Arny Krueger wrote:[i]
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
ups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
quoted me in message
roups.com.
..
"It should be noted for the record, Mr.
Krueger, that in the tests that were
performed at the 1988 AES Convention, the
number of trials was set at 5 by your
associate David Clark. I have already pointed
out that this is an inadequate number of trials,
as even a listener scoring 5/5 identifications
correct would not reach the 95% confidence level.

Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
misapprehensions...

I fear you don't seem to have comprehended what I
wrote about the 1988 Clark AES test, Mr. Krueger.
My correctly pointing out that scoring 5 correct
out of 5 trials, as Michael Fremer did, doesn't
reach the 95% confidence level is factually
correct. Period.

and lacking proof that anybody proclaimed it as
"proving" that no audible differences existed.

Not only has this series of tests been widely cited
in the years since it took place as "proving" the
amplifiers didn't sound different from one another,
it was said so by David Clark and others in the AES
workshop that followed the tests. I was present at
that workshop, as was Michael Fremer, and the event
was discussed both in Stereophile [and] in the JAES.
However, as you were not present at the test or the
workshop, Mr. Krueger, and had no involvement in the
organization of either, it is diffcult to see
what factual basis exists to support your denials.

What this quote does prove is that my friend
David Clark, who is not lacking in persuasive
powers, failed to get that wiley old fox named
John Atkinson to do a statistically significant
number of trials, which would be required for
this to even be a test.

As explained in the magazine and journal coverage
at that time, far from trying to persuade listeners
to perform more than 5 trials, it was Clark himself
who limited the number of trials any one listener
could do at one time to 5. Yes it was possible for
someone to perform a second set of 5 trials.
However, this would have involved standing in line
for an hour or more for a second time, and people
do have other matters to attend to at an AES
Convention.

I guess can take this as proof that to this day,
Atkinson can't look at a set of 5 results and
determine that it is too small of a sample for finding
a conclusive result.

I have repeatedly staed that a test of 5 trials is
too small for a positive result to reach the
statistical confidence level to ve considered
conclusive. I have also stated that this was, I
believe, arranged deliberately by the organizer of
the test so that no one listener's results could be
used to produce anything but a null result. When
_all_ the listeners' results were lumped together,
then the number of trials is large enough to
be considered statistically, of course. But then
the inability of the test's designer to limit the
variables led to the expected null result. Which
still does not "prove" the amplifiers sounded the
same, just as you correctly point out on your
website, Mr. Krueger.

So what was it John, were you blinded by the pretense
of Science so badly that you couldn't see that this
was actually a demonstration?

No, Mr. Krueger, it was a_test_, as Michael Fremer
and I have repeatedly informed you. It was described
as a test by David Clark and by the AES. The only
one who insists it wasn't is you and you have no
evidence for that opinion.

It was obviously a demonstration! The fact
that Atkinson represents this demonstration as
a test speaks to his poor understanding of
scientific testing methodologies.

Clark himself described it as a test, _not_ a
demonstration.

Just goes to show that if David Clark told John
Atkinson that a pile of crap was cake, Atkinson would
eat it.

It appears your argument devolves to an accusation
leveled at your associate David Clark that he was lying
to both to the AES and to the listeners like myself
who agreed to take part in his test. Perhaps you'd
better make that point to Mr. Clark's face.

But let's postulate that you are correct: that this
test of David Clark's was so poorly designed and
performed that the results should be discarded, as
you insist. In that case, then, should't you admit
that all the commentators who have cited this test
as "proving" there were no audible differences
between the amplifiers were _wrong_ to have made
that claim?

These events were what they were, which is that they
were demonstrations.

No, Mr. Krueger, they were a test, as described by
David Clark. You propose that Clark was lying to me
about this, which I (and probably he) reject.

They are inadequte as the only evidence that
would prove a far-reaching conclusion such as "all
good amplifiers sound the same"

My point exactly, Mr. Krueger.

Going further, if you dsiqualify this 1988 test,
then shouldn't you also then disqualify _all_ the
tests that produced null results but failed to meet
your 10 Minimum Requirements as reproduced on
pcabx.com?

At this time, this would seem to be a reasonable thing
to do.

Exactly my point, Mr. Krueger. It is indeed reasonable
to reject the results of poorly designed, poorly
performed blind tests as "proving" any specific result.

As you shortly admit, Nousaine's collection of null
results (which go well beyond the three or four
examples cited in this post) is just a collection of
circumstantial evidence.

Despite your admission, Mr. Krueger, Nousaine has
strenuously argued that the null results of all
these tests _do_ so prove that amplifiers cannot
be distinguished by ear. Was he lying also? Or
does he just lack your own scientific insight?

Note that Nousaine's paper never sucessfully made
it through the AES referee process for publication
in the journal.

If you say so, Mr. Krueger. I have no knowledge of
Mr. Nousaine's tribulations at the hands of the
AES referees.

The Nousaine/Zipser tests, for example?

Those were about a failure by Zipser to prove
Zipser's hypothesis that the amps sounded
mind-blowingly different.

But the Zipser test clearly failed to meet the
criteria for a properly designed blind test. As
you said above, Mr. Krueger, it is therefore
"reasonable" to dismiss the results of that
test as meaningless.

The most damning evaluation of those tests was
posted by Zipser on RAO. Then Zippy had his
dramatic change of heart...

The late Steve Zipser's opinion is hardly relevant
as he neither designed the test nor did he proctor it.
You and others have proclaimed that this test "proved"
Steve could not distinguish the amplifiers by ear. Yet
now you agree that the test was so poorly designed
and performed that the results are meaningless. You
can't have it both ways, Mr. Krueger.

If you do so, then by your own logic, there no
longer exists any of the blind tests that Tom
Nousaine, for example, has loudly and longly
proclaimed as being strong circumstantial evidence
for the absence of audible amplifier differences.

This claim rather vastly understates the total amount
of evidence that Nousaine has presented.

No, I have read Mr. Nousaine's writings on this subject.
His circumstantial evidence is merely a list of anecdotes
about blind tests that each, individually, can be
dismissed on the grounds that they do not meet your own
requirements for a test to produce meaningful results.

So given that in one post you retreat into declaring
David Clark a liar and Tom Nousaine an incompetent
tester in order to support your arguments, Mr.
Krueger, I fail to see what else needs to be said. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Let's be realistic, most serious high-end audio buffs are
true believers who have no particular interest at all in
doing careful comparing.

Let's consider Howard's idea of "careful comparing":
"I just kept pushing the button and making wild stabs
at what I thought I heard. After a while, I did not
bother to listen at all. I just kept pressing the same
choice over and over."

Don't forget that in the first round of trials, before
Howard Ferstler decided to randomize his scoring as
described above, proper statistical analysis revealed
that he did indeed hear a difference between the
amplifiers under test. However, he rejected that result
because it didn't not conform to his preconceived notions,
surely the mark of a "true believer." :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:

[i]
I guess can take this as proof that to this day,
Atkinson can't look at a set of 5 results and
determine that it is too small of a sample for finding
a conclusive result.

I have repeatedly stated that a test of 5 trials is
too small for a positive result to reach the
statistical confidence level to ve considered
conclusive.

So then John, why do you keep using the word test in
conjunction with events composed of 5 trials or less?

I have also stated that this was, I
believe, arranged deliberately by the organizer of
the test so that no one listener's results could be
used to produce anything but a null result.

If it ain't a test then the results are of no major
consequence, right?

When _all_ the listeners' results were lumped together,
then the number of trials is large enough to
be considered statistically, of course.

Subject to the reasonable constraint that the consolidation
of results must have been planned in detail before any
trials were run. Where is the statement by Clark that
pre-defined this critical variable?

But then the inability of the test's designer to limit the
variables led to the expected null result.

I see this gratuitous and cryptic statement as a shabby
attempt to invent a claim that null results were the desired
outcome of the event.

Which
still does not "prove" the amplifiers sounded the
same, just as you correctly point out on your
website, Mr. Krueger.

Let's stipulate that I have devoted a number of years of my
life and a substantial part of a popular web site to doing
proper listening tests that would show, if possible that
there are audible differences between so-called good power
amplifiers.

So what was it John, were you blinded by the pretense
of Science so badly that you couldn't see that this
was actually a demonstration?

No, Mr. Krueger, it was a_test_, as Michael Fremer
and I have repeatedly informed you.

The facts that you have presented seem to paint a vastly
different picture. The event was contrived so that it would
be difficult for any participant to obtain statistical
signficant results. You yourself John just complained about
a natural 5 trial limit that was built into the event. You
just wrote:

"I have repeatedly stated that a test of 5 trials is too
small for a positive result to reach the
statistical confidence level to ve considered conclusive."

It was described
as a test by David Clark and by the AES.

If that is true then they did so in error or subject to some
other variables that haven't been sufficiently discussed
yet.

The only one who insists it wasn't is you and you have no
evidence for that opinion.

For better or worse I have statements by John Atkinson as my
evidence.

It was obviously a demonstration! The fact
that Atkinson represents this demonstration as
a test speaks to his poor understanding of
scientific testing methodologies.

Clark himself described it as a test, _not_ a
demonstration.

Just goes to show that if David Clark told John
Atkinson that a pile of crap was cake, Atkinson would
eat it.

It appears your argument devolves to an accusation
leveled at your associate David Clark that he was lying
to both to the AES and to the listeners like myself
who agreed to take part in his test.

My arguement is that if they did so, then they did so in
error or subject to some other variables that haven't been
sufficiently discussed yet.

Perhaps you'd better make that point to Mr. Clark's face.

I certainly did so right in Mr. Nousaine's face, in your
presence John. Neither Nousaine nor Clark nor myself have
any secrets from each other in this matter.

But let's postulate that you are correct: that this
test of David Clark's was so poorly designed and
performed that the results should be discarded, as
you insist. In that case, then, should't you admit
that all the commentators who have cited this test
as "proving" there were no audible differences
between the amplifiers were _wrong_ to have made
that claim?

These events were what they were, which is that they
were demonstrations.

No, Mr. Krueger, they were a test, as described by
David Clark. You propose that Clark was lying to me
about this, which I (and probably he) reject.

What's unclear about "...if they did so, then they did so
in error or subject to some other variables that haven't
been sufficiently discussed yet"?

They are inadequte as the only evidence that
would prove a far-reaching conclusion such as "all
good amplifiers sound the same"

My point exactly, Mr. Krueger.

Then we agree about this. Noisily perhaps, but some kind of
agreement nevertheless.

Going further, if you disqualify this 1988 test,
then shouldn't you also then disqualify _all_ the
tests that produced null results but failed to meet
your 10 Minimum Requirements as reproduced on
pcabx.com?

At this time, this would seem to be a reasonable thing
to do.

Exactly my point, Mr. Krueger. It is indeed reasonable
to reject the results of poorly designed, poorly
performed blind tests as "proving" any specific result.

Then we agree about this. Noisily perhaps, but some kind of
agreement nevertheless.

Of course we are discussing something that happened about 20
years ago. This was before the publication of recommendation
BS 1116, before publication of the details of ABC/hr, before
JJ's coder tests, and before the opening of the
www.pcabx.com web site.

To summarize, the so-called objectivists listed above have
made a lot of progress, while leading self-proclaimed
subjectivists are still basing all their current work on 27
years old poorly-done blind and sighted evaluations. Despite
all the scientific progress that has been made, it remains
true that there is no evidence for the idea that good power
amps sound the same, despite present and future claims in
Stereophile.

As you shortly admit, Nousaine's collection of null
results (which go well beyond the three or four
examples cited in this post) is just a collection of
circumstantial evidence.

Despite your admission, Mr. Krueger, Nousaine has
strenuously argued that the null results of all
these tests _do_ so prove that amplifiers cannot
be distinguished by ear. Was he lying also? Or
does he just lack your own scientific insight?

What you seemingly don't want to admit John is that you
still have your head in the sand, and there still is no
evidence that good power amps sound different as generally
used.

The Nousaine/Zipser tests, for example?

Those were about a failure by Zipser to prove
Zipser's hypothesis that the amps sounded
mind-blowingly different.

But the Zipser test clearly failed to meet the
criteria for a properly designed blind test. As
you said above, Mr. Krueger, it is therefore
"reasonable" to dismiss the results of that
test as meaningless.

In the the light of current science the Zipser tests
themselves proved nothing. However, Zipser responded to the
situation in a highly dishonorable fashion, one that while
different is at least as dishonorable as Stereophile's
current equipment testing policy.

The most damning evaluation of those tests was
posted by Zipser on RAO. Then Zippy had his
dramatic change of heart...

The late Steve Zipser's opinion is hardly relevant
as he neither designed the test nor did he proctor it.

False claim, as Zippy had control over many important test
parameters and had the freedom to agree or disagree with the
rest.

You and others have proclaimed that this test "proved"
Steve could not distinguish the amplifiers by ear.

Prove it.

It is quite clear that despite Zippy's claims of
mind-blowing audible differences between the amps, he failed
to support the hypothesis that they sounded different.

Yet now you agree that the test was so poorly designed
and performed that the results are meaningless.

That was due to intransigence on Zippy's part.


You can't have it both ways, Mr. Krueger.

I decline to take responsibility for Zipser's behavioir.

If you do so, then by your own logic, there no
longer exists any of the blind tests that Tom
Nousaine, for example, has loudly and longly
proclaimed as being strong circumstantial evidence
for the absence of audible amplifier differences.

This claim rather vastly understates the total amount
of evidence that Nousaine has presented.

No, I have read Mr. Nousaine's writings on this subject.
His circumstantial evidence is merely a list of anecdotes
about blind tests that each, individually, can be
dismissed on the grounds that they do not meet your own
requirements for a test to produce meaningful results.

Mr. Nousaine's paper said quite clearly that the anecdotes
should be considered as a group. This casts serious doubts
on your remaining analysis of it, John.


So given that in one post you retreat into declaring
David Clark a liar and Tom Nousaine an incompetent
tester in order to support your arguments, Mr.
Krueger, I fail to see what else needs to be said. :-)

A joke, of course.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message
oups.com...
It appears your argument devolves to an accusation
leveled at your associate David Clark that he was
lying to both to the AES and to the listeners like
myself who agreed to take part in his test. Perhaps
you'd better make that point to Mr. Clark's face.

I certainly did so right in Mr. Nousaine's face, in
your presence John.

One final point, as Mr. Krueger seems unwilling to
discuss this subject in any logical manner: No, Mr.
Krueger, you did _not_ make this point "in Mr.
Nousaine's face in [my] presence," Mr. Krueger.
The only conversation you and I have had with
Tom Nousaine present was at HE2005 when I informed
you of the failure of the laptop I had procured
for you to give a PowerPoint presentation. You
made no mention of the 1988 AES tests or David
Clark.

Yes, subsequent to the debate, you were screeching
"demonstration, demonstration, demonstration"
in Michael Fremer's face when he was describing
the 1988 Clark test to you, but you certainly
did not refer to David Clark as a liar in that
exchange, unless you did so when I was out of
earshot.

Neither Nousaine nor Clark nor myself have
any secrets from each other in this matter.

In that were the case, Mr. Krueger, then it is
hard to grasp what you mean when you wrote in
response to my _true_ statement that the 1988
AES amplifier listening test was described
as a test by David Clark and by the AES.

If that is true then they did so in error or
subject to some other variables that haven't
been sufficiently discussed yet.

First you say that Clark doesn't keep secrets
from you but then that Clark didn't keep you
fully informed of the details of his 1988
test. Oh well...

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message
oups.com...

John invalidated his reply to me by not properly recognizing
the appearances and meaning of the following phrase, which
appeared several times in my post:

"...then they did so in error or
subject to some other variables that haven't
been sufficiently discussed yet"

John quoted this phrase once near the end of his reply, but
this phrase appeared in the post of mine he purported to
quote from, a number of times before that, including once
before he started quoting my post. My entire reply is based
on the reader understanding this phrase, so Atkinson's
gratuitous excising of it and then largely ignoring it makes
his reply invalid.

Arny Krueger wrote:
John invalidated his reply to me by not properly
recognizing the appearances and meaning of the
following phrase, which appeared several times in my post:
"...then they did so in error or subject to some other
variables that haven't been sufficiently discussed yet"

:-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message
oups.com...

John invalidated his reply to me by not properly recognizing
the appearances and meaning of the following phrase, which
appeared several times in my post:

Well, you're not hiding behind a typo.

"...then they did so in error or
subject to some other variables that haven't
been sufficiently discussed yet"

John quoted this phrase once near the end of his reply, but
this phrase appeared in the post of mine he purported to
quote from, a number of times before that, including once
before he started quoting my post. My entire reply is based
on the reader understanding this phrase, so Atkinson's
gratuitous excising of it and then largely ignoring it makes
his reply invalid.

If you're misunderstood, maybe you should try to be clearer. You appear
to be saying in this thread that Clark's "demonstration" was
self-evidently bogus and should have been rejected at sight and also
saying that because it falls short of being a good test it wasn't a test
at all.

Stephen

Arny Krueger wrote:
(snip)

To summarize, the so-called objectivists listed above have
made a lot of progress, while leading self-proclaimed
subjectivists are still basing all their current work on 27
years old poorly-done blind and sighted evaluations. Despite
all the scientific progress that has been made, it remains
true that there is no evidence for the idea that good power
amps sound the same, despite present and future claims in
Stereophile.

(snip)


What you seemingly don't want to admit John is that you
still have your head in the sand, and there still is no
evidence that good power amps sound different as generally
used.

No evidence for same... no evidence for different.
Plenty of evidence that Arny is retarded, but John still can't quite
secure his position in this debate. Sad... very sad for both sides.

ScottW

John Atkinson said:

Don't forget that in the first round of trials, before
Howard Ferstler decided to randomize his scoring as
described above, proper statistical analysis revealed
that he did indeed hear a difference between the
amplifiers under test. However, he rejected that result
because it didn't not conform to his preconceived notions,
surely the mark of a "true believer." :-)

Agreed.™ Harold's cause is informed by religious fervor. Clerkie's professed
love of "science" is fine as far as it goes. When it comes to subjecting himself
to the rigors of "testing", however, clearly he's perfectly willing to
substitute his faith for the much-lauded "facts".

Fortunately for his own life and liberty, Harold has, to date, stopped short of
calling for the destruction of the E.H.E.E. temples of iniquity. As he draws
ever closer to his final sundown, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets even more
radical in his ranting.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

If you're misunderstood, maybe you should try to be
clearer. You appear
to be saying in this thread that Clark's "demonstration"
was
self-evidently bogus and should have been rejected at
sight

Come on Stephen, not even you are *that* reading-challenged,
right?

and also saying that because it falls short of being a
good test it wasn't a test at all.

Ditto.

In your words Stephen, what I said is that Clark's AES demo
was self-evidently not a true scientific test.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

If you're misunderstood, maybe you should try to be
clearer. You appear
to be saying in this thread that Clark's "demonstration"
was
self-evidently bogus and should have been rejected at
sight

Come on Stephen, not even you are *that* reading-challenged,
right?

and also saying that because it falls short of being a
good test it wasn't a test at all.

Ditto.

In your words Stephen, what I said is that Clark's AES demo
was self-evidently not a true scientific test.

"What this quote does prove is that my friend David Clark,
who is not lacking in persuasive powers, failed to get that
wiley old fox named John Atkinson to do a statistically
significant number of trials, which would be required for
this to even be a test. It was obviously a demonstration!
The fact that Atkinson represents this demonstration as a
test speaks to his poor understanding of scientific testing
methodologies."

Obvious, self-evident, potato, po-tah-to.

If it's not a test, the results should be discarded (or "rejected")
immediately, yes?

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

...

If you're misunderstood, maybe you should try to be
clearer. You appear
to be saying in this thread that Clark's
"demonstration"
was
self-evidently bogus and should have been rejected at
sight

Come on Stephen, not even you are *that*
reading-challenged,
right?

and also saying that because it falls short of being a
good test it wasn't a test at all.

Ditto.

In your words Stephen, what I said is that Clark's AES
demo
was self-evidently not a true scientific test.

"What this quote does prove is that my friend David Clark,
who is not lacking in persuasive powers, failed to get
that
wiley old fox named John Atkinson to do a statistically
significant number of trials, which would be required for
this to even be a test. It was obviously a demonstration!
The fact that Atkinson represents this demonstration as a
test speaks to his poor understanding of scientific
testing
methodologies."

Obvious, self-evident, potato, po-tah-to.

Exactly.;

If it's not a test, the results should be discarded (or
"rejected")
immediately, yes?

Not necessarily , since the results could still be part of
an interesting, even instructive anecdote.

MINe 109 wrote:
If it's not a test, the results should be discarded (or "rejected")
immediately, yes?

According to the Book of Howard, Stephen, there is a complicated
protocol to be followed in deciding whether or not to reject the
results of a blind test. First, the question must be asked: did
the test produce null results? If yes, then the the test should
_never_ be discarded. Instead, some explanation should be offered
for not doing so, such as saying "Not necessarily, since the results
could still be part of an interesting, even instructive anecdote."

Remember, achieving a null result, according to the apocrypha of
the Book of Howard validates the test methodology no matter how
flawed. :-)

If the results were _not_ null, ie, appeared to reveal that the
listeners could identify the devices under test by ear, then
the test should be rejected forthwith without any equivocation.
First, you claim that the statistics were invalid. If they are
valid, then you claim that the program was inappropriately
revealing. If a number of musical examples were used, suggesting
that the devices were identifiable under many circumstances,
then you claim that the test was not meant for publication but was
merely a magazine reader's letter. If no-one was impressed by that
argument, then you attack the integrity of the test's organizer,
perhaps drawing an analog with "Clever Hans," the horse that
could read its trainer's body language. If that doesn't work, you
declare that the positive results "prove" that the test can't have
been blind.

If no-one is convinced by any of these arguments, then you merely
declare that the test never happened :-)

Or you change the subject by claiming that the tester attacked your
religious preferences. Or your wife.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile





Stephen

In article .com,
"John Atkinson" wrote:

Or you change the subject by claiming that the tester attacked your
religious preferences. Or your wife.

And if you say it three times, it's true: "Demonstration, demonstration,
demonstration!"

Stephen

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Unless the Adcom has some gross design problems (unlikely)
or is defective or broken (also unlikely), it should sound
as good as any other good amp up to its overload point.
Don't let these idiots give you a bum steer about amplifier
sound.

It's funny how one person's failure to hear differences between
amplifiers
implies that other people are idiots.

It might be a good thing if you bothered to at least do some
level-matched DBT work with amps before you assume that your
preconceptions are valid. The comparisons are not all that
hard to do.

That's right, it's not. So, it might be a good thing if you took your
swelled head out of your ass and stop making idiotic assumptions.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

Howard, if I were to admit you were 25% right, I would be doing the
audiophile community a disservice. Like Arny, you have been polarized by
the
absurdity of "snake oil", to the extent that you are really blind to the
many subleties that actually do exist.

Together with Arny, you constitute the French Terror of audio. You
willingly
put to the torch any idea that doesn't fit into your scheme of things. You
may kill afew rats, but it isn't worth the many fine houses you destroy in
the process.

Well put.

jeffc wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Unless the Adcom has some gross design problems (unlikely)
or is defective or broken (also unlikely), it should sound
as good as any other good amp up to its overload point.
Don't let these idiots give you a bum steer about amplifier
sound.

It's funny how one person's failure to hear differences between
amplifiers
implies that other people are idiots.

It might be a good thing if you bothered to at least do some
level-matched DBT work with amps before you assume that your
preconceptions are valid. The comparisons are not all that
hard to do.

That's right, it's not. So, it might be a good thing if you took your
swelled head out of your ass and stop making idiotic assumptions.

Whatever.

Howard Ferstler

John Atkinson wrote:

wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Let's be realistic, most serious high-end audio buffs are
true believers who have no particular interest at all in
doing careful comparing.

Let's consider Howard's idea of "careful comparing":
"I just kept pushing the button and making wild stabs
at what I thought I heard. After a while, I did not
bother to listen at all. I just kept pressing the same
choice over and over."

Don't forget that in the first round of trials, before
Howard Ferstler decided to randomize his scoring as
described above, proper statistical analysis revealed
that he did indeed hear a difference between the
amplifiers under test.

Yeah. That really had me going. I suddenly realized that
unlike you and some of your fellow Stereophile writers, I am
a true golden ear.

Howard Ferstler

Robert Morein wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:
[snip]

Let's be realistic, most serious high-end audio buffs are
true believers who have no particular interest at all in
doing careful comparing. They have a faith to defend.

Howard Ferstler

Howard, if I were to admit you were 25% right, I would be doing the
audiophile community a disservice. Like Arny, you have been polarized by the
absurdity of "snake oil", to the extent that you are really blind to the
many subleties that actually do exist.

Whatever.

Howard Ferstler

wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
Robert Morein wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Let's be realistic, most serious high-end audio buffs are
true believers who have no particular interest at all in
doing careful comparing.

Lets consider Howard's idea of "careful comparing."
I just kept pushing the button and making wild stabs at what I thought
I heard. After a while, I did not bother to listen at all. I just kept
pressing the same choice over and over."

Sure. What else was there to do when the amps sounded the
same? You would probably do the same thing, but then you
would go on to claim that the switch box was masking the
differences.

Howard Ferstler

Harold "Professional Writer" Ferstler waxes prolix.

That's right, it's not. So, it might be a good thing if you took your
swelled head out of your ass and stop making idiotic assumptions.

Whatever.

Glad you agree with his assessment.

Brother Horace the Everlasting Naysayer said:

I suddenly realized that
unlike you and some of your fellow Stereophile writers, I am
a true golden ear.

Is that why you rammed the icepicks into your ears?

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
Robert Morein wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Let's be realistic, most serious high-end audio buffs are
true believers who have no particular interest at all in
doing careful comparing.

Lets consider Howard's idea of "careful comparing."
I just kept pushing the button and making wild stabs at what I thought
I heard. After a while, I did not bother to listen at all. I just kept
pressing the same choice over and over."

Sure. What else was there to do when the amps sounded the
same? You would probably do the same thing, but then you
would go on to claim that the switch box was masking the
differences.

That's a clear admission of "test anxiety" on your part.

Stephen

John Atkinson wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
If it's not a test, the results should be discarded (or "rejected")
immediately, yes?

According to the Book of Howard, Stephen, there is a complicated
protocol to be followed in deciding whether or not to reject the
results of a blind test. First, the question must be asked: did
the test produce null results? If yes, then the the test should
_never_ be discarded. Instead, some explanation should be offered
for not doing so, such as saying "Not necessarily, since the results
could still be part of an interesting, even instructive anecdote."

John, anybody who has done a level-matched DBT involving
decently built amps (or wires, or CD players) will have to
be immediately struck by the fact that, even if they end up
maybe (just maybe) hearing slight differences in terms of
the statistical outcome, the devices being compared will
still sound a hell of a lot more alike than what they may
have thought they sounded like prior to doing the DBT.

They do not need any statistical analyzing to realize that
fact. When doing a DBT with good components, the single most
profound thing that occurs is that the participant will
realize that the units sound maddeningly alike.

My problem with you and your people (and your magazine's
approach) is that they typically evaluate amplifiers (or
wires, or players) in an open-ended manner, and come to
conclusions about the sound that show one of the units to be
monumentally different from (and therefore either
monumentally superior to or inferior to) the other unit.

For you, your contributors, and your readers, this seems to
show that any DBT protocol is flawed, simply because those
differences just HAVE to be there.

Well, I disagree. To be truthful, I am more convinced than
ever that you are with me on this and that the only reason
you behave the way you do is that you have a reading
clientele that demands that differences be profound.

You have my deepest sympathies.

Howard Ferstler

John Atkinson wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Those were about a failure by Zipser to prove
Zipser's hypothesis that the amps sounded
mind-blowingly different.

But the Zipser test clearly failed to meet the
criteria for a properly designed blind test. As
you said above, Mr. Krueger, it is therefore
"reasonable" to dismiss the results of that
test as meaningless.

So what? Zipser had claimed that he would be able to EASILY
hear differences. He could not, even when comparing his big
reference monoblocks to a mainstream Yamaha integrated unit.
Even if Zipser had eventually been able to spot subtle
differences (possibly related to background hiss), the fact
is that those big, high-end-related differences he believed
existed did not exist at all.

Howard Ferstler

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
Robert Morein wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Let's be realistic, most serious high-end audio buffs are
true believers who have no particular interest at all in
doing careful comparing.

Lets consider Howard's idea of "careful comparing."
I just kept pushing the button and making wild stabs at what I thought
I heard. After a while, I did not bother to listen at all. I just kept
pressing the same choice over and over."

Sure. What else was there to do when the amps sounded the
same? You would probably do the same thing, but then you
would go on to claim that the switch box was masking the
differences.

That's a clear admission of "test anxiety" on your part.

Stephen

Anxiety would exist if I had believed that amps sounded
different and the test was proving my preconceptions wrong.
No doubt when guys like you get involved in such
demonstrations the anxiety levels go through the roof.

No, I simply realized all over again something that I had
known for years: the amps sounded the same and doing a
lengthy and precise series of comparisons would be a waste
of my time.

On the other hand, a series like that would be just the
ticket for a believer like you.

Howard Ferstler

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
Robert Morein wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Let's be realistic, most serious high-end audio buffs are
true believers who have no particular interest at all in
doing careful comparing.

Lets consider Howard's idea of "careful comparing."
I just kept pushing the button and making wild stabs at what I thought
I heard. After a while, I did not bother to listen at all. I just kept
pressing the same choice over and over."

Sure. What else was there to do when the amps sounded the
same? You would probably do the same thing, but then you
would go on to claim that the switch box was masking the
differences.

That's a clear admission of "test anxiety" on your part.

Anxiety would exist if I had believed that amps sounded
different and the test was proving my preconceptions wrong.

Anxiety exists when a test subject can't concentrate and stops listening
in order to get the whole thing over with.

No doubt when guys like you get involved in such
demonstrations the anxiety levels go through the roof.

This anxiety might show itself in unexpected ways.

No, I simply realized all over again something that I had
known for years: the amps sounded the same and doing a
lengthy and precise series of comparisons would be a waste
of my time.

That last part's true whether one accepts the premise or not.

On the other hand, a series like that would be just the
ticket for a believer like you.

Who, me? $250 amp guy?

Stephen

Howard Ferstler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:

wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Let's be realistic, most serious high-end audio buffs are
true believers who have no particular interest at all in
doing careful comparing.

Let's consider Howard's idea of "careful comparing":
"I just kept pushing the button and making wild stabs
at what I thought I heard. After a while, I did not
bother to listen at all. I just kept pressing the same
choice over and over."

Don't forget that in the first round of trials, before
Howard Ferstler decided to randomize his scoring as
described above, proper statistical analysis revealed
that he did indeed hear a difference between the
amplifiers under test.

Yeah. That really had me going. I suddenly realized that
unlike you and some of your fellow Stereophile writers, I am
a true golden ear.




No, you are hearing impared. You are a fraud and a plagiarist though.




Scott Wheeler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote

Sure. What else was there to do when the amps sounded the
same? You would probably do the same thing, but then you
would go on to claim that the switch box was masking the
differences.


Are you saying it's not possible that a musical reproduction
systems has a subconscious effect on a person?

In article .com, "John
Atkinson" wrote (in reply to Arny
Krueger):


I fear you don't seem to have comprehended what I
wrote about the 1988 Clark AES test, Mr. Krueger.
My correctly pointing out that scoring 5 correct
out of 5 trials, as Michael Fremer did, doesn't
reach the 95% confidence level is factually correct.
Period.


Wrong.

Getting 5 correct in 5 trials is a significant result at the .05 level
(actually p = .03125) if the test is one-sided, i.e., a test with null
hypothesis that the subject is guessing with Pr(correct score) = .5 versus
the alternative that Pr(correct) .5 .
However, if the test is two-sided (so the alternative is Pr(correct) !=
..5), then p = .0625 and the result is not significant at level .05.
Usual practice for ABX-style tests has been one-sided tests.

In either case, the issue in a statistical test is "significance' rather
than "confidence". When someone uses 95% confidence as if it were the
same as 5% significance it is obvious that he does not understand what he
is talking about.

JC

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Anxiety would exist if I had believed that amps sounded
different and the test was proving my preconceptions wrong.

Anxiety exists when a test subject can't concentrate and stops listening
in order to get the whole thing over with.

Particularly when they cannot hear differences from the get
go.

No doubt when guys like you get involved in such
demonstrations the anxiety levels go through the roof.

This anxiety might show itself in unexpected ways.

Those who are sure of themselves would not have anxiety at
the beginning. That anxiety would only show up when they
began to realize that they could not hear differences. By
then, however, it would be too late, because they also could
not hear differences when they were confident.

On the other hand, a series like that would be just the
ticket for a believer like you.

Who, me? $250 amp guy?

OK, by your answer I am going to assume that you agree with
me about the sound of overpriced amps.

Howard Ferstler

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Anxiety would exist if I had believed that amps sounded
different and the test was proving my preconceptions wrong.

Anxiety exists when a test subject can't concentrate and stops listening
in order to get the whole thing over with.

Particularly when they cannot hear differences from the get
go.

Frustrating, yes?

No doubt when guys like you get involved in such
demonstrations the anxiety levels go through the roof.

This anxiety might show itself in unexpected ways.

Those who are sure of themselves would not have anxiety at
the beginning. That anxiety would only show up when they
began to realize that they could not hear differences. By
then, however, it would be too late, because they also could
not hear differences when they were confident.

You persist in assuming anxiety is rational and limited to audiophiles.
Your impatience with the test, combined with your a priori assumptions,
is a form of anxiety.

On the other hand, a series like that would be just the
ticket for a believer like you.

Who, me? $250 amp guy?

OK, by your answer I am going to assume that you agree with
me about the sound of overpriced amps.

I've never heard an overpriced amp.

Stephen

Brother Horace the Prayerful chanted:

Anxiety exists when a test subject can't concentrate and stops listening
in order to get the whole thing over with.

Particularly when they[sic] cannot hear differences from the get go.

Emended version, as taken directly from "Ferslerianism for the Masses and
Misses," Vanity Press, 1993:

"Particularly since I cannot hear differences from the get go."
-- H. Ferstler, verbatim, ad nauseum, ad infinitum


You can't even quote yourself accurately without plagiarizing.