[John Atkinson[_2_]]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...p_us_inside_to

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So that's that, then. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...p_us_inside_to

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

This was a single blind test.

So that's that, then. :-)

More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than defective double
blind tests.

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...p_us_inside_to
Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

Mr. Gomes apparently had an audiophile angel on one shoulder and a 'borg
angel on the other. He also said this:

"Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden,
pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."

If he's going to prattle like that, he should rename his column
"Stereotypes R Us".

So that's that, then. :-)

Thnak's John for, admitting Jhon that you have suborned the WSJ and/or R.
Murdoch with your elitist audiophile propaganda Jonn.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who is ignorant of the
well-known failings of single blind tests.

So that's that, then. :-)

Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels
are matched?

Level match is usually not an issue with cables.

BTW...who makes this crap up?
"Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will
bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny
improvement in sound."

I've never met an audiophile....not one.

Price always seems to be an issue at some level. So does WAF.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 16, 10:52�am, John Atkinson wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So that's that, then. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 16, 1:34*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:52*am, John Atkinson wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in....

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So that's that, then. :-)

*Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels are matched?

Do you level-match when you perform your blind testing, 2pid?

I'm just curious. What procedures do you use?

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who is ignorant of the
well-known failings of single blind tests.


Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level of *assurance* that
the test is fully blind. That hardily makes every single blind test
invalid...in fact most are not. It's just that if it is single blind and
shows a difference, it gives you a chance to
"diss and dance". Man, you are single-minded.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

So that's that, then. :-)

*Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels are matched?

Do you level-match when you perform your blind testing, 2pid?
I'm just curious. What procedures do you use?

Scottie piddles on the setup he "prefers".

[George M. Middius]

Harry Lavo said:

It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who is ignorant of the
well-known failings of single blind tests.

Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level of *assurance* that
the test is fully blind. That hardily makes every single blind test
invalid...in fact most are not. It's just that if it is single blind and
shows a difference, it gives you a chance to
"diss and dance".

I can see where you're going with this, Harry. You want to engage the
Krooborg in a rational, human-style "debate" on the merits of blind
testing in general and SBT vs. DBT in particular. You're hoping that for
the first time in nearly 60 years, Mr. **** will find the ability to
respond rationally to ideas in conflict with his own dogma. You anticipate
a mutually enlightening exchange of thoughts that will benefit everybody
because of the informed viewpoints you and Turdborg bring to the subject.

Is that right? If so, please hold off until I can lay a bet on the
outcome. :-)

Man, you are single-minded.

Is that the right term? Hmmm.... At any rate, whatever it is Krooger has
in his "mind", let's hope it offsets the encrustation of feces on his
body.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who is
ignorant of the well-known failings of single blind
tests.

Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level
of *assurance* that the test is fully blind.

No, DBT it removes a relevant significant variable that is well-known to
exist.

That
hardily makes every single blind test invalid...

It leaves them at best highly questionable.

in fact most are not.

I guess you never read about Clever Hans, Harry.

However Harry, its not your fault that your knowlege about experimental
design was based on OJT at what, a cereal company?

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Ian, 14:34, ScottW wrote:


BTW...who makes this crap up?
"Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any
burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."

Winston Churchill, but he was talking about cigars.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 16, 4:55*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 16, 1:51*pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ *george @ comcast .

net wrote:
Shhhh! said:

So that's that, then. :-)
*Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels are matched?
Do you level-match when you perform your blind testing, 2pid?

* Am I the one making a test claim? *You are...once again...confused.

The confusion appears to be on your end, 2pid. This has nothing to do
with any claims. "Most people" could understand a very straightforward
question like this one was. lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

This is why things tend to get very, very repititous when 'discussing'
things with you. This is why you must be asked the same question, over
and over and over, until you either "get it" or the asker gives up in
frustration. This is exactly why rational discussion with you is not
possible. This is exactly why you are considered RAO's resident
imbecile.

You stated, "Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels
are matched?" I merely asked if you level-match when you do your blind
testing. Face it, 2pid: you are incapable of understanding or
answering direct questions. Most here strongly suspect it's because
you do not understand them. Here, I'll try again.

2pid, when you do your audio blind testing, do you insure that the
levels are matched?

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

Do you level-match when you perform your blind testing, 2pid?

Note to Witlessmongrel: I didn't say that; Shushie said it. Do you
understand? I know you're a Usenet newbie, so I thought I'd spell out what
is obvious to experienced users.

You stated, "Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels
are matched?" I merely asked if you level-match when you do your blind
testing. Face it, 2pid: you are incapable of understanding or
answering direct questions. Most here strongly suspect it's because
you do not understand them. Here, I'll try again.

Look out, Scottie!

2pid, when you do your audio blind testing, do you insure that the
levels are matched?

It's a trick question, Scottie. Don't answer! Bad dog!

[Harry Lavo]

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who is
ignorant of the well-known failings of single blind
tests.

Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level
of *assurance* that the test is fully blind.

No, DBT it removes a relevant significant variable that is well-known to
exist.

No, Arny. That *could* or *may* exist. Somewhere in your college
education, you skipped the class in logic, I guess.

snip

However Harry, its not your fault that your knowlege about experimental
design was based on OJT at what, a cereal company?

Just about one of the most sophisticated companies in the world when it came
to consumer testing....yeah, over ten years of test planning, design, and
interpretation. Beats ashtrays.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

This was a single blind test.

So that's that, then. :-)

More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than defective double
blind tests.


From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive cables
sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by definition, an
audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price,
to get even a tiny improvement in sound."

Only 5% ?

Could it be that due to poor component mismatches, the system
would have sounded better and higher than just 5% ? The cables,
regardless of price, does not produced sound of their own by
themselves.

I remember back in the mid-90s that I swap and tried at least
more than 7 different pairs of cables in order to gain more than
just 5% in sonic improvement. I recall some cables costing more
made my system sounding less natural.

Been there, done that.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 17, 4:11 am, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
Did the cables you chose by preference have a common
signature of sound? Or just one element thereof?

The cables were mid-priced Monster Cables and the
same length of zip cord from a hardware store, the
kind repeatedly recommended on r.a.o by Howard
Ferstler. During the test, the 2 conditions were
identified as A and B, with no lcue as to their identity.
In fact, the listeners didn't even know they were listening
to different cables.

Tonally, there was virtually no difference, but what
was later revealed to be the more expensive cable
sounded less congested at signal peaks. The
hardware-store cable consistently sounded more hashy
at orchestral climaxes, but as I said, it was not a large
difference.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

This was a single blind test.

So that's that, then. :-)

More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than
defective double blind tests.


From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive
cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by
definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any
burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."

Only 5% ?

Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.


Could it be that due to poor component mismatches, the
system would have sounded better and higher than just 5%
?

0% seems about right.

The cables, regardless of price, does not produced
sound of their own by themselves.

Agreed.


I remember back in the mid-90s that I swap and tried at
least more than 7 different pairs of cables in order to
gain more than just 5% in sonic improvement.

I guess you haven't smartened up since then. :-(

I recall
some cables costing more made my system sounding less
natural.

Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who
is ignorant of the well-known failings of single blind
tests.

Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level
of *assurance* that the test is fully blind.

No, DBT it removes a relevant significant variable that
is well-known to exist.

No, Arny. That *could* or *may* exist.

Saying that takes a ton of suspended disbelief. But from reading your posts
over the years Harry, I'm sure you have it in you.

Somewhere in
your college education, you skipped the class in logic, I
guess.

Harry, it doesn't take a degree in philosophy to understand proper
experiemental design.

However Harry, its not your fault that your knowlege
about experimental design was based on OJT at what, a
cereal company?

Just about one of the most sophisticated companies in the
world when it came to consumer testing....yeah, over ten
years of test planning, design, and interpretation.

That's strange considering all of your rants against their objectivity.

Beats ashtrays.

I have no idea how that relates to the current discussion. Since I've never
smoked, my interest in ashtrays could be less, but I don't know how.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message


Tonally, there was virtually no difference, but what
was later revealed to be the more expensive cable
sounded less congested at signal peaks. The
hardware-store cable consistently sounded more hashy
at orchestral climaxes, but as I said, it was not a large
difference.

Hmm, audible nonlinear distortion in 99.99% pure copper. Proving that could
easily get someone a Nobel prize. Or at least a million dollars from some
stage magician somewhere.

So which is it going to be John, are you going for the million bucks or the
Nobel prize?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 17, 6:34*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

So which is it going to be John, are you going for the million bucks or the
Nobel prize?

Do you always have to resort to strawmen when someone rattles one of
your pet beliefs, GOIA?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 17, 10:06*am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

Level match is usually not an issue with cables.

There was that one 24 guage phone wire vs 16 guage
std vs some unknown guage monster...in which there were
some measured level differences...

I was comparing plumbing pipe once. I was trying to save some money
when building my house. I compared waterline hose, that thin plastic
tubing you'd use to hook up a refrigerator's icemaker, to standard
1/2" and 3/4" copper tubing. As a control, I rolled up some towels, as
they will also obviously conduct water when saturated.

Once you matched the levels of the 1/2" and 3/4" tubing to the
waterline hose and the rolled-up towels, the *exact* amount of water
was carried by all four. So I chose to use waterline hose for the
water suppy tubing in my entire house. The towels would have been
cheaper yet, as they are readily available at thrift shops for almost
nothing, but the expense of the additional fasteners (sag was a big
issue) made the waterline hoses a better value, even after considering
the bribe to the code official.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

So which is it going to be John, are you going for the million bucks or the
Nobel prize?

Do you always have to resort to strawmen when someone rattles one of
your pet beliefs, GOIA?

Yes, of course he does. It's part of the Krooborg's firmware.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 17, 12:14*pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Shhhh! said:
So which is it going to be John, are you going for the million
bucks or the Nobel prize?

Do you always have to resort to strawmen when someone rattles
one of your pet beliefs, GOIA?

Yes, of course he does. It's part of the Krooborg's firmware.

Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
quoted in the Wall Street Journal?

At least he has stopped claiming that his neglected,
rarely updated, almost-never-promoted websites
get as much traffic as Stereophile's or that his
recordings are as commercially available as my
own. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Walt]

wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:52�am, John Atkinson wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?

Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test,
61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50
chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math.
(HINT: it ain't.)

And of course this doesn't even address the single-blind nature of the
test. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans



//Walt

[Walt]

John Atkinson wrote:

Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
quoted in the Wall Street Journal?

Ok. So you've been quoted in the WSJ. So have Uri Geller and Ken Lay.

What's your point?

//Walt

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Ian, 07:29, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message







Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

This was a single blind test.

So that's that, then. :-)

More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than
defective double blind tests.

From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive
cables sounded roughly 5% better. * Remember, by
definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any
burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."

Only 5% ?

Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.

Could it be that due to poor component mismatches, the
system would have sounded better and higher than just 5%
?

0% seems about right.

The cables, regardless of price, does not produced
sound of their own by themselves.

Agreed.

I remember back in the mid-90s that I swap and tried at
least more than 7 different pairs of cables in order to
gain more than just 5% in sonic improvement.

I guess you haven't smartened up since then. :-(

I recall
some cables costing more made my system sounding less
natural.

Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.-


To each his own.
Arny dreams of voltmeters. That is the extent of Arny's imagination.
My imagination centers upon a certain city bus

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Ian, 07:32, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



Harry, it doesn't take a degree in philosophy to understand proper
experiemental design.



Thanks for admitting that Clerkie wasted six years of his life,
and is still clueless.

[George M. Middius]

Walt sassed:

Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
quoted in the Wall Street Journal?

Ok. So you've been quoted in the WSJ. So have Uri Geller and Ken Lay.
What's your point?

Having trouble reading plain English, Walt?

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

Arny dreams of voltmeters. That is the extent of Arny's imagination.
My imagination centers upon a certain city bus

I think the repetitions have conditioned Turdy to flinch when he detects a
bus rolling in his vicinity. I switched my bet to "getting electrocuted by
lightning". The odds on this bet are considerably better.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 17, 12:56*pm, Walt wrote:
of course this doesn't even *address the single-blind nature of the
test. *Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

The test was immune to the Clever Hans Effect as the moderator
sat behind and to the side and was not in the listener's view. The
listener didn't know what he was listening to or comparing. All he
had was a remote with 2 buttons, labeled A and B. All he could
see were the loudspeakers and the amplifier volume display.
Levels were matched. The listener listened on his own and could
switch between A and B for as long as he wished. He didn't know
what was being compared until after he had handed in his results.
Of its type, it was quite a well-designed test.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 16, 5:30*pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Shhhh! said:

2pid, when you do your audio blind testing, do you insure that the
levels are matched?

It's a trick question, Scottie. Don't answer! Bad dog!

2pid answer a direct question someone asks of him?

LOL!

[Walt]

John Atkinson wrote:
On Jan 17, 12:56 pm, Walt wrote:

of course this doesn't even address the single-blind nature of the
test. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

The test was immune to the Clever Hans Effect as the moderator
sat behind and to the side and was not in the listener's view. The
listener didn't know what he was listening to or comparing. All he
had was a remote with 2 buttons, labeled A and B. All he could
see were the loudspeakers and the amplifier volume display.
Levels were matched. The listener listened on his own and could
switch between A and B for as long as he wished. He didn't know
what was being compared until after he had handed in his results.
Of its type, it was quite a well-designed test.


So why were there two CD players if you were comparing speaker cables?
Were you swicthing out more than just the speaker cables?

I'm confused...

From TFA:
"Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot
pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are
as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker
cable."


//Walt

[Arny Krueger]

"Walt" wrote in message

John Atkinson wrote:

Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
quoted in the Wall Street Journal?

Ok. So you've been quoted in the WSJ. So have Uri Geller
and Ken Lay.
What's your point?

That people more credible than Atkinson have been quoted in the WSJ?

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On Jan 17, 12:56 pm, Walt
wrote:
of course this doesn't even address the single-blind
nature of the test.
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

The test was immune to the Clever Hans Effect as the
moderator sat behind and to the side and was not in the
listener's view. The listener didn't know what he was
listening to or comparing. All he had was a remote with 2
buttons, labeled A and B. All he could see were the
loudspeakers and the amplifier volume display. Levels
were matched. The listener listened on his own and could
switch between A and B for as long as he wished. He
didn't know what was being compared until after he had
handed in his results. Of its type, it was quite a
well-designed test.

Wrong, but I bet that Atkinson can't figure out why.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 17, 3:13*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Walt" wrote in message



John Atkinson wrote:

Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
quoted in the Wall Street Journal?

Ok. So you've been quoted in the WSJ. *So have Uri Geller
and Ken Lay.
What's your point?

That people more credible than Atkinson have been quoted in the WSJ?

Or that less-credible people haven't been? ;-)

[Oliver Costich]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:52:40 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...p_us_inside_to

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So that's that, then. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

From the article: Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000,
eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which
are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker
cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally good. I couldn't hear a
difference and was a wee bit suspicious that anyone else could. But of
the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the
expensive cable.

Back to reality: 61% correct in one experiment fails to reject that
they can't tell the difference. If the claim is that listeners can
tell the better cable more the half the time, then to support that you
have to be able to reject that the in the population of all audio
interested listeners, the correct guesses occur half the time or less.
61% of 39 doesn't do it. (Null hypothesis is p=.5, alternative
hypothesis is p.5. The null hypthesis cannot be rejected with the
sample data given.)

In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result
isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of listeners
more than half can pick the better cable.

So, I'd say "that's hardly that".

[Oliver Costich]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:32:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who
is ignorant of the well-known failings of single blind
tests.

Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level
of *assurance* that the test is fully blind.

No, DBT it removes a relevant significant variable that
is well-known to exist.

No, Arny. That *could* or *may* exist.

Saying that takes a ton of suspended disbelief. But from reading your posts
over the years Harry, I'm sure you have it in you.

Somewhere in
your college education, you skipped the class in logic, I
guess.

In my several years of graduate school in mathemeatics, I skipped
neither the logic nor the statistics classes. Logic is on the side of
not making decisions about human behavior without sufficient testing
using good design of experiment method and statistical analysis.

Very little of the claims about people being able to discern
differences in cables is supported by such testing.

Harry, it doesn't take a degree in philosophy to understand proper
experiemental design.

However Harry, its not your fault that your knowlege
about experimental design was based on OJT at what, a
cereal company?

Just about one of the most sophisticated companies in the
world when it came to consumer testing....yeah, over ten
years of test planning, design, and interpretation.

That's strange considering all of your rants against their objectivity.

Beats ashtrays.

I have no idea how that relates to the current discussion. Since I've never
smoked, my interest in ashtrays could be less, but I don't know how.

[Oliver Costich]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:56:23 -0500, Walt
wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:52?am, John Atkinson wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?

Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test,
61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50
chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math.
(HINT: it ain't.)

Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) .5. Null
hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the
claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level.

And of course this doesn't even address the single-blind nature of the
test. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans



//Walt

[Oliver Costich]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:25:54 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
wrote:

On Jan 17, 12:56*pm, Walt wrote:
of course this doesn't even *address the single-blind nature of the
test. *Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

The test was immune to the Clever Hans Effect as the moderator
sat behind and to the side and was not in the listener's view. The
listener didn't know what he was listening to or comparing. All he
had was a remote with 2 buttons, labeled A and B. All he could
see were the loudspeakers and the amplifier volume display.
Levels were matched. The listener listened on his own and could
switch between A and B for as long as he wished. He didn't know
what was being compared until after he had handed in his results.
Of its type, it was quite a well-designed test.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Argument about the design is moot when the results aren't sufficient
to tatistically support the claim that people can can identify the
more expensive cables more than half the time.

[Oliver Costich]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:34:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message


Tonally, there was virtually no difference, but what
was later revealed to be the more expensive cable
sounded less congested at signal peaks. The
hardware-store cable consistently sounded more hashy
at orchestral climaxes, but as I said, it was not a large
difference.

Hmm, audible nonlinear distortion in 99.99% pure copper. Proving that could
easily get someone a Nobel prize. Or at least a million dollars from some
stage magician somewhere.

So which is it going to be John, are you going for the million bucks or the
Nobel prize?


I think that the Nobel Prize also pays a million bucks. I'd go for the
double play:-)