Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote


Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If
you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If
the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
prove them either right or wrong.

How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?

If they can't identify the difference they claim under double blind
conditions then they are wrong.

Easy.

How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the abilities
of listeners?

If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then
they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night
and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't
actually *know* what's connected.


As you know, you and Don Pearce are both contradicting one another
here who stated earlier that the DBT is a test about identified differences
only and NOT a test about the ability to identify.

Simply put, in your commentary above, you're attributing the incorrect
reason to uphold your conclusion -- and that conclusion being base
from the resulting consequenses of the listeners "inability" to know or
distinguish between the unit under test.




Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:




To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.


But my cables and wires from Audioquest, Cardas, WireWorlds ...etc.
makes my system sounds so much better than zip-cords.

And you *know* this how, exactly?



I know this base on what I hear.





Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:22:35 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the abilities
of listeners?

If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then
they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night
and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't
actually *know* what's connected.


As you know, you and Don Pearce are both contradicting one another
here who stated earlier that the DBT is a test about identified differences
only and NOT a test about the ability to identify.

Simply put, in your commentary above, you're attributing the incorrect
reason to uphold your conclusion -- and that conclusion being base
from the resulting consequenses of the listeners "inability" to know or
distinguish between the unit under test.

How can you misread what people write so completely? Or are you
deliberately trying to twist because you can't "win" this argument any
other way.

The ability to identify is decided by the listener who has said "I can
hear a difference". That must be taken for granted from that point on.
If the identification doesn't follow during the trial it is because
there was no difference - the listener was deluded by non-audible
factors.

"Ability to hear a difference" is a term which can be taken one of two
ways. First is the facility to hear a difference where a difference
exists. Second is the tendency to hear a difference where one may, or
may not exist. The first describes the trained listener who is able to
hear and identify real differences, and who may occasionally be fooled
into hearing non-existent differences because of sighted bias. The
second describes the purely deluded, who is either unable or unwilling
to find out which he is.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:30:46 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:




To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.


But my cables and wires from Audioquest, Cardas, WireWorlds ...etc.
makes my system sounds so much better than zip-cords.

And you *know* this how, exactly?



I know this base on what I hear.



Based on what you hear? So you could identify which cable you are
listening to by sound alone. Care to accept that challenge - or would
you get "confused"?

It would be well worth your while, of course, because Stewart will
give you a large wedge of cash if you can do it. He is willing, in
fact, to put his money where his mouth is. Are you that confident in
your position?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote



With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.

With due respect, he's providing cogent arguments, you're ducking and
diving like you're in the ring with Amir Khan.............


'cuse me?


Could you provide a convincing example of this, "coward."


Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]

So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not
confused...

Why would anyone be 'confused'? The whole point of an ABX test is that
you can *always* call on the known A and B signals, it's only 'X'
which is unknown.


When I said confused, I was referring to confusion. Anyway, I've talk to
Fertsler, Krooger, The Bug eater, Uncle Norm, Tom Nousaine and
mini-borgs ...etc..etc about this particular matter and all of which just
ended
up running away with their tails neatly and safely in-tuck between their legs
and I'm just so tired of it . Don't forget to add yourself to the above names
though, although in your case, it was under a totally different subject
matter,
remember ?


[...] and I was showing you how the
environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.

That is incorrect.

In what way?


It has not avoid the pressure of a penalty impose by making a guess.


That's one.


In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.

In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.


Into what conclusion is he jumping? [...]

jesus

" In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there
is no AUDIBLE difference."





In an ABX test, the *only*
difference from 'normal' listening is that the subject does not
actually *know* what is connected when they're listening to 'X'.


LoL!


That's the only difference ?





Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"EddieM" wrote in message


When I said confused, I was referring to confusion.
Anyway,
I've talk to Fertsler, Krooger, The Bug eater, Uncle Norm,
Tom
Nousaine and
mini-borgs ...etc..etc about this particular matter and
all of
which just ended
up running away with their tails neatly and safely in-tuck
between their legs and I'm just so tired of it .

It's not fear Eddie, its the fact that you're
near-impossible to reason with.

It has not avoid the pressure of a penalty impose by
making a guess.

In ABX there's no extra penalty for guessing wrong.

In an ABX test, the *only*
difference from 'normal' listening is that the subject
does
not actually *know* what is connected when they're
listening
to 'X'.

That's the only difference ?

That's the only difference that needs to be.

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote




With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.

Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]

So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not
confused...

[...] and I was showing you how the
environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.

That is incorrect.

In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.

In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.


So in your world, if a test doesn't yield the result you want, there
must be something wrong with it.


LoL! That's Ferstlernianism.


OK please define a test protocol which wouldn't lead to "confusion"
but would still leave the subject judging on sound alone.


What for ?



Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:06:25 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote




With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.

Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]

So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not
confused...

[...] and I was showing you how the
environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.

That is incorrect.

In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.

In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.


So in your world, if a test doesn't yield the result you want, there
must be something wrong with it.


LoL! That's Ferstlernianism.

No, a valid comment on your unsupportable position.


OK please define a test protocol which wouldn't lead to "confusion"
but would still leave the subject judging on sound alone.


What for ?


Because you are bitching about all the normal, scientifically accepted
protocols that have been laid before you. Time to put up or shut up.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Mr.T" MrT@home said:


It is generally accepted by most intelligent people however, that in
audio
*REPRODUCTION*, it is better to have an output as faithful to the input
as
is possible, within the imposed constraints such as cost.


This standard is debatable in the way that what YOU are looking for,
by the above admission, is 'fidelity" from source to speakers only.
That leaves out: a: the recording and mastering in all its stages,


Yes, that's usually part of the *production* process, something the average
listener has no control over.


But nevertheless it is part of the entire chain.
Corrections may be made afterwards in the reproduction chain.

*I* don't take for granted the insights of the recording/mastering
engineers.

b. the room and speaker interaction.

Not at all. That *is* part of the *reproduction* chain.


Fidelity in reproduction, by your admission above, leaves out room and
room/speaker interaction.


From all this follows that "high fidelity" in itself doesn't exist, at
its best it's is strictly personal and might very well ask for
components with deviating behaviour from the "ideal".


Yes, just as I said, it is OK to *prefer* a different sound. IMO it has
nothing to do with the definition of fidelity though.


Indeed it has not, never claimed that.


Thinking that "high fidelity" can be achieved with 0.0001% THD and a
frequency response from DC to light is simply absurd.
This is something that not may people are ready to accept, especially
when they're some kind of audio "professional" ( usually with blinders
on).


Thinking that a persons individual preferences should define fidelity is
even more absurd IMO.


What else should define it?
We just agreed upon the fact that "hi fi" doesn't exist.

That leaves us with "my-fi", as far as I'm concerned.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Mr.T" MrT@home said:

Personally.. I've abondoned the quest for true fidelity.
I get much more satisfaction from my own personal preference
than true fidelity.

Which is what I said, it is OK to prefer something else.
One does *not* have to change the definition of fidelity.


Which is what? A true representation of what's on the disc?
Or what it sounded like during the recording?
Or what it sounds like in the Concertgebouw Amsterdam, or perhaps the
Scala in Milan?
From what row/seat?

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:24:42 +0300, Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:57:45 +0300, Fella wrote:


857, actually......................

Ok, an idiot *and* the liar confirmed.


You have no clue, do you? I have friends with ten times that many
albums. So, I'm guessing you have about forty albums and a Sony
Walkman?

I am *NOT* going into a **** contest with you on the count of my CD's (I
have no LP's). First off, I never sat down (or went around the room)
counting my CD's.

So, forty might well be an overestimate?

I'm an engineer, cataloguing is second nature to me. :-)

Second off, there are piles of CD's which I haven't
yet found the time to listen to, as it takes for me at least, a half a
day (depending on the cd) to digest one. Suffice to say that I order
from amazon, cdon, etc, at a steady pace based on those introductory
listens. And everytime I get around to opening a fresh CD and having a
go at it, it's a personal holiday.

Jeeeeezus H. Keeerist, you are truly pathetic!

Now the *reason* why you exposed yourself to be an idiot is that you
claimed you have all the cd's you want. Only an idiot would think to
that he has all the music in the world he would possibly like.

Not really, if you've spent more than forty years building your
collection. You're a sad little git, aren't you? BTW, how can you want
something you've never heard of?

The
reason why you exposed yourself as a liar is that your music/living room
had this one equipment rack/cd/lp storage shelf thingy. And there were
no 857 Cd's there.

Correct, there are about 250 in the lounge, as SWMBO won't let me have
any more in there. The bulk of the collection is in here in the
library with the PC, but the 'most listened to' are in the lounge.
Typical that you're dumb enough to think that one photograph shows you
an entire house. Imagine where the 377 DVDs are kept................

And who the hell would sit down and count 800 odd cd's anyways. One two
three.. gees.

I just add them to the PC database as I buy them. It's not exactly
rocket science to check the exact number, but clearly way over the top
of *your* pointy head.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:22:35 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote

If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then
they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night
and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't
actually *know* what's connected.

As you know, you and Don Pearce are both contradicting one another
here who stated earlier that the DBT is a test about identified differences
only and NOT a test about the ability to identify.

Simply put, in your commentary above, you're attributing the incorrect
reason to uphold your conclusion -- and that conclusion being base
from the resulting consequenses of the listeners "inability" to know or
distinguish between the unit under test.

Time to change the meds, Eddie....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:30:46 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:




To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.


But my cables and wires from Audioquest, Cardas, WireWorlds ...etc.
makes my system sounds so much better than zip-cords.

And you *know* this how, exactly?



I know this base on what I hear.

You mean, based on what you *see*. No one, and I mean *no one*, can
hear differences among nominally competent cable. That's *no one*, and
I've put £1,000 of my own money behind this for five years, with no
takers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
BTW, how can you want
something you've never heard of?

Ever heard of something called in INTERNET!?!?! See, told you you were
an idiot.. Now do you beleive me?

The bulk of the collection is in here in the
library with the PC,

And I told you were a friggin liar, didn't I?

Now lemme see, what was the third one?

"Sander deWaal" wrote:


What else should define it?
We just agreed upon the fact that "hi fi" doesn't exist.

That leaves us with "my-fi", as far as I'm concerned.

Generally, that's the only thing available to anyone. An infinate number of
systems in an infinate number of rooms (with their resultant colourations).

Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:24:42 +0300, Fella wrote:


And everytime I get around to opening a fresh CD and having a
go at it, it's a personal holiday.


Jeeeeezus H. Keeerist, you are truly pathetic!

There you have it, that's the third point proved. I dont know what you
understand from the words "personal holiday" but to me it's like some
private, personal space where you and your music, new music, are alone
and there is this slight excitement of expectation that you are going to
consume something new. Even if it is not a new CD, sitting down for a
listen after the day has been dealt with is always something somewhat
intimate and sentimental. Now I can hear you chuckle "jeesuss f.
keeriste, fella, you pathetic girly sentimental mushy fag fella", etc.
You are no music lover, you are an assembly line "all your bases are
belong to us" borg.. You probably listen to pink noise from those barn
doors of yours more than music.

So ALL THREE POINTS PROVEN!

Bwian said:

An infinate number of
systems in an infinate number of rooms

How many twitterers can fit into one of your pet 901 Birdhouses?

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:






How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the abilities
of listeners?

If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then
they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night
and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't
actually *know* what's connected.


As you know, you and Don Pearce are both contradicting one another
here who stated earlier that the DBT is a test about identified differences
only and NOT a test about the ability to identify.


Simply put, in your commentary above, you're attributing the incorrect
reason to uphold your conclusion -- and that conclusion being base
from the resulting consequenses of the listeners "inability" to know or
distinguish between the unit under test.


How can you misread what people write so completely? Or are you
deliberately trying to twist because you can't "win" this argument any
other way.




For clarification, please allow me to re-insert part of the post you had
"snipped" above in your reply in order to see if whether it is you or me
who misread what you wrote.


You said:

" Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist..."


So there you're saying that DBT aren't about testing the abilities of
listeners
which they use in able to identify (hence, claim) a difference. Rather, you
are saying that DBT are use for testing whether those identified differences
actually exist. AND you do this by asking the listeners during a DBT to
identify those differences between two "UNKNOWN" equipment without
using those abilities which they use in able to identify (hence, claim) a
difference.


Further, you add that:


" If you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners.
If the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
prove them either right or wrong. "



How crazy can you get Mr. Pearce ?


May I ask the nature of your consulting business ?






The ability to identify is decided by the listener who has said "I can
hear a difference". That must be taken for granted from that point on.

No problem !


If the identification doesn't follow during the trial it is because
there was no difference - the listener was deluded by non-audible
factors.


Already ? !


"Ability to hear a difference" is a term which can be taken one of two
ways. First is the facility to hear a difference where a difference
exists. Second is the tendency to hear a difference where one may, or
may not exist. The first describes the trained listener who is able to
hear and identify real differences, and who may occasionally be fooled
into hearing non-existent differences because of sighted bias. The
second describes the purely deluded, who is either unable or unwilling
to find out which he is.


Mr. Pearce, if I may, you're just like a trans-atlantic ballistic missile that
keeps returning back, due to faulty designs, from where you were sent.
..




Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote




If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then
they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night
and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't
actually *know* what's connected.

As you know, you and Don Pearce are both contradicting one another
here who stated earlier that the DBT is a test about identified differences
only and NOT a test about the ability to identify.

Simply put, in your commentary above, you're attributing the incorrect
reason to uphold your conclusion -- and that conclusion being base
from the resulting consequenses of the listeners "inability" to know or
distinguish between the unit under test.



Time to change the meds, Eddie....................


No rebuttal ? "Koward."



--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:




To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.


But my cables and wires from Audioquest, Cardas, WireWorlds ...etc.
makes my system sounds so much better than zip-cords.

And you *know* this how, exactly?



I know this base on what I hear.

You mean, based on what you *see*. No one, and I mean *no one*, can
hear differences among nominally competent cable. That's *no one*, and
I've put £1,000 of my own money behind this for five years, with no
takers.


Yak, yak, yak.


--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:




To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.


But my cables and wires from Audioquest, Cardas, WireWorlds ...etc.
makes my system sounds so much better than zip-cords.

And you *know* this how, exactly?

I know this base on what I hear.



Based on what you hear? So you could identify which cable you are
listening to by sound alone. Care to accept that challenge - or would
you get "confused"?

It would be well worth your while, of course, because Stewart will
give you a large wedge of cash if you can do it. He is willing, in
fact, to put his money where his mouth is. Are you that confident in
your position?


Yes, I'm confident about my position in DeeBeeTee.


Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:35:10 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

Based on what you hear? So you could identify which cable you are
listening to by sound alone. Care to accept that challenge - or would
you get "confused"?

It would be well worth your while, of course, because Stewart will
give you a large wedge of cash if you can do it. He is willing, in
fact, to put his money where his mouth is. Are you that confident in
your position?


Yes, I'm confident about my position in DeeBeeTee.

In that case, go claim your money, and you can report back here on
your success.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote




With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.

Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]

So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not
confused...

[...] and I was showing you how the
environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.

That is incorrect.

In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.

In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.


So in your world, if a test doesn't yield the result you want, there
must be something wrong with it.


LoL! That's Ferstlernianism.

No, a valid comment on your unsupportable position.


OK please define a test protocol which wouldn't lead to "confusion"
but would still leave the subject judging on sound alone.


What for ?


Because you are bitching about all the normal, scientifically accepted
protocols that have been laid before you. Time to put up or shut up.


First you accuse me of having unsupportable position.
Then you ask me to define a test protocol that prevents confusion.
After that, you ask me to put up or shut up.


Is this the way of the United Kingdom ?



Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:20:19 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

You said:

" Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist..."


So there you're saying that DBT aren't about testing the abilities of
listeners
which they use in able to identify (hence, claim) a difference. Rather, you
are saying that DBT are use for testing whether those identified differences
actually exist. AND you do this by asking the listeners during a DBT to
identify those differences between two "UNKNOWN" equipment without
using those abilities which they use in able to identify (hence, claim) a
difference.


Further, you add that:


" If you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners.
If the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
prove them either right or wrong. "



How crazy can you get Mr. Pearce ?

Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias - of whatever kind. The DBT
will sort that out very nicely. Quite often the result will be a
feeling of confusion on the part of the subject, when the difference
he was sure he heard, suddenly disappears (as I have suggested to many
people, go find the McGurk effect to witness an almost unbelievable
demonstration of sighted bias - you will be confused, believe me).

My "further" bit covers the eventuality that you yourself believe
there is a difference, and you recruit others to test it for you. This
is a pretty stupid scenario, but I thought I'd mention it.

If you continue with the personal invective yo have started here,
though, I will quite the thread, because I am not interested in that.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:39:11 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

Because you are bitching about all the normal, scientifically accepted
protocols that have been laid before you. Time to put up or shut up.


First you accuse me of having unsupportable position.
Then you ask me to define a test protocol that prevents confusion.
After that, you ask me to put up or shut up.


Is this the way of the United Kingdom ?

Yes. If you don't like the protocol I propose, suggest one that would
suit you. Is that so unreasonable? I don't propose to pursue this much
further if all you can do is say that you get confused - that just
isn't productive.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote



With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.

With due respect, he's providing cogent arguments, you're ducking and diving
like you're in the ring with Amir Khan.............

'cuse me?

Could you provide a convincing example of this, "coward."

Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]

So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not
confused...

Why would anyone be 'confused'? The whole point of an ABX test is that you
can *always* call on the known A and B signals, it's only 'X'
which is unknown.


When I said confused, I was referring to confusion. Anyway, I've talk to
Fertsler, Krooger, The Bug eater, Uncle Norm, Tom Nousaine and
mini-borgs ...etc..etc about this particular matter and all of which just
ended up running away with their tails neatly and safely in-tuck between
their legs and I'm just so tired of it . Don't forget to add yourself to the
above names though, although in your case, it was under a totally
different subject matter, remember ?


[...] and I was showing you how the
environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.

That is incorrect.

In what way?

It has not avoid the pressure of a penalty impose by making a guess.

That's one.


In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.

In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.


Into what conclusion is he jumping? [...]

jesus

" In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there
is no AUDIBLE difference."

In an ABX test, the *only*
difference from 'normal' listening is that the subject does not
actually *know* what is connected when they're listening to 'X'.

LoL!

That's the only difference ?


Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


--


All quiet in the eastern front

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:



Based on what you hear? So you could identify which cable you are
listening to by sound alone. Care to accept that challenge - or would
you get "confused"?

It would be well worth your while, of course, because Stewart will
give you a large wedge of cash if you can do it. He is willing, in
fact, to put his money where his mouth is. Are you that confident in
your position?


Yes, I'm confident about my position in DeeBeeTee.

In that case, go claim your money, and you can report back here on
your success.


Objection!

You're outta order.



Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:00:15 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:



Based on what you hear? So you could identify which cable you are
listening to by sound alone. Care to accept that challenge - or would
you get "confused"?

It would be well worth your while, of course, because Stewart will
give you a large wedge of cash if you can do it. He is willing, in
fact, to put his money where his mouth is. Are you that confident in
your position?


Yes, I'm confident about my position in DeeBeeTee.

In that case, go claim your money, and you can report back here on
your success.


Objection!

You're outta order.


That is the first time I've ever encountered anybody who would object
to being given money. It lends a new perspective to your position.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:


Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:


Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.

Never mind academic papers, experience it for yourself - then you will
know rather than merely having been told. And why did you delete that
part of my post that told you how to achieve what you demand - scared
to find out, perhaps?

http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote

snip


Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias - of whatever kind. The DBT
will sort that out very nicely. Quite often the result will be a
feeling of confusion on the part of the subject, when the difference
he was sure he heard, suddenly disappears (as I have suggested to many
people, go find the McGurk effect to witness an almost unbelievable
demonstration of sighted bias - you will be confused, believe me).

My "further" bit covers the eventuality that you yourself believe
there is a difference, and you recruit others to test it for you. This
is a pretty stupid scenario, but I thought I'd mention it.

If you continue with the personal invective yo have started here,
though, I will quite the thread, because I am not interested in that.

d



Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


I have nothing further Mr. Pearce.

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.


Never mind academic papers,


Just beleive you me, eh, Mr. Pearce? Sure. Never mind academic papers,
science says that you shouldn't beleive what you hear if you see it. Ok.


experience it for yourself


Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
observations to RAO also.

In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise, and
when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the
tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real
world sound similar in an artificial abx environment.

I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you
"objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you..


And why did you delete that
part of my post that told you how to achieve what you demand - scared
to find out, perhaps?

I opened a new discussion on the subject with the header:

Attn pinkerton, wire is not wire.

You are cordially invited.


http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html

eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da"..

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:00:55 +0300, Fella wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.


Never mind academic papers,


Just beleive you me, eh, Mr. Pearce? Sure. Never mind academic papers,
science says that you shouldn't beleive what you hear if you see it. Ok.


experience it for yourself


Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
observations to RAO also.

In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise, and
when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the
tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real
world sound similar in an artificial abx environment.

I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you
"objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you..


And why did you delete that
part of my post that told you how to achieve what you demand - scared
to find out, perhaps?

I opened a new discussion on the subject with the header:

Attn pinkerton, wire is not wire.

You are cordially invited.


http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html

eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da"..

You are trolling. Not interested.

And just for your information he was actually saying "ba ba ba ba". If
you heard "da" while you weren't looking, then your hearing is
seriously impaired.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.


Never mind academic papers

I just can't get over this, Mr Pierce. You say:

"we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias"

as if in a manner that just as an "audible difference" is a well known,
observed phenomenon, a "psychosomatically generated internal difference
based on sighted bias" is also such a widely acknowledged, observed
phenomenon. But when asked to put forth some academic *scientific*
research on the subject, even competent books, tv documentaries
WHAT!EVER!, you snap back: "Never mind academic papers". How does this
come about?

I remeber once reading, was it from pinkerton or the krooborg, about an
incident where this mixing engineer thinks he has flipped some switch
and he hears the differences he is expecting to hear in the sound
whereas all the while it was a wrong switch. So hearsay anecdotes like
this and non-applicable, faulty abx/dbt:ing made you people lose faith
in your own ears then? Am I correct?

"Fella" wrote in message

Don Pearce wrote:


Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we
must
presume he has the ability to hear that difference - we
must
take that for granted. When we do the DBT on that claim,
we
are testing whether what he hears is an audible
difference,
or a psychosomatically generated internal difference
based on
sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on
sighted bias" you say.. Is there any academic paper,
study,
book, etc, that examines whether or not such a phenomenon
exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is this "bias" the
invention
of the borg?

Great practical example suggested by a bright guy:

http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html

Sighted bias can make you *hear* something that was never
said.

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:00:55 +0300, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:



Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.


Never mind academic papers,


Just beleive you me, eh, Mr. Pearce? Sure. Never mind academic papers,
science says that you shouldn't beleive what you hear if you see it. Ok.



experience it for yourself


Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
observations to RAO also.

In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise, and
when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the
tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real
world sound similar in an artificial abx environment.

I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you
"objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you..



And why did you delete that
part of my post that told you how to achieve what you demand - scared
to find out, perhaps?

I opened a new discussion on the subject with the header:

Attn pinkerton, wire is not wire.

You are cordially invited.


http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html

eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da"..


You are trolling. Not interested.


Ok, Mr. Pearce sneaks back into his comfortable hive. Sorry Mr.
Pearce, I should have uttered a cuss word or two here and there with my
previous posts, you'd have had a better excuse. I'll remember next time.

The truth is, Mr. Pearcce, you been handed your ass on a platter.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message


Don Pearce wrote:


Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we

must

presume he has the ability to hear that difference - we

must

take that for granted. When we do the DBT on that claim,

we

are testing whether what he hears is an audible

difference,

or a psychosomatically generated internal difference

based on

sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on
sighted bias" you say.. Is there any academic paper,

study,

book, etc, that examines whether or not such a phenomenon
exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is this "bias" the

invention

of the borg?


Great practical example suggested by a bright guy:

http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html

Sighted bias can make you *hear* something that was never
said.



Ouh, this dude here proves once and for all that one should'nt ever see
what is making the sounds one hears, lest he get's "confused" ..

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:34 +0300, Fella wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.


Never mind academic papers

I just can't get over this, Mr Pierce. You say:

"we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias"

as if in a manner that just as an "audible difference" is a well known,
observed phenomenon, a "psychosomatically generated internal difference
based on sighted bias" is also such a widely acknowledged, observed
phenomenon. But when asked to put forth some academic *scientific*
research on the subject, even competent books, tv documentaries
WHAT!EVER!, you snap back: "Never mind academic papers". How does this
come about?

Because I have no confidence that you would believe an academic paper,
no matter how learned. I offered you instead the possibility of doing
your own, very quick, "academic" research. Did you try it? Convincing,
isn't it?


I remeber once reading, was it from pinkerton or the krooborg, about an
incident where this mixing engineer thinks he has flipped some switch
and he hears the differences he is expecting to hear in the sound
whereas all the while it was a wrong switch. So hearsay anecdotes like
this and non-applicable, faulty abx/dbt:ing made you people lose faith
in your own ears then? Am I correct?

What is well known is that most recording engineers have a "producer
control" - a disconnected pot they can twiddle when some busybody
producer feels his ego being threatened and wants to put his stamp on
the music. "Give me a bit more presence" he might say. The engineer
will then carefully twiddle the pot, asking "is that how you want
it?". The producer will be a happy bunny.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

You are trolling. Not interested.


This is "trolling" according to Mr. Pearce, the consultant:

"Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
observations to RAO also.

In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise, and
when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the
tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real
world sound similar in an artificial abx environment."

I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you
"objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you.."


Oh my, what a troll.

Now now fella, either you accept the borg assertions without question
and have *blind* *faith* in the (pun intended) or then you will be
deemed a troll.

And just for your information he was actually saying "ba ba ba ba". If
you heard "da" while you weren't looking, then your hearing is
seriously impaired.

Aand "seriously hearing impared" to boot!


d
Pearce Consulting

I feel sorry for those you consult.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:24:08 +0300, Fella wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

You are trolling. Not interested.


This is "trolling" according to Mr. Pearce, the consultant:

"Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
observations to RAO also.

In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise, and
when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the
tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real
world sound similar in an artificial abx environment."

I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you
"objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you.."


Oh my, what a troll.

Can't you even read your own posts? The trolling reference was to your
new thread "wire is not wire" or whatever. Anyway, I haven't even seen
it, so I presume you haven't posted it on RAT. Is it by any chance on
RAO? If so, I won't see it, because I don't go there.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com