[John Atkinson[_2_]]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...p_us_inside_to

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So that's that, then. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...p_us_inside_to

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

This was a single blind test.

So that's that, then. :-)

More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than defective double
blind tests.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

This was a single blind test.

So that's that, then. :-)

More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than defective double
blind tests.


From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive cables
sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by definition, an
audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price,
to get even a tiny improvement in sound."

Only 5% ?

Could it be that due to poor component mismatches, the system
would have sounded better and higher than just 5% ? The cables,
regardless of price, does not produced sound of their own by
themselves.

I remember back in the mid-90s that I swap and tried at least
more than 7 different pairs of cables in order to gain more than
just 5% in sonic improvement. I recall some cables costing more
made my system sounding less natural.

Been there, done that.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

This was a single blind test.

So that's that, then. :-)

More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than
defective double blind tests.


From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive
cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by
definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any
burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."

Only 5% ?

Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.


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

0% seems about right.

The cables, regardless of price, does not produced
sound of their own by themselves.

Agreed.


I remember back in the mid-90s that I swap and tried at
least more than 7 different pairs of cables in order to
gain more than just 5% in sonic improvement.

I guess you haven't smartened up since then. :-(

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

Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Ian, 07:29, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message







Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
expensive cable."

This was a single blind test.

So that's that, then. :-)

More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than
defective double blind tests.

From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive
cables sounded roughly 5% better. * Remember, by
definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any
burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."

Only 5% ?

Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.

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

0% seems about right.

The cables, regardless of price, does not produced
sound of their own by themselves.

Agreed.

I remember back in the mid-90s that I swap and tried at
least more than 7 different pairs of cables in order to
gain more than just 5% in sonic improvement.

I guess you haven't smartened up since then. :-(

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

Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.-


To each his own.
Arny dreams of voltmeters. That is the extent of Arny's imagination.
My imagination centers upon a certain city bus

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

Arny dreams of voltmeters. That is the extent of Arny's imagination.
My imagination centers upon a certain city bus

I think the repetitions have conditioned Turdy to flinch when he detects a
bus rolling in his vicinity. I switched my bet to "getting electrocuted by
lightning". The odds on this bet are considerably better.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

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





More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than
defective double blind tests.


From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive
cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by
definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any
burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."

Only 5% ?

Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.


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

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




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

0% seems about right.


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



snip





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

Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.


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

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

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message

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





More proof that single blind tests are nothing more
than defective double blind tests.


From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive
cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by
definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any
burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement
in sound." Only 5% ?

Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...p_us_inside_to
Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

Mr. Gomes apparently had an audiophile angel on one shoulder and a 'borg
angel on the other. He also said this:

"Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden,
pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."

If he's going to prattle like that, he should rename his column
"Stereotypes R Us".

So that's that, then. :-)

Thnak's John for, admitting Jhon that you have suborned the WSJ and/or R.
Murdoch with your elitist audiophile propaganda Jonn.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 16, 10:52�am, John Atkinson wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So that's that, then. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?

Boon

[Walt]

wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:52�am, John Atkinson wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?

Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test,
61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50
chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math.
(HINT: it ain't.)

And of course this doesn't even address the single-blind nature of the
test. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans



//Walt

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 17, 12:56*pm, Walt wrote:
of course this doesn't even *address the single-blind nature of the
test. *Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

The test was immune to the Clever Hans Effect as the moderator
sat behind and to the side and was not in the listener's view. The
listener didn't know what he was listening to or comparing. All he
had was a remote with 2 buttons, labeled A and B. All he could
see were the loudspeakers and the amplifier volume display.
Levels were matched. The listener listened on his own and could
switch between A and B for as long as he wished. He didn't know
what was being compared until after he had handed in his results.
Of its type, it was quite a well-designed test.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Walt]

John Atkinson wrote:
On Jan 17, 12:56 pm, Walt wrote:

of course this doesn't even address the single-blind nature of the
test. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

The test was immune to the Clever Hans Effect as the moderator
sat behind and to the side and was not in the listener's view. The
listener didn't know what he was listening to or comparing. All he
had was a remote with 2 buttons, labeled A and B. All he could
see were the loudspeakers and the amplifier volume display.
Levels were matched. The listener listened on his own and could
switch between A and B for as long as he wished. He didn't know
what was being compared until after he had handed in his results.
Of its type, it was quite a well-designed test.


So why were there two CD players if you were comparing speaker cables?
Were you swicthing out more than just the speaker cables?

I'm confused...

From TFA:
"Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot
pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are
as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker
cable."


//Walt

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 17, 4:04 pm, Walt wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
The listener didn't know what he was listening to or comparing. All
he had was a remote with 2 buttons, labeled A and B. All he could
see were the loudspeakers and the amplifier volume display.
Levels were matched. The listener listened on his own and could
switch between A and B for as long as he wished. He didn't know
what was being compared until after he had handed in his results.
Of its type, it was quite a well-designed test.

So why were there two CD players if you were comparing speaker
cables?

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

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On Jan 17, 12:56 pm, Walt
wrote:
of course this doesn't even address the single-blind
nature of the test.
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

The test was immune to the Clever Hans Effect as the
moderator sat behind and to the side and was not in the
listener's view. The listener didn't know what he was
listening to or comparing. All he had was a remote with 2
buttons, labeled A and B. All he could see were the
loudspeakers and the amplifier volume display. Levels
were matched. The listener listened on his own and could
switch between A and B for as long as he wished. He
didn't know what was being compared until after he had
handed in his results. Of its type, it was quite a
well-designed test.

Wrong, but I bet that Atkinson can't figure out why.

[Oliver Costich]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:25:54 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
wrote:

On Jan 17, 12:56*pm, Walt wrote:
of course this doesn't even *address the single-blind nature of the
test. *Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

The test was immune to the Clever Hans Effect as the moderator
sat behind and to the side and was not in the listener's view. The
listener didn't know what he was listening to or comparing. All he
had was a remote with 2 buttons, labeled A and B. All he could
see were the loudspeakers and the amplifier volume display.
Levels were matched. The listener listened on his own and could
switch between A and B for as long as he wished. He didn't know
what was being compared until after he had handed in his results.
Of its type, it was quite a well-designed test.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Argument about the design is moot when the results aren't sufficient
to tatistically support the claim that people can can identify the
more expensive cables more than half the time.

[Oliver Costich]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:56:23 -0500, Walt
wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:52?am, John Atkinson wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?

Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test,
61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50
chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math.
(HINT: it ain't.)

Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) .5. Null
hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the
claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level.

And of course this doesn't even address the single-blind nature of the
test. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans



//Walt

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:
Walt wrote:
vinylanach wrote:




So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?

Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this
test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39
trials. 50-50 chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do
the math. (HINT: it ain't.)

Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) .5. Null
hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the
claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level.


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

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message


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

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

[Oliver Costich]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:48:21 -0800, "JBorg, Jr."
wrote:

Oliver Costich wrote:
Walt wrote:
vinylanach wrote:




So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?

Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this
test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39
trials. 50-50 chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do
the math. (HINT: it ain't.)

Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) .5. Null
hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the
claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level.


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


Of course not. Certainty is not in the realm of statistical analysis.
Let's say you want to claim the a certain coin is biased to produce
heads when flipped. That you flip it 39 times and get 24 heads is not
sufficient to support the claim at a 95% confidence level. If you
lower your standard or do a lot more flips and still get 61%, the
conclusion will change

I'm sure there are audible differences. The issue is whether they are
enough to make consisten determinations. A bigger issue for those of
use who just listen to music is whether the diffeneces are detectable
when you are emotionally involved in the music and not just playing
"golden ears".

[Oliver Costich]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:52:40 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...p_us_inside_to

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So that's that, then. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

From the article: Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000,
eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which
are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker
cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally good. I couldn't hear a
difference and was a wee bit suspicious that anyone else could. But of
the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the
expensive cable.

Back to reality: 61% correct in one experiment fails to reject that
they can't tell the difference. If the claim is that listeners can
tell the better cable more the half the time, then to support that you
have to be able to reject that the in the population of all audio
interested listeners, the correct guesses occur half the time or less.
61% of 39 doesn't do it. (Null hypothesis is p=.5, alternative
hypothesis is p.5. The null hypthesis cannot be rejected with the
sample data given.)

In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result
isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of listeners
more than half can pick the better cable.

So, I'd say "that's hardly that".

[Clyde Slick]

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

wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So that's that, then. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

From the article: Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000,
eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which
are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker
cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally good. I couldn't hear a
difference and was a wee bit suspicious that anyone else could. But of
the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the
expensive cable.

Back to reality: 61% correct in one experiment fails to reject that
they can't tell the difference. If the claim is that listeners can
tell the better cable more the half the time, then to support that you
have to be able to reject that the in the population of all audio
interested listeners, the correct guesses occur half the time or less.
61% of 39 doesn't do it. (Null hypothesis is p=.5, alternative
hypothesis is p.5. The null hypthesis cannot be rejected with the
sample data given.)

In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result
isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of listeners
more than half can pick the better cable.

So, I'd say "that's hardly that".

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

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said to McInturd:

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

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

[Oliver Costich]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:54:54 -0800 (PST), Clyde Slick
wrote:

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

wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...?mod=hpp_us_in...

Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."

So that's that, then. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

From the article: Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000,
eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which
are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker
cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally good. I couldn't hear a
difference and was a wee bit suspicious that anyone else could. But of
the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the
expensive cable.

Back to reality: 61% correct in one experiment fails to reject that
they can't tell the difference. If the claim is that listeners can
tell the better cable more the half the time, then to support that you
have to be able to reject that the in the population of all audio
interested listeners, the correct guesses occur half the time or less.
61% of 39 doesn't do it. (Null hypothesis is p=.5, alternative
hypothesis is p.5. The null hypthesis cannot be rejected with the
sample data given.)

In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result
isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of listeners
more than half can pick the better cable.

So, I'd say "that's hardly that".

you seem to be mixing difference with preference, you reference both,
for the same test.

For the purpose of statistical analysis it makes no difference.

And just what is the general population of
listeners.

You tell me. I presume that those who attend CES and would be a good
one to use. What would you use and how would you construct a simple
random sample from it?

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

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:
Mr.clydeslick wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:




snip

Back to reality: 61% correct in one experiment fails to reject that
they can't tell the difference. If the claim is that listeners can
tell the better cable more the half the time, then to support that
you have to be able to reject that the in the population of all
audio interested listeners, the correct guesses occur half the time
or less. 61% of 39 doesn't do it. (Null hypothesis is p=.5,
alternative hypothesis is p.5. The null hypthesis cannot be
rejected with the sample data given.)

In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result
isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of
listeners more than half can pick the better cable.

So, I'd say "that's hardly that".

you seem to be mixing difference with preference, you reference
both, for the same test.

For the purpose of statistical analysis it makes no difference.


But for the purpose of sensible analysis, shouldn't it makes a
difference.

As you have said that logic is on the side of not making decisions
about human behavior. Isn't this reqiured to ensure sufficient testing
using well designed experiment and statistical analysis.


And just what is the general population of listeners.

You tell me. I presume that those who attend CES and would be
a good one to use.

That could very well include someone like Howard Ferstler, a raving
lunatic with a well-known hearing loss out to destroy high-end audio
and derogate all audiophiles young and young at heart. Provided,
of course, he can *afford* the fares.


What would you use and how would you construct a simple
random sample from it?

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


We need a bias controlled experiment.

[Oliver Costich]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:33:43 -0800, "JBorg, Jr."
wrote:

Oliver Costich wrote:
Mr.clydeslick wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:




snip

Back to reality: 61% correct in one experiment fails to reject that
they can't tell the difference. If the claim is that listeners can
tell the better cable more the half the time, then to support that
you have to be able to reject that the in the population of all
audio interested listeners, the correct guesses occur half the time
or less. 61% of 39 doesn't do it. (Null hypothesis is p=.5,
alternative hypothesis is p.5. The null hypthesis cannot be
rejected with the sample data given.)

In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result
isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of
listeners more than half can pick the better cable.

So, I'd say "that's hardly that".

you seem to be mixing difference with preference, you reference
both, for the same test.

For the purpose of statistical analysis it makes no difference.


But for the purpose of sensible analysis, shouldn't it makes a
difference.

I don't think so. I can't see any way the statistical analysis would
be different.

As you have said that logic is on the side of not making decisions
about human behavior. Isn't this reqiured to ensure sufficient testing
using well designed experiment and statistical analysis.

I didn't say that.


And just what is the general population of listeners.

You tell me. I presume that those who attend CES and would be
a good one to use.

That could very well include someone like Howard Ferstler, a raving
lunatic with a well-known hearing loss out to destroy high-end audio
and derogate all audiophiles young and young at heart. Provided,
of course, he can *afford* the fares.

Obviously you want to weed out people who are absolutely sure you
can't tell. But leaving out people who are skeptics biases the result
as well. I doubt that the 39 people who did the test comprised a
simple random sample, another design flaw. On the other hand I'd like
to see a well designed test using a simple random sample from the
population of true believers just to see if they can really. Even if
some people can tell, I suspect that it's a very small number. I do
know a couple of people who can really lock onto particular
characteristics and use then to identify what's playing.


What would you use and how would you construct a simple
random sample from it?

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


We need a bias controlled experiment.

Yes but the neither the golden ear cult or the nonbeleivers would
accept the results if they didn't agree with them. It's become a
religious, not a scientific, argument.

[Andy C[_2_]]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:52:40 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson wrote:

Okay, I was reading the article and noticed some strange things. The
article says the following:

"I set up a room with two sound systems, identical except for one
component. Everything except the speakers was hidden behind screens."

So he is saying that there were actually two separate systems - two source
components, two amplifiers, etc. But were there two different sets of
speakers too? One would hope not! Using a single set of speakers, there
would need to be a switching arrangement to switch the speakers between the
outputs of the two different amplifiers through the two different speaker
cables. But if there were a properly designed switching network, there
would be no need for two different systems at all. There could just be a
transfer switch using the highest quality relays to switch between the two
speaker cables. That is, a two-throw at the amplifier end and a two-throw
at the speaker end of each speaker cable. This would hold everything else
constant. If there were really two different sets of speakers, then the
experiment was so poorly designed it isn't even worth discussing. Just the
speaker position difference alone would likely cause differences in the
sound that would be measureably far greater than any cable could cause.

Then it also says:

"Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of
Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your
thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable."

Two identical CD players and what else? This guy is being very vague. I
guess he is just addressing the typical WSJ reader who isn't familiar with
or does not care about this stuff. There just isn't enough info provided
to evaluate whether the test setup is valid or not.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy C" wrote in message


Two identical CD players and what else? This guy is
being very vague. I guess he is just addressing the
typical WSJ reader who isn't familiar with or does not
care about this stuff. There just isn't enough info
provided to evaluate whether the test setup is valid or
not.

Andy your analysis is good, but you don't have to look that hard to see how
the alleged test is invalid. It was single blind when it could have been
double blind with very little additional expense in terms of time or money.
Single blind tests don't control as many important relevant variables as
double blind tests - the test was too simple and shoddily done to be worth
much analysis.

[Oliver Costich]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:58:10 GMT, Andy C wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:52:40 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson wrote:

Okay, I was reading the article and noticed some strange things. The
article says the following:

"I set up a room with two sound systems, identical except for one
component. Everything except the speakers was hidden behind screens."

So he is saying that there were actually two separate systems - two source
components, two amplifiers, etc. But were there two different sets of
speakers too? One would hope not! Using a single set of speakers, there
would need to be a switching arrangement to switch the speakers between the
outputs of the two different amplifiers through the two different speaker
cables. But if there were a properly designed switching network, there
would be no need for two different systems at all. There could just be a
transfer switch using the highest quality relays to switch between the two
speaker cables. That is, a two-throw at the amplifier end and a two-throw
at the speaker end of each speaker cable. This would hold everything else
constant. If there were really two different sets of speakers, then the
experiment was so poorly designed it isn't even worth discussing. Just the
speaker position difference alone would likely cause differences in the
sound that would be measureably far greater than any cable could cause.

Then it also says:

"Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of
Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your
thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable."

Two identical CD players and what else? This guy is being very vague. I
guess he is just addressing the typical WSJ reader who isn't familiar with
or does not care about this stuff. There just isn't enough info provided
to evaluate whether the test setup is valid or not.


All good points. This particualr test was badly enough designed to be
flawed from the start, never mind what the data actually conclude.

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Ian, 12:49, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:58:10 GMT, Andy C wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:52:40 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson wrote:

Okay, I was reading the article and noticed some strange things. *The
article says the following:

"I set up a room with two sound systems, identical except for one
component. Everything except the speakers was hidden behind screens."

So he is saying that there were actually two separate systems - two source
components, two amplifiers, etc. *But were there two different sets of
speakers too? *One would hope not! *Using a single set of speakers, there
would need to be a switching arrangement to switch the speakers between the
outputs of the two different amplifiers through the two different speaker
cables. *But if there were a properly designed switching network, there
would be no need for two different systems at all. *There could just be a
transfer switch using the highest quality relays to switch between the two
speaker cables. *That is, a two-throw at the amplifier end and a two-throw
at the speaker end of each speaker cable. *This would hold everything else
constant. *If there were really two different sets of speakers, then the
experiment was so poorly designed it isn't even worth discussing. *Just the
speaker position difference alone would likely cause differences in the
sound that would be measureably far greater than any cable could cause.

Then it also says:

"Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of
Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your
thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable."

Two identical CD players and what else? *This guy is being very vague. *I
guess he is just addressing the typical WSJ reader who isn't familiar with
or does not care about this stuff. *There just isn't enough info provided
to evaluate whether the test setup is valid or not.

All good points. This particualr test was badly enough designed to be
flawed from the start, never mind what the data actually conclude.- Ascunde citatul -



Actually, it was entirely useless in concept. All such tests are.

[Oliver Costich]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:25:57 -0800 (PST), Clyde Slick
wrote:

On 23 Ian, 12:49, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:58:10 GMT, Andy C wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:52:40 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson wrote:

Okay, I was reading the article and noticed some strange things. *The
article says the following:

"I set up a room with two sound systems, identical except for one
component. Everything except the speakers was hidden behind screens."

So he is saying that there were actually two separate systems - two source
components, two amplifiers, etc. *But were there two different sets of
speakers too? *One would hope not! *Using a single set of speakers, there
would need to be a switching arrangement to switch the speakers between the
outputs of the two different amplifiers through the two different speaker
cables. *But if there were a properly designed switching network, there
would be no need for two different systems at all. *There could just be a
transfer switch using the highest quality relays to switch between the two
speaker cables. *That is, a two-throw at the amplifier end and a two-throw
at the speaker end of each speaker cable. *This would hold everything else
constant. *If there were really two different sets of speakers, then the
experiment was so poorly designed it isn't even worth discussing. *Just the
speaker position difference alone would likely cause differences in the
sound that would be measureably far greater than any cable could cause.

Then it also says:

"Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of
Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your
thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable."

Two identical CD players and what else? *This guy is being very vague. *I
guess he is just addressing the typical WSJ reader who isn't familiar with
or does not care about this stuff. *There just isn't enough info provided
to evaluate whether the test setup is valid or not.

All good points. This particualr test was badly enough designed to be
flawed from the start, never mind what the data actually conclude.- Ascunde citatul -



Actually, it was entirely useless in concept. All such tests are.

If so, how would you propose the claim other than blind faith?

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Ian, 12:50, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:25:57 -0800 (PST), Clyde Slick



wrote:
On 23 Ian, 12:49, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:58:10 GMT, Andy C wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:52:40 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson wrote:

Okay, I was reading the article and noticed some strange things. The
article says the following:

"I set up a room with two sound systems, identical except for one
component. Everything except the speakers was hidden behind screens."

So he is saying that there were actually two separate systems - two source
components, two amplifiers, etc. But were there two different sets of
speakers too? One would hope not! Using a single set of speakers, there
would need to be a switching arrangement to switch the speakers between the
outputs of the two different amplifiers through the two different speaker
cables. But if there were a properly designed switching network, there
would be no need for two different systems at all. There could just be a
transfer switch using the highest quality relays to switch between the two
speaker cables. That is, a two-throw at the amplifier end and a two-throw
at the speaker end of each speaker cable. This would hold everything else
constant. If there were really two different sets of speakers, then the
experiment was so poorly designed it isn't even worth discussing. Just the
speaker position difference alone would likely cause differences in the
sound that would be measureably far greater than any cable could cause.

Then it also says:

"Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of
Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your
thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable."

Two identical CD players and what else? This guy is being very vague. I
guess he is just addressing the typical WSJ reader who isn't familiar with
or does not care about this stuff. There just isn't enough info provided
to evaluate whether the test setup is valid or not.

All good points. This particualr test was badly enough designed to be
flawed from the start, never mind what the data actually conclude.- Ascunde citatul -

Actually, it was entirely useless in concept. All such tests are.

If so, how would you propose the claim other than blind faith?

LOL!
"double blind" faith

really, "Look" at the setup, and listen.