On 31 Aug 2005 07:12:15 -0700, George Middius
wrote:



Robert Morein said to the Bug Eater:

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

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

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

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

I wonder why your compliments never feel very complimentary, George.
:-)

paul packer said:

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

I wonder why your compliments never feel very complimentary, George.
:-)

I encourage Mickey to use a spell-checker and a grammar-checker to compensate
for his limited language skill. Unfortunately, he usually forgets to do that
because of his special problems.

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



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


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

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

Thereare millions of still satisfied Bose customers, LOL!



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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


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

If irony killed.


I guess it doesn't. You're still herre.



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

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


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

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

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

You haven't met me, idiot.

Thanks for showing us you now defend NAMBLA as well as scum like Middius.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


No one has.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
+
" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"
I didn't think you were unaware of the confidence level needed to make it
a worthwhile result. Nobody to any statisticalsignificance has ever been
able to distinguish one wire from another of normal design.

Wire is wire.



Ever is ever

No one has ever heard a difference between two wires of similar construct.
81% is within probability. That's why confidence levels are at 95. This is
the same crap the Feds tried to pull on their research into 2nd hand smoke.
They dropped the confidence level and then claimed they had proved 2nd hand
smoke was a killer.

Real scientists know thaqt an 81% is likely and would run more trials to see
if a subject could do better or worse subsequently. The point is we already
know what the nature of wire is and how it affects a signal. That's why any
claim of audible differences in wire are extraordinary claims.

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


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

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

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

You haven't met me, idiot.



Thanks for showing us you now defend NAMBLA as well as scum like Middius.


Thanks for showing us your stinky debating trade tactics.
You are REAL SCUM, buddy. A rotten piece of work.
So, you throw out the the word NAMBLA, associating it
with your enemy, and expect us to come running to your feet.
And when we don't, you accusue us of supporting them.



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

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


No one has.


We just showed you, SOMEONE HAD. 90 trials, 81%



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

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

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

Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.

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


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


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


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



The'd just claim ignorance.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
+
" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"
I didn't think you were unaware of the confidence level needed to make
it a worthwhile result. Nobody to any statisticalsignificance has ever
been able to distinguish one wire from another of normal design.

Wire is wire.



Ever is ever

No one has ever heard a difference between two wires of similar construct.
81% is within probability. That's why confidence levels are at 95. This
is the same crap the Feds tried to pull on their research into 2nd hand
smoke. They dropped the confidence level and then claimed they had proved
2nd hand smoke was a killer.

Real scientists know thaqt an 81% is likely and would run more trials to
see if a subject could do better or worse subsequently. The point is we
already know what the nature of wire is and how it affects a signal.
That's why any claim of audible differences in wire are extraordinary
claims.


That you say that "no one has ever heard a difference.....81% is within
probablitity",
that probability for it being chance is very small indeed. You are claiming
only
5% of the ground. Your knees must be wobbling.

My understanding is that there were 15 trials for that person, in each of
six runs, and that he had an 81% or 83% correct score (73 or 75 out of 90).
I don't know the confidence level of that result, but I would think it is in
the
85 to 95% range, which indicates it is MUCH more likely that he heard
a difference than that the result was by chance

But, I know that you won't except that. Even if the confidence level were
80%, it is four times more likely that the result indicates the ability to
discern a diference, than the result coming up by chance.




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

On 8/29/2005 7:06 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory
is posted today at A
HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable"www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/A.


That's just raw HTML from a web page. The correct URL is:

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/



Why have a fundamental EM theory explanation to say "what if"? Yes,
Maxwell was a genius; he predicted the existence of EM waves. The
question still is can human ears tell the difference. No if humans
could hear as well as dogs can sniff, there might be something to
pursue. But last I checked, the only sense that humans excel in is vision.

Dan

"ScottW" said:

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


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


It proves it for that one person.


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


Suppose a new drug is tested on 15 persons.
One of them dies.

Do you still maintain your position? :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Mr. Pearce quotes me (Aug. 30, Google message 78):
"On 30 Aug 2005 11:29:16 -0700, wrote:
Robert Gault says: Aug. 30
"And not just audio. Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste
comparisons of soda uses DBT"
The only thing medical drug research DBT tests have in common with
audio component comparison is the name.
The medical tests' subjects subjective responses are always compared
with and validated by FACTS: outcome of the disease, laboratory and
Xray results.
Otherwise the positive responses (" I feel better") to a placebo, or
quack mumbo jumbo would have equal validity with objective outcomes.
Compare!
Ludovic Mirabel "
Mr Pearce answers:
"There arew plenty of medicines whose sole effect is to make people
able to
say "I feel better". They are still tested with DBT."
They certainly are, Mr. Pearce. What else
is new?
The revolutionary concept behind the double blind testing in medical
therapeutics IS to discern the placebo effect of suggestion etc. from
genuine bodily change (Measurable function improvement as in coronary
bypass, improved mortality rates as with antibiotics etc.) Placebos
make 30 to 40% of the patients feel better but show nil objective
improvement- (outside of the brain pathways at any rate- and so far we
cannot measure that)
I am at a loss to understand what your point is. Would suggest
some reading about modern medical therapeutics before jumping to
keyboard.
Ludovic Mirabel

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

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

Mr. Scott W.
You're mailing your elegant prose to the wrong address. I did not
invent Greenhill's "Golden Ear" or Greenhill's statistics. I
*quoted* from that impeccably objectivist writer who moderated and
reported the Stereo Review cable test.

What you did was cherry pick a small slice of data and provide a
reference that comes up empty with a google search.

My search results

Your search - L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge cable,
ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83 - did not match any documents.

So I don't have access to the original data.

Now you're stating there were repeat trials for the subject golden ear
which is EXACTLY what I said was required to confirm the results.

Try to be explicit in your original post or provide accessible
references and we won't have this problem.


You are also taking him for a
village moron and insulting his statistics' protocol which for an
objectivist, with an axe to grind, was quite scrupulous (read it!!!). I
suspect that he forgot more statistics than you had ever known. I
learnt mine as an employee of the Med. Research Ccil. of U.K. where
double blind tests were *first ever* used.
I must acknowledge that I admire your temerity in- how shall I put it?-
shooting your mouth off without first looking up the source (I gave
clear reference to it)

Like I'm sitting on a stack of 20 year old Stereo Reviews.


Greenhill's "Golden Ear" did not "come at 81% one time" Mr,
Scott W. There were six different cable comparison tests consisting of
15 trials each. The "Golden Ear" got 15 out of 15 in four of them,
12 in one, and 10 in one. Hence 83%-get it?

That is definitely statistically significant.

I'd be interested in further details of the test.
Can you provide a link to the complete article?

ScottW

paul packer a écrit :
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:50:50 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


paul packer a écrit :

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




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


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

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


Explanation?

"Thereare millions of still satisfied Bose customers, LOL!"

Art Sackman.

paul packer a écrit :
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:27:45 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


paul packer a écrit :

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



Does it make you crie ? :-)


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

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


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

I would appreciate that he shows, sometime, other talents...
;-)

paul packer a écrit :
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:17:48 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


George Minus Middius tries a pitiful diversion :

paul packer said:



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


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

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


Sounds tasty. :-)

George is so narcissistic that he loves that. :-)

NYOB quotes me:
wrote in message
oups.com...
NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29)
"But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables
where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire."
But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
(his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything else in audio.
NYOB comments:
"I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to
knowledge
but you can't make him think.
Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some other

method is better or even as good?"
He quotes me again:
He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only
to reemerge after a suitable interval.
And answers:
"Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my

personal preference.
It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the
non-existence
of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX is the standard
and
that is relaible. You simply deny. "

Quotes again:
Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
"test" work?
________________________________________
Mr McKelvy, do you realize how ridiculous you sound when YOU pompously
"point (me) in the right direction?"
How about cutting out the chit- chatting and "pointing out"
some references to the ABX helping to recognise differences between
anything and anything else in audio. If I "hair-split and deny",
never mind me- the world is waiting with bated breath. Your grateful
readers will be able to tell the grain from jaw jaw chaff.
Ludovic Mirabel

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:36:26 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?

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

I have - and my decision was reached that way.

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

Bored now.

Out

d

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


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

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

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

You haven't met me, idiot.



Thanks for showing us you now defend NAMBLA as well as scum like Middius.


Thanks for showing us your stinky debating trade tactics.

Nothing that George and Bob haven't done many times before.

You are REAL SCUM, buddy. A rotten piece of work.

And you are as pure as the driven slush.


So, you throw out the the word NAMBLA, associating it
with your enemy, and expect us to come running to your feet.

Actually you did exactly as I expected, you came running to decry my
treatment of one of the most biggest assholes on RAO.

And when we don't, you accusue us of supporting them.


It was a jab at Robert and done with tongue in cheek.

Since he (and you) like to make things up, I just did the same thing.

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

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

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

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...



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

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

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

Back to school you ole fart. Enroll in probability 101

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

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

Exactly. And now Ludovic has clarified that there were repeat trials
and his 83% number is a composite from all the trials...not just one
trial.

In the end... he has indicated they did EXACTLY what I said was
necessary to provide proof. Although 10 responses per trial is a bit
low...being able to
respond accurately in repeat trials is definitely significant.
Being able to respond accurately in one trial is not.


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

sure, but chances are very substantial that one person heard differences and
fourteen did not.

the initial 83% number was insufficient data to make that claim and I
still
can't access the original article.

Just cause differences are there, doesn't mean that everyone
has the capacity to recognize them.

Agreed.


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

Yes... but a single IQ test of 10 questions won't guarantee you found
him.


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

Sure...and probably 3 in 50 will ace a 10 question IQ test. Now what?


but those are two different issues.


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


Not everyone is equal.

Never said they were.






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


It proves it for that one person.

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


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


Maybe for 100% correct or even 9 of 10. But for 8 of 10 the numbers
don't bear you out. In fact... in one test run... say 10 responses...
you have ~4.3% chance of getting 8 of 10 just due to chance. So with
15 subjects we would expect that 64% of the time (more than half) one
of the 15 is gonna get 8 right.
I'm sorry but you have less than 1 chance in 2 that the 1 person with
8 right (of 15 who were tested) is truly golden eared after a one run
of tests.

Heres a good tutorial.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experim...tatistics.html

ScottW

Don Pearce said:

DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?

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

I have - and my decision was reached that way.

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

Bored now.

I suppose you know how this looks, right? You don't? Well, maybe I should tell
you. We removed several layers of bluster surrounding your fear and loathing of
expensive cables and we got to the nub: Supposedly you know people who paid a
lot of money for cables and later regretted it. If you could produce details
about these alleged individuals, you would undermine my suspicion that your
complaint is really a class-warfare argument. But instead of that, your
"evidence" conveniently disappears because you're "bored".

To recap: You've admitted you're not involved in the cable business in any way,
and you don't plan to be. You yourself have never paid a lot for cables, so you
don't have any personal involvement to defend or avenge. All you were left with
was the supposed "evidence" that some unnamed and unsummonable individuals got
taken and presumably were chagrined as a result. But you can't tell us a thing
about these individuals. So the only motivation left is the 'borg one: If it's
expensive, it's bad. Period.

duh-Mikey rattles the bars on his crib.

Since he (and you) like to make things up, I just did the same thing.

Sorry, Mikey, but we don't need hard evidence to know you eat bugs.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:58:44 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:


On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:36:26 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?

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

I have - and my decision was reached that way.

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

Bored now.

Ahhh, a fellow Buffy fan.

All is forgiven.

Well, not all...but...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...


That you say that "no one has ever heard a difference.....81% is within
probablitity",
that probability for it being chance is very small indeed. You are
claiming only
5% of the ground. Your knees must be wobbling.

My understanding is that there were 15 trials for that person, in each of
six runs, and that he had an 81% or 83% correct score (73 or 75 out of
90).
I don't know the confidence level of that result, but I would think it is
in the
85 to 95% range, which indicates it is MUCH more likely that he heard
a difference than that the result was by chance

But, I know that you won't except that.

u r kerect, i wont except that.

Even if the confidence level were
80%, it is four times more likely that the result indicates the ability to
discern a diference, than the result coming up by chance.



Note, wire is wire. If you want to challenge the idea, take up the $5000.00
challenge being discussed on RAHE. So far the magic wire people have let it
sit for years, obviously their confidence level is somewhat lower than 95%.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


No one has.


We just showed you, SOMEONE HAD. 90 trials, 81%


What you showed was that people can sometimes guess well.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Le Gal (Google message 86, Aug 30) quotes Greenhill's final comments
on his cable test as a rejoinder to my text in my reply to Mr. NYOB:
"P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had 81%
positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
obstacle race.
So much for "anyone,ever" (Mr.NYOB said that no one ever heard
difference between cables under ABX)
For Greenhill's comments refer to mr. Le Gal's message.


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

Some people are not smart enough to know that the tests you cite are in line
with good guesses.

On 31 Aug 2005 00:59:23 -0700, wrote:

Greenhill's "Golden Ear" did not "come at 81% one time" Mr,
Scott W. There were six different cable comparison tests consisting of
15 trials each. The "Golden Ear" got 15 out of 15 in four of them,
12 in one, and 10 in one. Hence 83%-get it?
Prophetically I said to Mr.Le Gal one hour ago:" I can already hear
the parrot cry:
"I do not like this result. I want a repeat, and then a repeat again
and again till Mr. Golden Ear recants and signs up to my revealed
faith."
I'm sorry you don't like cables to be different. But you should be
happy. Greenhill's final conclusion was that ABX rules and as long as
you ABX everything will sound the same.

Typical lying bull**** from Mirabel. The high scores were recorded in
a comparison of thirty feet of 24AWG cable compared to thirty feet of
16AWG cable, putting the comparison *way* outside the standard
level-matching criterion. There was *no* significant difference found
between 16AWG 'zipcord' and 16AWG Monster cable.

Just the sort of dishonesty we've come to expect from that pathetic
sack of ****.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


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

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

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

You haven't met me, idiot.



Thanks for showing us you now defend NAMBLA as well as scum like
Middius.


Thanks for showing us your stinky debating trade tactics.

Nothing that George and Bob haven't done many times before.

You are REAL SCUM, buddy. A rotten piece of work.

And you are as pure as the driven slush.


So, you throw out the the word NAMBLA, associating it
with your enemy, and expect us to come running to your feet.

Actually you did exactly as I expected, you came running to decry my
treatment of one of the most biggest assholes on RAO.

And when we don't, you accusue us of supporting them.


It was a jab at Robert and done with tongue in cheek.

Since he (and you) like to make things up, I just did the same thing.


Notice that I didn't complain when you raised NAMBLA as an insult
to Bob, that's the norm around here. What got me was that you then
balsted him as a NAMBLA supporter when he ignored it.
That's on Arny's low level. You are not just his apologist, now
you are becoming more and more like him.



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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:21:00 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


No one has.


We just showed you, SOMEONE HAD. 90 trials, 81%

Between thirty feet of 24AWG lampcord and thirty feet of 16AWG Monster
cable! The same trial found *no* difference bwteen 16AWG 'zipcord' and
the Monster cable. It's just that lying sack of **** Loonyvic Mirabel
trying to muddy the waters again, in his usual dishonest way.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:46:56 -0500, Dan wrote:

On 8/29/2005 7:06 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory
is posted today at A
HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable"www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/A.


That's just raw HTML from a web page. The correct URL is:

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/



Why have a fundamental EM theory explanation to say "what if"? Yes,
Maxwell was a genius; he predicted the existence of EM waves. The
question still is can human ears tell the difference. No if humans
could hear as well as dogs can sniff, there might be something to
pursue. But last I checked, the only sense that humans excel in is vision.

Not compared to eagles - but they have **** hi-fi!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 02:14:03 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


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

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

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

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...



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

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

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

Back to school you ole fart. Enroll in probability 101

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

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

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

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

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

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

but those are two different issues.


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


Not everyone is equal.

Never said they were.


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


It proves it for that one person.

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

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

Actually, if you weren't a braindead clown, Sad Sack, you'd realise
that with a panel of 15, odds are about *even* that it was random
chance.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:06:21 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

"ScottW" said:

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


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


It proves it for that one person.


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


Suppose a new drug is tested on 15 persons.
One of them dies.

Do you still maintain your position? :-)

Lucky and unlucky are heads and tails of the same coin.

That's why drug testing uses DBTs - they are *reliable*.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

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

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...



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

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

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

Back to school you ole fart. Enroll in probability 101

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

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

Exactly. And now Ludovic has clarified that there were repeat trials
and his 83% number is a composite from all the trials...not just one
trial.

In the end... he has indicated they did EXACTLY what I said was
necessary to provide proof. Although 10 responses per trial is a bit
low...being able to
respond accurately in repeat trials is definitely significant.
Being able to respond accurately in one trial is not.


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

sure, but chances are very substantial that one person heard differences
and
fourteen did not.

the initial 83% number was insufficient data to make that claim and I
still
can't access the original article.

Just cause differences are there, doesn't mean that everyone
has the capacity to recognize them.

Agreed.


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

Yes... but a single IQ test of 10 questions won't guarantee you found
him.


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

Sure...and probably 3 in 50 will ace a 10 question IQ test. Now what?


but those are two different issues.


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


Not everyone is equal.

Never said they were.






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


It proves it for that one person.

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


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


Maybe for 100% correct or even 9 of 10. But for 8 of 10 the numbers
don't bear you out. In fact... in one test run... say 10 responses...
you have ~4.3% chance of getting 8 of 10 just due to chance. So with
15 subjects we would expect that 64% of the time (more than half) one
of the 15 is gonna get 8 right.
I'm sorry but you have less than 1 chance in 2 that the 1 person with
8 right (of 15 who were tested) is truly golden eared after a one run
of tests.


It was 73 out of 90
not 8 out of 10


And I don't care about the others. They can't hear. We know that.
The question is whether that one can hear.
All people are not designed with equal facilities.

Bad analysis, Scott


Heres a good tutorial.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experim...tatistics.html

ScottW




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

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

Just the sort of dishonesty we've come to expect from that pathetic
sack of ****.

Bored with moderated discussion ? ;-)

On 31 Aug 2005 11:29:49 -0700, George Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?

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

I have - and my decision was reached that way.

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

Bored now.

I suppose you know how this looks, right? You don't? Well, maybe I should tell
you. We removed several layers of bluster surrounding your fear and loathing of
expensive cables and we got to the nub: Supposedly you know people who paid a
lot of money for cables and later regretted it. If you could produce details
about these alleged individuals, you would undermine my suspicion that your
complaint is really a class-warfare argument. But instead of that, your
"evidence" conveniently disappears because you're "bored".

To recap: You've admitted you're not involved in the cable business in any way,
and you don't plan to be. You yourself have never paid a lot for cables, so you
don't have any personal involvement to defend or avenge. All you were left with
was the supposed "evidence" that some unnamed and unsummonable individuals got
taken and presumably were chagrined as a result. But you can't tell us a thing
about these individuals. So the only motivation left is the 'borg one: If it's
expensive, it's bad. Period.

Oh George - where do I start? No. I really can't be bothered go here. Ever
seen 8 simple rules, where CJ tries to psychoanalyse the girls and always
gets it wrong and hugely over-complicated?

That's you, that is.

d

Clyde Slick wrote:

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


Maybe for 100% correct or even 9 of 10. But for 8 of 10 the numbers
don't bear you out. In fact... in one test run... say 10 responses...
you have ~4.3% chance of getting 8 of 10 just due to chance. So with
15 subjects we would expect that 64% of the time (more than half) one
of the 15 is gonna get 8 right.
I'm sorry but you have less than 1 chance in 2 that the 1 person with
8 right (of 15 who were tested) is truly golden eared after a one run
of tests.


It was 73 out of 90

Where did you see this? Can you access the original article? All I
had was Luds original 81% number until he clarified.

Anyway 73 out of 90 IS NOT ONE RUN

So who's playing debating trade now?

not 8 out of 10


And I don't care about the others. They can't hear. We know that.
The question is whether that one can hear.
All people are not designed with equal facilities.

Bad analysis, Scott

One promising run by 1 individual out of many doesn't mean squat.
That was my point and that was my analysis... 73 out of 90 is
irrelevant to that point.

I guess you're more interested in disagreeing than understanding and
that's disappointing.

ScottW

Sander deWaal wrote:
"ScottW" said:

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


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


It proves it for that one person.


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


Suppose a new drug is tested on 15 persons.
One of them dies.

Do you still maintain your position? :-)

Yes.... pending the autopsy.


ScottW

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

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

Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.

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


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


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


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



The'd just claim ignorance.


So, you have no case.



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