Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com... wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com... All I was doing was pointing out to Mike McKelvy that once again he made a sweeping, unqualified statement that was based more on faith and his lack of knowledge than on facts. No, what you were doing was trying to cast doubt on a well known fact. How can it be a "well-known fact," Mr. McKelvy, if there are exceptions? Please provide a link to the published results that confirm the audibilty of different audio cables of similar construct. You made a general but incorrect statement. If you want to change your claim to "Nobody has ever heard a difference in cables that can't be distinguished in listening tests," I wouldn't disagree with you. Except such a self-referential statement is hardly helpful, is it? Nobody has ever been able to tell cables apart in blind, bias controlled, comaprisons of normally designed audio cables. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables. Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables. It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of lying, mindless posts, Art stumbles into cogency. Duh, what else is is a consumer magazine for and about, buying things related to the hobby. How about a magazine that will help you get more enjoyment out of what you bought, not less? Once I bought the equipment, a mag would have no effect on my enjoyment of it. u seem to have a problem with that. I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting commerce as long as it is done in an ethical manner. Giving ones' opinions is not unethical. ----== 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 =---- |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson a écrit :
Actually, at the time Dan Dugan of the AES was doing cable tests at the 1991 AES Convention, he subjected John Hunter of Sumiko to a series of bias-controlled tests comparing the cables distributed by Sumiko to others. John identified the cables to a statistically significant degree. When Dan wrote up his 1991 cable tests for the JAES, he omitted Hunter's results. George what do you feel when your audio hero uses borg-like arguments ? Does it make you crie ? :-) |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce said: That isn't "scientific" though, is it? It's clearly not double-blind. And it sounds time-consuming. How many switches would you have to do to achieve a statistically meaningful result? If you mean people in lab coats, no. It is plenty scientific, though. And to keep it double blind, just leave the room while the chap changes the cables, and have him leave before you walk back in. Christ. Why bother? How many switches? Make it fifty or so. If the cable differences are truly audible, then getting forty right should be no problem. That would be statistically a very significant result. Fifty trials to determine if two cables can be distinguished? That's several hours of "fun". I'd say screw the "tests" and buy the one you like for whatever reason. Do you even know what hobbies and listening pleasure mean? You do that a couple of dozen times, then you compare your list with the list the guy plugging in the cables has. You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in the past. Love that scientific mindset. ;-) You never knew science could be so easy, did you? I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background may be different from yours. No I mean the argument that says you can get better sound by spending a thousand bucks a foot on boutique cables. Why do you care who spends their own money on that stuff? We've been here - I'm just nice that way. Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with real problems? |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
La Salope gibbered: Actually, at the time Dan Dugan of the AES was doing cable tests at the 1991 AES Convention, he subjected John Hunter of Sumiko to a series of bias-controlled tests comparing the cables distributed by Sumiko to others. John identified the cables to a statistically significant degree. When Dan wrote up his 1991 cable tests for the JAES, he omitted Hunter's results. George what do you feel when your audio hero uses borg-like arguments ? Thanks Ms. Salope for admitting that your allies are 'borgs. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
On 30 Aug 2005 12:41:32 -0700, George Middius wrote:
Don Pearce said: That isn't "scientific" though, is it? It's clearly not double-blind. And it sounds time-consuming. How many switches would you have to do to achieve a statistically meaningful result? If you mean people in lab coats, no. It is plenty scientific, though. And to keep it double blind, just leave the room while the chap changes the cables, and have him leave before you walk back in. Christ. Why bother? Do remember we aren't talking about Joe Public doing this - just those with a special vested interest in demonstrating cable sound. This should not be a chore for such people. How many switches? Make it fifty or so. If the cable differences are truly audible, then getting forty right should be no problem. That would be statistically a very significant result. Fifty trials to determine if two cables can be distinguished? That's several hours of "fun". I'd say screw the "tests" and buy the one you like for whatever reason. Do you even know what hobbies and listening pleasure mean? Again - see above. You do that a couple of dozen times, then you compare your list with the list the guy plugging in the cables has. You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in the past. Love that scientific mindset. ;-) You never knew science could be so easy, did you? I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background may be different from yours. What ideology did you have in mind? No I mean the argument that says you can get better sound by spending a thousand bucks a foot on boutique cables. Why do you care who spends their own money on that stuff? We've been here - I'm just nice that way. Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with real problems? You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems? d |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce said: to keep it double blind, just leave the room while the chap changes the cables, and have him leave before you walk back in. Christ. Why bother? Do remember we aren't talking about Joe Public doing this - just those with a special vested interest in demonstrating cable sound. This should not be a chore for such people. The customary meaning of "vested interest" is someone who is involved in a commercial enterprise related to cable. Or possibly somebody who's thinking of marketing a cable he designed. According to you, you're neither of those. So what's your "vested interest"? I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background may be different from yours. What ideology did you have in mind? Yours: You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in the past. Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with real problems? You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems? As a group, of course not. At least not nearly as bad problems as the 'borgs suffer. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:34:41 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:
Don Pearce said: to keep it double blind, just leave the room while the chap changes the cables, and have him leave before you walk back in. Christ. Why bother? Do remember we aren't talking about Joe Public doing this - just those with a special vested interest in demonstrating cable sound. This should not be a chore for such people. The customary meaning of "vested interest" is someone who is involved in a commercial enterprise related to cable. Or possibly somebody who's thinking of marketing a cable he designed. According to you, you're neither of those. So what's your "vested interest"? Sorry - misuse of the word "vested". I mean those who either proseletise cable sound or those who are actually making money selling "high end" cables for mega bucks. Either of these really needs to step up to the mark and justify their position. As I have no vested interest, and am very happy with the free cables I have, I will not be sitting such a test. Anyway, there would scarecly be any point in testing somebody who can;t hear a difference sighted, would there? I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background may be different from yours. What ideology did you have in mind? Yours: I wasn't even aware I had an ideology. But then I don't speak with an accent either. You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in the past. Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with real problems? You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems? As a group, of course not. At least not nearly as bad problems as the 'borgs suffer. DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem? d |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce said: I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background may be different from yours. What ideology did you have in mind? Yours: I wasn't even aware I had an ideology. But then I don't speak with an accent either. I just cited it and you glided right by. Here it is again: You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in the past. That's your ideology: Conclusion reached before research is done. Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with real problems? You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems? As a group, of course not. At least not nearly as bad problems as the 'borgs suffer. DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem? Not as far as I know. You might want to ask them rather than reaching a decision in vitro, so to speak. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables. Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables. It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of lying, mindless posts, Art stumbles into cogency. Duh, what else is is a consumer magazine for and about, buying things related to the hobby. You seem to have a problem with that. No problem with discussing things related to the hobby, it's the outright fraud that they promote, that's the problem. Well, go out and buy some of that fraudulently recommended equipment, and sue SP for damages for recommending it. Do you have the balls? ----== 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 =---- |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire. You hit the nail on the head!!!! DBT is a 'single bias' controlled comparison. That's what's wrong with it, it only controls one side of the biases. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't help sales of high end snake oil. It is the standard for everyone doing research into subtle audible difference. The only people that have a problem with it are those that want things to be other than real. Listening under test conditions is NOT how I conduct my everyday 'real' world listening. ----== 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 =---- |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Gault" wrote in message ... wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message thlink.net... But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire. You hit the nail on the head!!!! DBT is a 'single bias' controlled comparison. That's what's wrong with it, it only controls one side of the biases. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't help sales of high end snake oil. It is the standard for everyone doing research into subtle audible difference. And not just audio. Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste comparisons of soda uses DBT. home listening is NOT science. ----== 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 =---- |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29) "But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire." But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled' (his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything else in audio. I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think. Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some other method is better or even as good? He was challenged twice for a reference to a published report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only to reemerge after a suitable interval. Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my personal preference. It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the non-existence of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX is the standard and that is relaible. You simply deny. Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your "test" work? Ludovic Mirabel P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83) Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX obstacle race. So much for "anyone,ever" You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that while it might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to insure they weren't just lucky guesses. You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE" ----== 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 =---- |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"George Middius" wrote in message ... Don Pearce said: That isn't "scientific" though, is it? It's clearly not double-blind. And it sounds time-consuming. How many switches would you have to do to achieve a statistically meaningful result? If you mean people in lab coats, no. It is plenty scientific, though. And to keep it double blind, just leave the room while the chap changes the cables, and have him leave before you walk back in. Christ. Why bother? How many switches? Make it fifty or so. If the cable differences are truly audible, then getting forty right should be no problem. That would be statistically a very significant result. Fifty trials to determine if two cables can be distinguished? That's several hours of "fun". I'd say screw the "tests" and buy the one you like for whatever reason. Do you even know what hobbies and listening pleasure mean? You do that a couple of dozen times, then you compare your list with the list the guy plugging in the cables has. You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in the past. Love that scientific mindset. ;-) You never knew science could be so easy, did you? I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background may be different from yours. No I mean the argument that says you can get better sound by spending a thousand bucks a foot on boutique cables. Why do you care who spends their own money on that stuff? We've been here - I'm just nice that way. Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with real problems? like a 90 day mental treeatment plan for Arny. ----== 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 =---- |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:34:41 -0400, George M. Middius wrote: Don Pearce said: to keep it double blind, just leave the room while the chap changes the cables, and have him leave before you walk back in. Christ. Why bother? Do remember we aren't talking about Joe Public doing this - just those with a special vested interest in demonstrating cable sound. This should not be a chore for such people. The customary meaning of "vested interest" is someone who is involved in a commercial enterprise related to cable. Or possibly somebody who's thinking of marketing a cable he designed. According to you, you're neither of those. So what's your "vested interest"? Sorry - misuse of the word "vested". I mean those who either proseletise cable sound or those who are actually making money selling "high end" cables for mega bucks. Either of these really needs to step up to the mark and justify their position. As I have no vested interest, and am very happy with the free cables I have, I will not be sitting such a test. Anyway, there would scarecly be any point in testing somebody who can;t hear a difference sighted, would there? I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background may be different from yours. What ideology did you have in mind? Yours: I wasn't even aware I had an ideology. But then I don't speak with an accent either. You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in the past. Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with real problems? You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems? As a group, of course not. At least not nearly as bad problems as the 'borgs suffer. DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem? It depends on their overall finances. If they are strugglng, sure, they have a problem spending that much money on any hobby item. But if they have pelnty of discretionary income, they have no problem. ----== 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 =---- |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
George Middius wrote:
Robert Gault said: Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste comparisons of soda uses DBT. Do you consider buying audio equipment for use in your home to be a "scientific pursuit"? If so, go for it -- take some "tests". Then you'll have "proved" that everything sounds the same. And the Krooborg guarantees you can do it without spending hundreds on a switchbox and devoting hundreds of hours to reach a statistically meaningful number of trials. What fun! This is surely why audio such a popular hobby. When I buy audio equipment for my home, I want to be able to rely on a review which tells me the minimum amount of money I need to pay to achieve good sound quality. I don't want to be scammed into buying expensive equipment which can be had for less or does not work. That should be the job of a good audio magazine. It should not be exclusively a shill for the audio equivalent of pyramid razor sharpeners. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Gault" wrote in message ... George Middius wrote: Robert Gault said: Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste comparisons of soda uses DBT. Do you consider buying audio equipment for use in your home to be a "scientific pursuit"? If so, go for it -- take some "tests". Then you'll have "proved" that everything sounds the same. And the Krooborg guarantees you can do it without spending hundreds on a switchbox and devoting hundreds of hours to reach a statistically meaningful number of trials. What fun! This is surely why audio such a popular hobby. When I buy audio equipment for my home, I want to be able to rely on a review which tells me the minimum amount of money I need to pay to achieve good sound quality. I don't want to be scammed into buying expensive equipment which can be had for less or does not work. Then you would never be exposed to the difference between good sounding, better sounding, and great sounding audio. That should be the job of a good audio magazine. It should not be exclusively a shill for the audio equivalent of pyramid razor sharpeners. Then read a buying guide on a mass market site, and be happy. ----== 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 =---- |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29) "But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire." But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled' (his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything else in audio. I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think. Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some other method is better or even as good? He was challenged twice for a reference to a published report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only to reemerge after a suitable interval. Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my personal preference. It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the non-existence of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX is the standard and that is relaible. You simply deny. Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your "test" work? Ludovic Mirabel P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83) Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX obstacle race. So much for "anyone,ever" You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that while it might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to insure they weren't just lucky guesses. You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE" I didn't think you were unaware of the confidence level needed to make it a worthwhile result. Nobody to any statisticalsignificance has ever been able to distinguish one wire from another of normal design. Wire is wire. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
+
" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29) "But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire." But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled' (his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything else in audio. I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think. Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some other method is better or even as good? He was challenged twice for a reference to a published report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only to reemerge after a suitable interval. Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my personal preference. It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the non-existence of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX is the standard and that is relaible. You simply deny. Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your "test" work? Ludovic Mirabel P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83) Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX obstacle race. So much for "anyone,ever" You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that while it might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to insure they weren't just lucky guesses. You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE" I didn't think you were unaware of the confidence level needed to make it a worthwhile result. Nobody to any statisticalsignificance has ever been able to distinguish one wire from another of normal design. Wire is wire. Ever is ever ----== 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 =---- |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting commerce as long as it is done in an ethical manner. Giving ones' opinions is not unethical. How about giving ones' opinion for money? Still ethical? I think so. How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something for money? Still ethical? I think so. How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something for money while taking advertising money from somethings maker? Still ethical? Ouch.... getting a little hairy. Conflicts of interest rearing their heads. I'd suggest a means of protecting oneself from improper influence. How about giving ones' opinion that people should buy something for money that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of doing what is claims to do and everyone with a lick of technical understanding knows it while taking advertising money from somethings maker? Crucify them, crucify them. ScottW |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29) "But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire." But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled' (his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything else in audio. I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think. Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some other method is better or even as good? He was challenged twice for a reference to a published report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only to reemerge after a suitable interval. Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my personal preference. It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the non-existence of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX is the standard and that is relaible. You simply deny. Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your "test" work? Ludovic Mirabel P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83) Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX obstacle race. So much for "anyone,ever" You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that while it might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to insure they weren't just lucky guesses. You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE" Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants over 50%. One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the expected distribution for random responses of 15 participants. If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but reality is... one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct. You have to expect someone will occasionally get lucky. The odds on the lotto are ridiculous and yet people win all the time. Doesn't mean they knew the numbers. If they truly heard a difference.. they simply have to do it again. Usually... somebody else can now hear a difference. Then we'd have 2 who, once, heard a difference. Elmirs almost BS'ing as bad as Stereophile did when they claimed people could identify different more accurately than same when in reality people just guessed different more often than same. Hell... I'd get all the different trials correct if I guessed different every time. Same statistical BS. ScottW |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"ScottW" wrote in message news:6M9Re.99621$Ep.62290@lakeread02... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting commerce as long as it is done in an ethical manner. Giving ones' opinions is not unethical. How about giving ones' opinion for money? Still ethical? I think so. How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something for money? Still ethical? I think so. How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something for money while taking advertising money from somethings maker? Still ethical? Ouch.... getting a little hairy. Conflicts of interest rearing their heads. I'd suggest a means of protecting oneself from improper influence. A consumer magazine that sells advertising to equipment manufacturers is the norm, for hobby magazines. How about giving ones' opinion that people should buy something for money that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of doing what is claims to do and everyone with a lick of technical understanding knows it while taking advertising money from somethings maker? Crucify them, crucify them. Deciding whether its something one would want to buy is something best left to the the indiviual, rather than to a self proclaimed nanny. My main complaint, though, is not that the reviewer has opinions, but that the reviewer might have little concept of the value of money. ----== 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 =---- |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Oh dear. The Krooborg is rampaging and my raincoat is at the cleaner. Probably needed to get the stains out after your trip to the elementary school, or was it the NAMBLA meeting? Mikey, you have the lowest IQ of anyone I've met on this group. Every village has an idiot, and you are the idiot of our village. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"ScottW" wrote in message news:EdaRe.99623$Ep.5498@lakeread02... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE" Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants over 50%. One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the expected distribution for random responses of 15 participants. Bad work, you fiind one person who can hear, and fourteen who can't, test them, then disregard the result of that one, for the deficiencies of the other fourteen. Not everyone is equal. If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but reality is... one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct. It proves it for that one person. ----== 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 =---- |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:20:12 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:
Don Pearce said: I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background may be different from yours. What ideology did you have in mind? Yours: I wasn't even aware I had an ideology. But then I don't speak with an accent either. I just cited it and you glided right by. Here it is again: You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in the past. That's your ideology: Conclusion reached before research is done. Oh, you mean my *joke* Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with real problems? You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems? As a group, of course not. At least not nearly as bad problems as the 'borgs suffer. DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem? Not as far as I know. You might want to ask them rather than reaching a decision in vitro, so to speak. I have - and my decision was reached that way. d |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:6M9Re.99621$Ep.62290@lakeread02... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting commerce as long as it is done in an ethical manner. Giving ones' opinions is not unethical. How about giving ones' opinion for money? Still ethical? I think so. How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something for money? Still ethical? I think so. How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something for money while taking advertising money from somethings maker? Still ethical? Ouch.... getting a little hairy. Conflicts of interest rearing their heads. I'd suggest a means of protecting oneself from improper influence. A consumer magazine that sells advertising to equipment manufacturers is the norm, for hobby magazines. Not exactly a stellar justification IMO. How about giving ones' opinion that people should buy something for money that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of doing what is claims to do and everyone with a lick of technical understanding knows it while taking advertising money from somethings maker? Crucify them, crucify them. Deciding whether its something one would want to buy is something best left to the the indiviual, rather than to a self proclaimed nanny. Agreed.... but there is always that trouble of finding a way to listen to gear that interests me. My current heartthrobs simply aren't available locally and I don't like to bother stores on stuff that I wouldn't buy even if it put the philharmonic in my room. My main complaint, though, is not that the reviewer has opinions, but that the reviewer might have little concept of the value of money. Maybe it's the demographics of the subscriber base. They're all wiping their asses with $1000 checks . ScottW |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:EdaRe.99623$Ep.5498@lakeread02... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE" Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants over 50%. One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the expected distribution for random responses of 15 participants. Bad work, you fiind one person who can hear, and fourteen who can't, test them, then disregard the result of that one, for the deficiencies of the other fourteen. Back to school you ole fart. Enroll in probability 101 Look at it this way. Test the same guy 15 times. He just might do very well one of those 15 times. Was his hearing better that one time than all the others? Its really just a matter of binary probability. Give someone enough tries and they will get a decent percentage right. Most tests are done to 90% or 95% confidence. That still means that 1 of 10 or 1 of 20 times the results will be a false positive. So you can see 1 positive subject out of 15 subjects could very well be due to chance. He must be tested again and the odds of him succeeding again due to chance go to 1 in 100 or 1 in 400. Now thats proof. Not everyone is equal. Never said they were. If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but reality is... one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct. It proves it for that one person. Not true. We can actually expect one or even 2 persons to get lucky in a group of 15 with a 90% confidence test. Its the odds. Let him repeat the test. If he is truly gifted he should be able to repeat. If not... then it was probably random chance or luck. ScottW |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
On 30 Aug 2005 11:23:48 -0700, "John Atkinson"
wrote: wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com... All I was doing was pointing out to Mike McKelvy that once again he made a sweeping, unqualified statement that was based more on faith and his lack of knowledge than on facts. No, what you were doing was trying to cast doubt on a well known fact. How can it be a "well-known fact," Mr. McKelvy, if there are exceptions? It's called statistics, John, and I note that you seem very hazy about the details. If Hunter was upset, why didn't he make more noise? You made a general but incorrect statement. If you want to change your claim to "Nobody has ever heard a difference in cables that can't be distinguished in listening tests," I wouldn't disagree with you. Except such a self-referential statement is hardly helpful, is it? It's more helpful than the bull**** *you* publish about cables! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:57:45 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: Once I bought the equipment, a mag would have no effect on my enjoyment of it. Sure about that? You mean if you just spent 10,000 on an amp and a mag told you it was crap, and backed that conclusion up with figures, and insisted that all the reviewers on the mag were in agreement that it was total feces and sounded nothing like music...you mean that wouldn't have the slightest effect on your post-purchase pleasure? |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:57:52 +0200, Lionel
wrote: Does it make you crie ? :-) I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling. :-) |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"ScottW" wrote in message news:YqbRe.99627$Ep.64584@lakeread02... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:EdaRe.99623$Ep.5498@lakeread02... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE" Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants over 50%. One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the expected distribution for random responses of 15 participants. Bad work, you fiind one person who can hear, and fourteen who can't, test them, then disregard the result of that one, for the deficiencies of the other fourteen. Back to school you ole fart. Enroll in probability 101 Look at it this way. Test the same guy 15 times. He just might do very well one of those 15 times. Was his hearing better that one time than all the others? That is not the way to look at it. That is one person, he is unique. The question is whether he heard differences. Its really just a matter of binary probability. Give someone enough tries and they will get a decent percentage right. Most tests are done to 90% or 95% confidence. That still means that 1 of 10 or 1 of 20 times the results will be a false positive. So you can see 1 positive subject out of 15 subjects could very well be due to chance. sure, but chances are very substantial that one person heard differences and fourteen did not. Just cause differences are there, doesn't mean that everyone has the capacity to recognize them. chances are one out of fifty that any one person has at least a 132 IQ. chances are pretty good that at least one person in a group of fifty has an IQ of 132. but those are two different issues. He must be tested again and the odds of him succeeding again due to chance go to 1 in 100 or 1 in 400. Now thats proof. Not everyone is equal. Never said they were. If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but reality is... one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct. It proves it for that one person. Not true. We can actually expect one or even 2 persons to get lucky in a group of 15 with a 90% confidence test. Its the odds. Let him repeat the test. If he is truly gifted he should be able to repeat. If not... then it was probably random chance or luck. even with one run of tests the odds are very substantial that it was not chance. ----== 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 =---- |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Mr Le Gal (Google message 86, Aug 30) quotes Greenhill's final comments
on his cable test as a rejoinder to my text in my reply to Mr. NYOB: "P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83) Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX obstacle race. So much for "anyone,ever" (Mr.NYOB said that no one ever heard difference between cables under ABX) For Greenhill's comments refer to mr. Le Gal's message. So what else is knew Mr Le Gal? Greenhill, a good 'objectivist" that he was provided a nice, objectivist comment to suit the nice, objectivist mag. "The Stereo Review". Indeed the *majority*of his panel had 50% or less corrects- under ABX/DBT it all sounded the same to them. Just as happened in all the other trials of amps, preamps, cdplayers and dacs up to and including a very, properly designed loudspeaker trial by Sean Olive (JAES,vol.51, No.9, p.806). You ignored however the interesting part Greenhill found one consistently accurate panellist scoring 81%, in 5 out of 6 trials, of 15 tests ech, called him the "golden ear" and observed: "Obviously certain listeners whether through talent, training or experience can hear small differences between components. But the majority_ etc" He had two others who came very close to that high score but said nothing about it. Instead, like all the other proctors in similar trials, he created through a "mix them all together" statistical sleight of hand a fictional Mr Average, who did not hear much. The fact though was that SOME could overcome the handicap of the DBT protocol and did well. Better than I would have done because every time I tried DBTiing with an ABX model I found that after four trials I no longer knew if it was Rimski Korsakoff or his cockerel that composed the snippet. But even if only one panelist hears a difference with statistically significant consistency then the difference is out there, real to him. That it may not be audible to a thousand others is not of the slightest relevance to an individual making his high-end choices. A virtuoso doesn't care if anyone else hears the difference between his Strad and a music store violin. (I wonder if he'd pass an ABX or if one of our "scientists" could provide measured specs. for the two?) In his conclusions Greenhill did not comment about this contradiction between his results and his "golden ear" comments. One year ago in the RAHE he was invited by his editor Mr. Atkinson to elucidate but he chose discreet silence. I can already hear the parrot cry (I do not mean you Mr. Le Gal): "I do not like this result. I want a repeat, and then a repeat again and again till Mr. Golden Ear gives in and signs up to my revealed faith." Funnily enough the same people are perfectly happy with Greenhill's very scrupulous statistical protocol- as long as it gives them the results they desire and wish for. Ludovic Mirabel |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Scott W says: (Google message 95, Aug. 30
Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants over 50%. One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the expected distribution for random responses of 15 participants. If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but reality is... one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct And comments: "Elmirs almost BS'ing as bad as Stereophile " Mr. Scott W. You're mailing your elegant prose to the wrong address. I did not invent Greenhill's "Golden Ear" or Greenhill's statistics. I *quoted* from that impeccably objectivist writer who moderated and reported the Stereo Review cable test. You are also taking him for a village moron and insulting his statistics' protocol which for an objectivist, with an axe to grind, was quite scrupulous (read it!!!). I suspect that he forgot more statistics than you had ever known. I learnt mine as an employee of the Med. Research Ccil. of U.K. where double blind tests were *first ever* used. I must acknowledge that I admire your temerity in- how shall I put it?- shooting your mouth off without first looking up the source (I gave clear reference to it) Greenhill's "Golden Ear" did not "come at 81% one time" Mr, Scott W. There were six different cable comparison tests consisting of 15 trials each. The "Golden Ear" got 15 out of 15 in four of them, 12 in one, and 10 in one. Hence 83%-get it? Prophetically I said to Mr.Le Gal one hour ago:" I can already hear the parrot cry: "I do not like this result. I want a repeat, and then a repeat again and again till Mr. Golden Ear recants and signs up to my revealed faith." I'm sorry you don't like cables to be different. But you should be happy. Greenhill's final conclusion was that ABX rules and as long as you ABX everything will sound the same. Ludovic Mirabel |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce said: DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem? Not as far as I know. You might want to ask them rather than reaching a decision in vitro, so to speak. I have - and my decision was reached that way. Do elaborate about this. I'm sure it will end up proving the homily about a fool and his money, but tell us some details anyway. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
paul packer said: Once I bought the equipment, a mag would have no effect on my enjoyment of it. Sure about that? You mean if you just spent 10,000 on an amp and a mag told you it was crap, and backed that conclusion up with figures, and insisted that all the reviewers on the mag were in agreement that it was total feces and sounded nothing like music...you mean that wouldn't have the slightest effect on your post-purchase pleasure? That wouldn't have any effect on my enjoyment of the music. I might go to have my ears checked just in case. The real problem that would cause is that if I decided to sell the amp later on, the bad reviews might sink its resale value. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
paul packer said: I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling. :-) Lionella has finally admitted that her fellow travelers in anti-E.H.E.E. slander are 'borgs. That was quite a breakthrough. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
George Minus Middius' "personality" is leaking :
La Salope gibbered: Actually, at the time Dan Dugan of the AES was doing cable tests at the 1991 AES Convention, he subjected John Hunter of Sumiko to a series of bias-controlled tests comparing the cables distributed by Sumiko to others. John identified the cables to a statistically significant degree. When Dan wrote up his 1991 cable tests for the JAES, he omitted Hunter's results. George what do you feel when your audio hero uses borg-like arguments ? Thanks Ms. Salope for admitting that your allies are 'borgs. Thank you George for confirming that you are a pitiful coward. Even Arnold Krueger accepts invitations to answer important audio question... ) |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
George Minus Middius tries a pitiful diversion :
paul packer said: I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling. :-) Lionella has finally admitted that her fellow travelers in anti-E.H.E.E. slander are 'borgs. That was quite a breakthrough. Nothing like that George, I just obliged you to eat your own excrements... ;-) |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
paul packer a écrit :
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:57:52 +0200, Lionel wrote: Does it make you crie ? :-) I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling. :-) Absolutely true this is even the only thing that provide him some "emotions". George is the RAO's spelling-borg. :-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
Cable Madness SALE at AudioWaves | Marketplace | |||
audio coax cable | High End Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
cabling explained | Car Audio |