Glenn Booth wrote:

In message , S888Wheel
writes

I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so
long
as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias
affects
can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls
seem
more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question, can
one
be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions?

If only it were that easy. We all have preconceptions that are very
difficult, sometimes impossible, to train ourselves out of. We start
learning them very early in life; we have formed biases based on our
experiences before we have any notion of what bias is. At that point
it's too late.

There are many examples of illusions that persist even when we know them
to be 'false', where intuition misleads us. It's been brought up in this
forum before I think, but the book "Inevitable illusions" by
Piattelli-Palmarini does a good job of exploring many of them. The Monty
Hall paradox and the St. Louis arch are two of many examples.

Weight of research suggests that there is always some tendency towards
bias, even in the most intelligent and level headed among us. Borrowing
from the aforenamed book, "We see what we see, even when we know what we
know". We can't just turn bias off, and we can't experience life without
generating preconceptions.

That author does a good job f describing human decision-making tendencies that
exacerbate bias.

I don't know if it's true, but apparently Niels Bohr had a horseshoe
hung on his wall. A visitor was astonished to see it, and said "But
Professor Bohr, surely you can't believe in such a stupid superstition".
Bohr answered "Of course I don't, but they tell me it works even if I
don't believe in it!".

That is really funny. That's kind of like prayer as a bet-padder.


As to placebos, medical statistics sometimes includes a 'susceptibility'
measure to gauge how likely a given individual is to respond to a
placebo over a number of trials.

Predictably, some people are more likely than others to 'get better'
after eating chalk pills.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

As for the human tendency to choose between identical stimulus my limited
research indicates that the tendency to "prefer" one of 2 identical reproduced
sound alternatives didn't seem to differ sigificantly among subjects.

(RBernst929) wrote:



You guys just dont get it. EVERYTHING is subjective because it is filtered
through our biological perceptive apparatus. This is how we perceive the
world. Even our measurements are made this way. You cannot separate the
fish
from the sea to make "objective" measurements about the ocean. Likewise, we
are inherently filtered as humans by our biological limitations. This can
lead
to false conclusions. If every wire sounds the same, and every competent CD
player sounds the same and every competently desiged Amp sounds the same, why
are there many many different approaches to reproducing a recording? NO, its
not just marketing. People do hear a difference, and all the objectivists in
the world cannot refute it. -Bob Bernstein.

The exsistance of multiple suppliers of commodity products is common. How come
there's more than one brand of drywall screws? White Bread? Laundry Detergent?
Table Salt? Corn? zip cord? Hydrogen Peroxide?

Competition does not necessarily imply performance differences. Nor does the
existence of commodity products limit their usage in combination. I use a lot
of salt and choice ground chuck. So why then do I make so many different meals
out of these two?

RBernst929 wrote:
You guys just dont get it. EVERYTHING is subjective because it is filtered
through our biological perceptive apparatus. This is how we perceive the
world. Even our measurements are made this way.


Excuse me?

I'm very sorry, sir. What is quoted above from your post is a virtual
dictionary definition of solipsism, a position that has never been held by
ANY school of philosophers or by ANY outstanding thinker. It is the
'reductio ad absurdum' of subjectivism.

It really isn't even possible to have a discussion with such a precept.

On 6/9/04 7:48 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Competition does not necessarily imply performance differences. Nor does the
existence of commodity products limit their usage in combination. I use a lot
of salt and choice ground chuck. So why then do I make so many different
meals
out of these two?

Except with audio equipment the market is NOT a commodity market - where the
competition is based upon price.

(RBernst929) wrote in message news:DKrxc.2188$jw.147@attbi_s04...

People do hear a difference, and all the objectivists in the world cannot
refute it. -Bob Bernstein.

If people say that they perceive a difference, then they are telling
the truth. Perception is influenced by a variety of factors, including
the senses, expectations, experiences, and so forth. These factors
explain "subjectivity," which is when two people make different
choices from among objectively different alernatives. For instance, my
spouse and I choose different pizza toppings.

What I wonder is whether "hearing" and "perceiving" are the same
thing. To what extent is the sense of hearing involved in a subjective
listening trial, beyond merely convincing the listener that a test is
occurring? Consider the following thought-experiments:

1. The listener is told that they are trying different cables, but the
speakers are really being fed from a hidden cable that is the same
throughout the trial. Here the effect persists when the cause of any
possible audible difference is removed.

2. The canonical double-blind trial. Here, the effect vanishes
completely when audible differences are the only possible cause.

If these are accurate descriptions of tests that have occurred, then a
working hypothesis is that the sense of hearing is largely uncoupled
from the process of subjective testing. Audible changes are eliminated
as a possible cause of perceived differences.

There are situations where these thought experiments would have
markedly different results. Consider the process by which people
distinguish audible differences in spoken words over the telephone:

1. The listener is told that they are hearing different words, but the
words are actually the same throughout the trial. Here, the listener
would notice the spoof immediately.

2. In the double-blind trial, the listener does not get to see a list
of the words before listening to them. Yet they can still recognize
most of the words.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that hearing is involved in
the perception of spoken words over the telephone, but not in the
perception of cable differences.

Bromo wrote:

On 6/9/04 7:48 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Competition does not necessarily imply performance differences. Nor does
the
existence of commodity products limit their usage in combination. I use a
lot
of salt and choice ground chuck. So why then do I make so many different
meals
out of these two?

Except with audio equipment the market is NOT a commodity market - where the
competition is based upon price.

In many aspects it surely is. Wires? amps? Cd Players? Speaker Stands? Speaker
Spikes? No single (or married :-) person has ever shown an ability to actually
"hear" any nominally competent device under even moderately bias-controlled
conditions.

In truth the real performance variables are restricted to program content
(including recording techniques,formats etc), loudspeakers and system
topology/layout/set-up and room acoustics.

In every other aspect performance is a commodity and sold, like clothing
detergent, on promotion and merchandising.

"RBernst929" wrote in message
newsKrxc.2188$jw.147@attbi_s04...
You guys just dont get it. EVERYTHING is subjective because it is
filtered
through our biological perceptive apparatus. This is how we perceive the
world. Even our measurements are made this way. You cannot separate the
fish
from the sea to make "objective" measurements about the ocean. Likewise,
we
are inherently filtered as humans by our biological limitations. This can
lead
to false conclusions. If every wire sounds the same, and every competent
CD
player sounds the same and every competently desiged Amp sounds the same,
why
are there many many different approaches to reproducing a recording? NO,
its
not just marketing. People do hear a difference, and all the objectivists
in
the world cannot refute it. -Bob Bernstein.

Every wire does not sound the same. Any wire larger than or equal to 12
gauge (speaker wire) sounds the same. Every competently designed CD player
_does_ sound the same, unless it is broken. I still have an ongoing bet with
anyone who can tell me with 75 per cent accuracy which pair of speaker wires
they are listening to. Double blind, their choice of music, third party does
the test and keeps score. I have done this test for 20 years, golden ears,
cloth ears, regular people like you filtering thru your biological
perceptive equipment -- the bet still has not been claimed. The thing you
can't seem to understand is, both wires, for instance, are being auditioned
with the same amp, the same speakers, the same set of biological perceptive
equipment. You cannot say there will be a difference just because of your
bio filter, because the same filter is in place for the entire test. The
only way there will be a perceived difference is if you pay so much for your
new SuperWires, then you WANT them to sound different (better?). Otherwise,
you got taken, right? If this is the case, then you are using a whole
different set of biological filters (my cables are waaaay more expensive
than yours, so they MUST sound better.) I will tell you this, what you ate
yesterday will affect your brain's chemistry and it's ability to process the
signals fed to it by your ears a whole lot more than any set of speaker
wires.

Tom

On 6/10/04 12:35 AM, in article 3yRxc.3980$2i5.2445@attbi_s52, "Nousaine"
wrote:

Bromo wrote:

On 6/9/04 7:48 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Competition does not necessarily imply performance differences. Nor does
the
existence of commodity products limit their usage in combination. I use a
lot
of salt and choice ground chuck. So why then do I make so many different
meals
out of these two?

Except with audio equipment the market is NOT a commodity market - where the
competition is based upon price.

In many aspects it surely is. Wires? amps? Cd Players? Speaker Stands? Speaker
Spikes? No single (or married :-) person has ever shown an ability to
actually
"hear" any nominally competent device under even moderately bias-controlled
conditions.

Either way - even among the mass market - the market is not a commodity
market. Not that it could be (anything could be) - but it isn't.

In every other aspect performance is a commodity and sold, like clothing
detergent, on promotion and merchandising.

A Commodity market is only driven by price - price alone. The quality is
assumed. It is not to say that electronics couldn't be a commodity market
(though I am not sure exactly how) - but as it is right now and through its
entire past - it is NOT one.

Memory chips, screws, nails, cement are all commodities.

Bromo wrote:

....snips....

A Commodity market is only driven by price - price alone. The quality is
assumed. It is not to say that electronics couldn't be a commodity market
(though I am not sure exactly how) - but as it is right now and through its
entire past - it is NOT one.

Memory chips, screws, nails, cement are all commodities.

But memory chips, nails, cement and table salt are sold on a brand name basis
..... otherwards there would be no price difference but there is. I have 2 boxes
of table salt in my spice cabinet as we speak and one cost nearly twice the
other.

Commodities (as in consumer goods as opposed to "wheat") are precisely the kind
of product that relies on brand management , promotion and merchandising.
Otherwise on eof my salt cartons wouldn't need that picture of a girl with the
umbrella to keep the price premium.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
Bromo wrote:

...snips....

A Commodity market is only driven by price - price alone. The
quality is
assumed. It is not to say that electronics couldn't be a commodity
market
(though I am not sure exactly how) - but as it is right now and
through its
entire past - it is NOT one.

Memory chips, screws, nails, cement are all commodities.

But memory chips, nails, cement and table salt are sold on a brand
name basis
.... otherwards there would be no price difference but there is. I
have 2 boxes
of table salt in my spice cabinet as we speak and one cost nearly
twice the
other.

Commodities (as in consumer goods as opposed to "wheat") are
precisely the kind
of product that relies on brand management , promotion and
merchandising.
Otherwise on eof my salt cartons wouldn't need that picture of a
girl with the
umbrella to keep the price premium.

And branding can lead to some really aggressive pricing disparities.
I was looking at a box of PepcidAC at Costco just a few days ago.
Right next to it was the generic equivalent (Kirkland) for one-fourth
the price. And this is the same product--probably made by the same
manufacturer! Yet, according to the pharmacist, PepcidAC easily
outsells the generic. Brand has easily become the principal factor
leading to sales. The actual quality of the product is far less
important, and high-end audio is a clear example.

Norm Strong

On 6/11/04 7:50 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Bromo wrote:

...snips....

A Commodity market is only driven by price - price alone. The quality is
assumed. It is not to say that electronics couldn't be a commodity market
(though I am not sure exactly how) - but as it is right now and through its
entire past - it is NOT one.

Memory chips, screws, nails, cement are all commodities.

But memory chips, nails, cement and table salt are sold on a brand name basis
.... otherwards there would be no price difference but there is. I have 2
boxes
of table salt in my spice cabinet as we speak and one cost nearly twice the
other.

Commodities (as in consumer goods as opposed to "wheat") are precisely the
kind
of product that relies on brand management , promotion and merchandising.
Otherwise on eof my salt cartons wouldn't need that picture of a girl with the
umbrella to keep the price premium.

That's true - but that, as well as CD players are not commodities.

Bromo wrote:

On 6/11/04 7:50 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Bromo wrote:

...snips....

A Commodity market is only driven by price - price alone. The quality is
assumed. It is not to say that electronics couldn't be a commodity market
(though I am not sure exactly how) - but as it is right now and through
its
entire past - it is NOT one.

Memory chips, screws, nails, cement are all commodities.

But memory chips, nails, cement and table salt are sold on a brand name
basis
.... otherwards there would be no price difference but there is. I have 2
boxes
of table salt in my spice cabinet as we speak and one cost nearly twice the
other.

Commodities (as in consumer goods as opposed to "wheat") are precisely the
kind
of product that relies on brand management , promotion and merchandising.
Otherwise on eof my salt cartons wouldn't need that picture of a girl with
the
umbrella to keep the price premium.

That's true - but that, as well as CD players are not commodities.

If table salt is not a commodity you must be subscribing to a different world's
economics. I'm guessing that this must be proof of alien visitation and
other-world economics :-)

I'm glad I'm not buying my cd players (even dvd players) from those guys.

On 6/13/04 6:45 PM, in article zO4zc.42914$HG.42059@attbi_s53, "Nousaine"
wrote:

Commodities (as in consumer goods as opposed to "wheat") are precisely the
kind
of product that relies on brand management , promotion and merchandising.
Otherwise on eof my salt cartons wouldn't need that picture of a girl with
the
umbrella to keep the price premium.

That's true - but that, as well as CD players are not commodities.

If table salt is not a commodity you must be subscribing to a different
world's
economics. I'm guessing that this must be proof of alien visitation and
other-world economics :-)

Generally commodities have set specifications, and one companies' product is
substituted for other companies. It is a bad place to be if you are a
manufacturer or producer - so you try to differentiate yourself somehow. As
CD players can have features different from one another, even if you don't
believe in sound differences, this is where a savvy manufacturer tries to
command a price premium. Sony and to some degree Philips are able to do so,
but either way, if any market is in danger of commoditizing, it is CD's.

Ironically, now that the music companies are copy protecting their discs,
having everyone move to CD-ROM's as transports, and so on - is impossible
because of it - which is preventing the commoditization....


I'm glad I'm not buying my cd players (even dvd players) from those guys.

Which guys? The Aliens? ;-)

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:JC%wc.13818$4S5.4528@attbi_s52...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:rkJwc.10912$4S5.2052@attbi_s52...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/6/2004 6:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 6/5/2004 11:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:

I believe our hobby is about the consistent creation of the
illusion of
performers in the room with you as much as it is about truth.

Of course, but the key word here is "consistent." A stereo
image is an
illusion, but it's a consistent one--it doesn't disappear when
you close
your eyes. A perceived difference between brand-name and
generic 12-gauge
cables, on the other hand...

bob


Optical illusions are fairly consistant as well. Bromo's post
was a
response to
the claim that optical illusions are an example of perceptions
being wrong.
The
problem with that example is that in audio "perceptions" cannot
be "wrong"
since the goal of audio is aimed at "perceptions."

Of course they can be *wrong*, if they are used as a basis for
claims that
are
*wrong*.

They being the perceptions? Nope. The perceptions are what they
are regardless
of how they are used to draw conclusions. The conclusions may be
wrong but the
perceptions simply are what they are.

So? No one is saying the person didn't have hte perceptions . No
one is
saying the perceptions *didn't exist in their minds*. Similarly, if
someone
claims that the Gateway Arch looks higher than it is wide, no one
claims they
are *lying*, that they aren't *really* having that perception.

But the perception is still *wrong* (as in *inaccurate*). The claim
was
made that a perception can't be wrong. That's clearly nonsense.
Perceptions
are *often* wrong. So are beliefs. Sincere belief in an error does
not
make it less an error.

You might find it interesting to look at this checkerboard illusion.
Try as I might, I can't overcome it by knowing the answer ahead of
time.

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/ade..._illusion.html

Norm Strong


Geez Norm, that's crazy good stuff. I can visualize the proof but I still
can't visualize the simularity.
Where do you find this kind of stuff on the web?

Wessel Dirksen

"Glenn Booth" wrote in message
news:XPkxc.62851$eY2.12635@attbi_s02...
In message , S888Wheel
writes

I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so
long
as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias
affects
can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls
seem
more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question,
can one
be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions?

If only it were that easy. We all have preconceptions that are very
difficult, sometimes impossible, to train ourselves out of. We start
learning them very early in life; we have formed biases based on our
experiences before we have any notion of what bias is. At that point
it's too late.

There are many examples of illusions that persist even when we know them
to be 'false', where intuition misleads us. It's been brought up in this
forum before I think, but the book "Inevitable illusions" by
Piattelli-Palmarini does a good job of exploring many of them. The Monty
Hall paradox and the St. Louis arch are two of many examples.

Weight of research suggests that there is always some tendency towards
bias, even in the most intelligent and level headed among us. Borrowing
from the aforenamed book, "We see what we see, even when we know what we
know". We can't just turn bias off, and we can't experience life without
generating preconceptions.

I don't know if it's true, but apparently Niels Bohr had a horseshoe
hung on his wall. A visitor was astonished to see it, and said "But
Professor Bohr, surely you can't believe in such a stupid superstition".
Bohr answered "Of course I don't, but they tell me it works even if I
don't believe in it!".

That's good! It never ceases to amaze me the sort of inside comical wisdom
that the big thinkers of our scientific history have produced when "not
looking". This is of course indirectly related to the subject. This reminds
me of a remark that Albert Einstein made which is off topic here, and yet
right on topic . . .

After Albert Einstein fled nazi Germany, a German publication was released
entitled (loosely translated) "100 scientists against Einstein", to of
course undermine his reputation. When a reporter asked him what he thought
of this he said +/- "Why 100? If I am wrong, one would be sufficient"

As to placebos, medical statistics sometimes includes a 'susceptibility'
measure to gauge how likely a given individual is to respond to a
placebo over a number of trials.

Over placebos and evidence based medicine. Think about it. One who
participates with an informed concent, double blind randomized trial is
looking for something.

Wessel

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
Bromo wrote:

On 6/6/04 9:44 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

Why , then, is it so difficult for subjectivists
to entertain the notion that they can be 'fooled' in other,
just as well characterized ways? Namely, fooled by their
built-in, psychological biases to believe that a *real*
audible difference exists, when it does not?

Since there exist some people that are unable to form a stereo image - it
is
conceivable to me that there are people that could form stereo images
with
much less difficulty than an average person.

That doesn't follow. There may be a small number of people who cannot form
a
stereo image, but the vast majority of people obviously can (or stereo
would
have withered on the vine 40 years ago). If you mean that there are some
people more amenable to the audio equivalent of "willing suspension of
disbelief"--i.e., quicker to believe that they are listening to "the real
thing"--that's probably true.

For them it might be possible
to 'hear' differences, perhaps.

Hear what differences? And if there are such adepts, why haven't we found
any? Or is 'hear' in quotes because what you really mean is 'imagine'?

To someone that is convinced that they can hear a difference, you can
present all the papers, academically rigorous, simulations, surveys and
so
on that tells them they are hearing things - and as long as they perceive
a
difference (however rigorous or non rigorous) they will view those
telling
them otherwise as either having a tin ear, or silly.

Yep. Doesn't mean they're right.

I use simulators at work a lot - to simulate nonlinear circuitries - and
if
the bench gives me a different result than my simulators say - it is not
reality that is in error. While this is not the same as the
psycho-acoustic
soundstaging, etc, it should illustrate the perspective of the
subjectivists. If they hear a difference - there *is* a difference.

And if they hear a difference under some conditions but not others...?

bob

You know besides psychoacoustics there is also always going to be an
objectively measureable variance of physical conditions going on with any
subjective acoustic hearing test. Even if the source and environment are
precisely controlled, one's hearing apparatus will always physically vary
from person to person. Even if the outer ear shape differences are
considered acoustically negligable (which they aren't IMO), the mechanical
properties of the middle ear structures and especially inner ear are subject
to enormous physical differences. Of course it is about A vs. B in the same
set of ears. But who is to say that A vs. B are indeed the same or different
from person to person running through a similar mechanical hearing circuit
but with a different transfer function.

Wessel

On 6/19/04 2:58 AM, in article FuRAc.54441$2i5.41860@attbi_s52, "Wessel
Dirksen" wrote:

"Glenn Booth" wrote in message
news:XPkxc.62851$eY2.12635@attbi_s02...
In message , S888Wheel
writes

I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so
long
as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias
affects
can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls
seem
more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question,
can one
be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions?

If only it were that easy. We all have preconceptions that are very
difficult, sometimes impossible, to train ourselves out of. We start
learning them very early in life; we have formed biases based on our
experiences before we have any notion of what bias is. At that point
it's too late.

There are many examples of illusions that persist even when we know them
to be 'false', where intuition misleads us. It's been brought up in this
forum before I think, but the book "Inevitable illusions" by
Piattelli-Palmarini does a good job of exploring many of them. The Monty
Hall paradox and the St. Louis arch are two of many examples.

Weight of research suggests that there is always some tendency towards
bias, even in the most intelligent and level headed among us. Borrowing
from the aforenamed book, "We see what we see, even when we know what we
know". We can't just turn bias off, and we can't experience life without
generating preconceptions.

I don't know if it's true, but apparently Niels Bohr had a horseshoe
hung on his wall. A visitor was astonished to see it, and said "But
Professor Bohr, surely you can't believe in such a stupid superstition".
Bohr answered "Of course I don't, but they tell me it works even if I
don't believe in it!".

That's good! It never ceases to amaze me the sort of inside comical wisdom
that the big thinkers of our scientific history have produced when "not
looking". This is of course indirectly related to the subject. This reminds
me of a remark that Albert Einstein made which is off topic here, and yet
right on topic . . .

After Albert Einstein fled nazi Germany, a German publication was released
entitled (loosely translated) "100 scientists against Einstein", to of
course undermine his reputation. When a reporter asked him what he thought
of this he said +/- "Why 100? If I am wrong, one would be sufficient"

As to placebos, medical statistics sometimes includes a 'susceptibility'
measure to gauge how likely a given individual is to respond to a
placebo over a number of trials.

Over placebos and evidence based medicine. Think about it. One who
participates with an informed concent, double blind randomized trial is
looking for something.

There is a fair contention that the crowd that claim they hear nothing (or
what differences they might hear are imaginary) because they didn't measure
it - is another flavor of the 'emperor has no clothes' argument. Given the
level of vitriol and aggression - it is almost as if they are trying to
silence anyone who claims observation in contradiction to their position.

The "subjectivists"/"empiricists" have their placebo's - but the hard core
"objectivists"/"theorists" are not enirely free of their notions.

And true to most hobbies - polarizations have occurred and battle lines
drawn! ;-)

Wessel Dirksen wrote:

You know besides psychoacoustics there is also always going to be an
objectively measureable variance of physical conditions going on with any
subjective acoustic hearing test. Even if the source and environment are
precisely controlled, one's hearing apparatus will always physically vary
from person to person. Even if the outer ear shape differences are
considered acoustically negligable (which they aren't IMO),

Your opinion is unnecessary here. It is an accepted fact that the outer ear,
among other physical characteristics, is acoustically significant. There's
even a technical term for it: head-related transfer function.

the mechanical
properties of the middle ear structures and especially inner ear are
subject
to enormous physical differences. Of course it is about A vs. B in the same
set of ears. But who is to say that A vs. B are indeed the same or
different
from person to person running through a similar mechanical hearing circuit
but with a different transfer function.

Soooo....what, exactly? A vs. B will be different from person to person.
That's part of why an ABX test involving, say, 20 subjects can't prove that
*no one* can hear a difference between the two things being tested. But if
you do enough ABX tests with enough subjects and you keep coming up
negative, the search for that one special person who can hear this
difference begins to look futile.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Make the most of your family vacation with tips from the MSN Family Travel
Guide! http://dollar.msn.com

Bromo wrote:

There is a fair contention that the crowd that claim they hear nothing (or
what differences they might hear are imaginary) because they didn't measure
it -

what 'crowd' is this?

is another flavor of the 'emperor has no clothes' argument. Given the
level of vitriol and aggression - it is almost as if they are trying to
silence anyone who claims observation in contradiction to their position.

Then again, it's subjectivists who start most of the DBT threads here.
What does that tell you?




--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

On 19 Jun 2004 14:45:33 GMT, Bromo wrote:

There is a fair contention that the crowd that claim they hear nothing (or
what differences they might hear are imaginary) because they didn't measure
it - is another flavor of the 'emperor has no clothes' argument.

Which 'crowd' is this? I have never yet seen such an argument advanced
- except by the 'subjectivists' as a strawman argument.

Given the
level of vitriol and aggression - it is almost as if they are trying to
silence anyone who claims observation in contradiction to their position.

The only 'they' who have *ever* tried to *silence* the opposition have
been the 'subjectivists'. The 'objectivists' are always happy to
accept any *evidence* opposing their position. Interestingly, none is
*ever* forthcoming.................

The "subjectivists"/"empiricists" have their placebo's - but the hard core
"objectivists"/"theorists" are not enirely free of their notions.

Such as?

And true to most hobbies - polarizations have occurred and battle lines
drawn! ;-)

Indeed - but it hardly seems a fair fight! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

There are so many opinions, so many arguments, no one can really prove
anything....no one can measure ...
By observing this thread I have learned that if there are audible
differences in cables, they are so minute that it is not worth spending a
lot of money on. If there really were appreciable differences, it wouldn't
be discussed, it would be dismissed as a fact.

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
Wessel Dirksen wrote:

You know besides psychoacoustics there is also always going to be an
objectively measureable variance of physical conditions going on with any
subjective acoustic hearing test. Even if the source and environment are
precisely controlled, one's hearing apparatus will always physically vary
from person to person. Even if the outer ear shape differences are
considered acoustically negligable (which they aren't IMO),

Your opinion is unnecessary here. It is an accepted fact that the outer
ear,
among other physical characteristics, is acoustically significant. There's
even a technical term for it: head-related transfer function.

the mechanical
properties of the middle ear structures and especially inner ear are
subject
to enormous physical differences. Of course it is about A vs. B in the
same
set of ears. But who is to say that A vs. B are indeed the same or
different
from person to person running through a similar mechanical hearing
circuit
but with a different transfer function.

Soooo....what, exactly? A vs. B will be different from person to person.
That's part of why an ABX test involving, say, 20 subjects can't prove
that
*no one* can hear a difference between the two things being tested. But if
you do enough ABX tests with enough subjects and you keep coming up
negative, the search for that one special person who can hear this
difference begins to look futile.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Make the most of your family vacation with tips from the MSN Family Travel
Guide! http://dollar.msn.com

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
Wessel Dirksen wrote:

You know besides psychoacoustics there is also always going to be an
objectively measureable variance of physical conditions going on with any
subjective acoustic hearing test. Even if the source and environment are
precisely controlled, one's hearing apparatus will always physically vary
from person to person. Even if the outer ear shape differences are
considered acoustically negligable (which they aren't IMO),

Your opinion is unnecessary here. It is an accepted fact that the outer
ear,
among other physical characteristics, is acoustically significant. There's
even a technical term for it: head-related transfer function.

The head related transfer function is what I'm referrng to here and I did
mention that it is significant. From the 7 year old info I know on this, the
majority of the differences from subject to subject in the total transfer
function seem to come from mostly the inner ear, less from the mechanical
transformer function of the middle ear (which seems to be a good
transformer), and even less from the acoustic properties of the outer ear
canal. I mention "seem" because as far as I know, there is not a large body
of conclusive data on this, and mostly on cadavers which is really more of a
"in vitro" like setting. The basal membrane is very sensitive to even the
slightest environmental influence. Also the outer ear structures acoustic
properties +/- tend toward negligability for the frequencies where the human
voice is in question which is why I figured I'd put that very debateable
caveat in. If there are any cochlear implant research guys out there they
will certainly be able to tell us more, and I hope they do.

I still stand by my 2 cents that if "the head" is not the same, that there
is an extra variable to confound things in a small sample. Your point about
a statistically significant sample size is valid but you would have to corre
ct for this and other coufounding factors.

This turned out to be off topic. Yet, I think anybody's opinion is necessary
in a forum discussion if they feel it is necessary to communicate. It seems
you feel my bit is unnecessary to read. Sorry about that Bob.


the mechanical
properties of the middle ear structures and especially inner ear are
subject
to enormous physical differences. Of course it is about A vs. B in the
same
set of ears. But who is to say that A vs. B are indeed the same or
different
from person to person running through a similar mechanical hearing
circuit
but with a different transfer function.

Soooo....what, exactly? A vs. B will be different from person to person.
That's part of why an ABX test involving, say, 20 subjects can't prove
that
*no one* can hear a difference between the two things being tested. But if
you do enough ABX tests with enough subjects and you keep coming up
negative, the search for that one special person who can hear this
difference begins to look futile.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Make the most of your family vacation with tips from the MSN Family Travel
Guide! http://dollar.msn.com

Wessel Dirksen wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
Wessel Dirksen wrote:

You know besides psychoacoustics there is also always going to be an
objectively measureable variance of physical conditions going on with
any
subjective acoustic hearing test. Even if the source and environment
are
precisely controlled, one's hearing apparatus will always physically
vary
from person to person. Even if the outer ear shape differences are
considered acoustically negligable (which they aren't IMO),

Your opinion is unnecessary here. It is an accepted fact that the
outer
ear,
among other physical characteristics, is acoustically significant.
There's
even a technical term for it: head-related transfer function.

The head related transfer function is what I'm referrng to here and I
did
mention that it is significant. From the 7 year old info I know on this,
the
majority of the differences from subject to subject in the total
transfer
function seem to come from mostly the inner ear, less from the
mechanical
transformer function of the middle ear (which seems to be a good
transformer), and even less from the acoustic properties of the outer
ear
canal. I mention "seem" because as far as I know, there is not a large
body
of conclusive data on this, and mostly on cadavers which is really more
of a
"in vitro" like setting. The basal membrane is very sensitive to even
the
slightest environmental influence. Also the outer ear structures
acoustic
properties +/- tend toward negligability for the frequencies where the
human
voice is in question which is why I figured I'd put that very debateable
caveat in. If there are any cochlear implant research guys out there
they
will certainly be able to tell us more, and I hope they do.

I still stand by my 2 cents that if "the head" is not the same, that
there
is an extra variable to confound things in a small sample. Your point
about
a statistically significant sample size is valid but you would have to
corre
ct for this and other coufounding factors.

This turned out to be off topic. Yet, I think anybody's opinion is
necessary
in a forum discussion if they feel it is necessary to communicate. It
seems
you feel my bit is unnecessary to read. Sorry about that Bob.

I'm afraid I was guilty of some careless writing here. When I said, "Your
opinion is unnecessary," what I meant was that you didn't have to state
something as an opinion if there were solid scientific findings to back it
up. But I see from your subsequent explanation that you specifically
referring to the outer ear, which is less of a factor, so your stating it as
an opinion was perfectly understandable. My apologies for the confusion.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
From ‘will you?’ to ‘I do,’ MSN Life Events is your resource for Getting
Married. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married

"Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
news:h7rCc.166192$Ly.81116@attbi_s01...
There are so many opinions, so many arguments, no one can really prove
anything....no one can measure ...
By observing this thread I have learned that if there are audible
differences in cables, they are so minute that it is not worth
spending a
lot of money on. If there really were appreciable differences, it
wouldn't
be discussed, it would be dismissed as a fact.

Very nicely put. Short and to the point. And why spend $5k and up on
wire when an upgrade to speakers and room acoustics would be better
served with greater noticeable difference. And $5k is way too much. $100
USD should be plenty to wire any system.
I remember buying a NAD integrated (3400) in the early 90's. The
salesman told me that there was an interconnect by NAD for $35 that
replaced the solid metal bar that connected the pre & amp sections that
provided a huge improvement. Cool. I paid them the extra money and
hooked it in when I unpacked the amp. Played it with the cable in for a
year before I got to thinking. Wonder how big of a difference there was?
This was before I was ever on a BBS (early version of the web) or
anything else, let alone reading mags that had articles on this stuff.
Made sense to me that a cable would be better than a solid bent piece of
metal. Made the change and low and behold......no difference. P*ssed me
off! I was expecting a huge drop in the quality of music only to find no
difference. WTFO!
I played and played with it eventually asking my roommate to tell me
when one was switched. Never heard of ABX or blind testing back then.
Just did it. He wasn't able to hear anything. Sometimes I switched,
other times I didn't. He couldn't make a distinction at any time. Then I
had him switch without telling me. Not one difference in sound. Phooey!
Funny, I had forgotten about this until starting this reply.
John

Yesterday, while checking the speaker cable I realised one probably
broken at the joint. So I decided to get rid of the all 8 silver
spades on my left speaker/Amp.

Since, it took me a long time to strip the individual wire ,I did not
bother to remove the silver spades in my left channel cables.

Thw silver termination was chosen by my ""reputable" dealer who after
conducted variuos tests - declared that silver matched my Amp spaker
combination bettter than gold spades.

So, yesterday was a day of revelation to me when I discovered that it
make absolutely no difference at all between my left and right
speaker. One connected using silver and one all bare wires. ( but I
thing now it sounded better, LOL)

My overpriced 2 cents.

"TChelvam" wrote in message
...
Yesterday, while checking the speaker cable I realised one probably
broken at the joint. So I decided to get rid of the all 8 silver
spades on my left speaker/Amp.

Since, it took me a long time to strip the individual wire ,I did not
bother to remove the silver spades in my left channel cables.

Thw silver termination was chosen by my ""reputable" dealer who after
conducted variuos tests - declared that silver matched my Amp spaker
combination bettter than gold spades.

So, yesterday was a day of revelation to me when I discovered that it
make absolutely no difference at all between my left and right
speaker. One connected using silver and one all bare wires. ( but I
thing now it sounded better, LOL)

My overpriced 2 cents.

Of course, this observation is invalid unless you carried out a rigorously
observed double blind test with a sample of listeners equivalent to that of
a small town and balanced the output levels to each speaker to better than
0.1 dB. -))

Stephen

"Stephen McLuckie" wrote in message
...
"TChelvam" wrote in message
...

Of course, this observation is invalid unless you carried out a rigorously
observed double blind test with a sample of listeners equivalent to that
of
a small town and balanced the output levels to each speaker to better than
0.1 dB. -))


Oh boy, so I can't trust my hears? There goes my weekend.

Chelvam wrote:

Oh boy, so I can't trust my hears? There goes my weekend.

No, you can trust your ears. It's your eyes you can't trust. They're the
organs telling you things are different; your ears just come along for the
ride. Take your eyes out of the equation, and your ears won't deceive you.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
From ‘will you?’ to ‘I do,’ MSN Life Events is your resource for Getting
Married. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married

"Chelvam" wrote in message news:a%gEc.112641$2i5.81713@attbi_s52...
"Stephen McLuckie" wrote in message
...
"TChelvam" wrote in message
...

Of course, this observation is invalid unless you carried out a rigorously
observed double blind test with a sample of listeners equivalent to that
of
a small town and balanced the output levels to each speaker to better than
0.1 dB. -))

No, if he claimed this in a peer-reviewed journal you might have a case. Not here.



Oh boy, so I can't trust my hears? There goes my weekend.