[Oliver Costich]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:19:05 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
wrote:

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



Now there'sa measurement of validity of argument that's really
convincing. Mine is bigger than yours.

Forget that there are statistical methods to answer these questions.
Really on the word of the guy selling them.

[Oliver Costich]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:44:05 -0500, Walt
wrote:

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?

So has Osama Bin Laden. The point is that he's devoid of a sound
argument.

//Walt

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 17, 5:15*pm, Oliver Costich wrote:

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".

I'm curious what percent of the "best informed" got. I mean, you could
mix in hot dog vendors, the deaf, people who might try to fail just to
be contrary, you, and so on, and get different results. Apparently JA
and MF did better than random chance.

The real issue to me is "who cares". People who want expensive cables,
wires, cars, clothes, or whatever, will buy them. People who want to
tell other people what they should or shouldn't buy will come out of
the woodwork to bitch about it. ;-)

This seems to have really gotten your dander up. Why?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 17, 5:25*pm, Oliver Costich wrote:

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.

Why is this important to you, so much so that you have blasted so many
posts in this thread?

Is this really, really important?

(HINT: it ain't.)

OK then. ;-)

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said to McInturd:

The real issue to me is "who cares". People who want expensive cables,
wires, cars, clothes, or whatever, will buy them. People who want to
tell other people what they should or shouldn't buy will come out of
the woodwork to bitch about it. ;-)

This seems to have really gotten your dander up. Why?

Because John Atkinson is the Devil. (The real one, not that poseur who
called himself Roy Briggs.)

[Eeyore]

Oliver Costich wrote:

Back to reality: 61% correct in one experiment fails to reject that
they can't tell the difference.

61% is statistically close enough as doesn't matter to pure 50-50% random choice.

Try flicking coins and see if you get a perfect 50-50 distribution for any given
sample size. You WON'T. In fact pure 50-50 would be the exception by a mile.

No, 61% is as good as proof that there's NO difference. Which there ISN'T of
course. Copper is copper is copper. High pricing, alleged magic and phoney
marketing doesn't make if any different.

Graham

[Eeyore]

John Atkinson wrote:

but what was later revealed to be the more expensive cable
sounded less congested at signal peaks.

CHARLATAN ! What the ****** is 'congested*.

Another stupid means-nothing word like speed, pace, delivery, darkness,
depth et al.

Of course if you used a technical word it would be disprovable so you
LIE to promote this idiocy using made-up phoney concepts that you use to
bamboozle and confuse the public with.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brayed hysterically:

but what was later revealed to be the more expensive cable
sounded less congested at signal peaks.

CHARLATAN ! What the ****** is 'congested*.
Another stupid means-nothing word like speed, pace, delivery, darkness,
depth et al.
Of course if you used a technical word it would be disprovable so you
LIE to promote this idiocy using made-up phoney concepts that you use to
bamboozle and confuse the public with.

Poopie, in all seriousness, are you tanked? If not, maybe you should get a
rabies booster shot. You're raving like a loonyborg.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 17, 4:04 pm, Walt wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
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?

I have no idea. I didn't design the test, not did I look at the
playback system. I was a listening subject. If you read the
article in the WSJ, you will see that Lee Gomes did other
comparisons, not just cables. But the only test I took
part in involved cables..

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie brayed hysterically:

but what was later revealed to be the more expensive cable
sounded less congested at signal peaks.

CHARLATAN ! What the ****** is 'congested*.
Another stupid means-nothing word like speed, pace, delivery, darkness,
depth et al.
Of course if you used a technical word it would be disprovable so you
LIE to promote this idiocy using made-up phoney concepts that you use to
bamboozle and confuse the public with.

Poopie, in all seriousness, are you tanked? If not, maybe you should get a
rabies booster shot. You're raving like a loonyborg.

**** OFF

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:





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.


How can that be so? From the article, it said, "... 39 people who
took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable."

At what percentage do you consider it imagination, and when it
is not. Somehow, this showdown at the CES looked like a DBT
sans blackbox.




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

0% seems about right.


That would be about right for someone like Howard ferstler
who has a known, and by his own admission, hearing deficiency.
When it comes to discerning differences, Ferstler gets 0.
You put two and two together and you'll see why he's fuming
all the time.



snip





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

Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.


I don't follow your thought because you are abviously keep on
guessing as you go.

If you're not guessing, can you form realistic idea exposing that
the percieved differences I heard while swapping cables did not
physically exist ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:





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



I take it you don't recommend testing for such purposes.
Ok then...

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:
Walt wrote:
vinylanach wrote:




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.


Well yes, Mr. Costich, the test results aren't scientifically valid but it
didn't disproved that the sound differences heard by participants did
not physically exist.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:






Now there'sa measurement of validity of argument that's really
convincing. Mine is bigger than yours.


Mr. Costich, there is no such valid *measurement* that will
*validly* measure a response against strawman arguments.


Forget that there are statistical methods to answer these questions.
Rely on the word of the guy selling them.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:
Walt wrote:
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?

So has Osama Bin Laden. The point is that he's devoid of a sound
argument.


Mr. Costich, there is no sound argument to improve upon a strawman
arguments. It just doesn't exist.




//Walt


Incidentally Mr. Costich, how well do you know Arny Krueger if you
don't mind me asking so.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:




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


What sort of test should one have in mind for this type of opportunity
to ensure success, Mr. Costich ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Shhhh! wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:





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".

I'm curious what percent of the "best informed" got. I mean, you could
mix in hot dog vendors, the deaf, people who might try to fail just to
be contrary, you, and so on, and get different results.



Well asked.

[Arny Krueger]

"Oliver Costich" wrote in
message

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

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



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.

Nor did I. I did extensive undergraduate and postgraduate work in math and
statistics. One of the inspirations for the development of double blind
testing was my wife who has a degree in experimental psychology. Another was
a friend with a degree in mathematics.

Logic is on the side of not making decisions about human
behavior without sufficient testing using good design of
experiment method and statistical analysis.

4 of the 6 ABX partners had technical degrees ranging from BS to PhD.

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

When it comes to audible differences between cables that is not supported by
science and math, which is what this thread is about, none of it is
supported by well-designed experiments.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Oliver Costich wrote:

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.

Welcome to the group! Out of curiosity, what significance
level does 61% support?

You haven't formed the question properly. 61% is statisically signifcant or
not, depending on the total number of trials.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

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?

This is not logical discussion or even just rhetoric, this is abuse.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:





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.

How can that be so? From the article, it said, "... 39
people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the
expensive cable."

At what percentage do you consider it imagination, and
when it is not.

Well Borg, this post is more evidence that ignorance of basic statistics is
a common problem among golden ears. It's not a well-formed question. It's
not the percentage of correct answers that defines statistical signicance,
its both the percentage of correct answers and the total number of trials.
And, that's all based on the idea that basic experiment was well-designed.

The most fundamental question is whether the experiment was well-designed.

Somehow, this showdown at the CES looked like a
DBT sans blackbox.

Nope. This comment is even more evidence that ignorance of basic
experimental design is a common problem among golden ears. The basic rule
of double blind testing is that no clue other than the independent variable
is available to the listener. In this alleged test, the person who
controlled the cables interacted with the listeners. In a proper DBT, nobody
or anything that could possibly reveal the indentity of the object chosen
for comparison is acessible in any way to the listener.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message


Well yes, Mr. Costich, the test results aren't
scientifically valid but it didn't disproved that the
sound differences heard by participants did not physically exist.

That was another potential flaw in the tests. I see no controls that ensured
that the listeners heard the indentically same selections of music.
Therefore, the listeners may have heard differences that did physically
exist - unfortunately they were due to random choices by the experimenter,
not audible differences that were inherent in the cables.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Oliver Costich" wrote in
message

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

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



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.

Nor did I. I did extensive undergraduate and postgraduate work in math and
statistics. One of the inspirations for the development of double blind
testing was my wife who has a degree in experimental psychology. Another
was a friend with a degree in mathematics.

Logic is on the side of not making decisions about human
behavior without sufficient testing using good design of
experiment method and statistical analysis.

4 of the 6 ABX partners had technical degrees ranging from BS to PhD.

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

When it comes to audible differences between cables that is not supported
by science and math, which is what this thread is about, none of it is
supported by well-designed experiments.


Well, then rather than "braying and flaying" why don't you communicate the
statistics.

As reported 61% of 39 people chose the correct cable. That according to my
calculator was 24 people.

According to my Binomial Distribution Table, that provides less than a 5%
chance of error...in other words the percentage is statistically
significant. In fact, it is significant at the 98% level....a 2% chance of
error.

Had one more chosen correctly, the error probability would have been less
than 1%, or "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

So presumably John and Michael did at least this well to be singled out by
the reporter.

Is this why you are desparately flaying at the test, Arny...inventing
"possibibilites" without a single shred of evidence to support your
conjectures? Because you know (if you truly do know math and statistics)
that the test statistics hold up (but don't have the integrity to say so)?

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Oliver Costich wrote:

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.

Welcome to the group! Out of curiosity, what
significance level does 61% support?

You haven't formed the question properly. 61% is
statisically signifcant or not, depending on the total
number of trials.

Okay, in 39 trials, what level of significance does 61%
indicate?


In this case nothing, because the basic experiment seems to be so flawed.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message


Incidentally Mr. Costich, how well do you know Arny
Krueger if you don't mind me asking so.

I seriously doubt that we've ever seen each other or corresponded, other
than what you see here on Usenet.

Paranoid much?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


As reported 61% of 39 people chose the correct cable. That according to my
calculator was 24 people.

As reported, the experiment was invalid. No further analysis is necesary.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article
, Oliver
Costich wrote:

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.

Welcome to the group! Out of curiosity, what
significance level does 61% support?

You haven't formed the question properly. 61% is
statisically signifcant or not, depending on the total
number of trials.

Okay, in 39 trials, what level of significance does 61%
indicate?


In this case nothing, because the basic experiment seems
to be so flawed.

In a perfectly designed test with 39 trials, what level
of significance does 61% indicate?

It is on the web - do your own research.

[Walt]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
On Jan 17, 5:25 pm, Oliver Costich wrote:

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.

Why is this important to you, so much so that you have blasted so many
posts in this thread?

I've blasted "so many posts"? WTF?

I count three. This will make four. You must have me confused with
somebody else.

//Walt

[Arny Krueger]

"Walt" wrote in message

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
On Jan 17, 5:25 pm, Oliver Costich
wrote:
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.

Why is this important to you, so much so that you have
blasted so many posts in this thread?

I've blasted "so many posts"? WTF?

I count three. This will make four. You must have me
confused with somebody else.

I think I counted 7 posts to this thread from ****R. The interesting
question about the Middiot Clique is which of them is less self-aware.
Right now Stephen, Jenn, ****R and the Middiot himself are duking it out for
the dishonor. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Ian, 20:17, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:
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.

Personally, I like choking on a ham sandwich.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Ian, 00:15, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:52:40 -0800 (PST), 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

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".

you seem to be mixing difference with preference, you reference both,
for the same test. And just what is the general population of
listeners.
Are you testing the 99% who don't give a rat's
ass anyway? If so, so what. Or are you testing people who actually
care.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Ian, 00:20, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:32:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:





"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
m...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
om
"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.- Ascunde citatul -

- Afiºare text în citat -- Ascunde citatul -

- Afiºare text în citat -

you missed the session on common sense, too bad.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Ian, 14:20, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


One of the inspirations for the development of double blind
testing was my wife

I am touched that you find your wife to be such an inspiriational
experience.
BTW. just what other woman did you double blind test her against?

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Ian, 14:23, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

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

This is not logical discussion or even just rhetoric, this is abuse.

HUH?????

[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.

Personally, I like choking on a ham sandwich.

It's your money to risk as you choose. The bookie I use doesn't offer odds
on that possibility, but he does offer a line on the Krooborg drowning in
a municipal sewage tank.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said to McInturd:

Are you testing the 99% who don't give a rat's
ass anyway? If so, so what. Or are you testing people who actually
care.

Good point to bring out on, LOt"S. The 'borg viewpoint is that nobody
should be allowed to care about things that 'borgs can't afford to own.

[Oliver Costich]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:42:13 -0800, "JBorg, Jr."
wrote:

Oliver Costich wrote:





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



I take it you don't recommend testing for such purposes.
Ok then...




I don't recommend badly designed tests and I don't recommend making
statistically invalid claims based on any kind of test.

But the only way to statistically support (or reject) claims about
human behavior is through well designed experiments and real
statistical analysis.

[Oliver Costich]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:10:59 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Oliver Costich" wrote in
message

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

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



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.

Nor did I. I did extensive undergraduate and postgraduate work in math and
statistics. One of the inspirations for the development of double blind
testing was my wife who has a degree in experimental psychology. Another
was a friend with a degree in mathematics.

Logic is on the side of not making decisions about human
behavior without sufficient testing using good design of
experiment method and statistical analysis.

4 of the 6 ABX partners had technical degrees ranging from BS to PhD.

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

When it comes to audible differences between cables that is not supported
by science and math, which is what this thread is about, none of it is
supported by well-designed experiments.


Well, then rather than "braying and flaying" why don't you communicate the
statistics.

As reported 61% of 39 people chose the correct cable. That according to my
calculator was 24 people.

According to my Binomial Distribution Table, that provides less than a 5%
chance of error...in other words the percentage is statistically
significant. In fact, it is significant at the 98% level....a 2% chance of
error.

I did in other posts but here's a summary. Hypothesis test of claim
that p.5 (p is the probability that more the half of listeners can do
better than guessing). Null hypothesis is p=.5. The P-value is .0748
but would need to be below .05 to support the claim at the 95%
Confidence Level.

You rounded off .054 to .05. You would need to get a probability of
less than .05 to assert the claim, and NO, .054 isn't "close enough"
for statistical validity. I don't know where you got the 98% from.



Had one more chosen correctly, the error probability would have been less
than 1%, or "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

If it had been 25 instead of 24 it would have supported the claim at
the 95% level but not at 97% or higher. But that's the point. You
don't get to wiggle around the numbers so you get what you want. If it
had been one less, you you still make the claim? What about if 39 more
people did the experiment and only 20 got it right. You can only draw
so much support for a claim from a single sample.

And nothing that can only be tested statistically is "beyond a shadow
of a doubt" unless you mean "supported at a very high level of
confidence" which isn't the case here, even with another correct
"guess". Statistics can only be used to support a claim up to the
probability (1-confidence level) of falsely supporting an invalid
conclusion.

The underlying model for determining whether binary selection is
random is tossing a coin. Tossing a coin 39 times and getting 24 heads
doesn't mean the coin is baised towards heads.


So presumably John and Michael did at least this well to be singled out by
the reporter.

Who obviously was deeply knowledgable about statistics.

Is this why you are desparately flaying at the test, Arny...inventing
"possibibilites" without a single shred of evidence to support your
conjectures? Because you know (if you truly do know math and statistics)
that the test statistics hold up (but don't have the integrity to say so)?

[Oliver Costich]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
om

As reported 61% of 39 people chose the correct cable. That according to my
calculator was 24 people.

As reported, the experiment was invalid. No further analysis is necesary.


Bertrand Russell once pointed out that one of Augustine's seven
arguments for God's existence was valid. That doesn't mena God exists.

Similarly, even if this experiment were valid, the data doesn't
support the claim.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Ian, 18:00, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:10:59 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:







"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Oliver Costich" wrote in
messagenews:7eovo350khiqqsqqk5iisucqn7s7d1pd8s@4ax .com

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

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


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.

Nor did I. I did extensive undergraduate and postgraduate work in math and
statistics. One of the inspirations for the development of double blind
testing was my wife who has a degree in experimental psychology. Another
was a friend with a degree in mathematics.

Logic is on the side of not making decisions about human
behavior without sufficient testing using good design of
experiment method and statistical analysis.

4 of the 6 ABX partners had technical degrees ranging from BS to PhD.

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

When it comes to audible differences between cables that is not supported
by science and math, which is what this thread is about, none of it is
supported by well-designed experiments.

Well, then rather than "braying and flaying" why don't you communicate the
statistics.

As reported 61% of 39 people chose the correct cable. *That according to my
calculator was 24 people.

According to my Binomial Distribution Table, that provides less than a 5%
chance of error...in other words the percentage is statistically
significant. *In fact, it is significant at the 98% level....a 2% chance of
error.

I did in other posts but here's a summary. Hypothesis test of claim
that p.5 (p is the probability that more the half of listeners can do
better than guessing). Null hypothesis is p=.5. The P-value is .0748
but would need to be below .05 to support the claim at the 95%
Confidence Level.

You rounded off .054 to .05. You would need to get a probability of
less than .05 to assert the claim, and NO, .054 isn't "close enough"
for statistical validity. *I don't know where you got the 98% from.



Had one more chosen correctly, the error probability would have been less
than 1%, or "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

If it had been 25 instead of 24 it would have supported the claim at
the 95% level but not at 97% or higher. But that's the point. You
don't get to wiggle around the numbers so you get what you want. If it
had been one less, you you still make the claim? What about if 39 more
people did the experiment and only 20 got it right. You can only draw
so much support for a claim from a single sample.

And nothing that can only be tested statistically is "beyond a shadow
of a doubt" unless you mean "supported at a very high level of
confidence" which isn't the case here, even with another correct
"guess". Statistics can only be used to support a claim up to the
probability (1-confidence level) of falsely supporting an invalid
conclusion.

The underlying model for determining whether binary selection is
random is tossing a coin. Tossing a coin 39 times and getting 24 heads
doesn't mean the coin is baised towards heads.



As a practical matter as a "CONSUMER", I don't really care
whether or not a statistically relevant number of people,
from a sample of people I care nothing about, heard differences,
or had a preference. What matters too me, as a "CONSUMER",
is what my particular preference is.