"Fella" wrote in message

Sander deWaal wrote:
(Don Pearce) said:


Strange.....all I heard was "BaBaBaBa", either with my
eyes
open or closed.


Is there a conclusion to draw from this?


Fella has poor hearing and you have lousy eyesight?



:-))))


Can you _*believe*_ the arrogance in these fools?

What I believe Fella is that you are just a mean troll.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:46:43 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:55:05 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
.. .

As to why it must be forced on people discussing audio gear - it
isn't.Nobody is obliged to read the thread, and most news readers have
the facility to ignore a thread. On the other hand, as it is an audio
group and not a music group, it is a topic which is very much central
to the ethos of the group, and if you think otherwise, then in all
probability you would do well to consider unsubscribing from it.

d

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

You STILL haven't figured out that this thread is
crossposted.



Yes I have, but I never change the crossposting status of somebody
else's thread, and I always post from the point of view of the primary
group.


To you, the primary group is the one you usually post in.
to me, the primary group is the one I usually post in.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

Which appears first in your headers? That is the primary group,
whichever you may be posting in. That is a decision by the OP the
other groups are essentially for information, just in case they are
interested.


Maybe, maybe not.
At any rate, this is what one expects to get.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:51:20 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

Which appears first in your headers? That is the primary group,
whichever you may be posting in. That is a decision by the OP the
other groups are essentially for information, just in case they are
interested.


Maybe, maybe not.
At any rate, this is what one expects to get.

Whatever... Anyway, my point was that I was well aware of the
crossposting.

d

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

Send an email to you puke. Let's arrange the
details.

Just to get to know as to who I am up against, did a little research on
this spew-wart pukerton.

I found many a web page, discussion board, etc, with quite revealing
comments about this pukey piece of ****. It seems the piece of 60 year
old **** has many an enemy. No wonder, says I.



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:10:42 +0300, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:55:52 +0300, Fella wrote:



Sorry - your tone is just far too rude for me to join this one. If you
can't be even a little civilized, I'm not interested.

Oh my! A fourth item to the list: I need to learn some manners too I
guess.

Here is a copy-paste of the ORIGINAL post, Mr Pearce, no cuss words
there, dig in:

-------------------------------------------------------------


Fella Jan 19, 8:25 am
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: Fella -
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:25:56 +0200
Local: Wed,Jan 19 2005 8:25 am
Subject: James Randi: "Wire is not wire. I accept that."

I sent this email to: '

"Greetings,

I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic differences
between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire. Is your
challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables?


Mine certainly is - indeed, it's specifically *for* cables.


The self made
speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to measure and examine
these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting them to the test) against
radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I can hear the difference as
to which is employed each and every time. Since "wire is wire" this must
fall into the realm of your challenge.


No problem. Care to make it interesting by putting your own money
where your fat mouth is?


I do have my reservations though:

!) A revealing amplifier (densen beat b 100 mk5, for instance), high
quality speakers (sonus faber cremona floorstanders for instance) and a
decent CD player will be used to conduct the test.


No problem. And you can use any music you like, and any volume level
you like.


!!) No abx comparator boxes in between, the wires should be interchanged
manually.


No problem.


!!!) Someone I trust (but of course I will not have any sort of eye
contact, or any form of other contact with him/her duration of the test)
to actually observe that the wires are being changed (or not) and the
data recorded"


No problem, a third-party proctor acceptable to both parties is a
standard part of the deal.


James Randi replied that:

"There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable.
That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that."

More on "challenging the million dollar challenge" later. This post,
on a FYI basis.


Randi failed to stipulate one simple condition - regardless of the
nature of the two cables, they must provide the same voltage level at
the speaker terminals +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz. No problem
for me to match any 'audiophile' cable of your choice in that regard,
with a few feet of cheap 'zipcord' and perhaps a few pennies worth of
capacitors for the really bizarre stuff like MIT and Transparent
cables with the 'network boxes'.

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




It's known as the 'ego knob', may be a switch or a twiddle-pot,

Bla bla bla .. pukey pukes more hearsay.



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?


No, it's clowns like *you*

You come butt-first into this conversation with insults and name
calling. I will shove that keyboard up your ass, you puke.


who have no faith in your ears, you insist
on *knowing* what's playing.

Yes, when I say *trust* in ears I mean that one should *trust* what ones
ears hear, *regardless* of what one "knows". Now *that's* trusting your
ears you waste of flesh puke.



We *do* trust our ears, but *only* our
ears.

You don't trust your eyes then, I see, what a difference.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Yes, but the clowns who buy those 7 watt tube amps tend to argue that
'the first watt is all-important'. Hence, it doesn't *matter* that the
Levinson can go louder,

If the argument is made by "clowns" as you put it, you puke!, then why
the "hence" thereafter. Aren't those clowns wrong all time and you are
right, all the time?

Stewart Pinkerton 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.


Academic papers are not written about the bleedin' obvious!


Ofcourse they are! Are you now claiming to stipulate what and what not
academic papers are written about!!? You piece of arrogant, brown, 60
year old disgusting ****!

The man comes in blazin guns about "psychosomatically generated internal
difference based on sighted bias" as if it grows on trees!




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.


That's because what you hear in an ABX test *is* the real world. What
you *think* you hear in a sighted comparison is mostly happening
*inside* your head.


In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads.


Indeed they do - so what?



So decide which one is the real world you piece of pukey ****. DECIDE!
First you puke that ABX "*is*" the real world and then "indeed they
do".. You demented piece of crap. Is it an ABX test premise or music
lovers using amps on a variety of volume levels, in a variety rooms,
with varying speakers of reactionary loads, *WHICH* is the real WORLD!?!!!

I don't eat with my eyes closed, I don't ski with my eyes closed, I
don't drink wine with my eyes closed so WHY THE **** SHOULD I LISTEN TO
MY MUSIC WITH MY EYES CLOSED!?!?!

For all I care, it is completely OK that sight, or knowledge adds
something to my musical enjoyment and perceptions! Nothing wrong with it.

"Fella" wrote in message


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

It's known as the 'ego knob', may be a switch or a
twiddle-pot,

Bla bla bla .. pukey pukes more hearsay.

It's not hearsay at all. There are many variations on the
anecdote but the fact is that part of being a sound system
console operators is applying psychology to people who think
they know a lot more than you do.

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?

No, it's clowns like *you*
who have no faith in your ears, you insist
on *knowing* what's playing.

You come butt-first into this conversation with insults
and
name calling. I will shove that keyboard up your ass, you
puke.

There was an article about the psychology of mean girls in
this morning's Detroit Free Press. It struck me how well it
described a lot of discussions of ABX on Usenet.

http://www.freep.com/news/childrenfi...e_20050721.htm


Yes, when I say *trust* in ears I mean that one should
*trust*
what ones ears hear, *regardless* of what one "knows".

It's well known, and amply shown by evidence like the McGurk
effect which you dismiss Fella, that what one knows by other
means than hearing can overcome evidence that is presented
audibly.

Now *that's* trusting your ears you waste of flesh puke.

There is only one known means to avoid receiving evidence
that can overcome audible evidence, and that is blind
listening tests.

We *do* trust our ears, but *only* our ears.

Exactly.

You don't trust your eyes then, I see, what a difference.

Irrelevant responses like this one reflect very badly on
your sincerity, Fella. You're just externalizing your
confused feelings and trolling so that you can engage people
in conversations where you beat them up.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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

wrote:


It's known as the 'ego knob', may be a switch or a
twiddle-pot,


Bla bla bla .. pukey pukes more hearsay.


It's not hearsay at all. There are many variations on the
anecdote

Urban legends come to mind...


but the fact is that part of being a sound system
console operators is applying psychology to people who think
they know a lot more than you do.

Look at that FACT! Lemme seee : "part of being a sound system console
operators is applying psychology to people" ..

Let us all trust Arny folks, for our facts!




It's well known, and amply shown by evidence like the McGurk
effect which you dismiss Fella, that what one knows by other
means than hearing can overcome evidence that is presented
audibly.

Damn I have GOT TO take more english lessons!


There is only one known means to avoid receiving evidence
that can overcome audible evidence, and that is blind
listening tests.

I am going through rounds of comparing amps these days arny. The last
one I matched up against the densen was this audio analouge sentata
whatever pretentious amp. Looked WAYYY better then the densen but
*still* I didn't like the sound. It too sounded larger-then-life.
Especially in the midrange. It had slow, blubbering bass. It had almost
no control over my sonus fabers. Now, in an ABX all these differences
would not be heard. I would then naturally prefer this amp over the
densen and buy it based on it's good looks, better binding posts, remote
capability, etc. But I would, after some time, start to more and more
dislike listening to music because that pompous sound would get to me..
To cut it short Arny, you people are doing a disservice to music, to audio.

In *no* field of knowledge or expertise has the last word been said. We
*constantly* work and strive for the better and find out more and do
research, etc. But you two-bit internet clowns act like the last word
*has* been said in audio design and testing, and that it is *you*
clowns, and no one else, knows that last word. AMAZING! Truly AMAZING
arrogance!

"Fella" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message

It's well known, and amply shown by evidence like the
McGurk
effect which you dismiss Fella, that what one knows by
other
means than hearing can overcome evidence that is
presented
audibly.

Damn I have GOT TO take more english lessons!

Fella again dismisses the McGurk effect. Different ruse,
same end result.

There is only one known means to avoid receiving evidence
that can overcome audible evidence, and that is blind
listening tests.

I am going through rounds of comparing amps these days
arny.
The last
one I matched up against the densen was this audio
analouge
sentata whatever pretentious amp. Looked WAYYY better then
the
densen but *still* I didn't like the sound. It too sounded
larger-then-life. Especially in the midrange. It had slow,
blubbering bass. It had almost
no control over my sonus fabers. Now, in an ABX all these
differences would not be heard. I would then naturally
prefer
this amp over the
densen and buy it based on it's good looks, better binding
posts, remote capability, etc. But I would, after some
time,
start to more and more dislike listening to music because
that
pompous sound would get to me..
To cut it short Arny, you people are doing a disservice to
music, to audio.

Fella again dismisses the efects of bias due to sight.
Different ruse, same end result.


In *no* field of knowledge or expertise has the last word
been
said. We *constantly* work and strive for the better and
find
out more and do research, etc. But you two-bit internet
clowns
act like the last word *has* been said in audio design and
testing, and that it is *you*
clowns, and no one else, knows that last word. AMAZING!
Truly
AMAZING arrogance!

Fella again dismisses the whole discussion. Different ruse,
same end result.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Fella again dismisses the whole discussion. Different ruse,
same end result.



Arny, if knowing something is such an immense force of "bias" that it is
able to alter what one hears, then how come *knowing* that knowing
something inputs "bias" to the equation is not altering the effects of
that bias?

Don't bother to answer this arny, I'll do it for you.

Fella wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Fella again dismisses the whole discussion. Different ruse,
same end result.



Arny, if knowing

Fella again dismisses the whole discussion.

something is such an immense force of "bias" that it is

Fella again dismisses the whole discussion.

able to alter what one hears, then how come *knowing* that knowing

Fella again dismisses the whole discussion.

something inputs

Fella again dismisses the whole discussion.

"bias" to the equation is not altering the effects of
that bias?

Fella again dismisses the whole discussion.

There. That felt better, didn't it Arny?.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:28:35 +0300, Fella wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Fella again dismisses the whole discussion. Different ruse,
same end result.



Arny, if knowing something is such an immense force of "bias" that it is
able to alter what one hears, then how come *knowing* that knowing
something inputs "bias" to the equation is not altering the effects of
that bias?

Just go back to the McGurk effect. It doesn't matter that you know
what is going on - you still hear the two different syllables
depending on whether you look or not. In fact the whole thing just
goes on getting stranger the more you understand it.

And please don't come back with that "it doesn't do it for me"
nonsense, you already blew that argument away by reporting the sighted
syllable rather than the unsighted one as what you heard for all.

You are consistently underestimating the power of the subconscious in
all of this. Please just open your mind a tiny bit and have a look
around you. Optical and audible illusions are everywhere.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:28:35 +0300, Fella wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:

Fella again dismisses the whole discussion. Different ruse,
same end result.



Arny, if knowing something is such an immense force of "bias" that it is
able to alter what one hears, then how come *knowing* that knowing
something inputs "bias" to the equation is not altering the effects of
that bias?


Just go back to the McGurk effect.

I don't know if I am being hoaxed into something here but, I honestly,
sincerely *only* hear "da tha da tha ..etc" (somewhat softer "da" on
some) whether looking at it or not.


It doesn't matter that you know
what is going on - you still hear the two different syllables
depending on whether you look or not.

I am sorry, but no I don't. And please, don't call names, don't call me
a troll, don't distance diagnose me as being deaf, blind whatever. There
is nothing wrong with me, I am just a normal dude. And I *am* being sincere.




And please don't come back with that "it doesn't do it for me"
nonsense,

But it doesn't.. I am thinking that could this have anything to do with
me NOT being a naticve english speaker? But it seems distant, if not
totally irrelevant.

you already blew that argument away by reporting the sighted
syllable rather than the unsighted one as what you heard for all.

I hear the sighted syllable all the time, period. I *am* being sincere,
please let's not flame here and all that ugliness, let's try to
interract, I swear that I am sincere. All I hear is that first syllable.


You are consistently underestimating the power of the subconscious in
all of this.


Perhaps. But why do you attempt to answer the question :

"if knowing something is such an immense force of "bias" that it is
able to alter what one hears, then how come *knowing* that knowing
something inputs "bias" to the equation is not altering the effects of
that bias?"

with the Mcgurk effect?

Please just open your mind a tiny bit and have a look
around you. Optical and audible illusions are everywhere.

I know of the optical ones, they are a dime dozen. "Same shade of grey"
anyone?

Are there any illusions to produce the *opposite*? Some set of sounds
that would alter the perception of what one sees with them?

"Fella" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Arny, if knowing something is such an immense force of
"bias"
that it is able to alter what one hears, then how come
*knowing* that knowing something inputs "bias" to the
equation
is not altering the effects of that bias?

I'm quite sure that knowlege of the importance of bias
changes the effects of bias.

If you know about the effects of bias, then it is logical to
not put a lot of stock in experiences that could be affected
by bias.

If you know about the effects of bias, then it is logical to
try to have experiences that are as free as possible of the
effects of bias.

If you know about the effects of bias, then it is illogical
to think that by means of simple pure will, you can avoid
the effects of bias.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


Just go back to the McGurk effect. It doesn't matter that
you
know what is going on - you still hear the two different
syllables depending on whether you look or not.

Agreed. IOW even if you know that you're hearing an
illusion, you still hear an illusion.

In fact the whole thing just goes on getting stranger the
more you
understand it.

I don't know if it gets stranger. To me it gets simpler -
its such a tight example of how seeing is believing, whether
seeing is right or not.

And please don't come back with that "it doesn't do it for
me"
nonsense, you already blew that argument away by reporting
the
sighted syllable rather than the unsighted one as what you
heard for all.

Hence my dismissal of Fella as a sadistic troll.

You are consistently underestimating the power of the
subconscious in all of this.

No, Fella is just msot likely trolling for attention -
abusing our sincerity and laughing behind our backs.


Please just open your mind a tiny
bit and have a look around you. Optical and audible
illusions
are everywhere.

Of course. Just write down in your little book that Fella is
going to abuse, twist, and dismiss anything that doesn't fit
in with his stated agenda.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message



If you know about the effects of bias, then it is illogical
to think that by means of simple pure will, you can avoid
the effects of bias.



Agreed.

Arny I am being sincere, and I have been sincere all the while. You, of
all people, should know this.


Arny Krueger wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message



Just go back to the McGurk effect. It doesn't matter that

you

know what is going on - you still hear the two different
syllables depending on whether you look or not.


Agreed. IOW even if you know that you're hearing an
illusion, you still hear an illusion.


In fact the whole thing just goes on getting stranger the

more you

understand it.


I don't know if it gets stranger. To me it gets simpler -
its such a tight example of how seeing is believing, whether
seeing is right or not.


And please don't come back with that "it doesn't do it for

me"

nonsense, you already blew that argument away by reporting

the

sighted syllable rather than the unsighted one as what you
heard for all.


Hence my dismissal of Fella as a sadistic troll.


You are consistently underestimating the power of the
subconscious in all of this.


No, Fella is just msot likely trolling for attention -
abusing our sincerity and laughing behind our backs.



Please just open your mind a tiny
bit and have a look around you. Optical and audible

illusions

are everywhere.


Of course. Just write down in your little book that Fella is
going to abuse, twist, and dismiss anything that doesn't fit
in with his stated agenda.

"Fella" wrote in message


Arny I am being sincere, and I have been sincere all the
while. You, of all people, should know this.

Why would I know such a thing?

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:11:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Fella" wrote in message
t
Arny Krueger wrote:

Arny, if knowing something is such an immense force of
"bias"
that it is able to alter what one hears, then how come
*knowing* that knowing something inputs "bias" to the
equation
is not altering the effects of that bias?

I'm quite sure that knowlege of the importance of bias
changes the effects of bias.

If you know about the effects of bias, then it is logical to
not put a lot of stock in experiences that could be affected
by bias.

If you know about the effects of bias, then it is logical to
try to have experiences that are as free as possible of the
effects of bias.

If you know about the effects of bias, then it is illogical
to think that by means of simple pure will, you can avoid
the effects of bias.

And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing. The bias of
"wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as well, even if it
means using "deception" to accomplish it.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message



Arny I am being sincere, and I have been sincere all the
while. You, of all people, should know this.


Why would I know such a thing?



I do not want to bring up the subject. Too ugly. In any case, I never
put on a constant dismisal in my mind towards anyone as the way you just
did to me. Really, you are one of the lowest, vilest creatures I've ever
had the displeasure of knowing.

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:11:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Fella" wrote in message
et

Arny Krueger wrote:

Arny, if knowing something is such an immense force of

"bias"

that it is able to alter what one hears, then how come
*knowing* that knowing something inputs "bias" to the

equation

is not altering the effects of that bias?

I'm quite sure that knowlege of the importance of bias
changes the effects of bias.

If you know about the effects of bias, then it is logical to
not put a lot of stock in experiences that could be affected
by bias.

If you know about the effects of bias, then it is logical to
try to have experiences that are as free as possible of the
effects of bias.

If you know about the effects of bias, then it is illogical
to think that by means of simple pure will, you can avoid
the effects of bias.


And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing. The bias of
"wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as well, even if it
means using "deception" to accomplish it.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

"Fella" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message



Arny I am being sincere, and I have been sincere all the
while. You, of all people, should know this.


Why would I know such a thing?

I do not want to bring up the subject. Too ugly. In any
case,
I never put on a constant dismisal in my mind towards
anyone
as the way you just did to me.

So you say, Fella.

You obviously don't read your recent posts. Your blanket
dismissals are pretty obvious.

Really, you are one of the lowest, vilest creatures I've
ever had the displeasure of
knowing.

Thanks for sharing.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:23:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing. The bias of
"wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as well, even if it
means using "deception" to accomplish it.

How do you mean? In all the proposed tests, the subject who has said
they are different is given absolutely everything he wants by way of
test material and environment apart from the information of what he is
listening to. Could the test be any further swung in favour of hearing
a real difference?

What deception do you see here?

d

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

"Fella" wrote in message

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:11:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Fella" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

Arny, if knowing something is such an immense force of

"bias"

that it is able to alter what one hears, then how come
*knowing* that knowing something inputs "bias" to the

equation

is not altering the effects of that bias?

I'm quite sure that knowlege of the importance of bias
changes the effects of bias.

If you know about the effects of bias, then it is
logical to
not put a lot of stock in experiences that could be
affected
by bias.

If you know about the effects of bias, then it is
logical to
try to have experiences that are as free as possible of
the
effects of bias.

If you know about the effects of bias, then it is
illogical
to think that by means of simple pure will, you can
avoid
the effects of bias.


And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing.
The
bias of "wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as
well, even if it means using "deception" to accomplish
it.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Blanket dismissal noted, and err dismissed.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:23:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing.
The
bias of "wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as
well, even if it means using "deception" to accomplish
it.

How do you mean? In all the proposed tests, the subject
who
has said they are different is given absolutely everything
he
wants by way of test material and environment apart from
the
information of what he is listening to. Could the test be
any
further swung in favour of hearing a real difference?

Don, you've got to remember that there are two theories that
are being presented here.

One theory says that there is such a thing as sighted bias,
and we have a large body of evidence collected over at least
100 years, including simple experiments that people can do
for themselves, that supports the idea that sighted bias
exists. Sighted bias is so well-known and so widely accepted
that it is written into procedures that are part of the
legal requirements for testing technologies related to
saving human lives.

The other theory says that there is such a thing as blind
bias, and we have a large body of unfounded theories,
poorly-documented anecdotes, and posturing that supports the
idea that blind bias exists.

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:23:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:


And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing. The bias of
"wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as well, even if it
means using "deception" to accomplish it.


How do you mean? In all the proposed tests, the subject who has said
they are different is given absolutely everything he wants by way of
test material and environment apart from the information of what he is
listening to. Could the test be any further swung in favour of hearing
a real difference?

What deception do you see here?

d

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


What Dave is saying is that with sighte listening there is this bias,
since you *know* what you are listening. OTOH, there is also, at lest
with some people, the amps=amps kind of *bias* and this one needs to be
adressed too. As *that* bias *also* alters ones perceptions.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:41:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:23:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing.
The
bias of "wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as
well, even if it means using "deception" to accomplish
it.

How do you mean? In all the proposed tests, the subject
who
has said they are different is given absolutely everything
he
wants by way of test material and environment apart from
the
information of what he is listening to. Could the test be
any
further swung in favour of hearing a real difference?

Don, you've got to remember that there are two theories that
are being presented here.

One theory says that there is such a thing as sighted bias,
and we have a large body of evidence collected over at least
100 years, including simple experiments that people can do
for themselves, that supports the idea that sighted bias
exists. Sighted bias is so well-known and so widely accepted
that it is written into procedures that are part of the
legal requirements for testing technologies related to
saving human lives.

The other theory says that there is such a thing as blind
bias, and we have a large body of unfounded theories,
poorly-documented anecdotes, and posturing that supports the
idea that blind bias exists.

Well, ok, but "theory" is going a bit far. It barely rates conjecture.

d

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

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:41:23 +0300, Fella wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:23:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:


And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing. The bias of
"wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as well, even if it
means using "deception" to accomplish it.


How do you mean? In all the proposed tests, the subject who has said
they are different is given absolutely everything he wants by way of
test material and environment apart from the information of what he is
listening to. Could the test be any further swung in favour of hearing
a real difference?

What deception do you see here?

d

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


What Dave is saying is that with sighte listening there is this bias,
since you *know* what you are listening. OTOH, there is also, at lest
with some people, the amps=amps kind of *bias* and this one needs to be
adressed too. As *that* bias *also* alters ones perceptions.

You haven't followed. The people undergoing these tests are never the
people who carry the "amps=amps" kind of bias. They are always the
people who swear night and day differences. So while what you say is
undoubtedly true, it never applies.

d

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

"Fella" wrote in message



What Dave is saying is that with sighted listening there
is
this bias, since you *know* what you are listening.

It's quite amazing how this knowlege has changed Dave's
life. He's become a strong advocate of blind tests and
started basing his purchase decisions and buying decisions
on blind tests.

Oh, you say that *hasn't* happened, and that Dave still
relies on sighted tests and advises everybody else to do the
same?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

OTOH, there is also, at lest with some people, the
amps=amps kind of
*bias* and this one needs to be adressed too.

Given how many people there are that still believe that
generally don't sound like other amps, it should be easy to
collect such a few such people, and do some blind tests with
them.

Guess what? I've done that. Guess what? They can't hear
differences between amps in blind tests any better than
anybody else!

As *that* bias *also* alters ones perceptions.

Proof?

Application?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message


Proof?

HAH! Look who's talking?! When did *you* ever offer *any* proof?

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:28:48 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:23:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing. The bias of
"wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as well, even if it
means using "deception" to accomplish it.

How do you mean? In all the proposed tests, the subject who has said
they are different is given absolutely everything he wants by way of
test material and environment apart from the information of what he is
listening to. Could the test be any further swung in favour of hearing
a real difference?

What deception do you see here?

I was talking about using "deception" to uncover the "everything
sounds the same" bias using a test outline that you pooh-poohed.

Let me ask you something - if someone claimed that there were no
differences but was found to still claim no differences even when
there were demonstratable differences, wouldn't this cast doubt on
their original claim?

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:11:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:28:48 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:23:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing. The bias of
"wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as well, even if it
means using "deception" to accomplish it.

How do you mean? In all the proposed tests, the subject who has said
they are different is given absolutely everything he wants by way of
test material and environment apart from the information of what he is
listening to. Could the test be any further swung in favour of hearing
a real difference?

What deception do you see here?

I was talking about using "deception" to uncover the "everything
sounds the same" bias using a test outline that you pooh-poohed.

Let me ask you something - if someone claimed that there were no
differences but was found to still claim no differences even when
there were demonstratable differences, wouldn't this cast doubt on
their original claim?

A claim of no difference is positively refutable. All you need is
somebody - anybody - to identify a difference under DBT conditions and
the claim is refuted.

There is absolutely no point in subjecting the "no difference"
claimant to the test personally, because you will not get a reliable
result. Call it deception if you like, but what it really amounts to
is an incompetent trial protocol.

d

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

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:47:10 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

What Dave is saying is that with sighte listening there is this bias,
since you *know* what you are listening. OTOH, there is also, at lest
with some people, the amps=amps kind of *bias* and this one needs to be
adressed too. As *that* bias *also* alters ones perceptions.

You haven't followed. The people undergoing these tests are never the
people who carry the "amps=amps" kind of bias. They are always the
people who swear night and day differences. So while what you say is
undoubtedly true, it never applies.

That's why I suggest testing the acuity of those *other* people. The
"amps=amps" peeps.

Who knows, perhaps their bias isn't strong enough to keep them from
being fooled. Without testing, who knows?

I think it's a valid concern worth addressing. Or do you think that
sighted bias is the only bias out there?

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:18:49 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:47:10 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

What Dave is saying is that with sighte listening there is this bias,
since you *know* what you are listening. OTOH, there is also, at lest
with some people, the amps=amps kind of *bias* and this one needs to be
adressed too. As *that* bias *also* alters ones perceptions.

You haven't followed. The people undergoing these tests are never the
people who carry the "amps=amps" kind of bias. They are always the
people who swear night and day differences. So while what you say is
undoubtedly true, it never applies.

That's why I suggest testing the acuity of those *other* people. The
"amps=amps" peeps.

What would you suggest for an acuity test - for anybody, that is, not
necessarily an "amps=amps" person? Remember that acuity in one audio
parameter doesn't necessarily promise acuity in another.

This is why the DBT should only be carried out on those claiming to
hear a difference - they are claiming acuity in advance of the test.


Who knows, perhaps their bias isn't strong enough to keep them from
being fooled. Without testing, who knows?

But again, what sort of test?

I think it's a valid concern worth addressing. Or do you think that
sighted bias is the only bias out there?


Well, this is the problem with words like bias. I can understand a
bias generated by advance knowledge of what you are listening to, but
what possible bias can come from the lack of that knowledge? There is
no information to generate a bias. It just doesn't make any sense.

d

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

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:47:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Fella" wrote in message



What Dave is saying is that with sighted listening there
is
this bias, since you *know* what you are listening.

It's quite amazing how this knowlege has changed Dave's
life. He's become a strong advocate of blind tests and
started basing his purchase decisions and buying decisions
on blind tests.

Oh, you say that *hasn't* happened, and that Dave still
relies on sighted tests and advises everybody else to do the
same?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

OTOH, there is also, at lest with some people, the
amps=amps kind of
*bias* and this one needs to be adressed too.

Given how many people there are that still believe that
generally don't sound like other amps, it should be easy to
collect such a few such people, and do some blind tests with
them.

Guess what? I've done that. Guess what? They can't hear
differences between amps in blind tests any better than
anybody else!

As *that* bias *also* alters ones perceptions.

Proof?

that's what I was proposing. I even outlined a possible test. But you
guys seem to be running from being tested yourselves.

Application?

When someone like Howard says that they can't hear differences and
advises people to buy whatever is in the box of a major manufacturer
at Best Buy, those people might think twice about taking his advice is
it were proved that Howard couldn't even tell the difference between a
'defective amp" like an SET and a big box product.

It's about the credibility of guys like Mr. Pinkerton and Mr Ferstler
when they claim that SETs are "defective" pieces of equipment (or
wire=wire) and it would be interesting to find out whether or not
their biases aren't ruling the day.

Mr. Pinkerton talks about someone inserting a tampered-with wire into
a wire test in order to win his bet. Wouldn't it be interesting if
someone inserted such a wire on a blind test that HE was taking, and
he couldn't hear the difference?

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:25:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

Mr. Pinkerton talks about someone inserting a tampered-with wire into
a wire test in order to win his bet. Wouldn't it be interesting if
someone inserted such a wire on a blind test that HE was taking, and
he couldn't hear the difference?

No - it would say nothing apart from the fact that the change
introduced by the wire was below the threshold of audibility. There is
no further conclusion you can draw unless you do a further DBT with
somebody else who *can* reliably discern a difference.

I suspect that one of those strange cables which mangles the top end
of the audio response, while stupid, doesn't actually mangle the sound
to an audible extent on most material.

As for "broken" amplifiers like SETs, I can reliably (100%) identify
them with my choice of source material - a sine wave. With music, I
may or may not be able to tell, depending on all sorts of stuff. But
then again, why would I subject myself to the worry that it may ruin
some nice piece of music, when I can sidestep the problem by buying a
decent amplifier.

d

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

(jclause) said:

A cap as big as a beer
Is found in hi-end gear
Makes the bass sound neat
And the mids so sweet..
And the highs are a lot more clear.


But using the wrong kind, at least
Will put an end to that feast.
With caps it is clear
That, unlike the beer
A Black Gate will unleash the beast.

Let it be known all over the nation
With tweaking comes the realization
Selecting the right cap
Puts an end to the crap
Or was it a figment of imagination?


With our fantasies we all become pleased
An' our wallets are sometimes squeezed.
But the cold-hearted guys
Trim us down to size :-(
With offers to prove 'em we are teased.


Another thing worthy of mention
I'd like to bring under attention
With 8 caps in a row
It's important to know
Which ones carry high tension.

--

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

Fella said:

Umm......yes and no.
I have polypropylen coupling caps in my tube and hybrid amps, and
found them to be sounding vastly better after mounting them.
I did a (single) blind listening test with ordinary Siemens MKTs,
heard no difference.

I took IM, THD, S/N and F measurements, no difference.

Then I mounted them again, it sounded vastly better.

So, while it is proven that there are no differences in sound quality,

I woudn't be too sure about this. I don't think these borgs *know* just
what to measure and how to measure it yet.


Well, *I* sure don't know what or how to measure this :-)

--

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

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:17:26 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:11:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:28:48 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:23:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing. The bias of
"wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as well, even if it
means using "deception" to accomplish it.

How do you mean? In all the proposed tests, the subject who has said
they are different is given absolutely everything he wants by way of
test material and environment apart from the information of what he is
listening to. Could the test be any further swung in favour of hearing
a real difference?

What deception do you see here?

I was talking about using "deception" to uncover the "everything
sounds the same" bias using a test outline that you pooh-poohed.

Let me ask you something - if someone claimed that there were no
differences but was found to still claim no differences even when
there were demonstratable differences, wouldn't this cast doubt on
their original claim?

A claim of no difference is positively refutable. All you need is
somebody - anybody - to identify a difference under DBT conditions and
the claim is refuted.

There is absolutely no point in subjecting the "no difference"
claimant to the test personally, because you will not get a reliable
result. Call it deception if you like, but what it really amounts to
is an incompetent trial protocol.

But you WOULD get a reliable barometer of their competency in making
their claims. If they can't tell the difference between even CLEARLY
different components, then their statement should be taken as the
opinion of someone who shouldn't be implying that their statement is
portable.

Basically, if someone like Howard says that he can't tell the
difference between amps, I'm inclined to believe him, but this doesn't
mean that a. his bias isn't influencing this (and this should be
tested) and b. that just because HE'S not able to hear differences
means that this is applicable to anyone else. If you take b at face
value, it simply reflects on his competency.