On 12 Jan 2004 16:06:16 GMT, (Buster Mudd) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

With levels matched to +/- 0.1 dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz, experience
suggests that 'wire is wire'. If you can prove different, there's a
$4k pot waiting to be collected.

What if one of the (alleged) differences between 2 different cables is
that they are *not* matched at all three of those frequencies?

I have never seen such a claim for so-called 'high end' cable.

I.e.,
what if when the 2 test cables are precisely level matched at 1kHz,
one of them measures +1dB at 10kHz and -0.5dB at 100Hz?

That would require a *very* peculiar combination of cable and speaker!

Surely you're
not suggesting that those differences be somehow compensated for to
maintain level matching at all three reference frequencies?

If that's what the cable was claimed to do, then I'd have no issue
with that, but if there are *other* claims made of the usual
technobbable sort, then a simple and cheap EQ to achieve matching
would prove the point. After all, I would simply be matching the
frequency response without affecting any of the other claimed
properties. This might cost as much as £5.....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Buster Mudd wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
...

With levels matched to +/- 0.1 dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz, experience
suggests that 'wire is wire'. If you can prove different, there's a
$4k pot waiting to be collected.

What if one of the (alleged) differences between 2 different cables is
that they are *not* matched at all three of those frequencies? I.e.,
what if when the 2 test cables are precisely level matched at 1kHz,
one of them measures +1dB at 10kHz and -0.5dB at 100Hz? Surely you're
not suggesting that those differences be somehow compensated for to
maintain level matching at all three reference frequencies?

A good question. The thing to remember is that no one, including Pinkerton
himself, argues that every single cable in existence will sound the same in
any given system. (Stewart's own recent counterexample was bell wire.)
Obviously, if you make the resistance high enough, either by using very long
or very thin cables, you can produce a really whacked-out frequency-response
curve, which will be audible. The level-matching requirement is meant to
eliminate that rather trivial case. In effect, you're being challenged to
demonstrate that cables can produce an audible difference in some way other
than the well-known effect of high resistance. (I'm not an engineer, but I
understand that, in some rather unusual cases, high inductance and/or
capacitance can also affect FR.)

That said, the 0.1 dB limit is probably tighter than it needs to be, at
least at the frequency extremes. It's quite possible that the FR example you
cited would not be audibly distinguishable from a perfectly flat cable--say,
6 inches of 12AWG zipcord.

bob

On 12 Jan 2004 16:08:04 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote in
:

So we need some way to determine whether the difference you think you
hear is real or imaginary. We do this by designing a test in which you
do not know what you are listening to (i.e., blind). There are a
variety of ways to do this, including the ABX test and the A-B
difference test. In the former, you must tell us what X is. In the
latter, you must tell us whether B is the same as or different than A.
Either way, you've got a 50-50 chance of being right, so if you did it
just once and got the right answer, it could be just a lucky guess.
That's why we require multiple trials, and there are some general
statistical rules for how many trials and how many correct answers you
need. Stewart's 16-out-of-20 condition is perfectly reasonable.

If you want to claim that you can hear differences between cables,
this is what you have to do to prove it to us skeptics. It's not an
unreasonable standard; it's a standard based on general scientific
understanding of human hearing.

Thank you for your reasoning.

The thing is, Stewart's "blind test" already assumed that the subject
will guess at the beginning because of the $4000 pool. I know what you
saying, sometime we will bias on certain if we see the cable first, but
you know, do it yourself at home, in regardless of that "attractive"
$4000, honestly to yourself, I bet the difference between a cheap dirty
zip-cord and a 6N copper wire is obvious;

It's not - I and many others have tried it under controlled
conditions. *How much* do you bet? :-)

same thing as a solid copper
interconnect and a silver/copper hybrid interconnect. I can say that,
because I have done it and experiencing the difference, many times. I
don't need to do any nonsense test to prove to me that is right.

No, you just need to *believe* that because you think you hear it,
there must be a *real* difference. This is not the case.

The test has a major problem because of the extend of time it consume,
and as I pointed out above, it bias that the tester will lie even if
he/she cannot tell the difference.

I have no idea what the above sentence is supposed to mean.

I say, if I can tell the difference the first time, that is!

I say, you are guessing.

Why didn't I
want to do it 20 times in a roll, because we are human, human will adapt
to an environment quite easily, after a few time of identical testing,
especially under loud volume, everything will just sounds the same,
cables, speakers, amp, preamp, source (of course you can tell between a
CD and LP). The set up of the test is nonsense. That is why as proclaim
by Stewart why so many years, nobody even wanted to do the test, because
people have better way to spend their time.

You are simply trying to defend your belief system, there is *no* way
that you can really hear such differences. Basically, you are just
making up excuses to avoid the brutal truth - you don't *want* to know
that your cherished beliefs are nonsense.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

You know, Mr. Pinkerton, Im getting a little peeved reading about your 100%
certainty of objectivity. If YOUR belief system includes so called "objective"
paradigms then i accept that as your perogative. However, your assertions that
other people's perceptions are wrong because they dont correlate with
measurements is pompous. If you really believe that we currently know all
there is to know about equipment, measurements and "objectivity" that is your
right. But, im here to tell you that everyone lives through their perceptions
including scientists and objectivists. Please be so humble as to leave room
for perceptions as reality because i do hear a difference in cables and
bi-wiring even if you say i should'nt. The difference between us is, i can
acknowledge your point of view without disparaging it or saying its wrong. If
science has taught us anything, it is that we know very little about physical
processes. I respect your point of view, but dont accept it. -Bob Bernstein.

Lawrence Leung wrote:

The thing is, Stewart's "blind test" already assumed that the subject
will guess at the beginning because of the $4000 pool.

The $4K pool has nothing to do with it. If you can't hear a difference,
you'll have to guess, even if you're doing this alone at home.

I know what you
saying, sometime we will bias on certain if we see the cable first, but
you know, do it yourself at home, in regardless of that "attractive"
$4000, honestly to yourself, I bet the difference between a cheap dirty
zip-cord and a 6N copper wire is obvious; same thing as a solid copper
interconnect and a silver/copper hybrid interconnect.

You bet, do you? How much do you bet? And how do you propose to prove to us
skeptics that you are right?

I can say that,
because I have done it and experiencing the difference, many times.

No, you haven't. What you've done is to imagine a difference between two
sonically indistinguishable cables. Care to prove me wrong?

I
don't need to do any nonsense test to prove to me that is right.

But you do need a scientifically rigorous test if you want to prove it to
anybody else.

The test has a major problem because of the extend of time it consume,
and as I pointed out above, it bias that the tester will lie even if
he/she cannot tell the difference.

Huh?

I say, if I can tell the difference the first time, that is! Why didn't I
want to do it 20 times in a roll, because we are human, human will adapt
to an environment quite easily, after a few time of identical testing,
especially under loud volume, everything will just sounds the same,

Then don't do it 20 times in a row. Do one trial a day. Use a different
musical selection each time. Take as long as you want. Set the volume
wherever you want. Make up any other excuses you want. You still won't be
able to differentiate between the two cables.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
High-speed users—be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet
Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1

Lawrence Leung wrote:

Snip

Thank you for your reasoning.

The thing is, Stewart's "blind test" already assumed that the subject
will guess at the beginning because of the $4000 pool. I know what you
saying, sometime we will bias on certain if we see the cable first, but
you know, do it yourself at home, in regardless of that "attractive"
$4000, honestly to yourself, I bet the difference between a cheap dirty
zip-cord and a 6N copper wire is obvious;

Many *have* tried it. As have I. What *I* heard as obvious in a
sighted demonstration completely disappeard at home - under just
single blind conditions.

same thing as a solid copper
interconnect and a silver/copper hybrid interconnect. I can say that,
because I have done it and experiencing the difference, many times. I
don't need to do any nonsense test to prove to me that is right.

Quite true. You only need real evidence if you expect others to
accept that your *beliefs* are anything more than just that.

The test has a major problem because of the extend of time it consume,

Yeah, takes a couple of hours. What a burden!

and as I pointed out above, it bias that the tester will lie even if
he/she cannot tell the difference.

Ahhh...and here you, yourself, are validating the need for
multiple trials. In multiple trials (such as the '20' suggested to
you), it will make no difference whether you "lie" or not. If you
don't hear a difference, you have to guess in order to "lie", and
guess what? The statistics will demonstrate that you are, in fact,
just guessing.


I say, if I can tell the difference the first time, that is! Why didn't I
want to do it 20 times in a roll, because we are human, human will adapt
to an environment quite easily, after a few time of identical testing,
especially under loud volume, everything will just sounds the same,
cables, speakers, amp, preamp, source (of course you can tell between a
CD and LP).

Then by this logic, different components, wires, etc. *cannot*
make any difference whatsoever, as you "will adapt to an
environment quite easily" (very quickly if your surmise is
correct) at which point everything will sound the same. Zip cord
or Unobtanium.

You can't have it both ways.

The set up of the test is nonsense. That is why as proclaim
by Stewart why so many years, nobody even wanted to do the test, because
people have better way to spend their time.

Now *that* is nonsense. Many people have done the testing, and
found our truth to be at odds with yours.

Keith Hughes

Buster Mudd wrote:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

With levels matched to +/- 0.1 dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz, experience
suggests that 'wire is wire'. If you can prove different, there's a
$4k pot waiting to be collected.


What if one of the (alleged) differences between 2 different cables is
that they are *not* matched at all three of those frequencies? I.e.,
what if when the 2 test cables are precisely level matched at 1kHz,
one of them measures +1dB at 10kHz and -0.5dB at 100Hz? Surely you're
not suggesting that those differences be somehow compensated for to
maintain level matching at all three reference frequencies?

Well, I can't answer for the others, but IMO, such a cable as you
describe is either a) incredibly poorly engineered/manufactured,
or b) intended to affect the sound (i.e. 'stealth' tone control).
In either case differences might be heard. But no one, IME, is
saying that cables can't be made to affect the sound, just that
nominally competent cables, designed to be *just* transmission
cables, will not.

Keith Hughes

Buster Mudd wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

With levels matched to +/- 0.1 dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz, experience
suggests that 'wire is wire'. If you can prove different, there's a
$4k pot waiting to be collected.


What if one of the (alleged) differences between 2 different cables is
that they are *not* matched at all three of those frequencies? I.e.,
what if when the 2 test cables are precisely level matched at 1kHz,
one of them measures +1dB at 10kHz and -0.5dB at 100Hz? Surely you're
not suggesting that those differences be somehow compensated for to
maintain level matching at all three reference frequencies?

So far, barring *really* shoddy construction, this hasn't happened.
The tolerances for wire are in the Mhz range. Virtually nothing will
show up at such a small frequency change. I suppose if you get a
scope on it and analyzed it, you might find something if you turned
up the resolution enough, but it would be something in the .000Xdb range
at most. Well beyond human hearing.

RBernst929 wrote:
You know, Mr. Pinkerton, Im getting a little peeved reading about your 100%
certainty of objectivity. If YOUR belief system includes so called "objective"
paradigms then i accept that as your perogative. However, your assertions that
other people's perceptions are wrong because they dont correlate with
measurements is pompous. If you really believe that we currently know all
there is to know about equipment, measurements and "objectivity" that is your
right. But, im here to tell you that everyone lives through their perceptions
including scientists and objectivists. Please be so humble as to leave room
for perceptions as reality because i do hear a difference in cables and
bi-wiring even if you say i should'nt.

That's why he and some of us are putting up the $4K pool: to motivate
you to prove us wrong.

The difference between us is, i can
acknowledge your point of view without disparaging it or saying its wrong. If
science has taught us anything, it is that we know very little about physical
processes.

That's not true. We have a good understanding of the human hearing
limits, and of the psychological effects leading to perceived
differences. Sure, we don't know everything, but we know a lot.
Esepcially about electrical engineering as applied to audio reproduction.


I respect your point of view, but dont accept it. -Bob Bernstein.


Then prove him wrong.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:34:44 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

Lawrence Leung
wrote:
No, you are wrong. You should re-phrase that to: "... under my blind
conditions."


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
They are not 'my' blind conditions, they are a standard test for
reasonable confidence that there really is a detectable difference.

Yes, they are 'your' (and the other objectivsts here) blind conditions. There
has been no verifying test to show that the blind tests used in other areas of
science actually work in open-ended audio component comparisons.

Sure there has, that's why such tests are used *every day* by Revel,
B&W, KEF, THX, Mark Levinson, JBL, etc, etc, etc.

If *you* wish to stick your fingers in your ears and deny that such
tests are used all the time to determine whether a change makes any
*real* audible difference, that's not *my* problem.

I can set up a more ridiculos test so that even I put one
million dollars in the pool, still nobody can claim, then I can say
whatever I want. There is nothing wrong with blind test, but your version
of blind test is nonsense. 95%, who said it has to be 16/20 or what so
ever, only the person (or some people) set it that way and claim it is the
fact?

See above. If you are confident that your cables *really* make a
significant difference, why wouldn't you be able to tell that
difference 100% of the time?

Because the test you have chosen doesn't seem to work in this application. Mr.
Leung is correct here.

The test works just fine when there are *real* differences to be
heard. That's why it's used by many major manufacturers in developing
their products. Mr Leung, like you, is simply in denial. If you are so
confident that you can hear it once, why are you so terrified to hear
it a mere 15 times out of 20? Surely, with differences so obvious as
you claim, you can hear it *every* time?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Lawrence
wrote:
Why didn't I
want to do it 20 times in a roll, because we are human, human will adapt
to an environment quite easily, after a few time of identical testing,
especially under loud volume, everything will just sounds the same,
cables, speakers, amp, preamp, source (of course you can tell between a
CD and LP). The set up of the test is nonsense. That is why as proclaim
by Stewart why so many years, nobody even wanted to do the test, because
people have better way to spend their time.


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
You are simply trying to defend your belief system, there is *no* way
that you can really hear such differences.
Here's the kicker:
Basically, you are just
making up excuses to avoid the brutal truth - you don't *want* to know
that your cherished beliefs are nonsense.


Sounds to me like Jack Nicholson's famous line from "A few Good Men" - "You
can't handle the truth!"

Unfortunately, unless you can show actual scientific *proof* that DBTs actually
DO show subtle differences between audio components in open-ended testing, it
is you who is:
"making up excuses to avoid the brutal truth - you don't *want* to know
that your cherished beliefs are nonsense."
Regards,
Mike

"chung" wrote in message
...
RBernst929 wrote:
You know, Mr. Pinkerton, Im getting a little peeved reading about your
100%
certainty of objectivity. If YOUR belief system includes so called
"objective"
paradigms then i accept that as your perogative. However, your
assertions that
other people's perceptions are wrong because they dont correlate with
measurements is pompous. If you really believe that we currently know
all
there is to know about equipment, measurements and "objectivity" that is
your
right. But, im here to tell you that everyone lives through their
perceptions
including scientists and objectivists. Please be so humble as to leave
room
for perceptions as reality because i do hear a difference in cables and
bi-wiring even if you say i should'nt.

That's why he and some of us are putting up the $4K pool: to motivate
you to prove us wrong.

The difference between us is, i can
acknowledge your point of view without disparaging it or saying its
wrong. If
science has taught us anything, it is that we know very little about
physical
processes.

That's not true. We have a good understanding of the human hearing
limits, and of the psychological effects leading to perceived
differences. Sure, we don't know everything, but we know a lot.
Esepcially about electrical engineering as applied to audio reproduction.


As you know from previous discussions Chung there is widespread belief among
audiophiles that the test itself is flawed in revealing most audible
perceptions other than volume differences, frequency differences, and
distortion artifacts. Also has been pointed out, no control tests have
*ever* been done on these techniques against other forms of open-ended
evaluative testing of audio components. *THAT* is why most of us are
totally disinterested in the $4000 challenge (in addition to the fact that
it has only been vaguely promised and the money itself doesn't physically
exist in a pool...but it does make a great stick to wave at people, doesn't
it.)

Why don't you all pool your $4000, do a definitive control test, and if it
supports your position write it up and submit it for peer review. Then if
it gets accepted you'll get your $4000 worth, and all the free time you
won't have to argue here will allow you time to enjoy more music.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:34:44 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

Lawrence Leung
wrote:
No, you are wrong. You should re-phrase that to: "... under my blind
conditions."


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
They are not 'my' blind conditions, they are a standard test for
reasonable confidence that there really is a detectable difference.

Yes, they are 'your' (and the other objectivsts here) blind conditions.
There
has been no verifying test to show that the blind tests used in other
areas of
science actually work in open-ended audio component comparisons.

Sure there has, that's why such tests are used *every day* by Revel,
B&W, KEF, THX, Mark Levinson, JBL, etc, etc, etc.


Why do you continue to distort the truth, Stewart. As has been pointed out
many times, they do *NOT* use those tests for open-ended evaluation, they
use them to listen to certain specific characteristics or artifacts *AFTER*
careful training of the listeners in exactly what to listen for. And even so
some listeners can't do it. What do you not understand about OPEN-ENDED,
Stewart?

If *you* wish to stick your fingers in your ears and deny that such
tests are used all the time to determine whether a change makes any
*real* audible difference, that's not *my* problem.


It certainly is, Stewart, it certain is. :-(

I can set up a more ridiculos test so that even I put one
million dollars in the pool, still nobody can claim, then I can say
whatever I want. There is nothing wrong with blind test, but your
version
of blind test is nonsense. 95%, who said it has to be 16/20 or what so
ever, only the person (or some people) set it that way and claim it is
the
fact?

See above. If you are confident that your cables *really* make a
significant difference, why wouldn't you be able to tell that
difference 100% of the time?

Because the test you have chosen doesn't seem to work in this
application. Mr.
Leung is correct here.

The test works just fine when there are *real* differences to be
heard. That's why it's used by many major manufacturers in developing
their products. Mr Leung, like you, is simply in denial. If you are so
confident that you can hear it once, why are you so terrified to hear
it a mere 15 times out of 20? Surely, with differences so obvious as
you claim, you can hear it *every* time?

Same old same old Stewart. Your not selling it.

Lawrence Leung wrote:

Talk about wine tasting here. That remind me that I never heard of any
wine
tasting (blind test) will need to continue taste the same two glass of
wine
for 20 times before one can make a claim that A is better than B. Why?

Because wine tasters aren't trying to prove that they can tell the
difference between two wines. They're comparing wines which are easily
distinguishable, even by people who aren't experts. The only reason they're
blinded is so they're not influenced by the wine's reputation. (In true wine
tasting competitions, they're trying to identify wines, a much harder feat.)
Different tests have different standards. The standards for listening tests
are well established and scientifically based.

All I'm saying is I can tell the difference, and Stewart keep on saying
that I can't! Umm... I'm speechless!

Then why are you still posting about it? :-)

One more thing, if I can't tell the difference between two speaker cables
or interconnect (as I have encourtered that before), I will say I can't,
I
will not guess!

But what will you do if you only imagine that you can tell the difference?

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...tmail/es2&ST=1

Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
...
RBernst929 wrote:
You know, Mr. Pinkerton, Im getting a little peeved reading about your
100%
certainty of objectivity. If YOUR belief system includes so called
"objective"
paradigms then i accept that as your perogative. However, your
assertions that
other people's perceptions are wrong because they dont correlate with
measurements is pompous. If you really believe that we currently know
all
there is to know about equipment, measurements and "objectivity" that is
your
right. But, im here to tell you that everyone lives through their
perceptions
including scientists and objectivists. Please be so humble as to leave
room
for perceptions as reality because i do hear a difference in cables and
bi-wiring even if you say i should'nt.

That's why he and some of us are putting up the $4K pool: to motivate
you to prove us wrong.

The difference between us is, i can
acknowledge your point of view without disparaging it or saying its
wrong. If
science has taught us anything, it is that we know very little about
physical
processes.

That's not true. We have a good understanding of the human hearing
limits, and of the psychological effects leading to perceived
differences. Sure, we don't know everything, but we know a lot.
Esepcially about electrical engineering as applied to audio reproduction.


As you know from previous discussions Chung there is widespread belief among
audiophiles that the test itself is flawed in revealing most audible
perceptions other than volume differences, frequency differences, and
distortion artifacts.

What else is there?

The test is good enough for designers like Paradigm, Harmon Kardon, KEF,
etc., no? You trust the so-called audiophiles, some of them believing a
cable needs to be burned in, or you trust the engineers at Paradigm or
KEF, or the designers of codecs?

Also has been pointed out, no control tests have
*ever* been done on these techniques against other forms of open-ended
evaluative testing of audio components. *THAT* is why most of us are
totally disinterested in the $4000 challenge (in addition to the fact that
it has only been vaguely promised and the money itself doesn't physically
exist in a pool...but it does make a great stick to wave at people, doesn't
it.)

Why don't you all pool your $4000, do a definitive control test, and if it
supports your position write it up and submit it for peer review.

Which self-respecting scientific journal will be interested in
publishing an experiment that agrees with existing knowledge? Now if you
can show that cables that measure within 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20KHz can be
distinguished, *that's* worth publishing.

Then if
it gets accepted you'll get your $4000 worth, and all the free time you
won't have to argue here will allow you time to enjoy more music.

(Mkuller) wrote:
Yes, they are 'your' (and the other objectivsts here) blind conditions.
There
has been no verifying test to show that the blind tests used in other areas
of
science actually work in open-ended audio component comparisons.


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
Sure there has, that's why such tests are used *every day* by Revel,
B&W, KEF, THX, Mark Levinson, JBL, etc, etc, etc.


Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You say there is a *verification* test that
has been conducted proving beyond a doubt that DBTs work in open-ended audio
component comparisons where subtle details are involved. That's great news -
now give me the details.

And I'm not talking about tests that add a distortion and then use a DBT to
test when it becomes audible to a panel. That's not the same thing as an
"open-ended" DBT.

Unfortunately, the fact that many people - scientists and a few audio companies
- use DBTs in some way *proves* nothing. Many more highly regarded audio
manufacturers do NOT use DBTs so I guess that proves they are not useful.
Regards,
Mike

"chung" wrote in message
news:iSKMb.39300$5V2.57843@attbi_s53...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
...
RBernst929 wrote:
You know, Mr. Pinkerton, Im getting a little peeved reading about
your
100%
certainty of objectivity. If YOUR belief system includes so called
"objective"
paradigms then i accept that as your perogative. However, your
assertions that
other people's perceptions are wrong because they dont correlate with
measurements is pompous. If you really believe that we currently
know
all
there is to know about equipment, measurements and "objectivity" that
is
your
right. But, im here to tell you that everyone lives through their
perceptions
including scientists and objectivists. Please be so humble as to
leave
room
for perceptions as reality because i do hear a difference in cables
and
bi-wiring even if you say i should'nt.

That's why he and some of us are putting up the $4K pool: to motivate
you to prove us wrong.

The difference between us is, i can
acknowledge your point of view without disparaging it or saying its
wrong. If
science has taught us anything, it is that we know very little about
physical
processes.

That's not true. We have a good understanding of the human hearing
limits, and of the psychological effects leading to perceived
differences. Sure, we don't know everything, but we know a lot.
Esepcially about electrical engineering as applied to audio
reproduction.


As you know from previous discussions Chung there is widespread belief
among
audiophiles that the test itself is flawed in revealing most audible
perceptions other than volume differences, frequency differences, and
distortion artifacts.

What else is there?


I guess you only read posts that reinforce your prior beliefs? I spent a
lot of time here outlining a double-blind proto-monadic test that could
serve as a control, explained the test, and explained its value as a
control. Do you not recall?

The test is good enough for designers like Paradigm, Harmon Kardon, KEF,
etc., no? You trust the so-called audiophiles, some of them believing a
cable needs to be burned in, or you trust the engineers at Paradigm or
KEF, or the designers of codecs?


Again you are joining Stewart in repeating an (at best) half-truth ad
nauseum here. Those firms use DBT's for specific purposes to listen for
specific things that they "train" their listeners to hear. That is called
"development". In the food industry we used such tests for color, for
texture and "mouth feel", for saltiness and other flavor characteristics.
That is a far cry from a final, open-ended evaluation whereby when you start
you have simply a new component and are not sure what you are looking for /
simply listening and trying to determine if / how the new component sounds
vs. the old. It is called "open ended" testing for a reason...and there is
could reason to believe that conventional dbt or abx testing is not the best
way to do it and may mask certain important factors that may be more
apparent in more relaxed listening. The issue isn't so much the blind vs
sighted as it is the comparative vs. the evaluative....and while a double
blind evaluative test (such as the proto-monadic "control test" I outlined)
may be the ideal, it is so difficult to do that it is simply not practical
for home listeners treating it as a hobby to undertake. So as audiophiles
not convinced of the validity of convention dbt's for open-ended evaluation,
we turn to the process of more open ended evaluative testing as a better bet
despite possible sighted bias.

Of course we've been over this many times here. But obviously you don't
even care to acknowledge the issue.

Also has been pointed out, no control tests have
*ever* been done on these techniques against other forms of open-ended
evaluative testing of audio components. *THAT* is why most of us are
totally disinterested in the $4000 challenge (in addition to the fact
that
it has only been vaguely promised and the money itself doesn't
physically
exist in a pool...but it does make a great stick to wave at people,
doesn't
it.)

Why don't you all pool your $4000, do a definitive control test, and if
it
supports your position write it up and submit it for peer review.

Which self-respecting scientific journal will be interested in
publishing an experiment that agrees with existing knowledge? Now if you
can show that cables that measure within 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20KHz can be
distinguished, *that's* worth publishing.


I'm talking about a comparative dbt vs a control dbt for evaluative
listening. That has not been done and not been published. This is a bit
(quite a bit, I think) of a red herring.

Then if
it gets accepted you'll get your $4000 worth, and all the free time you
won't have to argue here will allow you time to enjoy more music.



I'll take the lack of response to indicate a willingness to concede the
point. Otherwise I'd have to think you are once again not taking my
critique/proposal seriously. :-)

Mkuller wrote:


Unfortunately, the fact that many people - scientists and a few audio companies
- use DBTs in some way *proves* nothing. Many more highly regarded audio
manufacturers do NOT use DBTs so I guess that proves they are not useful.

It's understandable that some of the audio manufacturers highly regarded
by you don't use DBT's. Maybe they are afraid to find out that their
cables sound the same as Radio Shack's humble offerings?


Regards,
Mike

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:01:29 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

Unfortunately, unless you can show actual scientific *proof* that DBTs actually
DO show subtle differences between audio components in open-ended testing, it
is you who is:
"making up excuses to avoid the brutal truth - you don't *want* to know
that your cherished beliefs are nonsense."

All you have to do is visit Arny's PCABX site to find all the variable
difference samples you can shake a stick at. Then you can find out for
yourself at what point *you* can't tell the difference. That;s the
difference between us, Mike, I deal with *evidence*, not posturing and
assertion.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 13 Jan 2004 06:00:13 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

(Mkuller) wrote:
Yes, they are 'your' (and the other objectivsts here) blind conditions.
There
has been no verifying test to show that the blind tests used in other areas
of
science actually work in open-ended audio component comparisons.


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
Sure there has, that's why such tests are used *every day* by Revel,
B&W, KEF, THX, Mark Levinson, JBL, etc, etc, etc.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You say there is a *verification* test that
has been conducted proving beyond a doubt that DBTs work in open-ended audio
component comparisons where subtle details are involved. That's great news -
now give me the details.

You could of course check out Arny's very useful PCABX site for such
tests.

And I'm not talking about tests that add a distortion and then use a DBT to
test when it becomes audible to a panel. That's not the same thing as an
"open-ended" DBT.

Yes, it is, since you are trying to detect a *differnce*, any kind of
difference will do. It doesn't matter if you're listening for any
particular artifact, the bottom line is that you're attempting to
detect *any* difference.

Please note that none of the cable companies even bother to attempt
such tests, since they would of course have no purpose.

Unfortunately, the fact that many people - scientists and a few audio companies
- use DBTs in some way *proves* nothing. Many more highly regarded audio
manufacturers do NOT use DBTs so I guess that proves they are not useful.

No, it just proves that marketing is *much* more important than
engineering, when it comes to so-called 'high end' companies.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 02:21:07 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:34:44 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

Lawrence Leung
wrote:
No, you are wrong. You should re-phrase that to: "... under my blind
conditions."


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
They are not 'my' blind conditions, they are a standard test for
reasonable confidence that there really is a detectable difference.

Yes, they are 'your' (and the other objectivsts here) blind conditions.
There
has been no verifying test to show that the blind tests used in other
areas of
science actually work in open-ended audio component comparisons.

Sure there has, that's why such tests are used *every day* by Revel,
B&W, KEF, THX, Mark Levinson, JBL, etc, etc, etc.

Why do you continue to distort the truth, Stewart.

What? The above is absolutely true.

As has been pointed out
many times, they do *NOT* use those tests for open-ended evaluation, they
use them to listen to certain specific characteristics or artifacts *AFTER*
careful training of the listeners in exactly what to listen for.

So what? These are still valid tests. Wouldn't the cable guys claim to
be listening for the 'extened highs' of a silver cable?

And even so some listeners can't do it. What do you not understand about OPEN-ENDED,
Stewart?

The fact that this is *easier* than listening for some vague undefined
difference, and also the fact that the above is still listening for a
difference, so *any* difference will do.

Bottom line - all theory and all experimental evidence shows that wire
is wire. Those who claim otherwise *never* show one single shred of
evidence in support of their case. Lawrence is a classic example.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:23:27 GMT, (RBernst929)
wrote:

You know, Mr. Pinkerton, Im getting a little peeved reading about your 100%
certainty of objectivity.

I'm crushed........................

Of course, the whole point about objectivity is that it *is* reliable,
repeatable and falsifiable.

If YOUR belief system includes so called "objective"
paradigms then i accept that as your perogative.

That hardly counts as a 'belief system', now does it?

However, your assertions that
other people's perceptions are wrong because they dont correlate with
measurements is pompous.

I have never said any such thing. I *have* said that 'wire is wire',
because that is what both theory *and* practice tells us. Only a few
wild and entirely unsupported claims say otherwise. Do you believe in
Bigfoot, or that Elvis lives?

If you really believe that we currently know all
there is to know about equipment, measurements and "objectivity" that is your
right. But, im here to tell you that everyone lives through their perceptions
including scientists and objectivists. Please be so humble as to leave room
for perceptions as reality

I always do. Please not that DBTs are *subjective* *listening* tests.

because i do hear a difference in cables and
bi-wiring even if you say i should'nt.

You may 'hear' a difference under *sighted* conditions, but there is
*no* audible difference in the real physical world.

The difference between us is, i can
acknowledge your point of view without disparaging it or saying its wrong. If
science has taught us anything, it is that we know very little about physical
processes. I respect your point of view, but dont accept it. -Bob Bernstein.

If science has taught us anything, it is that we must rely on rigorous
experimentation before discarding known theories. Theory tells us that
wire is wire, and you provide *no* evidence that this is not so.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

All you have to do is visit Arny's PCABX site to find all the variable
difference samples you can shake a stick at. Then you can find out for
yourself at what point *you* can't tell the difference. That;s the
difference between us, Mike, I deal with *evidence*, not posturing and
assertion.
--

How do you use that site in conjunction with your every day listening from
the favored seat in front of your stereo rig?
If you cannot, how does it further one's listening enjoyment, (other than
putting your mind at rest regarding inconsequential factors)?

(Mkuller) wrote in message ...

Many more highly regarded audio manufacturers do NOT use DBTs so
I guess that proves they are not useful.

This is a patently absurd assertion, it simply does not follow.
That a manufacturer does NOT use a tool does NOT in ANY way
prove it is not useful.

This is entirely equivalent to watching someone using a
plumbers wrench to drive in a nail and concluding that
because the don't use a hammer, it must, therefor, not be
useful. It's like saying that a medievalist that uses
trepanning in lieu of an x-ray and a proper cast for the
treatment of a broken leg has "proven" that an x-ray and
a proper cast is useless.

There are a LOT of tools out there that there that are VERY
useful for the design and evaluation of audio products.
Unfortunately, MANY "engineers" in the high-end audio realm
are very unsophisticated (many of them have NO engineering
background, in fact) and are utterly unaware of these tools,
or have incorrect ideas about what they do. This fact DOES
NOT render these tools useless.

Unfortunately, many of the tools and techniques cherished by
some of the more highly regarded high-end luminaries are the
audio equivalent of leaches and drilling holes in one's head.
The mere fact that they use them is NO proof of their efectiveness,
any more than NOT using something is proof of its uselessness.

In article ntMMb.41503$xy6.112391@attbi_s02,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"chung" wrote in message
news:iSKMb.39300$5V2.57843@attbi_s53...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
...
RBernst929 wrote:
You know, Mr. Pinkerton, Im getting a little peeved reading about
your
100%
certainty of objectivity. If YOUR belief system includes so called
"objective"
paradigms then i accept that as your perogative. However, your
assertions that
other people's perceptions are wrong because they dont correlate with
measurements is pompous. If you really believe that we currently
know
all
there is to know about equipment, measurements and "objectivity" that
is
your
right. But, im here to tell you that everyone lives through their
perceptions
including scientists and objectivists. Please be so humble as to
leave
room
for perceptions as reality because i do hear a difference in cables
and
bi-wiring even if you say i should'nt.

That's why he and some of us are putting up the $4K pool: to motivate
you to prove us wrong.

The difference between us is, i can
acknowledge your point of view without disparaging it or saying its
wrong. If
science has taught us anything, it is that we know very little about
physical
processes.

That's not true. We have a good understanding of the human hearing
limits, and of the psychological effects leading to perceived
differences. Sure, we don't know everything, but we know a lot.
Esepcially about electrical engineering as applied to audio
reproduction.


As you know from previous discussions Chung there is widespread belief
among
audiophiles that the test itself is flawed in revealing most audible
perceptions other than volume differences, frequency differences, and
distortion artifacts.

What else is there?


I guess you only read posts that reinforce your prior beliefs? I spent a
lot of time here outlining a double-blind proto-monadic test that could
serve as a control, explained the test, and explained its value as a
control. Do you not recall?

I recall that you over and over again promote a single, unduplicated
test that you think shows that some of your unfounded critisms of
standard DBTs might be valid, yet it had nothing to do with component
comparison, much less open-ended, which is often the rallying cry of
the anti-DBTers against DBTs. So explain again why *your* test is
superior?

The test is good enough for designers like Paradigm, Harmon Kardon, KEF,
etc., no? You trust the so-called audiophiles, some of them believing a
cable needs to be burned in, or you trust the engineers at Paradigm or
KEF, or the designers of codecs?


Again you are joining Stewart in repeating an (at best) half-truth ad
nauseum here. Those firms use DBT's for specific purposes to listen for
specific things that they "train" their listeners to hear. That is called
"development". In the food industry we used such tests for color, for
texture and "mouth feel", for saltiness and other flavor characteristics.
That is a far cry from a final, open-ended evaluation whereby when you start
you have simply a new component and are not sure what you are looking for /
simply listening and trying to determine if / how the new component sounds
vs. the old. It is called "open ended" testing for a reason...

Yes, because it never ends, and so never gets to a result.

could reason to believe that conventional dbt or abx testing is not the best
way to do it and may mask certain important factors that may be more
apparent in more relaxed listening.

And again, your only defense is that DBT results don't agree with
your opinions. DBTs can and have been done over long periods with
relaxed listening, and the results are the same.

The issue isn't so much the blind vs
sighted as it is the comparative vs. the evaluative....and while a double
blind evaluative test (such as the proto-monadic "control test" I outlined)
may be the ideal, it is so difficult to do that it is simply not practical
for home listeners treating it as a hobby to undertake. So as audiophiles
not convinced of the validity of convention dbt's for open-ended evaluation,
we turn to the process of more open ended evaluative testing as a better bet
despite possible sighted bias.

Again only because you don't agree with the results.

Of course we've been over this many times here. But obviously you don't
even care to acknowledge the issue.

There are quite a few issues you obviously don't care to acknowledge
yourself, such as JNDs, known bias from knowing a change has been
made, etc. How confident are you that you can overcome all of these
known biases? Why do you think DBTs were invented?

Also has been pointed out, no control tests have
*ever* been done on these techniques against other forms of open-ended
evaluative testing of audio components. *THAT* is why most of us are
totally disinterested in the $4000 challenge (in addition to the fact
that
it has only been vaguely promised and the money itself doesn't
physically
exist in a pool...but it does make a great stick to wave at people,
doesn't
it.)

Why don't you all pool your $4000, do a definitive control test, and if
it
supports your position write it up and submit it for peer review.

Which self-respecting scientific journal will be interested in
publishing an experiment that agrees with existing knowledge? Now if you
can show that cables that measure within 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20KHz can be
distinguished, *that's* worth publishing.


I'm talking about a comparative dbt vs a control dbt for evaluative
listening. That has not been done and not been published. This is a bit
(quite a bit, I think) of a red herring.

Not at all, Chung is quite right that proposing such a test would
just get big yawns from the scientific community, but your *test* is
one huge red herring IMO.

Then if
it gets accepted you'll get your $4000 worth, and all the free time you
won't have to argue here will allow you time to enjoy more music.



I'll take the lack of response to indicate a willingness to concede the
point. Otherwise I'd have to think you are once again not taking my
critique/proposal seriously. :-)

Why would he, you don't seem to take the mounds of evidence about the
results of DBTs seriously. And please no reams of text about 1,75db
differences, etc, etc, as I glaze over everytime I read it, so don't
bother.

Harry Lavo wrote:


As you know from previous discussions Chung there is widespread belief
among
audiophiles that the test itself is flawed in revealing most audible
perceptions other than volume differences, frequency differences, and
distortion artifacts.

What else is there?


I guess you only read posts that reinforce your prior beliefs? I spent a
lot of time here outlining a double-blind proto-monadic test that could
serve as a control, explained the test, and explained its value as a
control. Do you not recall?

No, I was addressing your immediate post. You were saying that DBT's
were "flawed in revealing most audible perceptions other than volume
differences, frequency differences, and distortion artifacts". So you
are effectively saying that DBT's are good in revealing audible
preceptions such as volume differences, frequency differnces and
distortion artifacts. Besides those perceptions, what others effects do
you have in mind? Especially considering that Mr Leung was talking about
cables?

Your pervious double-blind proto-monadic proposals are simply irrelevant
in this context.


The test is good enough for designers like Paradigm, Harmon Kardon, KEF,
etc., no? You trust the so-called audiophiles, some of them believing a
cable needs to be burned in, or you trust the engineers at Paradigm or
KEF, or the designers of codecs?


Again you are joining Stewart in repeating an (at best) half-truth ad
nauseum here. Those firms use DBT's for specific purposes to listen for
specific things that they "train" their listeners to hear. That is called
"development".

No, the tests were performed because they are the most sensitive in
detecting audible differences. Training can definitely increase the
sensitivity further. You and others are free to take as much training as
you like prior to taking the cable test. Given that the cable
differences are so obvious, we would have thought that not much training
is required, no?

In the food industry we used such tests for color, for
texture and "mouth feel", for saltiness and other flavor characteristics.
That is a far cry from a final, open-ended evaluation whereby when you start
you have simply a new component and are not sure what you are looking for /
simply listening and trying to determine if / how the new component sounds
vs. the old. It is called "open ended" testing for a reason...and there is
could reason to believe that conventional dbt or abx testing is not the best
way to do it and may mask certain important factors that may be more
apparent in more relaxed listening. The issue isn't so much the blind vs
sighted as it is the comparative vs. the evaluative....and while a double
blind evaluative test (such as the proto-monadic "control test" I outlined)
may be the ideal, it is so difficult to do that it is simply not practical
for home listeners treating it as a hobby to undertake. So as audiophiles
not convinced of the validity of convention dbt's for open-ended evaluation,
we turn to the process of more open ended evaluative testing as a better bet
despite possible sighted bias.

That's strange. You *know* that there is sighted bias. You just
*speculate* that you need "open-ended" testing. Yet you still prefer
sighted testing, despite DBT's being widely used for audio testing, such
as in codec development, speaker design, etc. Why is it so hard to tell
things apart once you cannot see them? Why are you not relaxed? Because
you know you need the sight input?


Of course we've been over this many times here. But obviously you don't
even care to acknowledge the issue.

And obviously you don't knowledge the repeated rebuttals to your issues...


Also has been pointed out, no control tests have
*ever* been done on these techniques against other forms of open-ended
evaluative testing of audio components. *THAT* is why most of us are
totally disinterested in the $4000 challenge (in addition to the fact
that
it has only been vaguely promised and the money itself doesn't
physically
exist in a pool...but it does make a great stick to wave at people,
doesn't
it.)

Why don't you all pool your $4000, do a definitive control test, and if
it
supports your position write it up and submit it for peer review.

Which self-respecting scientific journal will be interested in
publishing an experiment that agrees with existing knowledge? Now if you
can show that cables that measure within 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20KHz can be
distinguished, *that's* worth publishing.


I'm talking about a comparative dbt vs a control dbt for evaluative
listening. That has not been done and not been published. This is a bit
(quite a bit, I think) of a red herring.

Well, no self-repecting scientific journal will publish a paper proving
the validity of DBT's used in subtle difference detection. You're
welcome to disprove it, of course.


Then if
it gets accepted you'll get your $4000 worth, and all the free time you
won't have to argue here will allow you time to enjoy more music.



I'll take the lack of response to indicate a willingness to concede the
point. Otherwise I'd have to think you are once again not taking my
critique/proposal seriously. :-)

I thought I responded already when I said that no self-respecting
scientific journal will publish a paper on null results on cable
testing. And you are right in a way, I was not taking your proposal
seriously, because of the pointlessness of trying to prove something
that has been proven so many times...

The usual phrasing of the old saw is, "A chain is only as strong as
its weakest link." The proper statement would be, "A chain is
EXACTLY as strong as its weakest link." That is indeed true if we're
talking about physical chains made of metal links. Nothing you can do
to the other links will make the chain the least little bit stronger.

If you're talking about the quality of a "chain" of audio equipment,
the statement is not true. Any improvement in the quality of any of
the components of an audio chain will result in an improvement in the
quality of the chain itself. True, one component with miserable
performance might very well dominate the chain, making it hard to hear
any improvement in another component. But there WILL be an
improvement.

Having said that, sources and speakers pretty much set the performance
limits of every system--at least all the ones I've come across. Add
to that the acoustic properties of the listening room, and you can
pretty much eliminate wires, amplifiers and CD players as subjects
justifying the expenditure of lots of money.

Norm Strong

Of course, the whole point about objectivity is that it *is* reliable,
repeatable and falsifiable.

No, that is the point of the scientific method.And even that isn't thought of
by scientists as "relaible" but as most reliable method available to us. No
scientist worth his or her salt would ever claim 100% reliability of the
scientific method. That is why absolute claims are psuedoscience and why
science is able to build on itself. Objectivity as used in this context means:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion
by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. Given the fact that the
objectivist premise is that humans are not reliably capable of being objective
in thier observations I find it a little ironic that you would mistake
objectvity with the scientific method which is a means of improving
objectivity. It is never absolute. Why did you accpet the assertion of 100%
certainty of objectivity? Any good scientist knows no such thing exists.

This is a patently absurd assertion, it simply does not follow.
That a manufacturer does NOT use a tool does NOT in ANY way
prove it is not useful.

Of course not. Had you kept the quote in context you might realize that it was
the point of the post. Use or nonuse per se is not proof of effectiveness or
lack of effectiveness of a testing method.


There are a LOT of tools out there that there that are VERY
useful for the design and evaluation of audio products.
Unfortunately, MANY "engineers" in the high-end audio realm
are very unsophisticated (many of them have NO engineering
background, in fact) and are utterly unaware of these tools,
or have incorrect ideas about what they do. This fact DOES
NOT render these tools useless.

Arracks on unnamed "engineers" aren't very meaningful. Maybe you could cite
some examples of speaker manufacturers that "are very unsophisticated and are
uttly unaware of these tools." Then maybe it would help to cite the specific
tools you are refering to.



Unfortunately, many of the tools and techniques cherished by
some of the more highly regarded high-end luminaries are the
audio equivalent of leaches and drilling holes in one's head.

Some specific examples please.


The mere fact that they use them is NO proof of their efectiveness,
any more than NOT using something is proof of its uselessness.


That was the point of the post you were objecting to.

(Mkuller) wrote:
Many more highly regarded audio manufacturers do NOT use DBTs so
I guess that proves they are not useful.

This is a patently absurd assertion, it simply does not follow.
That a manufacturer does NOT use a tool does NOT in ANY way
prove it is not useful.

Dick,
Since you snipped the rest of this message, perhaps you missed the
tongue-in-cheek irony.

If Pinkerton asserts the test is *valid* only because a few manufacturers use
it, then it would follow, using the same logic, that if many more manufacturers
do not use it - it must not be very good. Get it?

Certainly DBTs are an appropriate and useful tool for some things, however I
have seen no validation that they are able to show subtle differences between
audio components compared in open-ended tests.
Regards,
Mike

If the differences in cables is so subtle that they won't show up in a
DBT, why is anybody concerned about them? Why spend big bucks for
something that can't be heard? Wouldn't it make more sense to spend the
money on something that really matters - like better speakers or Room
Tunes?

-MIKE

On 13 Jan 2004 17:20:59 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

All you have to do is visit Arny's PCABX site to find all the variable
difference samples you can shake a stick at. Then you can find out for
yourself at what point *you* can't tell the difference. That;s the
difference between us, Mike, I deal with *evidence*, not posturing and
assertion.
--

How do you use that site in conjunction with your every day listening from
the favored seat in front of your stereo rig?
If you cannot, how does it further one's listening enjoyment, (other than
putting your mind at rest regarding inconsequential factors)?

You got it - it's about understanding those very small *audible*
differences, and realising how large they are in measurable terms.....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 13 Jan 2004 21:15:35 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Arracks on unnamed "engineers" aren't very meaningful. Maybe you could cite
some examples of speaker manufacturers that "are very unsophisticated and are
uttly unaware of these tools." Then maybe it would help to cite the specific
tools you are refering to.

Dave Wilson. He does good work, but very much by trial and error.
Compare and contrast with Albert Schweikert, who claims all kinds of
academic background, but has never been able to make two speakers that
sound the same. Then look at the work of Dunlavy, B&W, KEF (the
speaker engineers), ATC etc, who actually *do* have solid engineering
behind their designs.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:50:21 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Of course, the whole point about objectivity is that it *is* reliable,
repeatable and falsifiable.

No, that is the point of the scientific method.And even that isn't thought of
by scientists as "relaible" but as most reliable method available to us. No
scientist worth his or her salt would ever claim 100% reliability of the
scientific method.

Actually, yes they would. The *method* is reliable, but it takes
extraordinary *evidence* to support extraordinary claims which fly in
the face of current theory and its supporting evidence base.

That is why absolute claims are psuedoscience and why
science is able to build on itself.

Who is making absolute claims?

Objectivity as used in this context means:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion
by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

Quite so, hence the insistence on statistically significant results
from bias-controlled DBTs.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Well said and i agree completely. Mr. Pinkerton et al dont seem to understand
that scientific investigation is an ongoing process.. not an absolute. Indeed,
the scientific method involves observing, measuring and hypthosizing and then
trying to be proved wrong. Scientists expect their hypotheses to be proved
wrong and are not upset by this, on the contrary this is the way science
progresses to more accurate theories. But to think we know all we need to know
about anything is silly. And, to the poster that suggested that i donate
$4,000 if i cannot detect a change in cables this is not the deal as proposed
by your proponents. Im merely saying i can take you up on your offer provided
i do it in my known system. It is unfair to take me into a foreign and unknown
system and just switch wires. There are too many variables at play to be fair.
-Bob Bernstein.

I said


Arracks on unnamed "engineers" aren't very meaningful. Maybe you could cite
some examples of speaker manufacturers that "are very unsophisticated and
are
uttly unaware of these tools." Then maybe it would help to cite the specific
tools you are refering to.

Stewart said


Dave Wilson. He does good work, but very much by trial and error.

Well then maybe the use of such tools are nothing but a short cut. If someone
is producing a good product it hardly mattes how they get there as long as no
laws are broken.

Stewart said

Dave Wilson. He does good work, but very much by trial and error.
Compare and contrast with Albert Schweikert, who claims all kinds of
academic background, but has never been able to make two speakers that
sound the same.

It is my undrstanding that this is common amoung most speakers to one degree or
another. Would you say his speakers didn't sound good?

Stewart said

Then look at the work of Dunlavy, B&W, KEF (the
speaker engineers), ATC etc, who actually *do* have solid engineering
behind their designs.

I have listened to a few KEF, B&W and Dunlavy speakers. The only ones I found
to be competetive were the Dunlavys. I have never been impressed by any of the
FEFs I have heard and I have never heard anything by B&W that wasn't
significantly outclasssed at it's price point by another speaker. It doesn't
look to me that the use of DBTs per se are an indicator of quality or lack
there of in speaker design. If the work of those designers not using DBTs were
as lacking in sophistication as Dick says they are then one would expect it to
show up in their performance. Sophistication comes in many forms.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:13:33 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:

Ok! So only you guys know, only you guys right!

No, the entire world body of physicists and electrical engineers is
right, and 'audiophiles' tend not to be technically sophisticated -
and also tend to be paranoid about 'tweaks'.

The what so ever EE principal, physics theory never draw into a conclusion
like: "So, it concluded that wire is wire, cable does not matter", that is
your conclusion, so do not try to add that to the scientists.

Actually, electrical and neurophysiological theory and experimental
evidence *does* tell us that differences among cables are at a level
which is *far* below audibility.

Fine, if you insist on living in that little hole, that's your life, your
opinion.

No, it's a plain fact, and neither you nor anyone else has *ever* been
able to show evidence that this is not the case.

BTW, how come nobody can answer my question: "If you can distinguish two
cables the first time, why bother to do another 19 times? If you can't
distinguish them, why bother to give yourself a second chance?"

Simple - you might simply have made a lucky guess the first time.
Getting 16 correct out of 20 gives you 95% probability that you are
not guessing. BTW, note that if you use a large number of listeners,
this probability level means that 1 in 20 of them *will* achieve 16
out of 20 just by random chance!

When I was in college, everytime I proved a theory, I only need to prove it
once, never heard of I have to continusly prove to it 16 out of 20 times to
pass the proof.

You seem to be missing the point that these are *observations*, not
theories. Also, theory suggests that all cables *do* sound the same,
so you need to come up with solid *evidence* in rebuttal.

You can happily enjoy your what so ever principal, while the others (I
tempted to use millions again) are still enjoying the open air of cable
world.

And you can happily enjoy your *illusion* that cables sound different.
The *facts* however, will remain the same. Wire is wire.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart. Your maths are flawed
to get 16 out of 20 is the same 4 out of 5 or 80%
if you multiply the number of subjects who all complete the tests
you still get 80%. just a load more data to crunch.

There are 3 sorts of lies. Lies, Damn Lies and Statistic.
(wonder if that will get passed a certain moderator )

AND.... if science didnt progress.. i suppose the CD player as invented by Sony
and Phillips back in the 80's would be the same as it is today? Well, science
"learned" that they could be made better by eliminating jitter. Until
discovered, no one knew about jitter. I really think its an insult to the
intellience of most audiophiles to think that marketing alone accounts for all
the diversity of CD players and other components including wire. Some of it is
undoutedly snake oil.. but alot of it is also genuine progress. If we knew all
we needed to know about CD players, "perfect sound forever" would'nt be an
oxymoron now. -Bob Bernstein.

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:xxXMb.45206$na.36801@attbi_s04...
The usual phrasing of the old saw is, "A chain is only as strong as
its weakest link." The proper statement would be, "A chain is
EXACTLY as strong as its weakest link." That is indeed true if we're
talking about physical chains made of metal links. Nothing you can do
to the other links will make the chain the least little bit stronger.

If you're talking about the quality of a "chain" of audio equipment,
the statement is not true. Any improvement in the quality of any of
the components of an audio chain will result in an improvement in the
quality of the chain itself. True, one component with miserable
performance might very well dominate the chain, making it hard to hear
any improvement in another component. But there WILL be an
improvement.

Having said that, sources and speakers pretty much set the performance
limits of every system--at least all the ones I've come across. Add
to that the acoustic properties of the listening room, and you can
pretty much eliminate wires, amplifiers and CD players as subjects
justifying the expenditure of lots of money.

After one has seen to it that all those items you describe as setting the
performance limits of every system are as good as can be, one goes after the
other items (this being the hobby, that it is). I do see spending
"reasonably" large amounts of money on amplifiers, particularly for current
insatiable speakers, problems relating to durability, upgrading, ease of
repair and resale. If you own easy to drive speakers and just need a
"throw-away" amplifier then you can save some bucks there. OTOH if other
types of speakers might be in your future one would do well to consider
going an extra mile when purchasing amplifiers.

"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:upXMb.43728$sv6.119711@attbi_s52...
In article ntMMb.41503$xy6.112391@attbi_s02,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"chung" wrote in message
news:iSKMb.39300$5V2.57843@attbi_s53...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
...
RBernst929 wrote:
You know, Mr. Pinkerton, Im getting a little peeved reading about
your
100%
certainty of objectivity. If YOUR belief system includes so
called
"objective"
paradigms then i accept that as your perogative. However, your
assertions that
other people's perceptions are wrong because they dont correlate
with
measurements is pompous. If you really believe that we currently
know
all
there is to know about equipment, measurements and "objectivity"
that
is
your
right. But, im here to tell you that everyone lives through their
perceptions
including scientists and objectivists. Please be so humble as to
leave
room
for perceptions as reality because i do hear a difference in
cables
and
bi-wiring even if you say i should'nt.

That's why he and some of us are putting up the $4K pool: to
motivate
you to prove us wrong.

The difference between us is, i can
acknowledge your point of view without disparaging it or saying
its
wrong. If
science has taught us anything, it is that we know very little
about
physical
processes.

That's not true. We have a good understanding of the human hearing
limits, and of the psychological effects leading to perceived
differences. Sure, we don't know everything, but we know a lot.
Esepcially about electrical engineering as applied to audio
reproduction.


As you know from previous discussions Chung there is widespread
belief
among
audiophiles that the test itself is flawed in revealing most audible
perceptions other than volume differences, frequency differences, and
distortion artifacts.

What else is there?


I guess you only read posts that reinforce your prior beliefs? I spent
a
lot of time here outlining a double-blind proto-monadic test that could
serve as a control, explained the test, and explained its value as a
control. Do you not recall?

I recall that you over and over again promote a single, unduplicated
test that you think shows that some of your unfounded critisms of
standard DBTs might be valid, yet it had nothing to do with component
comparison, much less open-ended, which is often the rallying cry of
the anti-DBTers against DBTs. So explain again why *your* test is
superior?


Thank you for remembering. However, you don't quite remember accurately.
The control test I proposed is similar to the Oohashi et al test in that it
is evaluative over a range of qualitative factors, done in a relaxed state
and environment, and with repeated hearing of full musical excerpts. But it
is not a duplicate of the test. The arguments for such tests have been
made here for years..long before the Oohashi article was published. He and
his researchers apparently reached the same conclusion...that it was a more
effective way of testing for the purposes under study...which were
semi-open-ended evaluations of the musical reproduction. Double blind, by
the way, as was my proposed test.

The test is good enough for designers like Paradigm, Harmon Kardon,
KEF,
etc., no? You trust the so-called audiophiles, some of them believing a
cable needs to be burned in, or you trust the engineers at Paradigm or
KEF, or the designers of codecs?


Again you are joining Stewart in repeating an (at best) half-truth ad
nauseum here. Those firms use DBT's for specific purposes to listen for
specific things that they "train" their listeners to hear. That is
called
"development". In the food industry we used such tests for color, for
texture and "mouth feel", for saltiness and other flavor
characteristics.
That is a far cry from a final, open-ended evaluation whereby when you
start
you have simply a new component and are not sure what you are looking
for /
simply listening and trying to determine if / how the new component
sounds
vs. the old. It is called "open ended" testing for a reason...

Yes, because it never ends, and so never gets to a result.


This is just retoric and is absolute nonesense! :-(

could reason to believe that conventional dbt or abx testing is not the
best
way to do it and may mask certain important factors that may be more
apparent in more relaxed listening.

And again, your only defense is that DBT results don't agree with
your opinions. DBTs can and have been done over long periods with
relaxed listening, and the results are the same.


On Tom's say so and without any detailed description or published data. I'm
talking about a rigorous, scientific test of dbt, control proto-mondadic,
and sighted open ended testing. With careful sample selection, proctoring,
statistical analysis, and peer-reviewed publication. Once that is done I
will be happy to accept what conclusions emerge. It hasn't been done, and
so *assertiosn* that comparative dbt's such as abx are appropriate is just
that, an assertion.

The issue isn't so much the blind vs
sighted as it is the comparative vs. the evaluative....and while a
double
blind evaluative test (such as the proto-monadic "control test" I
outlined)
may be the ideal, it is so difficult to do that it is simply not
practical
for home listeners treating it as a hobby to undertake. So as
audiophiles
not convinced of the validity of convention dbt's for open-ended
evaluation,
we turn to the process of more open ended evaluative testing as a better
bet
despite possible sighted bias.

Again only because you don't agree with the results.


Will you please stop saying that. I have no particular stake in this..I am
not a proponent of cable differences. I use mostly 12 guage twisted pair in
my own system...chosen by sighted listening as offering everything more
exotic cables offered that I tested, and better than some. I have an MBA
with a strong dose of operations analysis and behavioral psychology...my
thinking is pretty disciplined. The inability of the "objectivists" here to
acknowledge the primacy of their (your) belief system drives me up the wall.
That and the fact that I have twenty years of helping to design and analyze
marketing research tests is why I am one of the people here who have
challenged the conventional assumptions.

Of course we've been over this many times here. But obviously you don't
even care to acknowledge the issue.

There are quite a few issues you obviously don't care to acknowledge
yourself, such as JNDs, known bias from knowing a change has been
made, etc. How confident are you that you can overcome all of these
known biases? Why do you think DBTs were invented?


I certainly acknowledge those things. Thats why I propsed a control test
along with both dbt and open-end alternative tests. However, barring such a
definitive control test, I choose open-end evaluative sighted testing for
most purposes in evaluating component, over comparative dbts. I choose it
because I believe the type of error that can result is less troublesome.

Also has been pointed out, no control tests have
*ever* been done on these techniques against other forms of
open-ended
evaluative testing of audio components. *THAT* is why most of us are
totally disinterested in the $4000 challenge (in addition to the fact
that
it has only been vaguely promised and the money itself doesn't
physically
exist in a pool...but it does make a great stick to wave at people,
doesn't
it.)

Why don't you all pool your $4000, do a definitive control test, and
if
it
supports your position write it up and submit it for peer review.

Which self-respecting scientific journal will be interested in
publishing an experiment that agrees with existing knowledge? Now if
you
can show that cables that measure within 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20KHz can
be
distinguished, *that's* worth publishing.


I'm talking about a comparative dbt vs a control dbt for evaluative
listening. That has not been done and not been published. This is a bit
(quite a bit, I think) of a red herring.

Not at all, Chung is quite right that proposing such a test would
just get big yawns from the scientific community, but your *test* is
one huge red herring IMO.


You are welcome to your opinion, but I still believe I am right. Design a
really well done experiment and it will get published. Or alternatively,
show me one rejection from an established journal with a written assessment
of a test that has never been done before, stating that it is not worth
publishing because it is "old news".

Then if
it gets accepted you'll get your $4000 worth, and all the free time
you
won't have to argue here will allow you time to enjoy more music.



I'll take the lack of response to indicate a willingness to concede the
point. Otherwise I'd have to think you are once again not taking my
critique/proposal seriously. :-)

Why would he, you don't seem to take the mounds of evidence about the
results of DBTs seriously. And please no reams of text about 1,75db
differences, etc, etc, as I glaze over everytime I read it, so don't
bother.


I take them seriously, I just don't take them as definitive without a proper
control test. End of discussion.