p is the probability that more the half of listeners can do better than guessing). Null hypothesis is p=.5. The P-value is .0748 but would need to be below .05 to support the claim at the 95% Confidence Level. You rounded off .054 to .05. You would need to get a probability of less than .05 to assert the claim, and NO, .054 isn't "close enough" for statistical validity. *I don't know where you got the 98% from. Had one more chosen correctly, the error probability would have been less than 1%, or "beyond a shadow of a doubt". If it had been 25 instead of 24 it would have supported the claim at the 95% level but not at 97% or higher. But that's the point. You don't get to wiggle around the numbers so you get what you want. If it had been one less, you you still make the claim? What about if 39 more people did the experiment and only 20 got it right. You can only draw so much support for a claim from a single sample. And nothing that can only be tested statistically is "beyond a shadow of a doubt" unless you mean "supported at a very high level of confidence" which isn't the case here, even with another correct "guess". Statistics can only be used to support a claim up to the probability (1-confidence level) of falsely supporting an invalid conclusion. The underlying model for determining whether binary selection is random is tossing a coin. Tossing a coin 39 times and getting 24 heads doesn't mean the coin is baised towards heads. As a practical matter as a "CONSUMER", I don't really care whether or not a statistically relevant number of people, from a sample of people I care nothing about, heard differences, or had a preference. What matters too me, as a "CONSUMER", is what my particular preference is. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Blind listening test! | High End Audio | |||
anyone in LA want to help me do a blind test? | High End Audio | |||
Blind Test of Power Cords | High End Audio | |||
A Blind Test of Cables | High End Audio | |||
Help requested on blind cable test | High End Audio |