On 17 Jul 2005 09:56:33 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:

None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to
hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is
still patently absurd however you look at it.

But what you HAVE proved is that he can't hear differences even then
there *are* differences.

No you didn't. All you did was prove that you could bias the listener
to a false negative through sighted perception. He doesn't think he
heard a difference sighted... why should he hear one blind? You have
attacked his mental stamina and degraded his motivation for critical
listening and then you call the outcome "rotten". Give us a break,
Dave.

But show how you can accomplish the reverse when the listener believes
he hears a difference sighted. This bias is what the test is designed
to confirm or deny and nothing else.

This casts doubt on his ability to make the
first claim.

And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
differences).

I can think on no more "rotten behavior" than what you propose to do
as a test administrator and the conclusion you erroneously claim a no
difference outcome would demonstrate.

ScottW

Four replies this morning. I rest my case about "obsession".

dave weil wrote:
On 17 Jul 2005 09:56:33 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:

None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to
hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is
still patently absurd however you look at it.

But what you HAVE proved is that he can't hear differences even then
there *are* differences.

No you didn't. All you did was prove that you could bias the listener
to a false negative through sighted perception. He doesn't think he
heard a difference sighted... why should he hear one blind? You have
attacked his mental stamina and degraded his motivation for critical
listening and then you call the outcome "rotten". Give us a break,
Dave.

But show how you can accomplish the reverse when the listener believes
he hears a difference sighted. This bias is what the test is designed
to confirm or deny and nothing else.

This casts doubt on his ability to make the
first claim.

And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
differences).

I can think on no more "rotten behavior" than what you propose to do
as a test administrator and the conclusion you erroneously claim a no
difference outcome would demonstrate.

ScottW

Four replies this morning. I rest my case about "obsession".

And I'll simply note your complete inability to address a single issue
I've raised. Total abdication.

Oh... and remember how few posts it takes to be classed as obsessed the
next time you have one of your exchanges with Howard or Lionel or any
of your favorite obsessions.

ScottW

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Mr.T" MrT@home said:


And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction
'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse.

Of course you can.
(It is OK to prefer inferior though if you want.)


"Inferior" implies a judgement on all accounts, including preference.


One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which
in itself is debatable).

The only debate is whether YOU want that level of performance.


The entire "hifi" standard is debatable. See below.


As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area.

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


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

True fidelity is an exact reproduction of what a certain band,
orchestra or performer sounded like during the recodring, where we
still have a choice in listening position.
True fidelity is NOT, IMHO, taking just a "perfect" source spinning a
disk of whatever kind, combined with a "perfect" amplifier.

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

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

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

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On 16 Jul 2005 19:02:33 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
floor.

So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
something that you disagree with.


Why resort to Kroologic to make your point?

It's NOT Kroologic at all. I was just wondering if he agreed with it,

If you wonder ask... instead you make statements of conslusion that
extrapolate beyond the facts.
Always playing the game, always portraying people as something other
than what they are rather than accepting them for themselves.

since he's always taking people to task for considering expensive gear
that he claims doesn't make a difference in sound.

Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you
become a mirror of what you despise.

I don't see how you figure.

Do you like being portrayed as something you're not?

I didn't say that I agreed with Howard.

Speaking of zealous, how do you explain your obsession with me?

I rest my case. You never stop with the portrayals.

Are you not constantly going after me?

You need to look in the mirror YOURSELF before you start casting
stones.

This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of
your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR
conversations. Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently.

If you were having a conversation with Mr. Pinkerton, and didn't want other
people barging in, you'd be doing it by e-mail.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:21:29 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:13:34 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:35:28 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:28:30 -0500, dave weil
wrote:


And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
differences).

But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you
need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather
than unable to identify a difference.

And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say
about the possible result of another test.

Stick to using these DBTs where they demonstrably have value - in
testing an identified difference.

You're actually testing the ability of the listener to determine a
claimed difference, even if it is a left-handed way of doing it. I
think this is the same thing as testing whether a listener can tell
the difference between two things that YOU think they shouldn't.

Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.

I've shown that it can expose the claims of such listeners.

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

But I repeat. There is absolutely nothing you can do with "no
difference" claims by way of DBT - they are simply inapplicable.

We disagree. I've shown how it can expose a no difference claim as
dubious.

dave weil wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:35:28 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:28:30 -0500, dave weil
wrote:


And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
differences).

But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you
need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather
than unable to identify a difference.

And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say
about the possible result of another test.

Stick to using these DBTs where they demonstrably have value - in
testing an identified difference.

You're actually testing the ability of the listener to determine a
claimed difference, even if it is a left-handed way of doing it.

But where is the need to be fraudulent? You want to honestly evaluate
listener sensitivity.. do it.

But you can't ignore the results sighted bias can carry over into a
blind test. A blind test can refute a "different" sighted bias.. but
it can't refute "same" sighted bias.

I
think this is the same thing as testing whether a listener can tell
the difference between two things that YOU think they shouldn't.

You advocate a test with no training and no pretest sighted bias
established. Ok. Why not?

ScottW

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want

Now this statement *proves* once and for all that you are not a music
lover, perhaps you just love it when those barn doors make sound. Or
that you are an idiot. Or that you are just a simple liar, that you are
prepared to do and say anything to "win" an argument.

What a shameless prick, disgusting.

HP9000's ran HP-UX which was Unix, or HP BASIC or HP PASCAL which were
interpreted languages with a program loader under them. Early ones were
68K based, later ones had the PA-RISC architecture.

Marconi Instruments-weren't you bought out by IFR under the
sociopathic Fred Hunt, who in turn sold to Aeroflex??

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:18:29 +0300, Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want

Now this statement *proves* once and for all that you are not a music
lover, perhaps you just love it when those barn doors make sound. Or
that you are an idiot. Or that you are just a simple liar, that you are
prepared to do and say anything to "win" an argument.

You really are a brain-dead clown, Fella. What makes anyone 'not a
music lover' because they actually went out and bought all the music
they wanted? If something new and interesting comes out, I'll buy it,
but until then, I already bought everything I want to listen to.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 17 Jul 2005 16:19:48 -0700, wrote:

HP9000's ran HP-UX which was Unix, or HP BASIC or HP PASCAL which were
interpreted languages with a program loader under them. Early ones were
68K based, later ones had the PA-RISC architecture.

We had the 68000 machines running HP Basic. This was in the mid 80s
and I misspoke - I was with Hughes at the time. Marconi ran DECs,
PDP-9, PDP-11 and then Vax.

Marconi Instruments-weren't you bought out by IFR under the
sociopathic Fred Hunt, who in turn sold to Aeroflex??

Not on my watch. I worked for the Simulators, Trainers and ATE
division of Marconi Space and Defence, which later became part of MI.
I was at Hillend in Fife (plus lots of time in Portsmouth), from '74
to '83. GEC sold MI to IFR fifteen years later, in 1998.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Don Pearce wrote

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



How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?


But I repeat. There is absolutely nothing you can do with "no
difference" claims by way of DBT - they are simply inapplicable.


d

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:50:10 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote

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



How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?


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

Easy.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote


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

How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?

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

Easy.


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


d

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:33:45 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote


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

How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?

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

Easy.


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


DBTs test the claim of difference. If there is no difference then the
abilities of the listeners are irrelevant, and will not be tested.

Being deluded about a possible difference is unrelated to ability - it
just happens, to the best as well as the worst. The difference that
comes from experience is that after it has happened to you a couple of
times, you get the message and make the intelligent choice of not
shooting your mouth off before you have checked whether you may have
been deluded.

d

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:18:29 +0300, Fella wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want

Now this statement *proves* once and for all that you are not a music
lover, perhaps you just love it when those barn doors make sound. Or
that you are an idiot. Or that you are just a simple liar, that you are
prepared to do and say anything to "win" an argument.


You really are a brain-dead clown, Fella. What makes anyone 'not a
music lover' because they actually went out and bought all the music
they wanted? If something new and interesting comes out, I'll buy it,
but until then, I already bought everything I want to listen to.



I did give you three choices, didn't I? No matter what kind of music you
listen to, if you think that some 50-60 cd's you have covers all the
music you *would* want to hear in this planet then you don't know what
you are missing out on. So one of the alternatives above is correct: you
are an idiot.

I have an inclination though that it must be the silent fourth select,
the "all of the above" option.

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


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

How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?

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

Easy.

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

DBTs test the claim of difference. If there is no difference then the
abilities of the listeners are irrelevant, and will not be tested.


Ok, the abilities of the listeners are "irrelevant" if there's no difference
detected. But how did your DBTs prove they are wrong ?



Being deluded about a possible difference is unrelated to ability - it
just happens, to the best as well as the worst. The difference that
comes from experience is that after it has happened to you a couple of
times, you get the message and make the intelligent choice of not
shooting your mouth off before you have checked whether you may have
been deluded.


Allright, so audiphiles must check ( with DBT ?) before shooting their
mouth off.



d

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:22:11 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


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


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

How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?

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

Easy.

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

DBTs test the claim of difference. If there is no difference then the
abilities of the listeners are irrelevant, and will not be tested.


Ok, the abilities of the listeners are "irrelevant" if there's no difference
detected. But how did your DBTs prove they are wrong ?


If they claim that two items produce a different sound - a difference
that they can hear, frequently with terms like "night and day", but
can not tell them apart when they don't know which they are listening
to, then that DBT has proved them wrong.



Being deluded about a possible difference is unrelated to ability - it
just happens, to the best as well as the worst. The difference that
comes from experience is that after it has happened to you a couple of
times, you get the message and make the intelligent choice of not
shooting your mouth off before you have checked whether you may have
been deluded.


Allright, so audiphiles must check ( with DBT ?) before shooting their
mouth off.



d


No. Audiophiles can do whatever they want. Of course, if they are
doing it in a public forum, such as this, they may want to check first
for the sake of their own credibility.

Where DBT checking is absolutely vital is in the press, where the
articles are claiming some sort of authority. If such an article is
not based on anything other than potentially delusional data, there is
a danger that some perfectly competent manufacturer will be done
actual commercial harm. This amounts to something like slander against
a product and should be actionable in law - a kind of "put up or
retract" sort of thing.

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

d

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

"EddieM" wrote in message

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


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

How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?

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

Easy.

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

DBTs test the claim of difference. If there is no
difference
then the abilities of the listeners are irrelevant, and
will
not be tested.


Ok, the abilities of the listeners are "irrelevant" if
there's
no difference detected. But how did your DBTs prove they
are
wrong ?



Being deluded about a possible difference is unrelated to
ability - it just happens, to the best as well as the
worst.
The difference that comes from experience is that after
it
has happened to you a couple of times, you get the
message
and make the intelligent choice of not shooting your
mouth
off before you have checked whether you may have been
deluded.


Allright, so audiphiles must check ( with DBT ?) before
shooting their mouth off.

Actually, audiophiles are generally known to not be credible
sources of information about what sounds better, worse or
even different. Therefore very few people expect audiophiles
to back their claims up with any kind of evidence.

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


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

How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?

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

Easy.

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

DBTs test the claim of difference. If there is no difference then the
abilities of the listeners are irrelevant, and will not be tested.


Ok, the abilities of the listeners are "irrelevant" if there's no difference
detected. But how did your DBTs prove they are wrong ?


If they claim that two items produce a different sound - a difference
that they can hear, frequently with terms like "night and day", but
can not tell them apart when they don't know which they are listening
to, then that DBT has proved them wrong.






Mr. Pearce, if they can't tell 'em apart "when they don't know which
they're listening to" does not prove they're wrong.



It proves that your DBT can be effective in making them confused.







Being deluded about a possible difference is unrelated to ability - it
just happens, to the best as well as the worst. The difference that
comes from experience is that after it has happened to you a couple of
times, you get the message and make the intelligent choice of not
shooting your mouth off before you have checked whether you may have
been deluded.


Allright, so audiphiles must check ( with DBT ?) before shooting their
mouth off.


No. Audiophiles can do whatever they want. Of course, if they are
doing it in a public forum, such as this, they may want to check first
for the sake of their own credibility.


Oh no !



Where DBT checking is absolutely vital is in the press, where the
articles are claiming some sort of authority. If such an article is
not based on anything other than potentially delusional data, there is
a danger that some perfectly competent manufacturer will be done
actual commercial harm. This amounts to something like slander against
a product and should be actionable in law - a kind of "put up or
retract" sort of thing.


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


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



d

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:55:00 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


Mr. Pearce, if they can't tell 'em apart "when they don't know which
they're listening to" does not prove they're wrong.



It proves that your DBT can be effective in making them confused.




No need for confusion. The DBT can be performed in their normal
listening environment, with their normal gear, listening to their
normal, favourite music. They can listen for as long as they like on
each trial. The only requirement is that they don't know which sample
they are listening to.

If that causes them confusion, then their competence as witnesses must
be questioned.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:




Mr. Pearce, if they can't tell 'em apart "when they don't know which
they're listening to" does not prove they're wrong.

It proves that your DBT can be effective in making them confused.

No need for confusion. The DBT can be performed in their normal
listening environment, with their normal gear, listening to their
normal, favourite music. They can listen for as long as they like on
each trial. The only requirement is that they don't know which sample
they are listening to.


How does the above "normal" listening environment for "testing"
prevents the listener from becoming confused during actual comparison
when your foremost requirement is that they're are not allowed to know
which sample they're listening to.

How does the environment prevents it ?



If that causes them confusion, then their competence as witnesses must
be questioned.


How could you question the listeners competence when you have provided
proof above that the DBT can be effective in making them confused ?


d

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



Again, as I have ask before, how did your DBTs prove they are wrong?

"EddieM" wrote in message

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:

Mr. Pearce, if they can't tell 'em apart "when they
don't
know which they're listening to" does not prove they're
wrong.

It proves that your DBT can be effective in making them
confused.

Never has been a real problem.

No need for confusion. The DBT can be performed in their
normal listening environment, with their normal gear,
listening to their normal, favourite music. They can
listen
for as long as they like on each trial. The only
requirement
is that they don't know which sample they are listening
to.

How does the above "normal" listening environment for
"testing"
prevents the listener from becoming confused during actual
comparison when your foremost requirement is that they're
are
not allowed to know which sample they're listening to.

Identify the reference samples and only keep the unknowns
unknown.

How does the environment prevents it ?

We often did it with a device that shows A, B, and X in big
red lights.

Failing that, a friendly voice says:


"This is...."

If that causes them confusion, then their competence as
witnesses must be questioned.

How could you question the listeners competence when you
have
provided proof above that the DBT can be effective in
making
them confused ?

no such thing happened.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:35:26 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:




Mr. Pearce, if they can't tell 'em apart "when they don't know which
they're listening to" does not prove they're wrong.

It proves that your DBT can be effective in making them confused.

No need for confusion. The DBT can be performed in their normal
listening environment, with their normal gear, listening to their
normal, favourite music. They can listen for as long as they like on
each trial. The only requirement is that they don't know which sample
they are listening to.


How does the above "normal" listening environment for "testing"
prevents the listener from becoming confused during actual comparison
when your foremost requirement is that they're are not allowed to know
which sample they're listening to.

How does the environment prevents it ?



If that causes them confusion, then their competence as witnesses must
be questioned.


How could you question the listeners competence when you have provided
proof above that the DBT can be effective in making them confused ?


d

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



Again, as I have ask before, how did your DBTs prove they are wrong?


Look - you are calling it "confused", and I was showing you how the
environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.

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

d

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

Don Pearce wrote




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


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


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


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


That is incorrect.


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


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



d

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



--

All quiet in the eastern front ..... be back later.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:22:51 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote




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


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


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


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


That is incorrect.


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


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



d

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

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

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

d

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:33:45 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote


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

How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?

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

Easy.

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:55:00 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

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


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

And you *know* this how, exactly?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:15:36 +0300, Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:18:29 +0300, Fella wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want

Now this statement *proves* once and for all that you are not a music
lover, perhaps you just love it when those barn doors make sound. Or
that you are an idiot. Or that you are just a simple liar, that you are
prepared to do and say anything to "win" an argument.

You really are a brain-dead clown, Fella. What makes anyone 'not a
music lover' because they actually went out and bought all the music
they wanted? If something new and interesting comes out, I'll buy it,
but until then, I already bought everything I want to listen to.

I did give you three choices, didn't I?

No, dickbrain, you didn't 'give' me anything at all, that is not
within your extremely limited capability.

No matter what kind of music you
listen to, if you think that some 50-60 cd's you have covers all the
music you *would* want to hear in this planet then you don't know what
you are missing out on. So one of the alternatives above is correct: you
are an idiot.

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

And that's after disposing of a few hundred a few years ago, at the
same time as I drastically slashed my vinyl collection from a couple
of thousand to a couple of hundred. Of course, I'm always happy to
make the acquaintance of something interesting which I haven't
previously encountered. At 57 years old, that's not a lot..........

Scarily, I also now have close to half that number of movie DVDs......

I have an inclination though that it must be the silent fourth select,
the "all of the above" option.

I have an inclination that you have the brainpower of a headless
chicken.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:22:51 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is incorrect.

In what way?

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

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

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

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:15:36 +0300, Fella
wrote:
857, actually......................

And that's after disposing of a few hundred a few years
ago,
at the same time as I drastically slashed my vinyl
collection
from a couple of thousand to a couple of hundred. Of
course,
I'm always happy to make the acquaintance of something
interesting which I haven't previously encountered. At 57
years old, that's not a lot..........

Scarily, I also now have close to half that number of
movie
DVDs......

I have an inclination though that it must be the silent
fourth select, the "all of the above" option.

I have an inclination that you have the brainpower of a
headless chicken.

Fella certainly does have a very narrow view of life, audio
in particular.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:15:36 +0300, Fella wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:18:29 +0300, Fella wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want

Now this statement *proves* once and for all that you are not a music
lover, perhaps you just love it when those barn doors make sound. Or
that you are an idiot. Or that you are just a simple liar, that you are
prepared to do and say anything to "win" an argument.


You really are a brain-dead clown, Fella. What makes anyone 'not a
music lover' because they actually went out and bought all the music
they wanted? If something new and interesting comes out, I'll buy it,
but until then, I already bought everything I want to listen to.


I did give you three choices, didn't I?


No, dickbrain, you didn't 'give' me anything at all,


Learn to read you cocksucker, I gave you THREE choices, and that's that.
You cockroach brain number 1 was that you listen to your barn doors, 2
was that you are a simpl e liar, 3 was that you were an idiot.



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

Ok, an idiot *and* the liar confirmed.

With a little push and shove you'll get to the "all of the above" ..

"Fella" wrote in message



Learn to read you cocksucker, I gave you THREE choices,
and
that's that. You cockroach brain number 1 was that you
listen
to your barn doors, 2 was that you are a simpl e liar, 3
was
that you were an idiot.

Well Fella, Scotty has accused me of being lax because I
don't come down on people with obvious mouth filth and anger
problems like you.

So Fella, be a good boy or *else*.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Well Fella, Scotty

Who the hell is scotty? The scottish accented guy in star trek? The
engineer?

has accused me of being lax

He's accused you of being a fish of some sorts? He never really did come
across as all that bright of a boy, but he might have something there,
worth an investigation.

because I
don't come down on people

Well there goes my day. You coming down on people... Disgusting. I feel
as if I've accidentally exposed myself to one of those american porn
flicks, you know the kind with over****ed american women carrying
biological waste bags for breasts, zombie plastic lips and all, filthy
****, disgusting.

with obvious mouth filth and anger
problems like you.

People get *exactly* what they deserve arny.


So Fella, be a good boy or *else*.



You threatning me boy? Keep it up and you too will get *exactly* what
you deserve. You crumbled under the my words many times you fool, so
stop asking for it. This is the second time..

"Fella" wrote in message


People get *exactly* what they deserve arny.

Fella I'm sure you tell that to all the victims of birth
defects, congenital diseases, AIDS, etc. You're quite a guy!

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

If everyone had the same objective hearing system, you could equate
absolute sound to track times. Unfortunately for your argument, people
respond to musical stimuli differently, either because of variations
in the hearing organ itself, cognitive differences, or cultural
biases.

Totally irrelevant as long as their hearing is the same for both live sound
and reproduced sound.

I don't think many people buy a Rolex for their time keeping accuracy
either!

Although they're accurate enough for wrist wear.

Yes, you pay a fortune for "good enough" or you can pay a pittance. The
choice is yours.

One should at least know WHAT you are buying IMO.

Somoeone spending $60,000 for an Audio Note amplifier is likely top
know what they are buying.

You would think so, but not from the bull**** they then sprout to justify
it's purchase.

MrT.

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

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

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

b. the room and speaker interaction.

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

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

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

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

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

MrT.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:1kxCe.46789$up5.15794@lakeread02...
Thinking that "high fidelity" can be achieved with 0.0001% THD and a
frequency response from DC to light is simply absurd.
This is something that not may people are ready to accept, especially
when they're some kind of audio "professional" ( usually with blinders
on).

Well said.

You are NOT agreeing with him below though.

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

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

MrT.

wrote in message
...
This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of
your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR
conversations. Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently.

If you were having a conversation with Mr. Pinkerton, and didn't want
other
people barging in, you'd be doing it by e-mail.

Unfortunately not everyone appears to grasp the concept of an open forum
though :-).

MrT.

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:15:36 +0300, Fella wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:18:29 +0300, Fella wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want

Now this statement *proves* once and for all that you are not a music
lover, perhaps you just love it when those barn doors make sound. Or
that you are an idiot. Or that you are just a simple liar, that you are
prepared to do and say anything to "win" an argument.


You really are a brain-dead clown, Fella. What makes anyone 'not a
music lover' because they actually went out and bought all the music
they wanted? If something new and interesting comes out, I'll buy it,
but until then, I already bought everything I want to listen to.


I did give you three choices, didn't I?


No, dickbrain, you didn't 'give' me anything at all,


Learn to read you cocksucker, I gave you THREE choices, and that's that.
You cockroach brain number 1 was that you listen to your barn doors, 2
was that you are a simpl e liar, 3 was that you were an idiot.

It all just flies over your pointy head, doesn't it? :-)

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

Ok, an idiot *and* the liar confirmed.

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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


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

Ok, an idiot *and* the liar confirmed.


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

I am *NOT* going into a **** contest with you on the count of my CD's (I
have no LP's). First off, I never sat down (or went around the room)
counting my CD's. Second off, there are piles of CD's which I haven't
yet found the time to listen to, as it takes for me at least, a half a
day (depending on the cd) to digest one. Suffice to say that I order
from amazon, cdon, etc, at a steady pace based on those introductory
listens. And everytime I get around to opening a fresh CD and having a
go at it, it's a personal holiday.

Now the *reason* why you exposed yourself to be an idiot is that you
claimed you have all the cd's you want. Only an idiot would think to
that he has all the music in the world he would possibly like. The
reason why you exposed yourself as a liar is that your music/living room
had this one equipment rack/cd/lp storage shelf thingy. And there were
no 857 Cd's there.

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