Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 30 Aug 2005 12:41:32 -0700, George Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

That isn't "scientific" though, is it? It's clearly not double-blind. And it
sounds time-consuming. How many switches would you have to do to achieve a
statistically meaningful result?


If you mean people in lab coats, no. It is plenty scientific, though. And
to keep it double blind, just leave the room while the chap changes the
cables, and have him leave before you walk back in.


Christ. Why bother?


Do remember we aren't talking about Joe Public doing this - just those with
a special vested interest in demonstrating cable sound. This should not be
a chore for such people.

How many switches? Make it fifty or so. If the cable differences are truly
audible, then getting forty right should be no problem. That would be
statistically a very significant result.


Fifty trials to determine if two cables can be distinguished? That's several
hours of "fun". I'd say screw the "tests" and buy the one you like for whatever
reason. Do you even know what hobbies and listening pleasure mean?


Again - see above.


You do that a couple of dozen times, then you compare your list with the
list the guy plugging in the cables has.
You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in
the past.


Love that scientific mindset. ;-)


You never knew science could be so easy, did you?


I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background
may be different from yours.


What ideology did you have in mind?


No I mean the argument that says you can get better sound by spending a
thousand bucks a foot on boutique cables.


Why do you care who spends their own money on that stuff?


We've been here - I'm just nice that way.


Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with
real problems?


You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems?

d
  #82   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Pearce said:

to keep it double blind, just leave the room while the chap changes the
cables, and have him leave before you walk back in.


Christ. Why bother?


Do remember we aren't talking about Joe Public doing this - just those with
a special vested interest in demonstrating cable sound. This should not be
a chore for such people.


The customary meaning of "vested interest" is someone who is involved in a
commercial enterprise related to cable. Or possibly somebody who's
thinking of marketing a cable he designed. According to you, you're
neither of those. So what's your "vested interest"?


I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background
may be different from yours.


What ideology did you have in mind?


Yours:

You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in
the past.


Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with
real problems?


You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems?


As a group, of course not. At least not nearly as bad problems as the
'borgs suffer.




  #83   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:34:41 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

to keep it double blind, just leave the room while the chap changes the
cables, and have him leave before you walk back in.


Christ. Why bother?


Do remember we aren't talking about Joe Public doing this - just those with
a special vested interest in demonstrating cable sound. This should not be
a chore for such people.


The customary meaning of "vested interest" is someone who is involved in a
commercial enterprise related to cable. Or possibly somebody who's
thinking of marketing a cable he designed. According to you, you're
neither of those. So what's your "vested interest"?


Sorry - misuse of the word "vested". I mean those who either proseletise
cable sound or those who are actually making money selling "high end"
cables for mega bucks. Either of these really needs to step up to the mark
and justify their position.

As I have no vested interest, and am very happy with the free cables I
have, I will not be sitting such a test. Anyway, there would scarecly be
any point in testing somebody who can;t hear a difference sighted, would
there?


I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background
may be different from yours.


What ideology did you have in mind?


Yours:


I wasn't even aware I had an ideology. But then I don't speak with an
accent either.

You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in
the past.


Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with
real problems?


You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems?


As a group, of course not. At least not nearly as bad problems as the
'borgs suffer.


DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?

d
  #84   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Pearce said:


I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background
may be different from yours.


What ideology did you have in mind?


Yours:


I wasn't even aware I had an ideology. But then I don't speak with an
accent either.


I just cited it and you glided right by. Here it is again:

You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in
the past.


That's your ideology: Conclusion reached before research is done.


Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with
real problems?


You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems?


As a group, of course not. At least not nearly as bad problems as the
'borgs suffer.


DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?


Not as far as I know. You might want to ask them rather than reaching a
decision in vitro, so to speak.





  #85   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
cables.

Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.

It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of lying, mindless
posts, Art stumbles into cogency.


Duh, what else is is a consumer magazine for and about,
buying things related to the hobby. You seem to have
a problem with that.


No problem with discussing things related to the hobby, it's the outright
fraud that they promote, that's the problem.


Well, go out and buy some of that fraudulently recommended
equipment, and sue SP for damages for recommending it.
Do you have the balls?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


  #86   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...


But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of
cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In
short wire is wire.


You hit the nail on the head!!!!
DBT is a 'single bias' controlled comparison.
That's what's wrong with it, it only controls one side of the biases.


The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't help sales of high end
snake oil.
It is the standard for everyone doing research into subtle audible
difference.
The only people that have a problem with it are those that want things to
be other than real.


Listening under test conditions is NOT
how I conduct my everyday 'real' world listening.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #88   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29)

"But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of
cables
where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short
wire
is wire."

But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
(his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything
else in audio.


I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to knowledge
but you can't make him think.

Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some other
method is better or even as good?

He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only
to reemerge after a suitable interval.


Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my
personal preference.
It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the
non-existence of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX is
the standard and that is relaible. You simply deny.

Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
"test" work?
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
obstacle race.
So much for "anyone,ever"

You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that while it
might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to insure they
weren't just lucky guesses.


You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #89   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Don Pearce said:

That isn't "scientific" though, is it? It's clearly not double-blind.
And it
sounds time-consuming. How many switches would you have to do to achieve
a
statistically meaningful result?


If you mean people in lab coats, no. It is plenty scientific, though. And
to keep it double blind, just leave the room while the chap changes the
cables, and have him leave before you walk back in.


Christ. Why bother?

How many switches? Make it fifty or so. If the cable differences are truly
audible, then getting forty right should be no problem. That would be
statistically a very significant result.


Fifty trials to determine if two cables can be distinguished? That's
several
hours of "fun". I'd say screw the "tests" and buy the one you like for
whatever
reason. Do you even know what hobbies and listening pleasure mean?


You do that a couple of dozen times, then you compare your list with the
list the guy plugging in the cables has.
You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in
the past.


Love that scientific mindset. ;-)


You never knew science could be so easy, did you?


I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my
background
may be different from yours.


No I mean the argument that says you can get better sound by spending a
thousand bucks a foot on boutique cables.


Why do you care who spends their own money on that stuff?


We've been here - I'm just nice that way.


Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people
with
real problems?


like a 90 day mental treeatment plan for Arny.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #90   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:34:41 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

to keep it double blind, just leave the room while the chap changes the
cables, and have him leave before you walk back in.


Christ. Why bother?


Do remember we aren't talking about Joe Public doing this - just those
with
a special vested interest in demonstrating cable sound. This should not
be
a chore for such people.


The customary meaning of "vested interest" is someone who is involved in
a
commercial enterprise related to cable. Or possibly somebody who's
thinking of marketing a cable he designed. According to you, you're
neither of those. So what's your "vested interest"?


Sorry - misuse of the word "vested". I mean those who either proseletise
cable sound or those who are actually making money selling "high end"
cables for mega bucks. Either of these really needs to step up to the mark
and justify their position.

As I have no vested interest, and am very happy with the free cables I
have, I will not be sitting such a test. Anyway, there would scarecly be
any point in testing somebody who can;t hear a difference sighted, would
there?


I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my
background
may be different from yours.


What ideology did you have in mind?


Yours:


I wasn't even aware I had an ideology. But then I don't speak with an
accent either.

You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in
the past.


Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits
people with
real problems?


You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems?


As a group, of course not. At least not nearly as bad problems as the
'borgs suffer.


DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?



It depends on their overall finances.
If they are strugglng, sure, they have a problem
spending that much money on any hobby item.
But if they have pelnty of discretionary income,
they have no problem.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


  #91   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29)

"But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of
cables
where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short
wire
is wire."

But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
(his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything
else in audio.


I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to knowledge
but you can't make him think.

Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some other
method is better or even as good?

He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only
to reemerge after a suitable interval.


Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my
personal preference.
It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the
non-existence of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX is
the standard and that is relaible. You simply deny.

Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
"test" work?
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
obstacle race.
So much for "anyone,ever"

You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that while it
might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to insure they
weren't just lucky guesses.


You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"

I didn't think you were unaware of the confidence level needed to make it a
worthwhile result. Nobody to any statisticalsignificance has ever been able
to distinguish one wire from another of normal design.

Wire is wire.


  #92   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default

+
" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29)

"But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of
cables
where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short
wire
is wire."

But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
(his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything
else in audio.

I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to
knowledge but you can't make him think.

Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some other
method is better or even as good?

He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only
to reemerge after a suitable interval.

Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my
personal preference.
It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the
non-existence of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX is
the standard and that is relaible. You simply deny.

Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
"test" work?
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
obstacle race.
So much for "anyone,ever"

You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that while
it might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to insure they
weren't just lucky guesses.


You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"

I didn't think you were unaware of the confidence level needed to make it
a worthwhile result. Nobody to any statisticalsignificance has ever been
able to distinguish one wire from another of normal design.

Wire is wire.



Ever is ever



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #93   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting commerce as long as
it is done in an ethical manner.


Giving ones' opinions is not unethical.


How about giving ones' opinion for money? Still ethical?
I think so.

How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something
for money? Still ethical?
I think so.

How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something
for money while taking advertising money from somethings maker?
Still ethical?
Ouch.... getting a little hairy. Conflicts of interest rearing their
heads.
I'd suggest a means of protecting oneself from improper influence.

How about giving ones' opinion that people should buy something
for money that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of doing what
is claims to do and everyone with a lick of technical understanding
knows it while taking advertising money from somethings maker?
Crucify them, crucify them.

ScottW


  #94   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29)

"But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of
cables
where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short
wire
is wire."

But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
(his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything
else in audio.


I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to knowledge
but you can't make him think.

Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some other
method is better or even as good?

He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only
to reemerge after a suitable interval.


Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my
personal preference.
It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the
non-existence of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX is
the standard and that is relaible. You simply deny.

Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
"test" work?
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
obstacle race.
So much for "anyone,ever"

You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that while it
might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to insure they
weren't just lucky guesses.


You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"


Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants
over 50%.
One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the expected
distribution for random responses of 15 participants.
If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but reality
is...
one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct.
You have to expect someone will occasionally get lucky. The odds on the
lotto are
ridiculous and yet people win all the time. Doesn't mean they knew the
numbers.
If they truly heard a difference.. they simply have to do it again.
Usually... somebody else can now hear a difference.
Then we'd have 2 who, once, heard a difference.

Elmirs almost BS'ing as bad as Stereophile did when they claimed
people could identify different more accurately than same when in reality
people just guessed different more often than same.
Hell... I'd get all the different trials correct if I guessed different
every time.
Same statistical BS.

ScottW


  #95   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ScottW" wrote in message
news:6M9Re.99621$Ep.62290@lakeread02...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting commerce as long as
it is done in an ethical manner.


Giving ones' opinions is not unethical.


How about giving ones' opinion for money? Still ethical?
I think so.

How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something
for money? Still ethical?
I think so.

How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something
for money while taking advertising money from somethings maker?
Still ethical?
Ouch.... getting a little hairy. Conflicts of interest rearing their
heads.
I'd suggest a means of protecting oneself from improper influence.


A consumer magazine that sells advertising to equipment
manufacturers is the norm, for hobby magazines.



How about giving ones' opinion that people should buy something
for money that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of doing what
is claims to do and everyone with a lick of technical understanding
knows it while taking advertising money from somethings maker?
Crucify them, crucify them.


Deciding whether its something one would want to buy is something
best left to the the indiviual, rather than to
a self proclaimed nanny.

My main complaint, though, is not that the reviewer has opinions, but that
the reviewer
might have little concept of the value of money.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


  #96   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Oh dear. The Krooborg is rampaging and my raincoat is at the cleaner.

Probably needed to get the stains out after your trip to the elementary
school, or was it the NAMBLA meeting?

Mikey, you have the lowest IQ of anyone I've met on this group.
Every village has an idiot, and you are the idiot of our village.


  #97   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ScottW" wrote in message
news:EdaRe.99623$Ep.5498@lakeread02...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...



You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"


Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants
over 50%.
One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the expected
distribution for random responses of 15 participants.


Bad work, you fiind one person who can hear, and fourteen
who can't, test them, then disregard the result of that one, for
the deficiencies of the other fourteen.

Not everyone is equal.





If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but reality
is...
one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct.



It proves it for that one person.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #98   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:20:12 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:


I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background
may be different from yours.


What ideology did you have in mind?


Yours:


I wasn't even aware I had an ideology. But then I don't speak with an
accent either.


I just cited it and you glided right by. Here it is again:

You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in
the past.


That's your ideology: Conclusion reached before research is done.


Oh, you mean my *joke*


Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with
real problems?

You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems?

As a group, of course not. At least not nearly as bad problems as the
'borgs suffer.


DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?


Not as far as I know. You might want to ask them rather than reaching a
decision in vitro, so to speak.


I have - and my decision was reached that way.

d
  #99   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:6M9Re.99621$Ep.62290@lakeread02...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting commerce as long
as it is done in an ethical manner.

Giving ones' opinions is not unethical.


How about giving ones' opinion for money? Still ethical?
I think so.

How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy
something
for money? Still ethical?
I think so.

How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy
something
for money while taking advertising money from somethings maker?
Still ethical?
Ouch.... getting a little hairy. Conflicts of interest rearing their
heads.
I'd suggest a means of protecting oneself from improper influence.


A consumer magazine that sells advertising to equipment
manufacturers is the norm, for hobby magazines.


Not exactly a stellar justification IMO.



How about giving ones' opinion that people should buy something
for money that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of doing what
is claims to do and everyone with a lick of technical understanding
knows it while taking advertising money from somethings maker?
Crucify them, crucify them.


Deciding whether its something one would want to buy is something
best left to the the indiviual, rather than to
a self proclaimed nanny.


Agreed.... but there is always that trouble of finding a way to listen to
gear that interests me. My current heartthrobs simply aren't
available locally and I don't like to bother stores on stuff that I wouldn't
buy even if it put the philharmonic in my room.


My main complaint, though, is not that the reviewer has opinions, but that
the reviewer
might have little concept of the value of money.


Maybe it's the demographics of the subscriber base. They're all wiping
their asses with $1000 checks .

ScottW


  #100   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:EdaRe.99623$Ep.5498@lakeread02...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...



You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"


Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants
over 50%.
One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the expected
distribution for random responses of 15 participants.


Bad work, you fiind one person who can hear, and fourteen
who can't, test them, then disregard the result of that one, for
the deficiencies of the other fourteen.


Back to school you ole fart. Enroll in probability 101

Look at it this way. Test the same guy 15 times.
He just might do very well one of those 15 times.
Was his hearing better that one time than all the others?
Its really just a matter of binary probability.
Give someone enough tries and they will get a decent
percentage right. Most tests are done to 90%
or 95% confidence. That still means that 1 of 10
or 1 of 20 times the results will be a false positive.
So you can see 1 positive subject out of 15 subjects
could very well be due to chance.
He must be tested again and the odds
of him succeeding again due to chance go to 1 in 100
or 1 in 400.
Now thats proof.


Not everyone is equal.


Never said they were.






If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but
reality is...
one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct.



It proves it for that one person.


Not true. We can actually expect one or even 2 persons to get
lucky in a group of 15 with a 90% confidence test. Its the odds.
Let him repeat the test. If he is truly gifted he should
be able to repeat. If not... then it was probably random chance or
luck.

ScottW






  #101   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 30 Aug 2005 11:14:49 -0700, wrote:

NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29)

"But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of
cables
where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short
wire
is wire."

But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
(his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything
else in audio. He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only
to reemerge after a suitable interval.
Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
"test" work?
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
obstacle race.
So much for "anyone,ever"


No, Elmir, you've been told about this numerous times, but you still
trot out the same old rubbish. All the Greenhill test proved was that
if you have 15 people take a test, it's even money that one of them
will score a 15:1 odds against 'significant' result.

I notice that you carefully refrain from mentioning the TAG McLaren
test, where a similarly-sized panel undertook two such tests. There
were a few statistically significant scores there, too. However, those
who had 'significant' scores in the first test were *not* the same
ones who scored significantly in the second test. In other words,
statistics works, and no one actually heard any differences.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #102   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 30 Aug 2005 11:23:48 -0700, "John Atkinson"
wrote:


wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...
All I was doing was pointing out to Mike McKelvy that once again
he made a sweeping, unqualified statement that was based more on
faith and his lack of knowledge than on facts.

No, what you were doing was trying to cast doubt on a well known fact.


How can it be a "well-known fact," Mr. McKelvy, if there are
exceptions?


It's called statistics, John, and I note that you seem very hazy about
the details. If Hunter was upset, why didn't he make more noise?

You made a general but incorrect statement. If you want to change your
claim to "Nobody has ever heard a difference in cables that can't
be distinguished in listening tests," I wouldn't disagree with you.
Except such a self-referential statement is hardly helpful, is it?


It's more helpful than the bull**** *you* publish about cables!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #103   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:57:45 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


Once I bought the equipment, a mag would
have no effect on my enjoyment of it.


Sure about that? You mean if you just spent 10,000 on an amp and a
mag told you it was crap, and backed that conclusion up with figures,
and insisted that all the reviewers on the mag were in agreement that
it was total feces and sounded nothing like music...you mean that
wouldn't have the slightest effect on your post-purchase pleasure?
  #104   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:57:52 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

Does it make you crie ? :-)


I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling. :-)


  #105   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ScottW" wrote in message
news:YqbRe.99627$Ep.64584@lakeread02...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:EdaRe.99623$Ep.5498@lakeread02...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...



You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"

Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants
over 50%.
One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the
expected
distribution for random responses of 15 participants.


Bad work, you fiind one person who can hear, and fourteen
who can't, test them, then disregard the result of that one, for
the deficiencies of the other fourteen.


Back to school you ole fart. Enroll in probability 101

Look at it this way. Test the same guy 15 times.
He just might do very well one of those 15 times.
Was his hearing better that one time than all the others?


That is not the way to look at it.
That is one person, he is unique.
The question is whether he heard differences.

Its really just a matter of binary probability.
Give someone enough tries and they will get a decent
percentage right. Most tests are done to 90%
or 95% confidence. That still means that 1 of 10
or 1 of 20 times the results will be a false positive.
So you can see 1 positive subject out of 15 subjects
could very well be due to chance.


sure, but chances are very substantial that one person heard differences and
fourteen did not.
Just cause differences are there, doesn't mean that everyone
has the capacity to recognize them.

chances are one out of fifty that any one person has at least a 132 IQ.

chances are pretty good that at least one person in a group of fifty has
an IQ of 132.

but those are two different issues.


He must be tested again and the odds
of him succeeding again due to chance go to 1 in 100
or 1 in 400.
Now thats proof.


Not everyone is equal.


Never said they were.






If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but
reality is...
one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct.



It proves it for that one person.


Not true. We can actually expect one or even 2 persons to get
lucky in a group of 15 with a 90% confidence test. Its the odds.
Let him repeat the test. If he is truly gifted he should
be able to repeat. If not... then it was probably random chance or
luck.


even with one run of tests the odds are very substantial
that it was not chance.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


  #106   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mr Le Gal (Google message 86, Aug 30) quotes Greenhill's final comments
on his cable test as a rejoinder to my text in my reply to Mr. NYOB:
"P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX obstacle race.

So much for "anyone,ever" (Mr.NYOB said that no one ever heard
difference between cables under ABX)
For Greenhill's comments refer to mr. Le Gal's message.


So what else is knew Mr Le Gal? Greenhill, a good 'objectivist"
that he was provided a nice, objectivist comment to suit the nice,
objectivist mag. "The Stereo Review". Indeed the *majority*of
his panel had 50% or less corrects- under ABX/DBT it all sounded the
same to them. Just as happened in all the other trials of amps,
preamps, cdplayers and dacs up to and including a very, properly
designed loudspeaker trial by Sean Olive (JAES,vol.51, No.9, p.806).
You ignored however the interesting part
Greenhill found one consistently accurate panellist scoring 81%, in 5
out of 6 trials, of 15 tests ech, called him the "golden ear" and
observed: "Obviously certain listeners whether through talent,
training or experience can hear small differences between components.
But the majority_ etc" He had two others who came very close to that
high score but said nothing about it. Instead, like all the other
proctors in similar trials, he created through a "mix them all
together" statistical sleight of hand a fictional Mr Average, who did
not hear much.
The fact though was that SOME could overcome the handicap of the DBT
protocol and did well. Better than I would have done because every time
I tried DBTiing with an ABX model I found that after four trials I no
longer knew if it was Rimski Korsakoff or his cockerel that composed
the snippet. But even if only one panelist hears a difference with
statistically significant consistency then the difference is out there,
real to him. That it may not be audible to a thousand others is not of
the slightest relevance to an individual making his high-end choices.
A virtuoso doesn't care if anyone else hears the difference between
his Strad and a music store violin. (I wonder if he'd pass an ABX or
if one of our "scientists" could provide measured specs. for the two?)
In his conclusions Greenhill did not comment about this
contradiction between his results and his "golden ear" comments.
One year ago in the RAHE he was invited by his editor Mr. Atkinson to
elucidate but he chose discreet silence.
I can already hear the parrot cry (I do not mean you Mr. Le Gal):
"I do not like this result. I want a repeat, and then a repeat again
and again till Mr. Golden Ear gives in and signs up to my revealed
faith."
Funnily enough the same people
are perfectly happy with Greenhill's very scrupulous statistical
protocol- as long as it gives them the results they desire and wish
for.
Ludovic Mirabel

  #107   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott W says: (Google message 95, Aug. 30
Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants

over 50%.
One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the
expected distribution for random responses of 15 participants.
If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but
reality is...
one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct
And comments: "Elmirs almost BS'ing as bad as Stereophile "

Mr. Scott W.
You're mailing your elegant prose to the wrong address. I did not
invent Greenhill's "Golden Ear" or Greenhill's statistics. I
*quoted* from that impeccably objectivist writer who moderated and
reported the Stereo Review cable test. You are also taking him for a
village moron and insulting his statistics' protocol which for an
objectivist, with an axe to grind, was quite scrupulous (read it!!!). I
suspect that he forgot more statistics than you had ever known. I
learnt mine as an employee of the Med. Research Ccil. of U.K. where
double blind tests were *first ever* used.
I must acknowledge that I admire your temerity in- how shall I put it?-
shooting your mouth off without first looking up the source (I gave
clear reference to it)
Greenhill's "Golden Ear" did not "come at 81% one time" Mr,
Scott W. There were six different cable comparison tests consisting of
15 trials each. The "Golden Ear" got 15 out of 15 in four of them,
12 in one, and 10 in one. Hence 83%-get it?
Prophetically I said to Mr.Le Gal one hour ago:" I can already hear
the parrot cry:
"I do not like this result. I want a repeat, and then a repeat again
and again till Mr. Golden Ear recants and signs up to my revealed
faith."
I'm sorry you don't like cables to be different. But you should be
happy. Greenhill's final conclusion was that ABX rules and as long as
you ABX everything will sound the same.
Ludovic Mirabel

  #108   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Pearce said:

DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?


Not as far as I know. You might want to ask them rather than reaching a
decision in vitro, so to speak.


I have - and my decision was reached that way.


Do elaborate about this. I'm sure it will end up proving the homily about
a fool and his money, but tell us some details anyway.





  #109   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



paul packer said:

Once I bought the equipment, a mag would
have no effect on my enjoyment of it.


Sure about that? You mean if you just spent 10,000 on an amp and a
mag told you it was crap, and backed that conclusion up with figures,
and insisted that all the reviewers on the mag were in agreement that
it was total feces and sounded nothing like music...you mean that
wouldn't have the slightest effect on your post-purchase pleasure?


That wouldn't have any effect on my enjoyment of the music. I might go to
have my ears checked just in case.

The real problem that would cause is that if I decided to sell the amp
later on, the bad reviews might sink its resale value.



  #110   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



paul packer said:

I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling. :-)


Lionella has finally admitted that her fellow travelers in anti-E.H.E.E.
slander are 'borgs. That was quite a breakthrough.






  #111   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George Minus Middius tries a pitiful diversion :

paul packer said:


I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling. :-)



Lionella has finally admitted that her fellow travelers in anti-E.H.E.E.
slander are 'borgs. That was quite a breakthrough.


Nothing like that George, I just obliged you to eat your own
excrements... ;-)
  #112   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

paul packer a écrit :
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:57:52 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


Does it make you crie ? :-)



I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling. :-)


Absolutely true this is even the only thing that provide him
some "emotions".
George is the RAO's spelling-borg. :-)
  #113   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

paul packer a écrit :
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:57:45 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:



Once I bought the equipment, a mag would
have no effect on my enjoyment of it.



Sure about that? You mean if you just spent 10,000 on an amp and a
mag told you it was crap, and backed that conclusion up with figures,
and insisted that all the reviewers on the mag were in agreement that
it was total feces and sounded nothing like music...you mean that
wouldn't have the slightest effect on your post-purchase pleasure?


LOL, seems to me that you never discussed "politic" with
Sackman or you wouldn't have put such naive question. :-)
  #114   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Mikey, you have the lowest IQ of anyone I've met on this
group. Every village has an idiot, and you are the idiot
of our village.


If irony killed.


  #115   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:17:48 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

George Minus Middius tries a pitiful diversion :

paul packer said:


I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling. :-)



Lionella has finally admitted that her fellow travelers in anti-E.H.E.E.
slander are 'borgs. That was quite a breakthrough.


Nothing like that George, I just obliged you to eat your own
excrements... ;-)


Sounds tasty. :-)


  #116   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Robert Morein said to the Bug Eater:

Oh dear. The Krooborg is rampaging and my raincoat is at the cleaner.


Probably needed to get the stains out after your trip to the elementary
school, or was it the NAMBLA meeting?


Mikey, you have the lowest IQ of anyone I've met on this group.
Every village has an idiot, and you are the idiot of our village.


Robert, instead of pounding poor Mikey with the low-IQ hammer again, how about
we praise him for posting a message that was almost free of language errors? I
only count 2 -- the missing subject in the first clause and the improper joining
of two independent clauses with a comma. That's much better than duh-Mikey's
average.

  #117   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:38:23 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

paul packer said:

Once I bought the equipment, a mag would
have no effect on my enjoyment of it.


Sure about that? You mean if you just spent 10,000 on an amp and a
mag told you it was crap, and backed that conclusion up with figures,
and insisted that all the reviewers on the mag were in agreement that
it was total feces and sounded nothing like music...you mean that
wouldn't have the slightest effect on your post-purchase pleasure?


That wouldn't have any effect on my enjoyment of the music.


You must be very strong minded, George. I'd feel a sour taste in my
mouth, and that would interfere with my enjoyment of the music.

I might go to
have my ears checked just in case.


Nup. Your bad choice was most likely caused by being overly influenced
by the salesman, not using known recordings, or poor listening
conditions. I'd just curse for a while.

The real problem that would cause is that if I decided to sell the amp
later on, the bad reviews might sink its resale value.


Good practical point. That would be the first thing I'd think of after
I'd finished cursing. Then I'd curse some more.

  #118   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:50:50 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

paul packer a écrit :
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:57:45 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:



Once I bought the equipment, a mag would
have no effect on my enjoyment of it.



Sure about that? You mean if you just spent 10,000 on an amp and a
mag told you it was crap, and backed that conclusion up with figures,
and insisted that all the reviewers on the mag were in agreement that
it was total feces and sounded nothing like music...you mean that
wouldn't have the slightest effect on your post-purchase pleasure?


LOL, seems to me that you never discussed "politic" with
Sackman or you wouldn't have put such naive question. :-)


Explanation?
  #119   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:27:45 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

paul packer a écrit :
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:57:52 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


Does it make you crie ? :-)



I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling. :-)


Absolutely true this is even the only thing that provide him
some "emotions".
George is the RAO's spelling-borg. :-)


Well, it's useful work. And much needed.

  #120   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



paul packer said:

Sure about that? You mean if you just spent 10,000 on an amp and a
mag told you it was crap, and backed that conclusion up with figures,
and insisted that all the reviewers on the mag were in agreement that
it was total feces and sounded nothing like music...you mean that
wouldn't have the slightest effect on your post-purchase pleasure?


That wouldn't have any effect on my enjoyment of the music.


You must be very strong minded, George. I'd feel a sour taste in my
mouth, and that would interfere with my enjoyment of the music.


My BS detector is beeping here.

I might go to
have my ears checked just in case.


Nup. Your bad choice was most likely caused by being overly influenced
by the salesman, not using known recordings, or poor listening
conditions. I'd just curse for a while.


Those would be beginner mistakes. Thanks Mr. Packrat for admitting you're a babe
in the audio woods, LOt"S!

The real problem that would cause is that if I decided to sell the amp
later on, the bad reviews might sink its resale value.


Good practical point. That would be the first thing I'd think of after
I'd finished cursing. Then I'd curse some more.


You could always write an irate letter to the editor demanding they hire an
independent reviewer to do a follow-up. I think Ferstler might be available....

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stereophile & Cable Theory [email protected] Audio Opinions 555 September 21st 05 09:08 PM
Cable Madness SALE at AudioWaves AudioWaves Marketplace 1 December 28th 04 08:09 AM
Does anyone know of this challenge? [email protected] High End Audio 453 June 28th 04 03:43 AM
Note to the Idiot George M. Middius Audio Opinions 222 January 8th 04 08:13 PM
Quad snake cable Justin Ulysses Morse Pro Audio 8 July 3rd 03 05:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"