Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Now imagine you are a reviewer for Stereophile. How
often would
you like it demonstrated that you *probably* (remember,
it's
all statistical) didn't hear what you thought you heard?
Can you imagine Mikey Fremer's blood pressure after a
couple
of those experiences?

To appreciate this fully, you have to experience Mikey Fremer in all his
hysterical glory, up front and personal, as I did at the HE2005 debate last
year. I'm sure that as a child, his face went blue many times, from holding
his breath until he got his way.


To his credit , he gets right in the face of the apparently large (or at
least, vocal) contingent of right-wing readers of the audiophile
press, whenever he pens one of his diatribes against Bush and/or
the FCC.



--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Now imagine you are a reviewer for Stereophile. How
often would
you like it demonstrated that you *probably* (remember,
it's
all statistical) didn't hear what you thought you heard?
Can you imagine Mikey Fremer's blood pressure after a
couple
of those experiences?

To appreciate this fully, you have to experience Mikey
Fremer in all his hysterical glory, up front and
personal, as I did at the HE2005 debate last year. I'm
sure that as a child, his face went blue many times,
from holding his breath until he got his way.


To his credit , he gets right in the face of the
apparently large (or at least, vocal) contingent of
right-wing readers of the audiophile
press, whenever he pens one of his diatribes against Bush
and/or the FCC.

Which the right wing readers dismiss because he fits too many stereotypes.
;-(

vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article . com,
"124" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

What is it about having to see the device that improves the
sound?

Nothing.

The next question is very closely related to the previous
question.
Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound quality?

--124

Nope.

Of course, it does, Jenn. You are a live example of it. Don't you
prefer LP's?
I am sure that in a test that hides identity of the the media you
would
fail miserably.

vlad

Let's be clear: You are stating that knowing the identity of a device
affects the actual sound quality? Wow.

Nope, you are wrong, unfortunately. Knowing the identity of the device
affects perception of sound quality. Do you agree?

vlad

But that wasn't the question, Vlad. The question was, "Does knowing the
identity of a device AFFECT THE SOUND QUALITY?"

It doesn't affect the sound at all.

Correct.

It only affects your *belief* about the
sound.
This is simpy restating what Vlad said.

If you re-read the above, you'll see that Vlad, for some reason,
believed that I thought differently. I was simply pointing out that
seeing the item doesn't ACTUALLY CHANGE the sound. I think that Vlad
misread 124's question.

Jenn,

you are unreasonable to put it mildly. Is not it obvious that
electronic equipment works the same way, does not matter if you know
identity or not? I am surprised that you cannot figure it out for
yourself. I assumed it as an obvious fact.

What I exactly meant that you perception is definitely affected by your
knowledge of the equipment identity. The brand of this equipment will
affect your perception. Technology will affect it. (You are an LP
proponent, are not you?) It means that when you hear sound from LP you
have an uncontrolled urge to pronounce it lifelike, authentic, etc. :-)

As an example from my own past I can tell you that I love Bruckner
music. The first time I heard his symphony ( it was 3rd with Bavarian
Orchestra, Eugene Jochum conducting) from DGG. The LP had a bright
yellow label. Since then his music creates in me images of yellow color
flowing in the air. I know that I was affected by identity of the
source.

Huppy LP listening

vlad

I find it rather strange that people are firmly convinced
that what
is true for them must be true for all of huimanity
I presume you're talking about "sighted bias" when you say:
" What I exactly meant that you perception is definitely affected by
your
knowledge of the equipment identity"
What you should have said is:: "my perception...is
definitely
(nothing like being definite, is there?) affected by my knowledge..."
You have no statistical basis to show that this form of bias affects
everybody equally. In medical therapy research double blind studies
which are infinitely more rigorous than the RAO blatherings the
placebo effect affects between 25 to 35 % of the participants. Period.
If you say you are "definitely" affected by the brand
name
I have no reason to mistrust your introspection. But please do speak
for ypurself.
Ludovic Mirabel
All of the above does not preclude that blind testing of

audio components is a useful manoeuvre.
But it will not make me prefer your or Arny's opinion
about an
audio medium to Jenn's, who is a musician and who is familiar with
the kind of music I value. Sighted, blind or triple blind
and ABXed.
A personal anecdote about "sighted bias". I heard and
liked
Martin-Logan CLS speakers. So when I got to hear, sighted, their five
times as expensive "Statement" I had a very, very positive bias.
What a disappointment.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
paul packer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:14:01 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The basis of our
disagreement is your assertion -- if you still make it -- that sighted
testing is worthless regardless of whether the listener has developed some
immunity to psychological bias.

Actually that's the part I don't get at all. Why should the sight of
the equipment affect one's audible perception of it?


Why should the sight of *anything* affect your attitude towards it?

Yet clearly, it does, right?

Some brilliant
equipment looks bloody awful--NAD for one. Or are they saying that
because the listener knows it's a high end brand he will
subconsciously hear a high-end sound?


Could do. That's enough to require a control for it.


If so, what if we take certain
manuacturers-- Marantz and Teac, say--who make both garden variety and
super-duper products (that's the technical term). Both of those
manufacturers have high-end lines, so would the knowlwedge that one
was listening to a Teac or Marantz subconsciously downgrade the
listening experience? And if so, why have so many of these elite-line
products from down-market manufacturers received such great reviews?


Because they are marketed as 'elite line'? Of course, one snob's
'elite' is another's 'down-market'. There are audiophiles who
wouldn't consider *any* product by these manufacterers as *truly*
'elite'.


Really, do you seriously believe that belief is *always* accurate,
and *never* erroneously influenced by perception? Do you
realize that if this were true, then scientific advances would
be incalculably easier to achieve? Believe me, scientists
*wish* it were true.


Another question for the objectivists which I've yet to see fully
addressed. For years Hi-Fi Choice (at least) has been conducting blind
panel tests. That is. a mixed group of people listen to an array of
amps, say, hidden behind a curtain. In every test, apparently, clear
differences have been discerned. Not only that, but the same amp is
sometimes brought back to see if the panel's reaction is (more or
less) the same. If you read the full results, the biggest discrepancy
that occurs in these tests is in the "hands-on" listening, when the
reviewer supervising the tests takes the product home for a few days
and ends up rating it quite differently, not only from the panel's
rating, but his own reactions during the tests. Now this I find
significant.

If find sighted results pretty insignificant in such cases, whether long
or short term ;

But point me to one of their tests, where the methods and results
are laid out adequately, and I'll see if I can tell what they're really
up to. I presume for, say, amps, they are carefully level-matching,
performing the tests double-blind and randomized, not allowing
the participants to confer about their choices during the test,
and doing an adequate number of trials to make a reasonable call of
statistical difference, right?

I don't believe that preferences need "testing" . You
do.
It is up to you to show that "testing" works
So to quote you with one word substituted::
(But) point me to one of ABX tests, where the methods
and results
are laid out adequately, and I'll see if I can tell what they're really
up to. I presume for, say, amps, they are carefully level-matching,
performing the tests double-blind and randomized, not allowing
the participants to confer about their choices during the test,
and doing an adequate number of trials to make a reasonable call of
statistical difference, right?
You omitted: " where the panel is randomised between
subjects and controls and where the panel is large enough to give
statistically valid results as well as representative of all the
listener
categories, age, gender, musical preference edsucation and
experience."

Right Sullivan baby. It is not about sales it is about
research.
And of that you know zilch.
Ludovic Mirabel






--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:05:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:34:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On 22 Feb 2006 05:39:21 -0800, "124"
wrote:


I pretty much agree with all of the above; I've never
argued against this.

You, paul packer, Robert, and Paul B are beginning to
sound a little like objectivists. And, as Martha might
say, that is a good thing. Beware of assimilation.
Fear the hive.

I doubt it, but really I just want to know why everyone
else gets capitals and I don't.

Paul, anything that puts you into a different category
than Morein would be a good thing.

And Robert has done exactly what to earn such
condemnation?

If you have to ask, you can't appreciate the answer.

Cop out. This goes to your unjustified attack syndrome. When you
retaliate against those who've attacked you, that's at least justified
and predictable. What none of us can understand--probably even your
few supporters--is why you frequently choose to make random attacks on
those who've done nothing to you, who've made the most innocent remark
or maybe not even posted. I've come in for some of these attacks in
minor exchanges with you--given your level of paranoia that's pretty
much expected. I've also come in for insulting remarks from you in
threads in which I'm not even taking part, remarks which entirely
misrepresent my views. This is worrying, and causes people to question
your state of mind. You do see why this would be, don't you, Arnie?

4 of 12 said:

Seeing is not necessarily believing, and hearing is not necessarily
believing.

Speaking of experience with "blind tests", tell us about yours. How many
blind audio "tests" have you participated in? What kinds and models of
equipment were "tested"? What were the results? When and where did the
"tests" take place? Who set the "tests" up and who proctored them? What
controls were instituted to remove extraneous variables? Were the results
of the "tests" published? How did you validate aBxism beforehand? Why
weren't the results of the "tests" published?

Details, 4. Give us facts instead of proselytizing.

"124" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jenn wrote:

Actually there's a famous loudspeaker demo done decades ago where a
system
was set up on a stage along with a real musician, both behind a screen,
and
people claimed not to be able to tell them apart.

I've heard of this. I still can't imagine such a thing.

Biased-listening tests are notoriously unreliable. Thomas Edison, for
example, showed that entire theatre audiences were unable to
distinguish between the sound of artists or a playback by his recording
system, which today would be regarded as ludicrously poor in quality.

http://inventors.about.com/library/i...cphpgraph2.htm

Seeing is not necessarily believing, and hearing is not necessarily
believing. There are optical illusions, and there are aural illusions.
If knowing the identity of a device may alter one's perception of the
sound quality of one's audio system, how can unscrupulous people
exploit this knowledge for financial gain?

--124


The man who cannot count also has trouble
with other simple logical processes.
The source identities were hidden.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Arny Krueger" confessed:
: Golden Earism is like herpes - no known reliable cure. Once infected people
: tend to stay infected and infect others.

yeah. still playing _radar love_ every mornin',
Arn ?
:-)

124 wrote:
Jenn wrote:

Actually there's a famous loudspeaker demo done decades ago where a system
was set up on a stage along with a real musician, both behind a screen, and
people claimed not to be able to tell them apart.

I've heard of this. I still can't imagine such a thing.

Biased-listening tests are notoriously unreliable. Thomas Edison, for
example, showed that entire theatre audiences were unable to
distinguish between the sound of artists or a playback by his recording
system, which today would be regarded as ludicrously poor in quality.

http://inventors.about.com/library/i...cphpgraph2.htm

Seeing is not necessarily believing, and hearing is not necessarily
believing. There are optical illusions, and there are aural illusions.
If knowing the identity of a device may alter one's perception of the
sound quality of one's audio system, how can unscrupulous people
exploit this knowledge for financial gain?

--124

Yes, lots of biases including gender, age, education, musical exposure
and preference, and last but not least the IQ level.
I understand you have a cure. Don't keep the world in suspense. Out
with it.
Ludovic Mirabel

George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Speaking of experience with "blind tests", tell us about yours. How many
blind audio "tests" have you participated in?

Dumb****. When are you going to get it through your head? DBT'ing is
a research tool, but a bit impractical for the average person to
partake in, as a rule.

dippyborg said:

Speaking of experience with "blind tests", tell us about yours. How many
blind audio "tests" have you participated in?

Dumb****.

You talkin' to me? You're the one with the brown stains on your forearms.

When are you going to get it through your head? DBT'ing is
a research tool, but a bit impractical for the average person to
partake in, as a rule.

Why are you telling me this? That's the point I've been making for years.

I think you need to coordinate the information feed from the Hive so the
other 'borgs don't go off program.

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Speaking of experience with "blind tests", tell us about yours. How many
blind audio "tests" have you participated in?

Dumb****. When are you going to get it through your head? DBT'ing is
a research tool, but a bit impractical for the average person to
partake in, as a rule.


now I know why they call you dizzy.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

dizzy wrote:
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Speaking of experience with "blind tests", tell us about yours. How many
blind audio "tests" have you participated in?

Dumb****. When are you going to get it through your head? DBT'ing is
a research tool, but a bit impractical for the average person to
partake in, as a rule.

And resesarchers* (with the excepton of Sean Toole)
avoid comparing audio components like fire
So of what interest is this endless blather about merits of
ABX
etc to an average audio consumer, please
Ludovic Mirabel
* By "researchers" I mean the genuine article that gets published

in peer-reviewed journals like JAES not the web flotsam and jetsam.
I'd appreciate a response without profanity. I left it without
regrets
when I left the Army barracks.