Harry Lavo wrote:
"michael" wrote in message
...
Kevin Smith wrote:

I have no idea what you are talking about with half this stuff. However,
if
you can't tell the difference between a $20 Cd player and an ?1100 (yes,
real money) player, then perhaps an ear syringing could be in order!

Many years ago, I changed my NAD5440 CD player for a naim-audio CD3.5.
The
sonic difference was immediate. I regularly listen to a naim CDS. It
blows
my 3.5 out of the water. In fact, it's depressing when I return home and
have to listen to my system.

Have you ever listened to top end hifi?

Everyone has some anecdotes. A year ago a colleague had me over to his
house to listen to his new Sound Labs driven by something called a
Wolcott tube amplifier and an expensive French high end CD player whose
brand I cannot now recall. When he was out of the room and on a lark I
hooked up a portable Panasonic player I had with me in my sack. When he
came back Pat Barber was singing and my friend had no idea he was
listening to a 100 dollar portable. It's easy to fool yourself in these
matters.


What it shows is an expectation bias .... people don't expect dishonesty.
Same goes for doing an "a-b" where the source is not really switched, just
seemingly so. Proponents say this "proves" that things sound the same and
that only expectation bias is at work. I say the expectation bias
overwhelms whatever differences do exist...simply because people in either
of these circumstances are not expecting fraud.

Why would expectation bias overwhelm whatever differences do exist, in
a 'phantom switch' situation where no fraud is expected, but *not* in
a real comparison situation where no fraud is expected? The psychology
literature says that indeed it *is* operating in both
cases , and that's why it needs to be accounted for. Hence
blind protocols as the preferred means of gleaning truth.

Let's look at it another way:
From a skeptical POV, claims about the distinct 'sound' of
high-end cables, amps, transports have the same truth value
as the sort of 'fraud' perpetrated by a 'phantom switcher'.
If two things *actually* sound the same, there is no effective
difference between the 'trickster' who *knows* his claim of
difference is false, and the high-end marketer who sincerely
believes in the audible difference of his product.




--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

B&D wrote:


On 12/15/04 8:17 PM, in article , "Chung"
wrote:

BTW, since you agree that expectation bias needs to be removed if real
differences are to be discerned, why do you object to controlled testing
that removes expectation bias, such as DBT?

If you are biased against hearing a difference, how could DBT remove *that*
bias?

There is little evidence that such a bias exists at least at as strong a level.
I've conducted an experimemt where subjects were given 10 pairs of short A/B
presentations and asked to express a preference for A or B or to have No
Preference.

5 of the presentations A and B were identical to each other and in the other 5
either A or B was 1-dB louder than the other.

There were 31 subjects ranging from female college students, men-in-the-street,
audio enthusiasts (one of who was a doctor who firmly believed that all amps
sound the same) and audio prfessionals who each listened singly over
headphones.
Surprisingly when A and B were identical subjects reported a "preference" for A
or B (instead of No Preference). There no signifcant differences between
subject vocation (including the person mentioned above). So AFAIAC the simple
act of comparison invokes expectation of differences which most probably
overrides no-difference bias.

On 16 Dec 2004 02:47:42 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 12/15/04 8:17 PM, in article , "Chung"
wrote:

BTW, since you agree that expectation bias needs to be removed if real
differences are to be discerned, why do you object to controlled testing
that removes expectation bias, such as DBT?

If you are biased against hearing a difference, how could DBT remove *that*
bias?

You keep banging on about this, but have you ever heard of *anyone*
who is determined *not* to hear a difference? Essentially, it's
against human nature. Speaking for myself, I *still* hear differences
in sighted comparison of amplifiers which I *know* to be
indistinguishable in blind testing.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

This is somewhat off topic but it shows how common self delusion is. A
friend has a satellite dish for TV. During a recent wind storm, the
dish was moved enough (It is on a 4 X 4 post set in the ground) so he
had no reception. A service tech came, set the post in concrete, and
re-aimed the dish. My friend insists that he now gets a much sharper
picture. This is not possible since with satellite systems, you either
have a picture or you don't. Quality is not an issue.


---MIKE---

michael wrote:
normanstrong wrote:

You're quite right. People don't expect fraud, and I agree that such
a test is not valid. I would not expect a person, under these
circumstances, to immediately say, "Hey, wait a minute, that doesn't
sound like my Sound Labs." So how long should it take a person to
uncover the fraud?

I was not trying to perpetrate fraud in my "test". I simply wanted to
hear what my Panasonic portable sounded like. What I thought interesting
was that we had a set up that no one would not consider 'high end'. I
mean, the mono amps by themselves (despite their goofy looking
appearance) cost as much as a high tech, high powered Italian motorcycle!

The conclusion: when a then 2 year old battery powered less than $100.00
CD player was inserted into the chain there was no recognition of this
fact by the owner. On this newsgroup I read about people who, owning
lesser high-end gear, write in a very casual and self-evident manner
that at any given time one cd player "blows away" another. That sure
wasn't our experience.

But, to answer your question--my guess is that if I could have somehow
placed the Panasonic into the expensive cd player the "fraud" would
never have been discovered. As I said, I think it is very easy to
delude oneself in these matters.

michael

Sure; those who "believe:in high-end sound will argue with you as the day is
long but you've discovered the truth about CD sound. Don't ever ley some one
squeeze money out of you wallet chasing sound quality better than you already
have :-)

Nousaine wrote:

Sure; those who "believe:in high-end sound will argue with you as the day is
long but you've discovered the truth about CD sound. Don't ever ley some one
squeeze money out of you wallet chasing sound quality better than you already
have :-)


Alas, my Sound Lab busting Panasonic portable recently developed laser
tracking error. But, after four years of being tossed around in a sack
that's not too bad. And after reading all the posts here about
expensive high end CD players I'm convinced that that's the way to go.
From here on out cost will be no object...I've decided to break down
and spring for the $90.00 shock resistant waterproof model. :-)

michael