[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 11, 2:57*pm, Sonnova wrote:

And, in one very simple example the DB/ABX test may give perfectly
valid, perfectly repeatable data, be absolutely sound it its design
and execution, yet the resultant choice will still-and-absolutely fail
the "long-term-listening-test" - even for some of us here. Care to
imagine what it is?

Not a clue.

All other things being equal, this at least can be described,
quantified and understood.

For the test that will "pass" DB/ABX protocols, however rigorous: Just
imagine two wretched-but-fairly-similar items put into the test. One
example that I can come up with in the vintage-equipment range is a
First-Issue Dynaco ST-120, and a Second-Issue Dynaco ST-120. The both
use the incredibly unstable (in that circuit) 2N3055 outputs - the
major difference being the 5.1V zener in the second-issue iteration.

Both amps sound like glass-in-a-blender, although the second-issue
sounds some better near clipping. So, a DB/ABX test should demonstrate
repeatably and effectively the preference for the later version.

Anyone subjected to either of these amps for the long term and does
not wind up figuratively bleeding from their ears would be that their
ears are made from tin, most likely.

Now, take a last-issue 120 with the post-Dynaco (small) additional
tweaks - that might be much harder to distinguish from the far-higher-
priced spreads. But the first two versions - Phew!! They could stink
up a room in a hurry. Nice test figures, however.

Note also, and writing entirely for myself: The bulk of my listening
is on a system that has not changed significantly in 23 years. It has
a PITA single-disc CD player, no remote, a (Oh the horrors)
*receiver* ... but I can listen to it for hours and hours with great
contentment, and I can pick up the swish of the percussionist's sleeve
when the triangle is hit in the final movement of Beethoven's 9th.

The "experimental" system gets all the changes. Presently I am running
a pair of Maggies through a Scott LK-150 driven by a Revox A720 - that
is this week. I have about 100 hours on this system - not sure yet. So
far, so good. I can fall asleep to it - no subliminal annoyances as I
get from some electronics - they make me restless irrespective of the
signal being played - if you understand the concept.

So, whereas I am prefectly content to believe in and support DB/ABX
testing - I also understand that it can go only but so far. Further,
that it is necessarily an artificial test inasmuch as unless one is
incredibly well-heeled, one is unlikely to be able to do such a test
in one's own home. And so the resultant disappointment as may follow
from the possibility of two wretched options in the test is
inevitable.

Fortunately for me, as I dabble primarily in vintage equipment and
within that universe equipment amenable to being tweaked, whereas I am
often disappointed in some item or other, I am seldom stuck with it,
and it seldom costs me more than a decent meal for two at a decent
restaurant with decent alcohol. That time as I may invest in its care,
feeding and repair and improvement is all part of the hobby and
therefore is priceless (to me) as well as being therapeutic. And I am
also perfectly content to allow others to believe and behave as they
see fit. For instance, that a 1 meter power-cable can make a
difference after 200,000 meters of power-company cable, transformers,
inverters and switchgear - not to mention in-house circuit-breakers
and wiring. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Aug 11, 2:57?pm, Sonnova wrote:

And, in one very simple example the DB/ABX test may give perfectly
valid, perfectly repeatable data, be absolutely sound it its design
and execution, yet the resultant choice will still-and-absolutely fail
the "long-term-listening-test" - even for some of us here. Care to
imagine what it is?

Not a clue.

All other things being equal, this at least can be described,
quantified and understood.

For the test that will "pass" DB/ABX protocols, however rigorous: Just
imagine two wretched-but-fairly-similar items put into the test. One
example that I can come up with in the vintage-equipment range is a
First-Issue Dynaco ST-120, and a Second-Issue Dynaco ST-120. The both
use the incredibly unstable (in that circuit) 2N3055 outputs - the
major difference being the 5.1V zener in the second-issue iteration.

Both amps sound like glass-in-a-blender, although the second-issue
sounds some better near clipping. So, a DB/ABX test should demonstrate
repeatably and effectively the preference for the later version.

Anyone subjected to either of these amps for the long term and does
not wind up figuratively bleeding from their ears would be that their
ears are made from tin, most likely.

But the issue is not whether they sound bad, it's
whether the would still sound the same (or different), after the long term.
(and why, for heaven' sake, do ABX skeptics so
often resort to TUBE equipment to make their point?)

The ABX test, in this hypothetical case, did just what it's designed to:
determine whether DIFFERNCE exists. Not which 'sounds better' over the short
or long term!

Once a difference has been established, then in certainly would be
worthwhile to consider long vs short-term evaluation.


--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:52:35 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Aug 11, 2:57*pm, Sonnova wrote:

And, in one very simple example the DB/ABX test may give perfectly
valid, perfectly repeatable data, be absolutely sound it its design
and execution, yet the resultant choice will still-and-absolutely fail
the "long-term-listening-test" - even for some of us here. Care to
imagine what it is?

Not a clue.

All other things being equal, this at least can be described,
quantified and understood.

For the test that will "pass" DB/ABX protocols, however rigorous: Just
imagine two wretched-but-fairly-similar items put into the test. One
example that I can come up with in the vintage-equipment range is a
First-Issue Dynaco ST-120, and a Second-Issue Dynaco ST-120. The both
use the incredibly unstable (in that circuit) 2N3055 outputs - the
major difference being the 5.1V zener in the second-issue iteration.

Both amps sound like glass-in-a-blender, although the second-issue
sounds some better near clipping. So, a DB/ABX test should demonstrate
repeatably and effectively the preference for the later version.

I will agree with you that my memories of the ST-120 are anything but
congratulatory. First of all, the glass-in-a-blender sound of which you speak
was, I believe, a result of a cross-over notch cause because neither of the
two 2n3055 output transistors could be biased far enough into class A-B
without self destructing. They didn't fix that until the third generation
when they replaced the 2n3055s with output and driver devices that could take
the rebiasing.

Anyone subjected to either of these amps for the long term and does
not wind up figuratively bleeding from their ears would be that their
ears are made from tin, most likely.

I'm not sure that these two amps would make much difference in either test. I
suspect that unless one was listening near clipping, they would likely sound
the same, and long term, they would likely sound the same too, UNLESS, again,
one did most of one;s listening near clipping.

Now, take a last-issue 120 with the post-Dynaco (small) additional
tweaks - that might be much harder to distinguish from the far-higher-
priced spreads. But the first two versions - Phew!! They could stink
up a room in a hurry. Nice test figures, however.

The last-issue ST-120 against a first or second generation model would, I
suspect, be easy to spot in a double-blind test. The early amps were, as you
say, terrible, and the last generation model was actually OK.

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 11, 5:58*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

But the issue is not whether they sound bad, it's
whether the would still sound the same *(or different), after the long term. *
(and why, for heaven' sake, do ABX skeptics so
often resort to TUBE equipment to make their point?)

The ABX test, in this hypothetical case, did just what it's designed to:
determine whether DIFFERNCE exists. *Not which 'sounds better' over the short
or long term!

Once a difference has been established, then in certainly would be
worthwhile to consider long vs short-term evaluation.

Mpffffff.... The ST-120 IS solid-state. It is an early 60s effort at
making a "BIG" amp to compete with the tube amps of the time, yet at a
reasonable cost. The 2N3055 outputs should have been your clue.

And, if one chooses from a limited universe, then the results are
questionable. DB/ABX testing does one thing very well - it tests
*between* things in that singular universe. Whether the resultant
choice merits further consideration takes ------- um ------- FURTHER
CONSIDERATION. Which *JUST MIGHT* take the form of long-term
evaluation. All that DB/ABX testing does is suggest that one item
sounds better to the listener than the other item, presumably
consistently. Not that either/both is any good in the final analysis.

Now, I can purchase 500' of 12gauge fine-stranded copper THHN wire for
$64 + tax these days at my local Home Depot. With twisting in a drill,
that gives me something over 200 feet in potential speaker wire -
which I defy anyone to distinguish from any other form of speaker wire
in actual use.

But one can still pay $15,000 for 5-meter speaker-wire pairs. I choose
not to, tests notwithstanding.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:22:15 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Aug 10, 10:33 am, Sonnova wrote:
Therefore I am an atheist. All a
religious man has to do to convert me from an atheist to a believer is
to
prove to me that a god exists. In this, I am resolute. Yet atheism is
NOT a
religion, it is, simply an absence in the belief in gods. Similarly,
"objectivism" in audio is also not a religion nor a belief system, but
is
like atheism, a wholly rational approach to a question held as an object
of
faith by the "subjectivists". IOW, prove to me with a carefully designed
and
rational test that Myrtlewood blocks placed on the top of a CD player
improves the sound, or that solid-state amplifier B sounds significantly
different than solid-state amplifier A, or that a $4,000/meter pair of
Nordost interconnects sound any different (let alone better) than a
$30/meter
pair, and you will have re-converted me. It's that simple.- Hide quoted
text -

With respect, most will be "convinced" at the experience of miracles
or the sword - whichever comes first. That aside, Atheism is as much a
religion as any other if it is accompanied by such phrases as "I am
Resolute" - and what separates it from Agnosticism, an entirely
different species with fewer religious connotations.

But I am not resolute in anything but my objective view. I cannot be
swayed
by rhetoric or force. I require proof (or at least strong evidence). Show
me
that evidence and/or proof and I will yield to the religious point of
view.
So far, those who believe in gods have not been able to show one shred of
evidence for the existence of any god, much less any proof.

Bluntly, there are so damned many failure points, deliberate and
accidental, as it comes to DB/ABX testing as to make the entire
process require as much general skepticism as those Myrtlewood blocks
or the concept that one meter of power-cable can make a difference
after 100 miles of Power Company transmission lines and the various
transformers, inverters and phase changers along the way.

And, in one very simple example the DB/ABX test may give perfectly
valid, perfectly repeatable data, be absolutely sound it its design
and execution, yet the resultant choice will still-and-absolutely fail
the "long-term-listening-test" - even for some of us here. Care to
imagine what it is?

Not a clue.

Y'all are so deeply bound in your perceptions of the world and how it
works that even when the point takes the form of a 900 pound gorilla
dressed in a neon-red Tutu, you cannot recognize it for what it is -
that is that there are those who believe what they believe, and that
it will not change, and that there are no rules that govern their
belief-system other than those they subscribe to directly. No others
need apply. Qwitcherbitchin' and get on with life. *TRY* to enjoy the
hobby without the need to be right - as far as you are concerned, you
might well be so. That should be enough. Do *NOT* demand that others
also agree that you are right.

I do not demand that you agree I am right. This is a discussion, I'm
discussing a topic with you and others. My thoughts are my opinions and
represent my world-view with regard to audio (and whatever else I might
reveal to make a point). However, we really aren't discussing audio at
this
point in this debate, we're discussion methodologies of test and the
pitfalls
that each side sees in the other side's case. In that regard, anyone who
has
studied scientific test methodologies would say that a carefully designed
and
executed double-blind test of audio components has inherently fewer
pitfalls
than does a long-term sighted test. Also, a carefully designed and
executed
D-B test is more likely to be correct in its findings than a sighted long
term listening test from a scientific standpoint. It can also be argued
that
nothing in physics suggests that audio is in any way a special case that
will
not yield to the same kind of scientific methodology that has been
instrumentally successful in most of man's other technological
accomplishments.

Please see a post I just made in the Robert Harley thread, and at least
allow yourself to be open to the possibilities suggested therein.

And for what it is worth (and I don't know for sure you were referring to me
in your comment re sighted listening above) the test I have proposed is a
double-blind two cell (test and control) monadic test. Nothing very
unscientific about that, is there?

[[email protected]]

"And for what it is worth (and I don't know for sure you were referring to
me
in your comment re sighted listening above) the test I have proposed is a
double-blind two cell (test and control) monadic test. Nothing very
unscientific about that, is there?"

Nope, but as it now stands as a glimmer in your eye alone it is also
irrelevant as to the current body of test results showing that reported
subjective effects toggle on and off as blind sighted are likewise
toggled.

Any number of tests formats can be proposed, proposing is not evidence nor
reason to think in the least that results would be different.

Then there is the strawman view of how would we validate the test before
or after to know its results are to be taken seriously, smile. And same
about the test to validate that test, the mind boggles.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


On Aug 11, 3:03 pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

wrote:

The point is, Mr. Krueger, is that Michael didn't
act without provocation. Regarding the yelling,
you were both doing it and both equally guilty.

Fremer entered the area in an excited state and started yelling. I merely
raised my voice slightly, in order to be heard over the loud and
uncontrolled noises that he was making.

By your own account, it appears that replies he doesn't
like constitute 'provocation' to begin shouting, to Mr.
Fremer.

It was rather more than "replies he doesn't like," Mr.
Sullivan.

My recollection is that I didn't have to hardly reply at all for Fremer to
become highly excited.

Would Stereophile care to sponsor a more rigorously-run
test?

We did do so, a year after the AES tests. See
http://www.stereophile.com/features/587/ .

Well, those Stereophile tests had a very flawed and complex statistical
model that required statistician Dr. Herman Burstein to finally unwind it.

BTW, the Stereophile web site link to Dr. Herman Burstein's letter seems to
be broken.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 11, 8:41 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Aug 11, 2:12 pm, wrote:
On Aug 11, 3:03 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Would Stereophile care to sponsor a more rigorously-run test?

We did do so, a year after the AES tests. See
http://www.stereophile.com/features/587/.

From the article referenced.
"This article was originally submitted as a letter to the
editor. Because of its length, however, and the fact that
the authors carried a considerable amount of additional work,
I decided that it would best appear in its current form.—John
Atkinson "

I'm having difficulty accepting that this was a Stereophile
"sponsored" test.

As the authors were paid for the article, I felt that indeed
qualified it as "sponsored."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

On Aug 12, 11:12*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

On Aug 11, 3:03 pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:
wrote:
The point is, Mr. Krueger, is that Michael didn't
act without provocation. Regarding the yelling,
you were both doing it and both equally guilty.

Fremer entered the area in an excited state and started yelling.
I merely raised my voice slightly, in order to be heard over the
loud and uncontrolled noises that he was making.

In your recollection, sure, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Fremer and I
remember it differently. We shall have to agree to disagree,

Would Stereophile care to sponsor a more rigorously-run
test?

We did do so, a year after the AES tests. See
http://www.stereophile.com/features/587/.

Well, those Stereophile tests had a very flawed and complex
statistical model that required statistician Dr.*Herman Burstein
to finally unwind it.

That is not correct. The statistical analysis of the results of these
lstening tests were carefully performed and have held up over
the years. The late Dr. Burstein made no comment on this
article. In his published letter, Dr. Burstein was analyzing the
results of a _different_ series of listening tests performed at the
1989 Stereophile Show in San Mateo, CA.

BTW, the Stereophile web site link to Dr. Herman Burstein's
letter seems to be broken.

I don't believe so, Mr. Krueger. Dr. Burstein's letter can be read in
its entirety at http://www.stereophile.com//features/113/index10.html
..

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Aug 11, 5:58?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

But the issue is not whether they sound bad, it's
whether the would still sound the same ?(or different), after the long term. ?
(and why, for heaven' sake, do ABX skeptics so
often resort to TUBE equipment to make their point?)

The ABX test, in this hypothetical case, did just what it's designed to:
determine whether DIFFERNCE exists. ?Not which 'sounds better' over the short
or long term!

Once a difference has been established, then in certainly would be
worthwhile to consider long vs short-term evaluation.

Mpffffff.... The ST-120 IS solid-state. It is an early 60s effort at
making a "BIG" amp to compete with the tube amps of the time, yet at a
reasonable cost. The 2N3055 outputs should have been your clue.

Granted, my mistake. I was coming off a longish reply to the
1989 test, which truly did involve an SS amp. I presumed amps
that old would be tubes too.

And, if one chooses from a limited universe, then the results are
questionable. DB/ABX testing does one thing very well - it tests
*between* things in that singular universe.

Right...and it tests for *audible difference*. There's no need
to bring in talk of 'singular universes' except as obfuscation.

Whether the resultant
choice merits further consideration takes ------- um ------- FURTHER
CONSIDERATION.

Well, if they test as 'not audibly different', then for sure,
other considerations *must* apply. And in fact, even with
true audibly different gear, 'further considerations' tend to apply...
most of us don't ignore price, finish, features. But some of
us are remain aware that these are 'confounding factors' when it comes to
assessing *audio* quality.


Which *JUST MIGHT* take the form of long-term
evaluation. All that DB/ABX testing does is suggest that one item
sounds better to the listener than the other item, presumably
consistently. Not that either/both is any good in the final analysis.

In terms of ABX, there is no 'long term evaluation' versus 'short term".
In the end, if you want to separate signal from noise,
there is still an ABX choice to make, whether you have listened
for a long time, or a short time. The crucial thing is the blinding,
whenever the comparison is performed.

So as I've said many, many times now, go right ahead, listen for
months or years to 'evaluate'. And then, when you want to know
whether the difference is real or imaginary, run a DBT.

If you don't care whether the difference is real or imaginary, don;t
bother with the test. But also don't bother making definite claims about it
being real, OK? Unless, of course, you've got some bench test
data to back you up.

Now, I can purchase 500' of 12gauge fine-stranded copper THHN wire for
$64 + tax these days at my local Home Depot. With twisting in a drill,
that gives me something over 200 feet in potential speaker wire -
which I defy anyone to distinguish from any other form of speaker wire
in actual use.

But one can still pay $15,000 for 5-meter speaker-wire pairs. I choose
not to, tests notwithstanding.

Great, but that has nothing to do with *determining* whether the two actually sound
different.


--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 12, 2:08*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

*Well, if they test as 'not audibly different', then for sure,
*other considerations *must* apply. *And in fact, even with
*true audibly different gear, 'further considerations' tend to apply...
*most of us don't ignore price, finish, features. *But some of
*us are remain aware that these are 'confounding factors' when it comes to
*assessing *audio* quality.

I am suggesting that even between audibly different items that
consistently are distinguished as such from DB/ABX testing - DIFFERENT
does not necessarily equal GOOD. And that is the break-point when it
comes to the validity of such tests. They do what they are designed to
do - and no more. What they are designed to do does not ascertain
downline satisfaction or quality - nor, if one thinks on it - are they
even meant to do such. That requires long-term evaluation. The horse
is thoroughly dead, but to give it one more shock, Item A may be
picked out from Item B in an extremely well-designed and accurate DB/
ABX test with 99.99% consistency. But both aren't terribly
satisfactory in their own right - and that may take some time to
determine...

*Great, but that has nothing to do with *determining* whether the two actually sound
*different.

I am suggesting strongly that the two do not sound any differently.
But I haven't the time or the spleen, nor do I expect any cable maker
would allow that I make an actual "scientific" test. What I have
concluded - if not determined - is that within the realm that I can
measure directly, there is no difference - and yes, I have had access
to said five-figure speaker wires just for a giggle.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Aug 12, 2:08?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

?Well, if they test as 'not audibly different', then for sure,
?other considerations *must* apply. ?And in fact, even with
?true audibly different gear, 'further considerations' tend to apply...
?most of us don't ignore price, finish, features. ?But some of
?us are remain aware that these are 'confounding factors' when it comes to
?assessing *audio* quality.

I am suggesting that even between audibly different items that
consistently are distinguished as such from DB/ABX testing - DIFFERENT
does not necessarily equal GOOD.

Of course not. No one said it did, though you (incorrectly) wrote that "All that DB/ABX
testing does is suggest that one item sounds better to the listener that the other item,
presumably consistently." First, DB and ABX are not synonyms (ABX is a *type of* DB test);
second, ABX is not designed for quality evaluation, it is a test for sheer difference between
two items. ABC/HR is an example of a blind test more suited quality rating ('preference').
See also Sean Olive's extensive series of blind tests of loudspeaker preference, published in
JAES. They were not ABX tests.

And that is the break-point when it
comes to the validity of such tests.

Yet evalauation of sonic quality is also influenced by confounding factors, if the evaluation
is done sighted. So there are blind preference tests too, *if* you want the ONLY criterion of
choice to be the sonic quality.

They do what they are designed to
do - and no more. What they are designed to do does not ascertain
downline satisfaction or quality nor, if one thinks on it - are they
even meant to do such.

ABX isn't, but there absolutely *are* double blind tests to determine personal sonic
preference, free of confounding, non-audible factors. And whether that is 'downline' or not is
not intrinsically relevant -- you could perform them 'downline' if want. The results could
show you prefer the same sound that you preferred 'sighted'....or not. And blind quality tests
done at different times might well give difference ratings for the same listener, depending
on, for example, training to hear distortions.

That requires long-term evaluation. The horse
is thoroughly dead, but to give it one more shock, Item A may be
picked out from Item B in an extremely well-designed and accurate DB/
ABX test with 99.99% consistency. But both aren't terribly
satisfactory in their own right - and that may take some time to
determine...

Again, you are conflating two things. ABX is good for verifying audible difference. Audible
difference is a necessary, but not sufficient, prerequisite for forming preference that's
truly due *just* to the sound.

(you snipped your paragraph on home made vs high-end cable here)

?Great, but that has nothing to do with *determining* whether the two actually sound
?different.

I am suggesting strongly that the two do not sound any differently.

If the two do not sound any different, I hope you'd agree
that any preference will not likely be based on the *sound*, regardless of what the listener
believes or claims on, say, internet audio forums. Furthermore, it means this digression
about cables has nothing to do with short vs long-term listening. I don't get your point here.

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[[email protected]]

snip
In other words, your experience was right on target as could
have been expected. In a blind context no difference, in a
sighted context perception events of a difference reported.

Would you care to remark please.

"Not really. I had my say on this subject in the HE2005 debate
and in an essay I wrote for the July 2005 Stereophile: see
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi/.
With respect, I see no purpose in arguing with someone's
beliefs."

What a pity. On review in the linked articles above "beliefs" are indeed
in evidence. However what is of interest to me is that you do not remark
upon the observation that if one places oneself in a context known to
produce subjective effects then one should not be surprised that such
effects should appear in either article.

This observation is based squarely on science and logic and its reality
did not originate in my brain.

You placed yourself in such a context and when subjective effects resulted
you declared the blind test you had taken somehow flawed for not detecting
some factor "x". In that test you were unable to spot a difference
between amps. You then substituted long term subjective listening in a
subjective sighted context.

In science the most simple and most direct interpretation is taken first.
That would be that your reported perception effects were but another lone
datum in a now large body of such which confirm my observation above. We
would consider some factor "x" only if that failed to account for your
datum, it does not fail. The observation accounts fully for your
subjective report.

Would you please reconsider remarking upon how your experience is out of
the range of the ordinary?

[[email protected]]

On Aug 12, 5:55 pm, wrote:
snip
In other words, your experience was right on target as could
have been expected. In a blind context no difference, in a
sighted context perception events of a difference reported.

Would you care to remark please.

"Not really. I had my say on this subject in the HE2005 debate
and in an essay I wrote for the July 2005 Stereophile: see
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi/.
With respect, I see no purpose in arguing with someone's
beliefs."

snip

Would you please reconsider remarking upon how your
experience is out of the range of the ordinary?

I don't believe it is "out the range of the ordinary." You
apparently do. I suggest you ponder the myriad ways
a blind test can produce a null result when a real but
small audible difference exists between two audio
components. If you deny that that is a possibility,
then with respect, we are back in world of beliefs
and discussion becomes fruitless.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

Would you please reconsider remarking upon how your
experience is out of the range of the ordinary?

"I don't believe it is "out the range of the ordinary." You apparently do.
I suggest you ponder the myriad ways a blind test can produce a null
result when a real but small audible difference exists between two audio
components. If you deny that that is a possibility, then with respect, we
are back in world of beliefs and discussion becomes fruitless."

Of course it is, you claim somehow that putting yourself squarely into a
sighted subjective context known otherwise to produce subjective
perception events that that experience is not explained by having done so
in the ordinary fashion.

You claim a non-ordinary factor "x" to be at play.

The diversion into questions of testing is not relevant, a red herring in
fact. But in regard to "beliefs", one would then have to ask why your
sighted subjective test was out of the ordinary in not producing
subjective perception events as a deep well of known demonstrated so often
as to need no comment "flaws"?

Which fact gets us again to the central observation. If one places
oneself in a context known to produce subjective effects (flaws)?, then
why should one be surprised when those subjective effects appear right on
schedule?

And, why should we then even consider that some factor "x" be given
consideration for an explanation of why a blind amp test showed no
difference when the most simple and most direct explanation fully accounts
for it?

If you care to reply, please address directly these points.

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Aug 12, 5:55 pm, wrote:
snip
In other words, your experience was right on target as could
have been expected. In a blind context no difference, in a
sighted context perception events of a difference reported.

Would you care to remark please.

"Not really. I had my say on this subject in the HE2005 debate
and in an essay I wrote for the July 2005 Stereophile: see
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi/.
With respect, I see no purpose in arguing with someone's
beliefs."

snip

Would you please reconsider remarking upon how your
experience is out of the range of the ordinary?

I don't believe it is "out the range of the ordinary." You
apparently do. I suggest you ponder the myriad ways
a blind test can produce a null result when a real but
small audible difference exists between two audio
components.

They're rather more limited than the myriad of ways a
sighted review can attribute imaginary sonic attributes
to real gear.

If you deny that that is a possibility,
then with respect, we are back in world of beliefs
and discussion becomes fruitless.

No one *denies* the possibility. But since
we're asking leading questions: Do you deny
that reviews based on sighted evaluation run
a significant risk of describing wholly *imaginary*
sonic attributes?

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[[email protected]]

On Aug 13, 9:48 am, wrote in
message
John Atkinson ) wrote
wrote:
Would you please reconsider remarking upon how your
experience is out of the range of the ordinary?

I don't believe it is "out the range of the ordinary."
You apparently do. I suggest you ponder the myriad ways
a blind test can produce a null result when a real but
small audible difference exists between two audio
components. If you deny that that is a possibility, then
with respect, we are back in world of beliefs and
discussion becomes fruitless."

Of course it is, you claim somehow that putting yourself
squarely into a sighted subjective context known otherwise
to produce subjective perception events that that experience
is not explained by having done so in the ordinary fashion.

With respect, you're missing the point. This is not about _my_
beliefs, but your own. Vide: everything you have written to me
in this thread rests on your unquestioned, unexamined belief
that the double-blind test in which I participated, the results
of which led me to sell my high-end amplifier and replace it
with a Quad 405, was beyond reproach. That was not the case.

You claim a non-ordinary factor "x" to be at play.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that there are many
ways for an incompetent, naive, or dishonest tester to
arrange for null results to be produced by a blind test,
even when a small but real audible difference exists.
Remember, any tendency to randomize the listeners'
scoring will reduce the statistical significance of the result.

First, do not allow the listeners sufficient (or any) time to
become familiar with the room and system. Second, do not
subject the listeners to any training. Third, do not test the
proposed test methodology's sensitivity to real but small
differences. And fourth, and probably most importantly in an
ABX test, withhold the switch from the test subjects. If the
tester then switches between A and B far too quickly, allowing
only very brief exposures to X, he can produce a null result
between components that actually sound _very_ different.

Here are some other tricks I have witnessed being practiced by
dishonest testers to achieve a false null result:

Misidentify what the listeners are hearing so that they start
to question what they are hearing.

Introduce arbitrary and unexpected delays in auditioning A, B,
or X.

Stop the tests after a couple of presentations, ostensibly to
"check" something but actually to change something else when the
tests resume. Or merely to introduce a long enough delay to
confuse the listeners.

Make noises whenever X is being auditioned. For example, in one
infamous AES test that has since been quoted as "proving" cables
sound the same, the sound of the test speakers was being picked
up by the presenter's podium mike. The PA sound was louder than
the test sound for many of the subjects. See
http://www.stereophile.com/features/107 for more details.

Arrange for there to be interfering noise from adjacent rooms or
even, as in the late 1990s SDMI tests in London on watermarking,
use a PC with a hard drive and fan louder than some of the passages
of music,

Humiliate or confuse the test subjects. Or tell them that their
individual results will be made public.

Insist on continuing the test long past the point where listener
fatigue has set in. (AES papers have shown that good listeners
have a window of only about 45 minutes where they can produce
reliable results.)

Use inappropriate source material. For example, if there exists
as real difference in the DUTs' low-frequency performance, use
piccolo recordings.

These will all randomize the test subjects' responses _even if a
readily audible difference exists between the devices under test
really exists_.

And if the test still produces identification result, you can
discard the positive scores or do some other data cooking in the
subsequent analysis. For example, at some 1990 AES tests on
surround-sound decoders, the highest and lowest-scoring devices,
with statistically significant identification, were two Dolby
Pro-Logic decoders. The tester rejected the identication in the
final analysis, and combined the scores for these two devices.
He ended up with null results overall, which were presented as
showing that Dolby Pro-Logic did not produce an improvement in
surround reproduction.

Or you limit the trials to a small enough number so that even
if a listener achieves a perfect score, that is still
insufficient to reach the level of statistical significance
deemed necessary. This was done in the 1988 AES tests on
amplifiers and cables, where each listener was limited to 5
trials. 5 correct out of 5 does not reach the 95% confidence
level, so the tester felt justified in proclaiming that the
listeners who did score 5 out of 5 were still "guessing."

The diversion into questions of testing is not relevant, a
red herring in fact.

Hardly. In a nutshell, almost all the "scientific" tests that
have been published in the popular press and that have been
proclaimed as "proving" that no audible differences exist
between amplifiers, cables, etc, have been significantly
flawed on procedural matters. Judging by them by the standards
of science, they are far from scientific. In my informed
opinion, having taken part in over 100 blind tests since my
first in trhe spring of 1977, many of these tests they have
more in common with shell games than they do with science.
As I said both in the HE2005 debate, it is very difficult to
design a blind test where there exists a real but very small
audible difference without introducing (inadvertently or
deliberately) additional interfering variables.

And if interfering variables exist, the test is flawed and the
results should be discarded. Why do you have a problem with
that, other than it conlficts with your belief in scientism?

But in regard to "beliefs", one would then have to ask why
your sighted subjective test was out of the ordinary in not
producing subjective perception events as a deep well of
known demonstrated so often as to need no comment "flaws"?

As you should know if you read what I wrote in the linked
Stereophile article in an earlier response, it wasn't a single
"sighted subjective test" that led to my dissatisfaction
with the Quad amplifier but my continued use over a long
period of time with several different loudspeakers.
Despite my _wanting_ to like the sound of the amplifier,
the cognitive dissonance between what I _wanted_ to hear
and what I was _actually_ hearing was, eventually, sufficient
to over-ride my prejudices.

Which fact gets us again to the central observation. If
one places oneself in a context known to produce subjective
effects (flaws)?, then why should one be surprised when those
subjective effects appear right on schedule?

No-one has ever claimed that the listening performed by
magazine reviewers is scientific or definitive. We offer our
opinions is all, and even though those opinions are formed
carefully and conscientiously (at least as far as Stereophile's
reviewers are concerned -- I have no direct knowledge of
other publications' practices), they are still just opinions,
to be rejected or accepted as the reader feels appropriate.
I can live with that; you apparently cannot. With respect,
that is your problem, not mine.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


Not at all. I am merely pointing out that there are many
ways for an incompetent, naive, or dishonest tester to
arrange for null results to be produced by a blind test,
even when a small but real audible difference exists.

There's nothing new here - just possibly another attempt to paint blind
tests as being uniquely troublesome without a fair and balanced presentation
of the true situation.

For the record, I'm willing to stipulate that there are many ways for an
incompetent, naive, or dishonest tester to
arrange or blunder into a situation where null or positive results are
produced by a listening test, whether or not a real audible difference,
large or small, actually exists. To be fair, I must also stipulate that
sighted evaluations are highly susceptible to false positives, and that
blind tests are susceptible to false negatives. There is no known way to
eliminate false positives in a sighted evaluation, but the means for
eliminating false negatives in blind tests are well-known.

Just a reality check John, but are you willing to admit in public that there
are many ways for an incompetent, naive, or dishonest tester to arrange or
blunder and have positive results to be produced by a sighted test, whether
a small but real audible difference exists, or not?

[[email protected]]

On Aug 13, 6:19 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Do you deny that reviews based on sighted evaluation
run a significant risk of describing wholly *imaginary*
sonic attributes?

Run a risk? Yes of course. No-one has claimed
otherwise. But reviews don't become published
without having first run the gauntlet of the editing
process. I don't know how it is at magazines other
than Stereophile, but in my case, the fact that I
measure most categories of components allows
me to check my reviewers' findings by listening
myself in my system. I also regularly visit my
reviewers to audition what they are writing about
in their systems, to allow them to do a "show
and tell."

I have just returned, for example, from a road
trip to upstate New York where I auditioned 2
loudspeakers one of my reviewers is writing
about, as well as perform some in-room
measurements. Saturday I am visiting
another STsreophile reviewer to pick up
an amplifier for measurement, which will
allow me to audition the piece in his system.

You should also note that over time I have
subjected my reviewing team to blind tests,
ostensibly of audio components, but also
to examine their consistency and acuity as
critical listeners.

So, while there is always a risk that every
reviewer will occasionally run off the rails,
in a professionally organized magazine, this
risk should be reduced to a level that will be
found acceptable by the audio community.

As I said in a recent posting, in the end a review
magazine offers its writers' opinions. Even though
those opinions are formed carefully and conscientiously
in my informed view as far as Stereophile's reviewers
are concerned, they are still just opinions, to be rejected
or accepted as the reader feels appropriate.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 15, 8:48*am, wrote:

As I said in a recent posting, in the end a review
magazine offers its writers' opinions. Even though
those opinions are formed carefully and conscientiously
in my informed view as far as Stereophile's reviewers
are concerned, they are still just opinions, to be rejected
or accepted as the reader feels appropriate.

This gets right to the heart of the matter...

a) few purchasers of audio equipment, even very high end stuff, have
the option to review many options. Most of them are limited to those
items carried by those dealers where they shop. So, they may look to
outside opinion to determine whether they want to travel to or order
in additional options.

b) even those purchasers are seldom able to arrange for DB/ABX testing
amongst all the various options - even amongst one or two options.
Sales venues either cannot or should not be trusted to do such tests
properly. After all, their *need* is to sell.

c) so, if a purchaser's tastes happen to align to a particular
reviewer (or even run consistently counter to it), that can be a
useful screen when initiating the search for something new or
different.

d) it would seem that DB/ABX testing vs. sighted testing is more-or-
less a contest in micturation-for-distance inasmuch as in the very
real world neither tend to happen very much. Someone wants something
new - and looks for that thing. The salesperson (if any good) not only
sells the item for the particular need but with it a *STORY* such that
the purchaser can walk away happy. And that story has elements of the
'old 24K bamboozle', elements of belief and perhaps even actual
elements of concrete truths - but this last is entirely irrelevant to
the need for a story in the first place.

e) when I evaluate the stuff passing through my hands, it first must
pass the "fall-asleep" test. If I can fall asleep to it while
listening to certain favorite sources, then it can "stay" for the time-
being. More than a few times something sounds good at first blush but
I get restless after a short time - that stuff won't stay. A DB/ABX
test that does not permit me to fall asleep as part of it would have
no validity to me. That is an actual difference that I experience on a
regular basis.

Cutting to the chase - a perfectly *adequate* two-channel audio system
may purchased for under US$1,500 to include tuner/turntable/tape/CD
Remove the two obsolete media and stick to tuner/CD, that drops to
$1,000. And what would be the fun in that? The entire system costs
less than a set of Pear speaker wires... .

Question for the assembled multitude, and please limit your answer to
your *personally-owned* equipment if you are part of the industry: How
many components do you change/test/alternate in your system(s) on an
annual basis? I can honestly state that I will perhaps run past
between 15 and 30 items in a given year, of which one or two might
replace incumbents, if that. This amongst three 'permanent' systems in
play.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Aug 13, 6:19 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Do you deny that reviews based on sighted evaluation
run a significant risk of describing wholly *imaginary*
sonic attributes?

Run a risk? Yes of course. No-one has claimed
otherwise.

Yet I don't recall your magazine ever even acknowledging
it. Meanwhile, I can cite several instances where your
magazine has denigrated the utility of blind testing.

And it's a *significant* risk -- that's why controls
exist.

But reviews don't become published
without having first run the gauntlet of the editing
process. I don't know how it is at magazines other
than Stereophile, but in my case, the fact that I
measure most categories of components allows
me to check my reviewers' findings by listening
myself in my system. I also regularly visit my
reviewers to audition what they are writing about
in their systems, to allow them to do a "show
and tell."

Yes, and when your bench findings contradict what
the reviewer claimed, what happens?

You should also note that over time I have
subjected my reviewing team to blind tests,
ostensibly of audio components, but also
to examine their consistency and acuity as
critical listeners.

Yet such 'criticial listeners' have been tested
before, and found to be quite susceptible to confounding
effects (see Sean Olive's loudspeaker preference
investigations in JAES, for example)

But if *you* have blind-tested your reviewers,
surely THIS is an article you should run. You could
demonstrate the *proper* way to run a blind test,
*and* (assuming you actually get positive results)
demonstrate the actual audible difference between
said audio components...dare one hope they
include cables, amps, transports, 'ultrabit treated'
CDs?

So, while there is always a risk that every
reviewer will occasionally run off the rails,
in a professionally organized magazine, this
risk should be reduced to a level that will be
found acceptable by the audio community.

No, sir, there is a signficiant risk of non-sonic confounding
effects *every time* a sighted evaluation is performed.
To deny this is to deny scientific fact.

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[bob]

wrote in message



Not at all. I am merely pointing out that there are many
ways for an incompetent, naive, or dishonest tester to
arrange for null results to be produced by a blind test,
even when a small but real audible difference exists.

Which doesn't stop anyone from running them properly, and coming up
with a different (and, if positive, definitive) result. Seems like a
golden opportunity for a magazine publisher who wanted to serve the
interests of his readers, rather than his advertisers.

bob

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
wrote:
Which fact gets us again to the central observation. If
one places oneself in a context known to produce subjective
effects (flaws)?, then why should one be surprised when those
subjective effects appear right on schedule?

No-one has ever claimed that the listening performed by
magazine reviewers is scientific or definitive. We offer our
opinions is all, and even though those opinions are formed
carefully and conscientiously (at least as far as Stereophile's
to be rejected or accepted as the reader feels appropriate.
I can live with that; you apparently cannot. With respect,
that is your problem, not mine.

The idea that you present merely 'opinions' -- even while
you present screeds again methods that would surely negatively
impact your advertising base -- is laughable at best, and an
outrageous FoxNews-worthy spin of reality at worst.

Yes, of course you can 'live with it'; you are paid to
perpetuate 'it' -- 'it' being a the fostering of
doubt about objectivist , while remaining mum about the
scientific bankruptcy of the sighted evaluation methods
practiced by Stereophile.

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[[email protected]]

On Aug 15, 5:41*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Yes, of course you can 'live with it'; you are paid to
perpetuate 'it' -- 'it' being a the fostering of doubt about
objectivist , while remaining mum about the
scientific bankruptcy of the sighted evaluation methods
practiced by Stereophile.

"Bankruptcy"? "Fostering of doubt"? Oh well, I don't see
that it would serve any useful purpose to continue our
conversation, Mr. Sullivan. All I can point out is that if
you are that critical of the magazine that I edit, you are
not obliged to read it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

On Aug 15, 5:40*pm, bob wrote:
wrote in message

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that there are many
ways for an incompetent, naive, or dishonest tester to
arrange for null results to be produced by a blind test,
even when a small but real audible difference exists.

Which doesn't stop anyone from running them properly,
and coming up with a different (and, if positive, definitive)
result. Seems like a golden opportunity for a magazine
publisher who wanted to serve the interests of his readers,
rather than his advertisers.

Ah, the apparently obligatory insult. :-(

Seriously, why do you think advertisers in audio
magazines oppose blind testing? Many of those
advertisers incorporate blind testing in their design
process. By contrast, my experience has been that
it is the _readers_ of audio magazines who dislike
blind testing. For example, the various blind tests
Stereophile has published over the years have not
been sufficiently popular to justify the investment in
time and resources required for those tests.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

On Aug 15, 5:39*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
You should also note that over time I have
subjected my reviewing team to blind tests,
ostensibly of audio components, but also
to examine their consistency and acuity as
critical listeners.

Yet such 'criticial listeners' * have been tested
before, and found to be quite susceptible to
confounding effects (see Sean Olive's loudspeaker
preference investigations in JAES, for example)

Just to note for the record that the Stereophile
reviewers who have taken part in Sean's testing
at Harman did perform well, according to Sean
when I last visited him.Unfortunately, on both
occasions I visited Harman in recent years, the
speaker shuffing hardware was out of commission,
however, so you'll have to take my word that I am
also a "critical listener." :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

"You should also note that over time I have
subjected my reviewing team to blind tests,
ostensibly of audio components, but also
to examine their consistency and acuity as"
critical listeners.

And the results are and will be/have been published when? Will there be
then a "class" ranking based not on what seems most often price but here
on "crritical listening" skills so one may in turn evaluate how much
weight to place on a given article?

"So, while there is always a risk that every reviewer will occasionally
run off the rails, in a professionally organized magazine, this risk
should be reduced to a level that will be found acceptable by the audio
community."

May I suggest this is just so much unfounded sophistry of the "just so"
form.

"As I said in a recent posting, in the end a review magazine offers its
writers' opinions. Even though those opinions are formed carefully and
conscientiously in my informed view as far as Stereophile's reviewers are
concerned, they are still just opinions, to be rejected or accepted as the
reader feels appropriate."

May I suggest that in fact you sell the mag as being a journal which
presents each "audition" as a research result using accepted methods
relying on the "I hear it I really do, don't you believe me"? variety
alone. The journal guise goes so far as to use the issue designation
system of real research journals instead of just saying the 1997 feb.
issue, on newstands now along side the sports illustrated feb. swimsuit
issue, we get "issue 19, number 2" or some such.

You then sum these research results in a "class" ranking by which the
reader can have a reference by which to make purchasing and other
decisions. That is represented as somehow reflecting sonic reality not
summed opinion alone.

Far from presenting "opinion" alone, the mag presents directly or
inderectly a method asserted to be on an equal footing as could be
discovered by controlled formal scientific listening testing which is free
of the inherent flaws of the latter and containing none of its own...

[[email protected]]

On Aug 16, 11:11 am, wrote:
wrote
wrote in
message
You should also note that over time I have
subjected my reviewing team to blind tests,
ostensibly of audio components, but also
to examine their consistency and acuity as
critical listeners.

And the results are and will be/have been published when?

This work wasn't for publication, but as part of the
ongoing checks I perform on my writers' reliability
as listeners and the transportability of their published
opinions.

So, while there is always a risk that every reviewer
will occasionally run off the rails, in a
professionally organized magazine, this risk should
be reduced to a level that will be found acceptable
by the audio community."

May I suggest this is just so much unfounded sophistry
of the "just so" form.

Suggest all you wish. Saying so doesn't make it so.

As I said in a recent posting, in the end a review
magazine offers its writers' opinions. Even though
those opinions are formed carefully and conscientiously
in my informed view as far as Stereophile's reviewers
are concerned, they are still just opinions, to be
rejected or accepted as the reader feels appropriate.

May I suggest that in fact you sell the mag as being a
journal which presents each "audition" as a research
result using accepted methods relying on the "I hear
it I really do, don't you believe me"? variety alone.

Again, you can suggest all you wish. But I believe it
fruitless to argue with someone else's beliefs.

Far from presenting "opinion" alone, the mag presents
directly or inderectly a method asserted to be on an equal
footing as could be discovered by controlled formal
scientific listening testing which is free of the inherent flaws
of the latter and containing none of its own...

Your opinion, your strawman, sir.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

May I suggest that in fact you sell the mag as being a
journal which presents each "audition" as a research
result using accepted methods relying on the "I hear
it I really do, don't you believe me"? variety alone.

-poster-

"Again, you can suggest all you wish. But I believe it
fruitless to argue with someone else's beliefs."

-me-

It is difficult to distinguish "belief" from "opinion" as you use them.
But of course you have "opinion" while others of a different view have
"belief" only. If there is some other basis for the writer or some group
presenting their conclusions then as characterized above, please do tell
us.

Far from presenting "opinion" alone, the mag presents
directly or inderectly a method asserted to be on an equal
footing as could be discovered by controlled formal
scientific listening testing which is free of the inherent flaws
of the latter and containing none of its own...

-poster-

"Your opinion, your strawman, sir."

-me-

Not quite, it was you sir who made great haste to say you travel about
calibrating your writers by blind testing. This evokes in all respects some
form of equivalence as suggested above.

-poster-

You should also note that over time I have
subjected my reviewing team to blind tests,
ostensibly of audio components, but also
to examine their consistency and acuity as
critical listeners.

[[email protected]]

Forgive me for an untimely reply, I have been out of the loop for a time.

Would you please reconsider remarking upon how your
experience is out of the range of the ordinary?

I don't believe it is "out the range of the ordinary."
You apparently do. I suggest you ponder the myriad ways
a blind test can produce a null result when a real but
small audible difference exists between two audio
components. If you deny that that is a possibility, then
with respect, we are back in world of beliefs and
discussion becomes fruitless."

Of course it is, you claim somehow that putting yourself
squarely into a sighted subjective context known otherwise
to produce subjective perception events that that experience
is not explained by having done so in the ordinary fashion.

"With respect, you're missing the point. This is not about _my_ beliefs,
"but your own. Vide: everything you have written to me in this thread rests
"on your unquestioned, unexamined belief that the double-blind test in which
"I participated, the results of which led me to sell my high-end amplifier
"and replace it with a Quad 405, was beyond reproach. That was not the
"case."

With respect, you continue to avoid the point. It is not about your or my
"beliefs" but about your reported perception experiences. I accept that
"you have accurately and honestly reported those to us.

You claim a non-ordinary factor "x" to be at play.

"Not at all. I am merely pointing out that there are many ways for an
"incompetent, naive, or dishonest tester to arrange for null results to be
"produced by a blind test, even when a small but real audible difference
"exists."

No, the factor "x" is reported to account for the sighted experience
producing different results then your blind experience, more below.

Long list of possible confounding testing factors snipped.

"And if interfering variables exist, the test is flawed and the results
"should be discarded. Why do you have a problem with that, other than it
"conlficts with your belief in scientism?"

Because it is ex post facto special pleading and introduces factors not
demonstrated to have occurred in the special testing experience you had and
your account we accept. I must confess the term scientism also came to mind
as I read your account.

But in regard to "beliefs", one would then have to ask why
your sighted subjective test was out of the ordinary in not
producing subjective perception events as a deep well of
known demonstrated so often as to need no comment "flaws"?

"As you should know if you read what I wrote in the linked Stereophile
"article in an earlier response, it wasn't a single "sighted subjective
"test" that led to my dissatisfaction with the Quad amplifier but my
"continued use over a long period of time with several different
"loudspeakers. Despite my _wanting_ to like the sound of the amplifier, the
"cognitive dissonance between what I _wanted_ to hear and what I was
"_actually_ hearing was, eventually, sufficient to over-ride my prejudices."

Indeed, some factor "x" causing "cognitive dissonance". Quibbling about
designating a series of reported experience as an "single sighted
subjective test" notwithstanding, yes we accept once again you have
represented your perception experiences as you reported them accurately and
honestly. And the following still remains and even more so:

Which fact gets us again to the central observation. If
one places oneself in a context known to produce subjective
effects (flaws)?, then why should one be surprised when those
subjective effects appear right on schedule?

"No-one has ever claimed that the listening performed by magazine reviewers
"is scientific or definitive. We offer our opinions is all, and even though
"those opinions are formed carefully and conscientiously (at least as far as
"Stereophile's reviewers are concerned -- I have no direct knowledge of
"other publications' practices), they are still just opinions, to be
"rejected or accepted as the reader feels appropriate. I can live with that;
"you apparently cannot. With respect, that is your problem, not mine."

Who questions you do the subjective bit as well as you can/do? That is a
red herring. We are however brought back to the logic and science of your
reported experiences and the foundation for the "debate" regardless of the
"not claiming science" disclaimer even if one thinks just that case could
indeed easily be made.

Science is a way of formally and repeatedly posing and answering questions.
Hifi reviewing is not quite in the same category on several levels we need
not labor. But the answers presented in "auditions (pretentious?) are by
articles end represented to the reader as definitive on a basis of "I hear
it I really do, don't you believe me?" alone by an individual representing
themselves professionally directly or indirectly to be able to produce
definitive representations of physical sonic realities by subjective
listening.

This point remains to be addressed. In science we accept first the most
simple and most direct answer to a question until or unless moved to accept
another by better information or better ways of evaluating information. We
do not turn without reason to appeals to some factor "x" unless the first
answer is shown as described not to fit as well as another which also
accounts for the same information.

Just a personal observation. You tend to finish a post by some dismissive
quip often said to result from some deficiency in the one to which you are
replying, a number of same represented above. May I suggest this is
counterproductive and only detracts from any of your own remarks in a way
that weakens them.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 17, 11:35 am, wrote in
message
Of course it is, you claim somehow that putting yourself
squarely into a sighted subjective context known otherwise
to produce subjective perception events that that experience
is not explained by having done so in the ordinary fashion.

With respect, you're missing the point. This is not about _my_
beliefs, but your own. Vide: everything you have written to me
in this thread rests on your unquestioned, unexamined belief
that the double-blind test in which I participated, the results
of which led me to sell my high-end amplifier and replace it
with a Quad 405, was beyond reproach. That was not the case.

With respect, you continue to avoid the point. It is not
about your or my "beliefs" but about your reported perception
experiences. I accept that you have accurately and honestly
reported those to us.

Thank you, But you have then been dismissing my report of my
experience on no other grounds that you believe, apparently
unconditionally, in the results of the "scientific test."

You claim a non-ordinary factor "x" to be at play.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that there are many
ways for an incompetent, naive, or dishonest tester to
arrange for null results to be produced by a blind test,
even when a small but real audible difference exists.

No, the factor "x" is reported to account for the sighted
experience producing different results then your blind
experience, more below.

There is that belief thing of yours again. You are putting
your faith in a blind test's results being beyond question
apparently purely because it _was_ a blind test.

But in regard to "beliefs", one would then have to ask why
your sighted subjective test was out of the ordinary in not
producing subjective perception events as a deep well of
known demonstrated so often as to need no comment "flaws"?

As you should know if you read what I wrote in the linked
Stereophile article in an earlier response, it wasn't a
single "sighted subjective test" that led to my
dissatisfaction with the Quad amplifier but my continued
use over a long period of time with several different
loudspeakers. Despite my _wanting_ to like the sound of the
amplifier, the cognitive dissonance between what I _wanted_
to hear and what I was _actually_ hearing was, eventually,
sufficient to over-ride my prejudices.

Indeed, some factor "x" causing "cognitive dissonance".
Quibbling about designating a series of reported experience
as an "single sighted subjective test" notwithstanding, yes
we accept once again you have represented your perception
experiences as you reported them accurately and honestly.

"We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Look, if you accept that I am accurately reporting my
experiences, then there are _2_ hypotheses that can explain
those experiences:

One is that the null result of the blind test truly described
reality and that my subsequent experience of the Quad amplifier
was based on non-audio factors. You seem implicitly to believe
that this hypothesis is correct, yet you ignore the fact that
all the non-audio factors with the Quad were working in its
favor, as I described in the HE2005 debate.

Second is that the blind test produced a null result for
one or more of the reasons I listed in my earlier posting
and that my long-term experience of the Quad amplifier was
the true description of reality. You have offered no
argument that proves that second hypothesis incorrect.

In science we accept first the most simple and most direct
answer to a question until or unless moved to accept
another by better information or better ways of evaluating
information.

With all due respect to William of Ockhegm, his razor cannot
differentiate between the two hypotheses I presented above.
Your preference for the first hypothesis is based on faith,
not science, given your lack of knowledge of the specific
blind test protocols and conditions. All you know is that
the test was blind and that appears to be sufficient in
itself for you. But then your insistence that I replace my
belief that the second hypothesis is a true description of
reality with your belief because of your faith alone is, with
respect, ridiculous.

Just a personal observation. You tend to finish a post by
some dismissive quip often said to result from some
deficiency in the one to which you are replying, a number
of same represented above.

Oh dear.

May I suggest this is counterproductive and only detracts
from any of your own remarks in a way that weakens them.

I have tried in this thread to address the argument, not the
person making it. My apologies if you feel I have failed in
this respect.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Aug 15, 5:41?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Yes, of course you can 'live with it'; you are paid to
perpetuate 'it' -- 'it' being a the fostering of doubt about
objectivist , while remaining mum about the
scientific bankruptcy of the sighted evaluation methods
practiced by Stereophile.

"Bankruptcy"? "Fostering of doubt"? Oh well, I don't see
that it would serve any useful purpose to continue our
conversation, Mr. Sullivan. All I can point out is that if
you are that critical of the magazine that I edit, you are
not obliged to read it.

But Mr. Atkinson, your magainze does serve a purpose for those
arguing with you. Amidst the mind-clouding lull induced by that facade of
reasonableness that can seem genetically British,it merely
takes a sample of Stereophile to snap one's critical faculties back to
attention:

Placette Audio Remote Volume Control passive preamplifier
By Brian Damkroger .
Stereophile, June, 2004

[i]nstalling the Placette improved the system's transparency by removing a
layer of grunge that.in most cases.I hadn't even realized was there. The
spaces around images became clean and open, and notes emerged from and
flowed through the recording venue's ambience. Tonal purity was improved
as well, with instruments and voices sounding more relaxed and natural.
The Placette pointed out that the other volume controls, especially the
line stages, were weaving a subtle patchwork of distortions into the
sound, textures so inherent to the components' performance that I'd been
listening around them.




--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Aug 15, 5:41?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Yes, of course you can 'live with it'; you are paid to


Snip
[i]

Placette Audio Remote Volume Control passive preamplifier
By Brian Damkroger .
Stereophile, June, 2004

nstalling the Placette improved the system's transparency by removing a
layer of grunge that.in most cases.I hadn't even realized was there. The
spaces around images became clean and open, and notes emerged from and
flowed through the recording venue's ambience. Tonal purity was improved
as well, with instruments and voices sounding more relaxed and natural.
The Placette pointed out that the other volume controls, especially the
line stages, were weaving a subtle patchwork of distortions into the
sound, textures so inherent to the components' performance that I'd been
listening around them.

Have you ever "heard" a passive preamp placed in an extremely transparent
system in place of a good active preamp, Steven? If not, then I'd suggest
you are in no position to judge this discription, other than perhaps to
suggest that his adjectives might have been a bit more mellow.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:57:01 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):
[i]
wrote:
On Aug 15, 5:41?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Yes, of course you can 'live with it'; you are paid to
perpetuate 'it' -- 'it' being a the fostering of doubt about
objectivist , while remaining mum about the
scientific bankruptcy of the sighted evaluation methods
practiced by Stereophile.

"Bankruptcy"? "Fostering of doubt"? Oh well, I don't see
that it would serve any useful purpose to continue our
conversation, Mr. Sullivan. All I can point out is that if
you are that critical of the magazine that I edit, you are
not obliged to read it.

But Mr. Atkinson, your magainze does serve a purpose for those
arguing with you. Amidst the mind-clouding lull induced by that facade of
reasonableness that can seem genetically British,it merely
takes a sample of Stereophile to snap one's critical faculties back to
attention:

Placette Audio Remote Volume Control passive preamplifier
By Brian Damkroger .
Stereophile, June, 2004

nstalling the Placette improved the system's transparency by removing a
layer of grunge that.in most cases.I hadn't even realized was there. The
spaces around images became clean and open, and notes emerged from and
flowed through the recording venue's ambience. Tonal purity was improved
as well, with instruments and voices sounding more relaxed and natural.
The Placette pointed out that the other volume controls, especially the
line stages, were weaving a subtle patchwork of distortions into the
sound, textures so inherent to the components' performance that I'd been
listening around them.

I find Damkroger's "observations" to be reasonable. Have you ever done a D-B
test where the fixed output of a CD player went through an active pre-amp
while the variable output of the same CD player went directly into the power
amp? One line stage might sound pretty much like another, but eliminating
that stage could be detected pretty consistently in the test to which I was
party. Removing a number of active components from the signal path did result
in a level of transparency unmatched by the active stage and the difference
wasn't all that subtle, either. Of course, whether or not replacing the
active line stage with an outboard potentiometer, switching and I/O jacks
would yield exactly the same result as eliminating external circuitry
altogether, I cannot say. But I suspect that the differences would be similar

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 19, 3:33*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Have you ever "heard" a passive preamp placed in an extremely transparent
system in place of a good active preamp, Steven? *If not, then I'd suggest
you are in no position to judge this discription, other than perhaps to
suggest that his adjectives might have been a bit more mellow.

Not relevant to the discussion, in my opinion. I interpret the point
to mean that a healthy amount of skepticism is useful when faced with
any sort of opinion based on any sort of test or experience.

It is also my own considered opinion based on my 'experience' that the
more elaborate the language, the less likely the thought behind it.
You need not agree with me, however.

$1,000 for a handful of resistors, a few LEDs and a couple of switches
does come close enough to passing the snake-oil smell test that some
thought is useful when reading such highly scented descriptives.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Harry Lavo]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Aug 19, 3:33 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Have you ever "heard" a passive preamp placed in an extremely transparent
system in place of a good active preamp, Steven? If not, then I'd suggest
you are in no position to judge this discription, other than perhaps to
suggest that his adjectives might have been a bit more mellow.

Not relevant to the discussion, in my opinion.

Peter, I often agree with you but I find this "laugable". Of course it is
relevant if one is to imply that the opinion offered is "snake oil".

I interpret the point
to mean that a healthy amount of skepticism is useful when faced with
any sort of opinion based on any sort of test or experience.

I am sure that is what he meant. It doesn't change my offered question one
bit?


It is also my own considered opinion based on my 'experience' that the
more elaborate the language, the less likely the thought behind it.
You need not agree with me, however.

Well, we all have opinions. You are welcome to yours. I am more inclined to
ascribing it to writing style and perhaps maturity as a writer.

$1,000 for a handful of resistors, a few LEDs and a couple of switches
does come close enough to passing the snake-oil smell test that some
thought is useful when reading such highly scented descriptives.

With those parts, you can build your own and then have a solid basis for
evaluating the writers conclusions.


Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Peter Wieck]

Harry:

For the most part, I agree with you as well. Somewhat OT, but
peripherally relevant to the discussion, I suggest you look up
"Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses" by Mark Twain - it is readily
available on the net - and you will better understand my point about
"scented" language. For the most part, it is meant to conceal rather
than convey. In the case of the review cited - clearly so - again in
my opinion. And it is a mature writed indeed who is able to conceal
substance while superficially seeming to convey it, and do so on
command.

As to the 'handful of parts' remark - you are not far off. I am _very_
slowly cobbling together a tube amplifier based on vintage Fisher
iron, and in its latest iteration I have decided to add a front end to
it so it can serve as a line-level integrated amp. I might just
incorporate such a passive system as described. Come back to me in the
late spring - maybe I will have something to report. But you can bet
that I will purchase blank switches and add my own resistors if I use
a stepper vs. a standard continuous resistive element.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Have you ever "heard" a passive preamp placed in an
extremely transparent system in place of a good active
preamp, Steven?

If Steven hasn't, I have. Many times.

If not, then I'd suggest you are in no
position to judge this description, other than perhaps to
suggest that his adjectives might have been a bit more
mellow.

One need not listen to every component that happens to be hot this week to
know what the results of replacing one sonically transparent component with
another are.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Have you ever "heard" a passive preamp placed in an
extremely transparent system in place of a good active
preamp, Steven?

If Steven hasn't, I have. Many times.

That is not relevant to Steven's passing judgement.



If not, then I'd suggest you are in no
position to judge this description, other than perhaps to
suggest that his adjectives might have been a bit more
mellow.

One need not listen to every component that happens to be hot this week to
know what the results of replacing one sonically transparent component
with
another are.

Well, another voice heard from that doesn't think having to listen to a
component is critical to passing judgement on it. This is when faith in
science transcends science to become "scientism", I'm afraid.

[[email protected]]

In the narrative of the "debate" two phases are related. First a blind
listening alone test of two amps wherein no difference was reported to be
heard. The second a sighted long term subjective listening said to produce
"cognitive dissonance" as a measure that differences after all did exist.

We can exclude consideration of the first phase to make my point about how
to consider the conclusions reached at the end of the narrative. The first
was incidental to the results of the second. Any problems of possible
confounding factors did not affect the second phase and conclusions about
the first phase were an after the fact thought following the second. The
results of either had no logical affect upon how either was conducted nor
in what results were reported. Being separated in time they did not
interact as far as acoustic effects were concerned. So we can focus upon
the second alone as it was said to produce the conclusion of differences.

Which brings us, once again, to my central point. If one consciously
places oneself in a context known to readily produce subjective perception
effects, one should then not be surprised that they should occur as could
be predicted. In other words, this is but another example of the failures
of subjective sighted listening tests, it is not an exception nor excludes
it from all the established flaws it can and does introduce in such
contexts. What if any other events that might have proceeded the second is
irrelevant to it's results and how we can validly consider it.

The entire narrative however rhetorically well crafted in the end is but
yet one more subjective review as might be published as a stand alone
article in a hifi review magazine. It does not stand in defense of the
validity of subjective tests to produce an analog of reality nor to spot
differences existing in the signal as it reaches the ear anymore then the
scores of subjective events preceding it.

What would have made a notable difference would have been to follow the
second phase with a test carefully crafted as to exclude any confounding
factors in a format of the listener's own making, the only stipulation that
it at all times be blind. That would have been a real service to the long
term discussion on the topic and not just another subjective perception
report. Because the two amps involved are commonly available this can still
be done.