Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:42:08 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I think this could be a way of defusing the vituperation that
currently surrounds the subject.

So what do you think?


Hello Mr Pearce,

What you suggest seems reasonable. We have done a very similar test with
great success (for speaker cables).


Yeah, riiiiggght. That's what Zipser claimed - *before* the 'Sunshine
Trials' proved him wrong.

So there was nothing wrong with the "sunshine trials" then? The
"sunshine trials" are RPOVEN to be %100 applicable to this conundrum
then? Nothing at all imanginable? Never ever concievable that there
might have been something WRONG! with the "sunshine trials" ?



In fact, after we did the test and
tried it out again and again just to be sure, I sent a mail to James
Randi himself, stating that I was ready to take the million dollar
challenge with the subject matter being distinguishing between speaker
cables. James Randi refused my challenge stating that "I accept, wire is
not wire"...


Interesting that you are still ducking *my* challenge.........

Don't you know how to read? What are we trying to agree on with Don
Pearce here? And what's with the .............. ?????????????????



What I do not understand about this "vituperation" is that why is it
that some of you engineer types are not agreeing to do a reverse "test".
Just get yourself some demo exotic cables from a slimy high-end boutique
and plug them in to your systems (provided that you guys have any such
corresponding "system"s as some of us audiophools do). Do they have any
effect? Just listen and tell us. Just do it.


Done it, many times. No audible difference, not ever.


You are a lying prick. You yourself have stated that you were a "tweeko"
once. You have those tweeking gadgets in the picts of your website
(though not employed). You obviously bought them in your time since you
heard them doing something. Then you were exposed to these
"tests"........................................... ...................

You OWN A KRELL for chrissakes! Nuff said. Now go spit in the mirror.
Anyone as such a detestable, disgusting blowhard freak like you, should
spend at least 15 minutes each day making disgusting faces and spitting
in the mirror! It would give you some perspective, you prock, as what
you subkect people to with your disgusting existence.

Forwarder wrote:


You OWN A KRELL for chrissakes! Nuff said. Now go spit in the mirror.
Anyone as such a detestable, disgusting blowhard freak like you, should
spend at least 15 minutes each day making disgusting faces and spitting
in the mirror! It would give you some perspective, you prock, as what
you subkect people to with your disgusting existence.

I get all messy fingers and typoish trying to talk to this disgusting,
abominable, creepy, foul, hateful, hideous, nauseating, nerdy,
obnoxious, offensive, revolting, rotten, OLD, sleazeball of a piece of
**** called stewart pukerton. I meant to say :

"Now go spit in the mirror. Anyone so detestable, disgusting, blowhard
freak like you should spend at least 15 minutes each day making
disgusting faces and spitting in the mirror! It would give you some
perspective, you prick, as to what you subject people to with your
disgusting existence."

"Forwarder" wrote in message
.. .

You are a lying prick.

Yet another subjectivist burns up his credibility in public.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Forwarder" wrote in message
.. .


You are a lying prick.


Yet another subjectivist burns up his credibility in public.



Krueger to the rescue. Gees, I wonder why you don't question the
credibility of "stew of wart pukerton" when he calls me "dickhead" out
of the blue?? Maybe it has something to do with *your* credibility?

Every time I try to approach this subject you borgs turn hostile when
after running out of arguments. This does not fail, happens each and
every single time. Amazing!

And then some of your profess to being against religion! Well, duh,
obviously there is no connection.

Now where is that duhmikey at?

"Forwarder" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Forwarder" wrote in message
.. .


You are a lying prick.


Yet another subjectivist burns up his credibility in public.

Krueger to the rescue. Gees, I wonder why you don't question the
credibility of "stew of wart pukerton" when he calls me "dickhead" out of
the blue??

Contrary to popular belief I don't read every audio post on Usenet.

Maybe it has something to do with *your* credibility?

Nahh, it has to do with the fact that being a golden ear is based some
lacking of mental capacity for reason.

Every time I try to approach this subject you borgs

There you go again.

That's strike 2.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:24:50 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:42:08 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I think this could be a way of defusing the vituperation that
currently surrounds the subject.

So what do you think?


Hello Mr Pearce,

What you suggest seems reasonable. We have done a very similar test with
great success (for speaker cables).

Yeah, riiiiggght. That's what Zipser claimed - *before* the 'Sunshine
Trials' proved him wrong.

So there was nothing wrong with the "sunshine trials" then? The
"sunshine trials" are RPOVEN to be %100 applicable to this conundrum
then? Nothing at all imanginable? Never ever concievable that there
might have been something WRONG! with the "sunshine trials" ?

Zipser himself accepted the result in the week following the trials -
it was only later, perhaps when amplifier sales began to drop off,
that the excuses started...................

In fact, after we did the test and
tried it out again and again just to be sure, I sent a mail to James
Randi himself, stating that I was ready to take the million dollar
challenge with the subject matter being distinguishing between speaker
cables. James Randi refused my challenge stating that "I accept, wire is
not wire"...

Interesting that you are still ducking *my* challenge.........

Don't you know how to read? What are we trying to agree on with Don
Pearce here? And what's with the .............. ?????????????????

Oh, I have every confidence that you'll find some pretext for ducking
out...................

What I do not understand about this "vituperation" is that why is it
that some of you engineer types are not agreeing to do a reverse "test".
Just get yourself some demo exotic cables from a slimy high-end boutique
and plug them in to your systems (provided that you guys have any such
corresponding "system"s as some of us audiophools do). Do they have any
effect? Just listen and tell us. Just do it.


Done it, many times. No audible difference, not ever.

You are a lying prick. You yourself have stated that you were a "tweeko"
once. You have those tweeking gadgets in the picts of your website
(though not employed). You obviously bought them in your time since you
heard them doing something. Then you were exposed to these
"tests".......................................... ....................

Lying prick yourself - I said I'd done it many times and that there
were no audible differences, which is absolutely true. That doesn't
prevent one from having *been* a 'tweak', and then discovering by
experiment what a load of ******** it all is.

You OWN A KRELL for chrissakes! Nuff said.

No, you dumb prick, the Krell is there because I have insensitive 3
ohm speakers. The Audiolab sounds identical, but gets very hot if I'm
playing rock music. It's also there so that clowns like you can't
claim that i've never heard a decent system.

Now go spit in the mirror.
Anyone as such a detestable, disgusting blowhard freak like you, should
spend at least 15 minutes each day making disgusting faces and spitting
in the mirror! It would give you some perspective, you prock, as what
you subkect people to with your disgusting existence.

That's a fine example of projection. I guess there's not much else to
do this time of year in the Land of the Mid-day Dark................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:11:07 +0000, Signal wrote:

"Forwarder" emitted :

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:42:08 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/


How many weeks did you spend working on this?

"The proctor should be on the skeptical side of the argument."

Is that so they can influence the participant? This is "fair"?

No - it is so that they will not collude with the participant. This is
necessary. The proctor's job is to sit and watch that the participant
perform his tasks fairly.

"..the person who makes the cable changes [..] should also be
skeptical"

As above. Shouldn't these people be neutral?

No. That is why there is an observer who is on the believer side.
Think about this.

"..subject and the proctor leave the room"...

Leave and enter the room every trial? Won't that cause disruption? How
will this and the associated delay affect participants mood and
memory?

Memory of what? He will listen to the sound and decide whether it is
sparkly or not - or whatever he has identified. He could clearly do
this over the time gap necessitated by the cable change when he was
sighted, so no problem. Why would you want the participant to stay in
the room while the cable was changed anyway - that would be really
stupid.



Two points :

1. What you describe may be a challenge, a duel, a bet... it is
certainly not a scientifically thorough investigation of anything.

It is as close as I can get to scientific in the domestic environment
which prompted the assertion of difference. If the test were removed
to a lab, the participant could reasonably claim that the changed
environment adversely affected his judgment. Don't let the best be an
enemy of the good.

2. Get rid of that ABX snake oil ******** - never proven to work under
these sort of conditions - use a verified DBT protocol instead.

NOt sure what you mean - please explain.

PS Make sure you have a statistically valid number of participants.
Let's start at 200 and work upwards from there.

You misunderstand the test and its purpose. I have said before several
times, the purpose is not to see if cables have an audible effect. It
is to see if a person who claims to hear a difference does in fact
hear it, or merely imagines he heard it.

One person, not 200 - unless you can find 200 cable sound hearers, fit
them in a living room and prevent them from cribbing off each other
while they make their identifications. And while you're at it, have
them do a thousand trials instead of twenty for better statistical
validity.

Any other bright ideas?

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:11:07 +0000, Signal wrote:

"Forwarder" emitted :

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:42:08 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/


How many weeks did you spend working on this?

"The proctor should be on the skeptical side of the argument."

Is that so they can influence the participant? This is "fair"?

No - it is so that they will not collude with the participant. This is
necessary. The proctor's job is to sit and watch that the participant
perform his tasks fairly.

"..the person who makes the cable changes [..] should also be
skeptical"

As above. Shouldn't these people be neutral?

No. That is why there is an observer who is on the believer side.
Think about this.

"..subject and the proctor leave the room"...

Leave and enter the room every trial? Won't that cause disruption? How
will this and the associated delay affect participants mood and
memory?

Memory of what? He will listen to the sound and decide whether it is
sparkly or not - or whatever he has identified. He could clearly do
this over the time gap necessitated by the cable change when he was
sighted, so no problem. Why would you want the participant to stay in
the room while the cable was changed anyway - that would be really
stupid.



Two points :

1. What you describe may be a challenge, a duel, a bet... it is
certainly not a scientifically thorough investigation of anything.

It is as close as I can get to scientific in the domestic environment
which prompted the assertion of difference. If the test were removed
to a lab, the participant could reasonably claim that the changed
environment adversely affected his judgment. Don't let the best be an
enemy of the good.

2. Get rid of that ABX snake oil ******** - never proven to work under
these sort of conditions - use a verified DBT protocol instead.

NOt sure what you mean - please explain.

PS Make sure you have a statistically valid number of participants.
Let's start at 200 and work upwards from there.

You misunderstand the test and its purpose. I have said before several
times, the purpose is not to see if cables have an audible effect. It
is to see if a person who claims to hear a difference does in fact
hear it, or merely imagines he heard it.

One person, not 200 - unless you can find 200 cable sound hearers, fit
them in a living room and prevent them from cribbing off each other
while they make their identifications. And while you're at it, have
them do a thousand trials instead of twenty for better statistical
validity.

Any other bright ideas?

d
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Pearce says:
You misunderstand the test and its purpose. I have said before several
times, the purpose is not to see if cables have an audible effect. It
is to see if a person who claims to hear a difference does in fact
hear it, or merely imagines he heard it.

We understand your purpose. What is under discussion is your proposed
protocol for proving the "reality" versus the "imagination"
No evidence exists that any of the proposed "tests" (ABX and its
cousins) do show differences between audio components to most members
of a properly randomised (ie. representative), statistically valid
listener group. (Basic research was never done even though there were
four decades to do it in) On the contrary such, often faulty, studies
as were reported in audio mags. all resulted in "no difference"
verdict- whatever is being studied (cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers ,
dacs and yes loudspeakers.)

Agreed Mr. Pearce. There is no obligation on you to buy an
ABX switch, get someone to help you with double blinding etc. just to
get the pseudo-scientific confirmation for what you already believe
anyway.
I'd go further and say that there is no pleasure or
*profit* for *anyone* in embarking on a "test" that has never been
properly researched and validated as an instrument for showing
differences between audio components. Take it back : it may be good
teaching exercise for those who never learnt to *listen* to music as
more than wallpaper background noise.
As of now the negative results of playing at ABX are just
a placebo confirming the passionate conviction that "it all sounds
the same" to those who are not interested in hearing differences
between anything and anything else in audio components; sighted, blind
or triple blind.
I suppose it is a waste of breath to say once again that
a "test" either proving or disproving the perceptions of millions
of individual differences in the the brain cortex auditory receptors
does not exist as yet. ABX it is not.
Ludovic Mirabel

On 12 Jan 2006 11:59:32 -0800, wrote:

You misunderstand the test and its purpose. I have said before several
times, the purpose is not to see if cables have an audible effect. It
is to see if a person who claims to hear a difference does in fact
hear it, or merely imagines he heard it.

We understand your purpose. What is under discussion is your proposed
protocol for proving the "reality" versus the "imagination"
No evidence exists that any of the proposed "tests" (ABX and its
cousins) do show differences between audio components to most members
of a properly randomised (ie. representative), statistically valid
listener group. (Basic research was never done even though there were
four decades to do it in) On the contrary such, often faulty, studies
as were reported in audio mags. all resulted in "no difference"
verdict- whatever is being studied (cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers ,
dacs and yes loudspeakers.)

You're here again with randomized listener groups. They are *not* what
I am dealing with. There is no reason to believe such groups would
hear a difference even when sighted. I am dealing with one person who
has identified a difference.

And your conclusion that such studies were faulty on the basis that
they yielded result of no difference is flatly ridiculous. Ever heard
of the fallacy of the begged question?

Agreed Mr. Pearce. There is no obligation on you to buy an
ABX switch, get someone to help you with double blinding etc. just to
get the pseudo-scientific confirmation for what you already believe
anyway.
I'd go further and say that there is no pleasure or
*profit* for *anyone* in embarking on a "test" that has never been
properly researched and validated as an instrument for showing
differences between audio components. Take it back : it may be good
teaching exercise for those who never learnt to *listen* to music as
more than wallpaper background noise.

So you think that listening is not a good way to determine what you
can hear? Interesting viewpoint, but not one that I suspect would find
much support among the sentient.

As of now the negative results of playing at ABX are just
a placebo confirming the passionate conviction that "it all sounds
the same" to those who are not interested in hearing differences
between anything and anything else in audio components; sighted, blind
or triple blind.

So you don't know what a placebo is? You think a placebo is something
that prevents the fake medicine having a therapeutic effect? I'm
starting to patience with you, I'm afraid.

I suppose it is a waste of breath to say once again that
a "test" either proving or disproving the perceptions of millions
of individual differences in the the brain cortex auditory receptors
does not exist as yet. ABX it is not.
Ludovic Mirabel

At last you have said something I agree with.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:
On 12 Jan 2006 11:59:32 -0800, wrote:

You misunderstand the test and its purpose. I have said before several
times, the purpose is not to see if cables have an audible effect. It
is to see if a person who claims to hear a difference does in fact
hear it, or merely imagines he heard it.

We understand your purpose. What is under discussion is your proposed
protocol for proving the "reality" versus the "imagination"
No evidence exists that any of the proposed "tests" (ABX and its
cousins) do show differences between audio components to most members
of a properly randomised (ie. representative), statistically valid
listener group. (Basic research was never done even though there were
four decades to do it in) On the contrary such, often faulty, studies
as were reported in audio mags. all resulted in "no difference"
verdict- whatever is being studied (cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers ,
dacs and yes loudspeakers.)

You're here again with randomized listener groups. They are *not* what
I am dealing with. There is no reason to believe such groups would
hear a difference even when sighted. I am dealing with one person who
has identified a difference.

One or two hundred persons. The "test" you want to stun him
with has to be first *experimentally* shown to be right for the job ie
capable of showing differences to a statistically valid majority of
testees. Experiment not conviction , not faith, not "logic', not
"common sense" is the key word. And the onus is on you to demonstrate
it not on anyone else to convince you that you're spouting bilge
water.

And your conclusion that such studies were faulty on the basis that
they yielded result of no difference is flatly ridiculous. Ever heard
of the fallacy of the begged question?

Dear Pearce, do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that "studies
were faulty because etc. etc.." I said that in four decades of
"testing" there stilll are no POSITIVE, statistically valid experiments
demonstrating that "testing" allows the majority of panelists to hear
differences beyween any audio components whatsoever.
The "studies" are not faulty. They just don't exist. What exists and
what iis faulty is bla bla bla about "tests" which have never been
shown to test anything except their proponents' ability for fairy
stories.

Agreed Mr. Pearce. There is no obligation on you to buy an
ABX switch, get someone to help you with double blinding etc. just to
get the pseudo-scientific confirmation for what you already believe
anyway.
I'd go further and say that there is no pleasure or
*profit* for *anyone* in embarking on a "test" that has never been
properly researched and validated as an instrument for showing
differences between audio components. Take it back : it may be good
teaching exercise for those who never learnt to *listen* to music as
more than wallpaper background noise.

So you think that listening is not a good way to determine what you
can hear? Interesting viewpoint, but not one that I suspect would find
much support among the sentient.

If you think that the above has any relation to what I said or that it
makes any kind of sensee I'll leave you to enjoy it.

As of now the negative results of playing at ABX are just
a placebo confirming the passionate conviction that "it all sounds
the same" to those who are not interested in hearing differences
between anything and anything else in audio components; sighted, blind
or triple blind.

So you don't know what a placebo is? You think a placebo is something
that prevents the fake medicine having a therapeutic effect? I'm
starting to patience with you, I'm afraid.

Pearce, Pearce your arrogance surpasses only your ignorance. I dealt
with the effects of placebos all of my long professional life and
you're teaching me about it and "losing patience" too. "Placebo" means
"I will please" ( Latin - look it up) It means that a substance or a
charm or an incantation without any physiological effect on the disease
makes the patient feel happy for its psychological effects. The way I
used it metaphorically (look up "metaphor" !!) is perfectly
legitimate. It makes those who can't hear a difference happy that
"science" and a "test" prove them right.
I suppose it is a waste of breath to say once again that
a "test" either proving or disproving the perceptions of millions
of individual differences in the the brain cortex auditory receptors
does not exist as yet. ABX it is not.
Ludovic Mirabel

At last you have said something I agree with.

Thank you . You made my day Pearce.

Luidovic Mirabel

"Forwarder" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Forwarder" wrote in message
.. .


You are a lying prick.


Yet another subjectivist burns up his credibility in public.

Krueger to the rescue. Gees, I wonder why you don't question the
credibility of "stew of wart pukerton" when he calls me "dickhead" out of
the blue?? Maybe it has something to do with *your* credibility?

Every time I try to approach this subject you borgs turn hostile when
after running out of arguments. This does not fail, happens each and every
single time. Amazing!

Permit me to add my agreement with the above. I wouldn't want my "enemy of
Arny certificate" to expire from non use

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:24:50 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:42:08 +0200, Forwarder wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:



OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I think this could be a way of defusing the vituperation that
currently surrounds the subject.

So what do you think?


Hello Mr Pearce,

What you suggest seems reasonable. We have done a very similar test with
great success (for speaker cables).

Yeah, riiiiggght. That's what Zipser claimed - *before* the 'Sunshine
Trials' proved him wrong.

So there was nothing wrong with the "sunshine trials" then? The
"sunshine trials" are RPOVEN to be %100 applicable to this conundrum
then? Nothing at all imanginable? Never ever concievable that there
might have been something WRONG! with the "sunshine trials" ?


Zipser himself accepted the result in the week following the trials -

Ok, so now *that's* science! The sciecnencienceecee kind of science.

it was only later, perhaps when amplifier sales began to drop off,
that the excuses started...................

Yeah right, I'm gonna take your word for it you retarted prick.



Lying prick yourself - I said I'd done it many times and that there
were no audible differences,

Then you would have never become a "tweeko". You stated on many
occasions, so did krueger as a mattar of fact, that you guys used to
hear differences but that they were not reliable observations. Now that
you are old enough that if a donkey ****s you in the ear you still
wouldn't hear
it................................................ .................................................. ................

which is absolutely true. That doesn't
prevent one from having *been* a 'tweak', and then discovering by
experiment what a load of ******** it all is.


You OWN A KRELL for chrissakes! Nuff said.


No, you dumb prick, the Krell is there because I have insensitive 3
ohm speakers.


That's not the point you pathetic borg of a retard. Take a 200 dollar
receiver to a lab, put it behind an ABX box, take your krell put it on
the other end, level match, play, A, B, then X WHAM! no difference!
*THAT'S* the point.


The Audiolab sounds identical,

And so would a yamaha receiver off the shelf of some woolworths. So why
own audiophoolery exotic amps like krell and "audiolab" produced by conmen?


but gets very hot if I'm
playing rock music.

That's not the point you pathetic asshole of a retard. Take a 200 dollar
receiver to a lab, put it behind an ABX box, take your krell put it on
the other end, level match, play, A, B, then X WHAM! no difference!
*THAT'S* the point!



It's also there so that clowns like you can't
claim that i've never heard a decent system.


You don't own a decent self, you don't own decent ears, you don't own
*any* form of decency you prick, what the **** does your exotic
audiophoolery amps have to do with anything?!?!?!

and

.................................................. .................................................. ...................




Now go spit in the mirror.
Anyone as such a detestable, disgusting blowhard freak like you, should
spend at least 15 minutes each day making disgusting faces and spitting
in the mirror! It would give you some perspective, you prock, as what
you subkect people to with your disgusting existence.


That's a fine example of projection.

Yeah the mirror'll be projecting you.

Don,

I have carefully read your protocol for DBT of cables, and it seems to me
airtight. You've covered all the places where most tests fail, and I would
add only a couple of things:

Don't let the subject know how he's doing until the test is over. Also,
make sure you remove the cables before you flip the coin, so that the time
required to make the change will be constant even when no change is called
for.

You might consider 18 trials, since 13 out of 18 comes closer to the 5%
dividing line between success and failure.

Norm Strong

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:22:38 -0800, wrote:

Don,

I have carefully read your protocol for DBT of cables, and it seems to me
airtight. You've covered all the places where most tests fail, and I would
add only a couple of things:

Don't let the subject know how he's doing until the test is over. Also,
make sure you remove the cables before you flip the coin, so that the time
required to make the change will be constant even when no change is called
for.

You might consider 18 trials, since 13 out of 18 comes closer to the 5%
dividing line between success and failure.

Norm Strong


Thanks. Not only does the subject not know how he's doing until the
end - nobody does. Only when the two forms are put side-by-side does
that emerge.

As for the time to change cables, I have covered that. Once a trial is
done, the existing cable is removed to the other room before the coin
is tossed. This means that the procedure is the same whether the cable
changes or not.

As for the number of trials, I used the number proposed by Stewart for
his £1,000 challenge. Any trial that does not form part of that can,
of course, have different pass criteria.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:22:38 -0800, wrote:

Don,

I have carefully read your protocol for DBT of cables, and it seems to me
airtight. You've covered all the places where most tests fail, and I would
add only a couple of things:

Don't let the subject know how he's doing until the test is over. Also,
make sure you remove the cables before you flip the coin, so that the time
required to make the change will be constant even when no change is called
for.

You might consider 18 trials, since 13 out of 18 comes closer to the 5%
dividing line between success and failure.

Norm Strong


Thanks. Not only does the subject not know how he's doing until the
end - nobody does. Only when the two forms are put side-by-side does
that emerge.

As for the time to change cables, I have covered that. Once a trial is
done, the existing cable is removed to the other room before the coin
is tossed. This means that the procedure is the same whether the cable
changes or not.

As for the number of trials, I used the number proposed by Stewart for
his £1,000 challenge. Any trial that does not form part of that can,
of course, have different pass criteria.

d

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

96 contributions so far to another DBT audio component testing
protocol..
Still waiting for the appearance of one, single report by a panel of 10
or more with: "Yes, we used your wonderful mod/protocol and yes, this
one did not stop us from hearing the difference between the comparable
A and B. with statistical validity. Hurrah, we did it at last after 40
years"
Or should we wait another forty. The suspense is unbearable.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote:
The suspense is unbearable.

Not near so unbearable as your logic.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
wrote:
The suspense is unbearable.

Not near so unbearable as your logic.

ScottW

Hallo! Where were you? You must have finally found your way to
your local Public Library I suggested some months ago you start
frequenting,. All these big new words: "logic", fancy that. Lord knows
what you'll find in Chambers next.
Ludovic Mirabel