Question about sighted testing

[Jenn]

Hi all,

Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
brands, etc?

If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?

[[email protected]]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> Hi all,
>
> Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> brands, etc?
>
> If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?

Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting the
research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such vast
differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should tell you
all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in sighted
listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told that
there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.

[Robert Morein]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> Hi all,
>
> Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> brands, etc?
>
> If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?

Yes, Jenn. But there are certain people on this newsgroup who think people
are inherently bad. One is Mike McKelvy ), who
slavishly follows Arny Krueger, a true audio bigot.

These people are mere warts, best ignored.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
>> that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
>> tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
>> brands, etc?
>>
>> If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>> biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>
> Yes, Jenn. But there are certain people on this newsgroup who think people
> are inherently bad.

Typical of you Bob, nothing of any substance for the question at hand, so
you just make up a lie.

One is Mike McKelvy ), who
> slavishly follows Arny Krueger, a true audio bigot.
>
I follow the facts when they are known.
I note you don't dispute any of the facts in the repsonse I made to Jenn's
question.
Maybe you still have a shred of integrity left.

> These people are mere warts, best ignored.
>
If irony killed.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> >> that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> >> tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> >> brands, etc?
> >>
> >> If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> >> biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
> >
> > Yes, Jenn. But there are certain people on this newsgroup who think
people
> > are inherently bad.
>
> Typical of you Bob, nothing of any substance for the question at hand, so
> you just make up a lie.
>
> One is Mike McKelvy ), who
> > slavishly follows Arny Krueger, a true audio bigot.
> >
> I follow the facts when they are known.
> I note you don't dispute any of the facts in the repsonse I made to Jenn's
> question.
> Maybe you still have a shred of integrity left.
>
> > These people are mere warts, best ignored.
> >
> If irony killed.
>
You're not a smart guy, Mikey. Big mouth, little brain. Low IQ.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad
>> >> is
>> >> that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
>> >> tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
>> >> brands, etc?
>> >>
>> >> If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>> >> biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>> >
>> > Yes, Jenn. But there are certain people on this newsgroup who think
> people
>> > are inherently bad.
>>
>> Typical of you Bob, nothing of any substance for the question at hand, so
>> you just make up a lie.
>>
>> One is Mike McKelvy ), who
>> > slavishly follows Arny Krueger, a true audio bigot.
>> >
>> I follow the facts when they are known.
>> I note you don't dispute any of the facts in the repsonse I made to
>> Jenn's
>> question.
>> Maybe you still have a shred of integrity left.
>>
>> > These people are mere warts, best ignored.
>> >
>> If irony killed.
>>
> You're not a smart guy, Mikey. Big mouth, little brain. Low IQ.
>
It doesn't take that much brain power to make you look pathetic.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >
...
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad
> >> >> is
> >> >> that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we
might
> >> >> tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of
certain
> >> >> brands, etc?
> >> >>
> >> >> If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> >> >> biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
> >> >
> >> > Yes, Jenn. But there are certain people on this newsgroup who think
> > people
> >> > are inherently bad.
> >>
> >> Typical of you Bob, nothing of any substance for the question at hand,
so
> >> you just make up a lie.
> >>
> >> One is Mike McKelvy ), who
> >> > slavishly follows Arny Krueger, a true audio bigot.
> >> >
> >> I follow the facts when they are known.
> >> I note you don't dispute any of the facts in the repsonse I made to
> >> Jenn's
> >> question.
> >> Maybe you still have a shred of integrity left.
> >>
> >> > These people are mere warts, best ignored.
> >> >
> >> If irony killed.
> >>
> > You're not a smart guy, Mikey. Big mouth, little brain. Low IQ.
> >
> It doesn't take that much brain power to make you look pathetic.
>
Mikey, go away. You do not belong here. You are not smart enough to put your
thoughts down in print, and you don't think with startling clarity.
There are many people, more gifted than you, who can articulate better what
you appear to believe.
Believe me, Mikey, you're just a waste of bandwidth.

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
> > > You're not a smart guy, Mikey. Big mouth, little brain. Low IQ.
> > >
> > It doesn't take that much brain power to make you look pathetic.
> >
> Mikey, go away. You do not belong here.

You know Morein, You need to can the censorship crappola. I support
your right to disagree but this campaign to drive McKelvey out is
nothing short of fascism.

You need to grow up and get over whatever he did to **** you off.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
>>> that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
>>> tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
>>> brands, etc?
>>>
>>> If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>>> biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>>
>> Yes, Jenn. But there are certain people on this newsgroup who think
>> people
>> are inherently bad.
>
> Typical of you Bob, nothing of any substance for the question at hand, so
> you just make up a lie.
>
> One is Mike McKelvy ), who
>> slavishly follows Arny Krueger, a true audio bigot.
>>
> I follow the facts when they are known.
> I note you don't dispute any of the facts in the repsonse I made to Jenn's
> question.
> Maybe you still have a shred of integrity left.
>
>> These people are mere warts, best ignored.
>>
> If irony killed.


If irony weren't a copy cat.

Prove it!

Look, there's cake!



----== 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 =----

[George Middius]

Scottie said:

>> Mikey, go away. You do not belong here.

> You know Morein, You need to can the censorship crappola.

You're using that word wrong. It would be censorship if he tried to suppress
Mickey using some external means. As it is, Robert is just trying to shame
Mickey into shutting up.

>I support
>your right to disagree but this campaign to drive McKelvey out is
>nothing short of fascism.

No, it's not. Ridiculing somebody isn't fascism.

> You need to grow up and get over whatever he did to **** you off.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, even though I think it's dumb.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >
> ...
>> >> >> Hi all,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is
>> >> >> bad
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we
> might
>> >> >> tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of
> certain
>> >> >> brands, etc?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>> >> >> biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such
>> >> >> biases?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, Jenn. But there are certain people on this newsgroup who think
>> > people
>> >> > are inherently bad.
>> >>
>> >> Typical of you Bob, nothing of any substance for the question at hand,
> so
>> >> you just make up a lie.
>> >>
>> >> One is Mike McKelvy ), who
>> >> > slavishly follows Arny Krueger, a true audio bigot.
>> >> >
>> >> I follow the facts when they are known.
>> >> I note you don't dispute any of the facts in the repsonse I made to
>> >> Jenn's
>> >> question.
>> >> Maybe you still have a shred of integrity left.
>> >>
>> >> > These people are mere warts, best ignored.
>> >> >
>> >> If irony killed.
>> >>
>> > You're not a smart guy, Mikey. Big mouth, little brain. Low IQ.
>> >
>> It doesn't take that much brain power to make you look pathetic.
>>
> Mikey, go away. You do not belong here.

Not your decision.

You are not smart enough to put your
> thoughts down in print, and you don't think with startling clarity.

When did that become a requirement? When did you meet it?

> There are many people, more gifted than you, who can articulate better
> what
> you appear to believe.

And you're not one of them.

> Believe me, Mikey, you're just a waste of bandwidth.
>
Then don't read what I write.

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > > > You're not a smart guy, Mikey. Big mouth, little brain. Low IQ.
> > > >
> > > It doesn't take that much brain power to make you look pathetic.
> > >
> > Mikey, go away. You do not belong here.
>
> You know Morein, You need to can the censorship crappola. I support
> your right to disagree but this campaign to drive McKelvey out is
> nothing short of fascism.
>
> You need to grow up and get over whatever he did to **** you off.
>
> ScottW
>
Scott, I grew up a long time ago.
My opinion is that Mikey is so mentally challenged, his posts consist almost
entirely of bowdlerized text from the posts of others. Whatever else rao is,
it is a place for individuals with adequate mental capacity, which Mike
McKelvy does not have.
Conversely, if you wish to defend the right of the mentally challenged to
post in this group, it is your right.

[Jenn]

In article et>,
" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> > brands, etc?
> >
> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>
> Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting the
> research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
> should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such vast
> differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should tell you
> all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in sighted
> listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told that
> there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.

Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>> > > > You're not a smart guy, Mikey. Big mouth, little brain. Low IQ.
>> > > >
>> > > It doesn't take that much brain power to make you look pathetic.
>> > >
>> > Mikey, go away. You do not belong here.
>>
>> You know Morein, You need to can the censorship crappola. I support
>> your right to disagree but this campaign to drive McKelvey out is
>> nothing short of fascism.
>>
>> You need to grow up and get over whatever he did to **** you off.
>>
>> ScottW
>>
> Scott, I grew up a long time ago.

Obviously before teh age of reason.

> My opinion is that Mikey is so mentally challenged, his posts consist
> almost
> entirely of bowdlerized text from the posts of others.

Your opinion is worth nothing. You have consistently shown you don't have
the integrity, the will power, or the sense to discuss most of the things
you comment on.

Whatever else rao is,
> it is a place for individuals with adequate mental capacity, which Mike
> McKelvy does not have.

Where is that in the charter?
RAO is a place where people are free to give their opinions about audio.
That my opinions are different from yours is a matter of record. The fact
that you are unable to discuss things without resorting to ad hominem
attacks is also a matter of record.

Your constant claim that I am not up to the challenge is absurd on it's
face, given your frequent errors on the subject.

> Conversely, if you wish to defend the right of the mentally challenged to
> post in this group, it is your right.
>
Why do you think you can hound me off RAO? You seem obsessed with trying to
demonstrate your superior intellect, which in and of itself calls that
intellect into question.
That and the fact that you weren't smart enough to know your lawsuit was
bound to fail.

Use the option of a kill file and retain what small shred of integrity you
may have, other wise you risk everybody seeing you for the pathetic, brain
dead piece of **** most of us already know you to be.

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> > > > > You're not a smart guy, Mikey. Big mouth, little brain. Low IQ.
> > > > >
> > > > It doesn't take that much brain power to make you look pathetic.
> > > >
> > > Mikey, go away. You do not belong here.
> >
> > You know Morein, You need to can the censorship crappola. I support
> > your right to disagree but this campaign to drive McKelvey out is
> > nothing short of fascism.
> >
> > You need to grow up and get over whatever he did to **** you off.
> >
> > ScottW
> >
> Scott, I grew up a long time ago.
> My opinion is that Mikey is so mentally challenged, his posts consist almost
> entirely of bowdlerized text from the posts of others. Whatever else rao is,
> it is a place for individuals with adequate mental capacity,

Who decides? You?

This is a public place... you have no merit in deciding who has
access.

> which Mike
> McKelvy does not have.
> Conversely, if you wish to defend the right of the mentally challenged to
> post in this group, it is your right.

This isn't ridicule as George is claiming. This is declaring someone
doesn't have equal rights.

Bigotry isn't protected by free speech.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scottie said:
>
>>> Mikey, go away. You do not belong here.
>
>> You know Morein, You need to can the censorship crappola.
>
> You're using that word wrong. It would be censorship if he tried to
> suppress
> Mickey using some external means. As it is, Robert is just trying to shame
> Mickey into shutting up.
>
>>I support
>>your right to disagree but this campaign to drive McKelvey out is
>>nothing short of fascism.
>
> No, it's not. Ridiculing somebody isn't fascism.
>
>> You need to grow up and get over whatever he did to **** you off.
>
> That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, even though I think it's
> dumb.


It's an opinion he gets to have, 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 =----

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
[snip]
>
> IOW nobody really needs to do a DBT unless they are considering something
> really weird there's almost no chance that one preamp, amp, CD,DVD, or
> whatever should sound any different than another one, since it's trivially
> simple to accomplish flat response and inaudible distortion.
>
Mikey, the above is not a sentence. It is a run-on, a concatentation of two
sentences.

> Tuners are the only other area I can think of where there might be
> differences but those would have to
> with things like sensitivity and
> selectivity.
You have omitted "do" in the phrase "have to with things".
Hash is the stuff your brains are made of.
>
> The only reason any of this even gets discussed at all is because there
are
> a few people who for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge that DBT's

"DBT's" is a possessive. Mikey, does "DBT" own anything? No? Then quit
crapping and start writing.
> are effective and refuse to admit that their ears can be fooled by their
eyes.
>
An example of a confused, mushy thought. One's eyes do not fool. One's
interpretation of what one sees can be faulty.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> [snip]
>>
>> IOW nobody really needs to do a DBT unless they are considering something
>> really weird there's almost no chance that one preamp, amp, CD,DVD, or
>> whatever should sound any different than another one, since it's
>> trivially
>> simple to accomplish flat response and inaudible distortion.
>>
> Mikey, the above is not a sentence. It is a run-on, a concatentation of
> two
> sentences.
>
>> Tuners are the only other area I can think of where there might be
>> differences but those would have to
>> with things like sensitivity and
>> selectivity.
> You have omitted "do" in the phrase "have to with things".
> Hash is the stuff your brains are made of.
>>
>> The only reason any of this even gets discussed at all is because there
> are
>> a few people who for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge that DBT's
>
> "DBT's" is a possessive. Mikey, does "DBT" own anything? No? Then quit
> crapping and start writing.
>> are effective and refuse to admit that their ears can be fooled by their
> eyes.
>>
> An example of a confused, mushy thought. One's eyes do not fool. One's
> interpretation of what one sees can be faulty.
>
An example of nitpicking the style, instead of the substance, where of
course you always lose.

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> " > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
>> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
>> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
>> > brands, etc?
>> >
>> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>>
>> Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting
>> the
>> research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
>> should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such vast
>> differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should tell
>> you
>> all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
>> sighted
>> listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
>> that
>> there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
>
> Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
> testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
> about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.

People can have one of two biases. The equipment will sound
the same, or that the equipment will sound different. DBT is
intended to deal with the second bias, but does not eliminate the first
bias.



----== 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
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> IOW nobody really needs to do a DBT unless they are considering
something
> >> really weird there's almost no chance that one preamp, amp, CD,DVD, or
> >> whatever should sound any different than another one, since it's
> >> trivially
> >> simple to accomplish flat response and inaudible distortion.
> >>
> > Mikey, the above is not a sentence. It is a run-on, a concatentation of
> > two
> > sentences.
> >
> >> Tuners are the only other area I can think of where there might be
> >> differences but those would have to
> >> with things like sensitivity and
> >> selectivity.
> > You have omitted "do" in the phrase "have to with things".
> > Hash is the stuff your brains are made of.
> >>
> >> The only reason any of this even gets discussed at all is because there
> > are
> >> a few people who for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge that DBT's
> >
> > "DBT's" is a possessive. Mikey, does "DBT" own anything? No? Then quit
> > crapping and start writing.
> >> are effective and refuse to admit that their ears can be fooled by
their
> > eyes.
> >>
> > An example of a confused, mushy thought. One's eyes do not fool. One's
> > interpretation of what one sees can be faulty.
> >
> An example of nitpicking the style, instead of the substance, where of
> course you always lose.
>
Omitted comma after "where". Confirmation of low IQ.

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Robert Morein wrote:
> > > > > > You're not a smart guy, Mikey. Big mouth, little brain. Low IQ.
> > > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't take that much brain power to make you look pathetic.
> > > > >
> > > > Mikey, go away. You do not belong here.
> > >
> > > You know Morein, You need to can the censorship crappola. I support
> > > your right to disagree but this campaign to drive McKelvey out is
> > > nothing short of fascism.
> > >
> > > You need to grow up and get over whatever he did to **** you off.
> > >
> > > ScottW
> > >
> > Scott, I grew up a long time ago.
> > My opinion is that Mikey is so mentally challenged, his posts consist
almost
> > entirely of bowdlerized text from the posts of others. Whatever else rao
is,
> > it is a place for individuals with adequate mental capacity,
>
> Who decides? You?
>
> This is a public place... you have no merit in deciding who has
> access.
>
> > which Mike
> > McKelvy does not have.
> > Conversely, if you wish to defend the right of the mentally challenged
to
> > post in this group, it is your right.
>
> This isn't ridicule as George is claiming. This is declaring someone
> doesn't have equal rights.
>
> Bigotry isn't protected by free speech.
>
> ScottW
>
Bring all the amphibians you want, and have them step up to the microphone.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad
is
> >> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> >> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> >> > brands, etc?
> >> >
> >> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> >> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
> >>
> >> Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting
> >> the
> >> research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
> >> should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such
vast
> >> differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should
tell
> >> you
> >> all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
> >> sighted
> >> listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
> >> that
> >> there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
> >
> > Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
> > testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
> > about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
>
> People can have one of two biases. The equipment will sound
> the same, or that the equipment will sound different. DBT is
> intended to deal with the second bias, but does not eliminate the first
> bias.
>
An intelligent observation. We belong to the same club.

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Bring all the amphibians you want, and have them step up to the
> microphone.


If usenet society had any conscience, you'd be the one run.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > " > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > [snip]
> > >>
> > >> IOW nobody really needs to do a DBT unless they are considering
> something
> > >> really weird there's almost no chance that one preamp, amp, CD,DVD, or
> > >> whatever should sound any different than another one, since it's
> > >> trivially
> > >> simple to accomplish flat response and inaudible distortion.
> > >>
> > > Mikey, the above is not a sentence. It is a run-on, a concatentation of
> > > two
> > > sentences.
> > >
> > >> Tuners are the only other area I can think of where there might be
> > >> differences but those would have to
> > >> with things like sensitivity and
> > >> selectivity.
> > > You have omitted "do" in the phrase "have to with things".
> > > Hash is the stuff your brains are made of.
> > >>
> > >> The only reason any of this even gets discussed at all is because there
> > > are
> > >> a few people who for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge that DBT's
> > >
> > > "DBT's" is a possessive. Mikey, does "DBT" own anything? No? Then quit
> > > crapping and start writing.
> > >> are effective and refuse to admit that their ears can be fooled by
> their
> > > eyes.
> > >>
> > > An example of a confused, mushy thought. One's eyes do not fool. One's
> > > interpretation of what one sees can be faulty.
> > >
> > An example of nitpicking the style, instead of the substance, where of
> > course you always lose.
> >
> Omitted comma after "where". Confirmation of low IQ.
>
>
Nitpicking on punctuation, a sure sign of panic. Maybe McCarty will
return to finish kicking your pathetic ass, eh?

[ScottW]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article et>,
>> " > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad
>>> > is
>>> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
>>> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
>>> > brands, etc?
>>> >
>>> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>>> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>>>
>>> Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting
>>> the
>>> research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
>>> should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such
>>> vast
>>> differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should tell
>>> you
>>> all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
>>> sighted
>>> listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
>>> that
>>> there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
>>
>> Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
>> testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
>> about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
>
> People can have one of two biases. The equipment will sound
> the same, or that the equipment will sound different. DBT is
> intended to deal with the second bias, but does not eliminate the first
> bias.

That's why the test is really meaningless unless people perceive difference
sighted first. If they're biased toward same they can easily throw the
test to get that outcome. Another reason these mass exhibition tests are
rather meaningless as well.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > " > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > [snip]
> > >>
> > >> IOW nobody really needs to do a DBT unless they are considering
> something
> > >> really weird there's almost no chance that one preamp, amp, CD,DVD, or
> > >> whatever should sound any different than another one, since it's
> > >> trivially
> > >> simple to accomplish flat response and inaudible distortion.
> > >>
> > > Mikey, the above is not a sentence. It is a run-on, a concatentation of
> > > two
> > > sentences.
> > >
> > >> Tuners are the only other area I can think of where there might be
> > >> differences but those would have to
> > >> with things like sensitivity and
> > >> selectivity.
> > > You have omitted "do" in the phrase "have to with things".
> > > Hash is the stuff your brains are made of.
> > >>
> > >> The only reason any of this even gets discussed at all is because there
> > > are
> > >> a few people who for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge that DBT's
> > >
> > > "DBT's" is a possessive. Mikey, does "DBT" own anything? No? Then quit
> > > crapping and start writing.
> > >> are effective and refuse to admit that their ears can be fooled by
> their
> > > eyes.
> > >>
> > > An example of a confused, mushy thought. One's eyes do not fool. One's
> > > interpretation of what one sees can be faulty.
> > >
> > An example of nitpicking the style, instead of the substance, where of
> > course you always lose.
> >
> Omitted comma after "where". Confirmation of low IQ.
>
>
Nitpicking on punctuation, a sure sign of panic. Maybe McCarty will
return to finish kicking your pathetic ass, eh?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > " > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > " > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > [snip]
> > > >>
> > > >> IOW nobody really needs to do a DBT unless they are considering
> > something
> > > >> really weird there's almost no chance that one preamp, amp, CD,DVD,
or
> > > >> whatever should sound any different than another one, since it's
> > > >> trivially
> > > >> simple to accomplish flat response and inaudible distortion.
> > > >>
> > > > Mikey, the above is not a sentence. It is a run-on, a concatentation
of
> > > > two
> > > > sentences.
> > > >
> > > >> Tuners are the only other area I can think of where there might be
> > > >> differences but those would have to
> > > >> with things like sensitivity and
> > > >> selectivity.
> > > > You have omitted "do" in the phrase "have to with things".
> > > > Hash is the stuff your brains are made of.
> > > >>
> > > >> The only reason any of this even gets discussed at all is because
there
> > > > are
> > > >> a few people who for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge that
DBT's
> > > >
> > > > "DBT's" is a possessive. Mikey, does "DBT" own anything? No? Then
quit
> > > > crapping and start writing.
> > > >> are effective and refuse to admit that their ears can be fooled by
> > their
> > > > eyes.
> > > >>
> > > > An example of a confused, mushy thought. One's eyes do not fool.
One's
> > > > interpretation of what one sees can be faulty.
> > > >
> > > An example of nitpicking the style, instead of the substance, where of
> > > course you always lose.
> > >
> > Omitted comma after "where". Confirmation of low IQ.
> >
> >
> Nitpicking on punctuation, a sure sign of panic. Maybe McCarty will
> return to finish kicking your pathetic ass, eh?
>
How, exactly, could he "finish" ? There is no end to these affairs.
I'm going to run a few more miles.
Perhaps "Michael Conzo" will materialize in the interim.
See you after the next couple laps.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> > > " > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > " > wrote in message
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> IOW nobody really needs to do a DBT unless they are considering
> > > something
> > > > >> really weird there's almost no chance that one preamp, amp, CD,DVD,
> or
> > > > >> whatever should sound any different than another one, since it's
> > > > >> trivially
> > > > >> simple to accomplish flat response and inaudible distortion.
> > > > >>
> > > > > Mikey, the above is not a sentence. It is a run-on, a concatentation
> of
> > > > > two
> > > > > sentences.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Tuners are the only other area I can think of where there might be
> > > > >> differences but those would have to
> > > > >> with things like sensitivity and
> > > > >> selectivity.
> > > > > You have omitted "do" in the phrase "have to with things".
> > > > > Hash is the stuff your brains are made of.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The only reason any of this even gets discussed at all is because
> there
> > > > > are
> > > > >> a few people who for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge that
> DBT's
> > > > >
> > > > > "DBT's" is a possessive. Mikey, does "DBT" own anything? No? Then
> quit
> > > > > crapping and start writing.
> > > > >> are effective and refuse to admit that their ears can be fooled by
> > > their
> > > > > eyes.
> > > > >>
> > > > > An example of a confused, mushy thought. One's eyes do not fool.
> One's
> > > > > interpretation of what one sees can be faulty.
> > > > >
> > > > An example of nitpicking the style, instead of the substance, where of
> > > > course you always lose.
> > > >
> > > Omitted comma after "where". Confirmation of low IQ.
> > >
> > >
> > Nitpicking on punctuation, a sure sign of panic. Maybe McCarty will
> > return to finish kicking your pathetic ass, eh?
> >
> How, exactly, could he "finish" ?
>
>
He got a good start on a big target, the rest is easy.
>
>
>There is no end to these affairs.
>
>
You hope.
>
>
> I'm going to run a few more miles.
>
>
In your dreams....enjoy the popcorn.
>
>
> Perhaps "Michael Conzo" will materialize in the interim.
>
>
Perhaps your dick will, too.
>
>
> See you after the next couple laps.
>
>
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:dAuRe.101150$Ep.50236@lakeread02...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article et>,
> >> " > wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>
...
> >>> > Hi all,
> >>> >
> >>> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad
> >>> > is
> >>> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we
might
> >>> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of
certain
> >>> > brands, etc?
> >>> >
> >>> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> >>> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
> >>>
> >>> Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them
affecting
> >>> the
> >>> research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted
bias
> >>> should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such
> >>> vast
> >>> differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should
tell
> >>> you
> >>> all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
> >>> sighted
> >>> listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
> >>> that
> >>> there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
> >>
> >> Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
> >> testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
> >> about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
> >
> > People can have one of two biases. The equipment will sound
> > the same, or that the equipment will sound different. DBT is
> > intended to deal with the second bias, but does not eliminate the first
> > bias.
>
> That's why the test is really meaningless unless people perceive
difference
> sighted first. If they're biased toward same they can easily throw the
> test to get that outcome. Another reason these mass exhibition tests are
> rather meaningless as well.
>
> ScottW
>
That is an excellent point.

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:gwuRe.101149$Ep.30472@lakeread02...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> > Bring all the amphibians you want, and have them step up to the
> > microphone.
>
>
> If usenet society had any conscience, you'd be the one run.
>
> ScottW
>
Do I hear a "rivit" ?

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:gwuRe.101149$Ep.30472@lakeread02...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> > Bring all the amphibians you want, and have them step up to the
>> > microphone.
>>
>>
>> If usenet society had any conscience, you'd be the one run.
>>
>> ScottW
>>
> Do I hear a "rivit" ?
>
Did you eat another fly?

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> > [snip]
>> >>
>> >> IOW nobody really needs to do a DBT unless they are considering
> something
>> >> really weird there's almost no chance that one preamp, amp, CD,DVD, or
>> >> whatever should sound any different than another one, since it's
>> >> trivially
>> >> simple to accomplish flat response and inaudible distortion.
>> >>
>> > Mikey, the above is not a sentence. It is a run-on, a concatentation of
>> > two
>> > sentences.
>> >
>> >> Tuners are the only other area I can think of where there might be
>> >> differences but those would have to
>> >> with things like sensitivity and
>> >> selectivity.
>> > You have omitted "do" in the phrase "have to with things".
>> > Hash is the stuff your brains are made of.
>> >>
>> >> The only reason any of this even gets discussed at all is because
>> >> there
>> > are
>> >> a few people who for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge that DBT's
>> >
>> > "DBT's" is a possessive. Mikey, does "DBT" own anything? No? Then quit
>> > crapping and start writing.
>> >> are effective and refuse to admit that their ears can be fooled by
> their
>> > eyes.
>> >>
>> > An example of a confused, mushy thought. One's eyes do not fool. One's
>> > interpretation of what one sees can be faulty.
>> >
>> An example of nitpicking the style, instead of the substance, where of
>> course you always lose.
>>
> Omitted comma after "where". Confirmation of low IQ.
>
Persistent nitpicking over trivia. Confirmation of low self esteem.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article et>,
>> " > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad
>>> > is
>>> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
>>> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
>>> > brands, etc?
>>> >
>>> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>>> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>>>
>>> Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting
>>> the
>>> research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
>>> should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such
>>> vast
>>> differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should tell
>>> you
>>> all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
>>> sighted
>>> listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
>>> that
>>> there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
>>
>> Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
>> testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
>> about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
>
> People can have one of two biases. The equipment will sound
> the same, or that the equipment will sound different. DBT is
> intended to deal with the second bias, but does not eliminate the first
> bias.
>
>
The first "bias" is just objective reality, since most equipment does sound
the same, except when designed otherwise.

[[email protected]]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:dAuRe.101150$Ep.50236@lakeread02...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article et>,
>>> " > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > Hi all,
>>>> >
>>>> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad
>>>> > is
>>>> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
>>>> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
>>>> > brands, etc?
>>>> >
>>>> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>>>> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>>>>
>>>> Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting
>>>> the
>>>> research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
>>>> should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such
>>>> vast
>>>> differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should
>>>> tell you
>>>> all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
>>>> sighted
>>>> listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
>>>> that
>>>> there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
>>> testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
>>> about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
>>
>> People can have one of two biases. The equipment will sound
>> the same, or that the equipment will sound different. DBT is
>> intended to deal with the second bias, but does not eliminate the first
>> bias.
>
> That's why the test is really meaningless unless people perceive
> difference
> sighted first. If they're biased toward same they can easily throw the
> test to get that outcome. Another reason these mass exhibition tests are
> rather meaningless as well.
>
If one didn't beleive or perceive a differnce there would be no reason to
bother with a DBT. Doesn't change the fact that most gear sounds the same.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
[snip]
> >
> Persistent nitpicking over trivia. Confirmation of low self esteem.
>
Good work, Mikey. I detect no spelling errors in the above. However, they
are still sentence fragments. Have you considered taking a few remedial
courses? Such courses are available to high school graduates as additional
college preparation.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article et>,
>>> " > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > Hi all,
>>>> >
>>>> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad
>>>> > is
>>>> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
>>>> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
>>>> > brands, etc?
>>>> >
>>>> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>>>> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>>>>
>>>> Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting
>>>> the
>>>> research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
>>>> should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such
>>>> vast
>>>> differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should
>>>> tell you
>>>> all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
>>>> sighted
>>>> listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
>>>> that
>>>> there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
>>> testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
>>> about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
>>
>> People can have one of two biases. The equipment will sound
>> the same, or that the equipment will sound different. DBT is
>> intended to deal with the second bias, but does not eliminate the first
>> bias.
>>
>>
> The first "bias" is just objective reality, since most equipment does
> sound the same, except when designed otherwise.

You are so dense and so lacking in self awareness.
Your position is anti-scientific.



----== 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
ink.net...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:dAuRe.101150$Ep.50236@lakeread02...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article et>,
>>>> " > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad
>>>>> > is
>>>>> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we
>>>>> > might
>>>>> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of
>>>>> > certain
>>>>> > brands, etc?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>>>>> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them
>>>>> affecting the
>>>>> research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted
>>>>> bias
>>>>> should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such
>>>>> vast
>>>>> differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should
>>>>> tell you
>>>>> all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
>>>>> sighted
>>>>> listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
>>>>> that
>>>>> there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
>>>> testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
>>>> about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
>>>
>>> People can have one of two biases. The equipment will sound
>>> the same, or that the equipment will sound different. DBT is
>>> intended to deal with the second bias, but does not eliminate the first
>>> bias.
>>
>> That's why the test is really meaningless unless people perceive
>> difference
>> sighted first. If they're biased toward same they can easily throw the
>> test to get that outcome. Another reason these mass exhibition tests
>> are
>> rather meaningless as well.
>>
> If one didn't beleive or perceive a differnce there would be no reason to
> bother with a DBT. Doesn't change the fact that most gear sounds the
> same.

To a degree, the frst part of waht you say is correct. There is no point in
testing an incapable person.



----== 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 =----

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :

> You are so dense and so lacking in self awareness.
> Your position is anti-scientific.

That's true and most of the time you share his KamaSutra.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>
>> You are so dense and so lacking in self awareness.
>> Your position is anti-scientific.
>
> That's true and most of the time you share his KamaSutra.

Sorry, I don't eat cheese.



----== 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 =----

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
> [snip]
>> >
>> Persistent nitpicking over trivia. Confirmation of low self esteem.
>>
> Good work, Mikey. I detect no spelling errors in the above. However, they
> are still sentence fragments. Have you considered taking a few remedial
> courses? Such courses are available to high school graduates as additional
> college preparation.
>
Have you considered getting a life?

Where can I mail you some money to call somebody who gives a ****?

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article et>,
>>>> " > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad
>>>>> > is
>>>>> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we
>>>>> > might
>>>>> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of
>>>>> > certain
>>>>> > brands, etc?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>>>>> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them
>>>>> affecting the
>>>>> research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted
>>>>> bias
>>>>> should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such
>>>>> vast
>>>>> differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should
>>>>> tell you
>>>>> all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
>>>>> sighted
>>>>> listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
>>>>> that
>>>>> there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
>>>> testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
>>>> about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
>>>
>>> People can have one of two biases. The equipment will sound
>>> the same, or that the equipment will sound different. DBT is
>>> intended to deal with the second bias, but does not eliminate the first
>>> bias.
>>>
>>>
>> The first "bias" is just objective reality, since most equipment does
>> sound the same, except when designed otherwise.
>
> You are so dense and so lacking in self awareness.
> Your position is anti-scientific.
>
>
My position is backed up by reliable evidence.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> >> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> >> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> >> > brands, etc?
> >> >
> >> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> >> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
> >>
> >> Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting
> >> the
> >> research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
> >> should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such vast
> >> differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should tell
> >> you
> >> all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
> >> sighted
> >> listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
> >> that
> >> there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
> >
> > Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
> > testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
> > about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
>
> People can have one of two biases. The equipment will sound
> the same, or that the equipment will sound different. DBT is
> intended to deal with the second bias, but does not eliminate the first
> bias.

That makes sense.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > People can have one of two biases. The equipment will sound
> > the same, or that the equipment will sound different. DBT is
> > intended to deal with the second bias, but does not eliminate the first
> > bias.
>
> That makes sense.

Some of Them have said that "of course" they will report differences
because they are "scientists". If you then ask whether Their most august
exponent, one H. Ferstler, is included, you will encounter hurricane-level
blasts of the "debating trade".

[ScottW]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>> That's why the test is really meaningless unless people perceive
>> difference
>> sighted first. If they're biased toward same they can easily throw the
>> test to get that outcome. Another reason these mass exhibition tests
>> are
>> rather meaningless as well.
>>
> If one didn't beleive or perceive a differnce there would be no reason to
> bother with a DBT. Doesn't change the fact that most gear sounds the
> same.


Come on... that is just such a dumbass blanket statement. None of my
5 pairs of speakers sound the same. My Mirage speakers I use
as rears sound quite different from each other with noise and they
should be identical... some day I'll look into that but I can't tell
with movie material so it isn't making my priority list.
I've got a couple CD players that don't sound alike...that'd be an
interesting ABX test if I cared... I've got a couple of amps that sound
the same... my cd and dvd don't sound alike, that would be an interesting
ABX as well.

Anyway... you just can't keep making blanket statements.
They're always wrong :).

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article <HYQRe.103825$Ep.20087@lakeread02>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >> That's why the test is really meaningless unless people perceive
> >> difference
> >> sighted first. If they're biased toward same they can easily throw the
> >> test to get that outcome. Another reason these mass exhibition tests
> >> are
> >> rather meaningless as well.
> >>
> > If one didn't beleive or perceive a differnce there would be no reason to
> > bother with a DBT. Doesn't change the fact that most gear sounds the
> > same.
>
>
> Come on... that is just such a dumbass blanket statement. None of my
> 5 pairs of speakers sound the same. My Mirage speakers I use
> as rears sound quite different from each other with noise and they
> should be identical... some day I'll look into that but I can't tell
> with movie material so it isn't making my priority list.
> I've got a couple CD players that don't sound alike...that'd be an
> interesting ABX test if I cared... I've got a couple of amps that sound
> the same... my cd and dvd don't sound alike, that would be an interesting
> ABX as well.
>
> Anyway... you just can't keep making blanket statements.
> They're always wrong :).
>
> ScottW

You mean we don't get "French benefits"?? :-)

[[email protected]]

To Jenn: Sept 1

Biases are brains-all different . In medical therapy trials
approx 30 to 40% respond to placebo. Not everybody.
Sighted bias is not the only bias. In fact we are all a
bundle of biases starting with our innate DNA, our education, exposure
to various types of music etc. etc. And our bundles are as different as
our fingerprints. But fingerprints can be seen, biases are out of
reach. Anyone who thinks that in audio a magic box with a switch cures
biases promises the unattainable.
My bias happens to be antiauthoritarian. Any time I hear
a pompous authority laying down the law I rebel. And sometimes my
biases take me to a blind alley - just like theirs take everyone else.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:HYQRe.103825$Ep.20087@lakeread02...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>> That's why the test is really meaningless unless people perceive
>>> difference
>>> sighted first. If they're biased toward same they can easily throw the
>>> test to get that outcome. Another reason these mass exhibition tests
>>> are
>>> rather meaningless as well.
>>>
>> If one didn't beleive or perceive a differnce there would be no reason to
>> bother with a DBT. Doesn't change the fact that most gear sounds the
>> same.
>
>
> Come on... that is just such a dumbass blanket statement.

I can only judge by what I've heard and read. The few simple DBTs I've done
showed no difference, and that was at it should be, since I was comapring CD
players and speaker wire.

Equipment that measures closely enough to other like equipment seems to
always sound alike.

None of my
> 5 pairs of speakers sound the same.

Which is the reason DBTs are not generally used for speakers, the
differences are not subtle.

My Mirage speakers I use
> as rears sound quite different from each other with noise and they
> should be identical... some day I'll look into that but I can't tell
> with movie material so it isn't making my priority list.

I certainly would check out 2 idnetical speakers not sounding alike.

> I've got a couple CD players that don't sound alike...that'd be an
> interesting ABX test if I cared...

Since if true, one of them is either a very bad design or broken.

I've got a couple of amps that sound
> the same... my cd and dvd don't sound alike, that would be an interesting
> ABX as well.
>
Since if true one of them is badly designed or broken.

> Anyway... you just can't keep making blanket statements.
> They're always wrong :).
>
DBTs are about usually about subtle difference detection, since most
differences (excepting speakers) are just that, subtle.

When you have information that tells you the measured performance of a given
component is flat enought that there shouod be no audible differences, yet
you believe you hear one, that's the time where a DBT would be useful. Most
likely, you would find no difference, unless the measured performance was
not honest and correct.

[ScottW]

wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:HYQRe.103825$Ep.20087@lakeread02...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>> That's why the test is really meaningless unless people perceive
> >>> difference
> >>> sighted first. If they're biased toward same they can easily throw the
> >>> test to get that outcome. Another reason these mass exhibition tests
> >>> are
> >>> rather meaningless as well.
> >>>
> >> If one didn't beleive or perceive a differnce there would be no reason to
> >> bother with a DBT. Doesn't change the fact that most gear sounds the
> >> same.
> >
> >
> > Come on... that is just such a dumbass blanket statement.
>
> I can only judge by what I've heard and read. The few simple DBTs I've done
> showed no difference, and that was at it should be, since I was comapring CD
> players and speaker wire.

That's hardly covers "all equipment" not does it?

Did you think your CD players and wires sounded different sighted?

>
> Equipment that measures closely enough to other like equipment seems to
> always sound alike.

Not arguing with that... but what is closely enough? I've never seen
a spec that says, "Heres the parameter set and allowable differences
that guarantees no audible difference". Do you have one?


>
> None of my
> > 5 pairs of speakers sound the same.
>
> Which is the reason DBTs are not generally used for speakers, the
> differences are not subtle.
>
> My Mirage speakers I use
> > as rears sound quite different from each other with noise and they
> > should be identical... some day I'll look into that but I can't tell
> > with movie material so it isn't making my priority list.
>
> I certainly would check out 2 idnetical speakers not sounding alike.

Like I said its with noise and they're only rear channels. Might just
be the room. I thought the same thing on my Legacy's (not quite as
bad) and switched right for left and it was the room in that case.
>
> > I've got a couple CD players that don't sound alike...that'd be an
> > interesting ABX test if I cared...
>
> Since if true, one of them is either a very bad design or broken.

People who have heard them picked the cheap one :).

>
> I've got a couple of amps that sound
> > the same... my cd and dvd don't sound alike, that would be an interesting
> > ABX as well.
> >
> Since if true one of them is badly designed or broken.

AMC CD9 and a 3 year old Panasonic...Model number eludes me. It was
one of their expensive models that does prog video and DVD-A with
builtin decoders.
>
> > Anyway... you just can't keep making blanket statements.
> > They're always wrong :).
> >
> DBTs are about usually about subtle difference detection, since most
> differences (excepting speakers) are just that, subtle.

Subtlety is subjective.

>
> When you have information that tells you the measured performance of a given
> component is flat enought
>that there shouod be no audible differences, yet
> you believe you hear one, that's the time where a DBT would be useful. Most
> likely, you would find no difference, unless the measured performance was
> not honest and correct.

This is quite conflicting with your own original blanket statement.

ScottW

[Sander deWaal]

"ScottW" > said:

>> I certainly would check out 2 idnetical speakers not sounding alike.

> Like I said its with noise and they're only rear channels. Might just
>be the room. I thought the same thing on my Legacy's (not quite as
>bad) and switched right for left and it was the room in that case.



Didn't you report a similar situation with your Quads, back then?


> AMC CD9 and a 3 year old Panasonic...Model number eludes me. It was
>one of their expensive models that does prog video and DVD-A with
>builtin decoders.


What became of the Arcam RingDAC player? :-)

PS.: I *do* have the "right" Scott W. in mind, I hope?
If not, just ignore my post.

--

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

[ScottW]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> "ScottW" > said:
>
> >> I certainly would check out 2 idnetical speakers not sounding alike.
>
> > Like I said its with noise and they're only rear channels. Might just
> >be the room. I thought the same thing on my Legacy's (not quite as
> >bad) and switched right for left and it was the room in that case.
>
>
>
> Didn't you report a similar situation with your Quads, back then?

Yeah, the ceiling height differs dramatically from one side to the
other causing sound stage shift.
Same on the Mirage rears but the noise generator used to balance the
channels has a difference in tonal quality much more than the fronts
which have the same ceiling issue.

>
>
> > AMC CD9 and a 3 year old Panasonic...Model number eludes me. It was
> >one of their expensive models that does prog video and DVD-A with
> >builtin decoders.
>
>
> What became of the Arcam RingDAC player? :-)

It's in the pool room with my Advents and Yamaha M-50 which has
builtin attenuators so I can feed the amp direct (no external passive
required).
Wife likes that system better than my other one. Not as many wires :).
I haven't listened to CDs on my main stereo in awhile now. The AMC is
pretty idle.

>
> PS.: I *do* have the "right" Scott W. in mind, I hope?

I'm the only ScottW I know :).

ScottW

[[email protected]]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:HYQRe.103825$Ep.20087@lakeread02...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>> That's why the test is really meaningless unless people perceive
>> >>> difference
>> >>> sighted first. If they're biased toward same they can easily throw
>> >>> the
>> >>> test to get that outcome. Another reason these mass exhibition
>> >>> tests
>> >>> are
>> >>> rather meaningless as well.
>> >>>
>> >> If one didn't beleive or perceive a differnce there would be no reason
>> >> to
>> >> bother with a DBT. Doesn't change the fact that most gear sounds the
>> >> same.
>> >
>> >
>> > Come on... that is just such a dumbass blanket statement.
>>
>> I can only judge by what I've heard and read. The few simple DBTs I've
>> done
>> showed no difference, and that was at it should be, since I was comapring
>> CD
>> players and speaker wire.
>
> That's hardly covers "all equipment" not does it?
>
> Did you think your CD players and wires sounded different sighted?
>
>>
>> Equipment that measures closely enough to other like equipment seems to
>> always sound alike.
>
> Not arguing with that... but what is closely enough? I've never seen
> a spec that says, "Heres the parameter set and allowable differences
> that guarantees no audible difference". Do you have one?
>
>
>>
>> None of my
>> > 5 pairs of speakers sound the same.
>>
>> Which is the reason DBTs are not generally used for speakers, the
>> differences are not subtle.
>>
>> My Mirage speakers I use
>> > as rears sound quite different from each other with noise and they
>> > should be identical... some day I'll look into that but I can't tell
>> > with movie material so it isn't making my priority list.
>>
>> I certainly would check out 2 idnetical speakers not sounding alike.
>
> Like I said its with noise and they're only rear channels. Might just
> be the room. I thought the same thing on my Legacy's (not quite as
> bad) and switched right for left and it was the room in that case.
>>
>> > I've got a couple CD players that don't sound alike...that'd be an
>> > interesting ABX test if I cared...
>>
>> Since if true, one of them is either a very bad design or broken.
>
> People who have heard them picked the cheap one :).
>
But if done sighted, it's not really conclusive, particularly without
measurements that wouold lead one to believe that such a difference might be
possible. I do recall Arny mentioning that some CD players have an audible
differnce but I forget the reasons for it, perhaps if you ask
nicely.........................
>>
>> I've got a couple of amps that sound
>> > the same... my cd and dvd don't sound alike, that would be an
>> > interesting
>> > ABX as well.
>> >
>> Since if true one of them is badly designed or broken.
>
> AMC CD9 and a 3 year old Panasonic...Model number eludes me. It was
> one of their expensive models that does prog video and DVD-A with
> builtin decoders.
>>
>> > Anyway... you just can't keep making blanket statements.
>> > They're always wrong :).
>> >
>> DBTs are about usually about subtle difference detection, since most
>> differences (excepting speakers) are just that, subtle.
>
> Subtlety is subjective.

I assumed you knew the difference between gross differences that speakers
tend to have and that virtually all other gear would be more subtle and
require a more sensitive kind of comparison to detect. My bad. :-)
>
>>
>> When you have information that tells you the measured performance of a
>> given
>> component is flat enought
>>that there should be no audible differences, yet
>> you believe you hear one, that's the time where a DBT would be useful.
>> Most
>> likely, you would find no difference, unless the measured performance was
>> not honest and correct.
>
> This is quite conflicting with your own original blanket statement.
>
It's a clairifcation and one of the possible scenarios. Other uses have
been previously discussed. I didn't think it needed that much explanation,
since we've been covering this ground on RAO for 10 years that I know of.

[[email protected]]

NYOB says on Sept.1:
Equipment that measures closely enough to other like equipment seems to

always sound alike. "
And on Sept 2:
"I assumed you knew the difference between gross differences that
speakers
tend to have and that virtually all other gear would be more subtle and

require a more sensitive kind of comparison to detect.
I'm glad you say "seems". Would you consider expanding it to
"seems to me"? And "subtle" to "what seems subtle to me"
For instance is there a chance, a mere possibility, that Jenn who
started this thread and who I understand is a conductor could tell a
difference between two cellos that might seem to sound quite alike to
you? And that she would not call that difference "subtle"? And is
there a chance that even she may have some difficulty substantiating
her experiences when trying to memorise cello A playing Bach, then
cello B and then being asked if cello X sounded more like A or more
like B and repeating this feat 15 or more times. Is there a possibility
that even you might get a bit uncertain and end up marking your exam
paper randomly getting 50% correct guesses in the end?.

On Sept. 2 you clarified:
"Which is the reason DBTs are not generally used for speakers, the
differences are not subtle".

Would you care to define "generally"?. I have in front of me an
article by Sean E. Olive called: "Differences in performance and
preference of trained versus untrained listeners in loudspeakers
tests... ( J.A.E.S., vol. 51, Nr.9, 2003 Sept.) He and Floyd Toole went
to Harmon Kardon from their audio research lab. at Ottawa Univ. where,
JAES editor says, they "worked on research related to subjective and
objective testing of loudspeakers and microphones". In California
he's been AES Fellow and past AES governor.
I have 8 reprints of 8 pa[ers papers, sent to me by S. Olive, written
by himself and/or with F.Toole. They all ARE about loudspeaker
testing One of these papers has 36 references to other loudspeaker
researchers.
The paper quoted above relates comparison by DBT of four
prestigious loudspeakers (priced from $ 5000 to 11.000) There were 268
listeners.
The mean performance scores VARIED FROM 32.35 TO 857.04. (P.819).
Young audio student group performed at the bottom when identifying the
speakers, trained H-K personnel did best
But, lo and behold, when the panel members were not bothered with
trying to guess which speaker was which but simply asked for their
preference (Sean Olive used music not pink noises) there was near
uniformity between groups in preference for the smoothest, full
frequency range speakers.
So much for:
Myth Nr. 1. Loudspeakers are not worth DBTiing because differences sre
too obvious
Myth Nr. 2 DBT makes recognition of "subtle' differences easier.
Myth Nr. 3. You must be able to differentiate by ABX/DBT before you can
prefer.
On the contrary it would appear that DBT is a barrier to recognition of
difference.
It is of some significance that no one, and least of all you, has been
able to point to ONE SINGLE properly conducted DBT/ABX test which
resulted in recognition of differences between anything and anything
else in audio.
You had said at different times that you know of too many, that you did
not want to upset me, that "science", delegated you to tell us that
it's "a done case" *but you refused to give one single REFERENCE
to a published report.
I give you one guess as to what we'd hear from the RAO
insect life if I used such evasions.
For proper checkable reference see my reference above to S.Olive
article Bla blaing about what "audio industry, cell phones and
hearing aid manufacturers" are supposed to be doing is not reference.
It is a gossipy anecdote.
I can assure any reader that one glance by an editor of any half-
respectable medical journal at such gossiping about "industry" etc.
would swiftly dispatch it to the waste-paper basket. For the last 50
years patients have been protected from such quackery and can thank
heaven for that
Usenet is another matter as anyone who gets email spam for breakfast
knows.
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
ups.com...

Why in this debate does it seem more a competition of who
can distort more rather than reveal?


> NYOB says on Sept.1:
> Equipment that measures closely enough to other like equipment seems to
>
> always sound alike. "
> And on Sept 2:
> "I assumed you knew the difference between gross differences that
> speakers
> tend to have and that virtually all other gear would be more subtle and
>
> require a more sensitive kind of comparison to detect.
> I'm glad you say "seems". Would you consider expanding it to
> "seems to me"? And "subtle" to "what seems subtle to me"
> For instance is there a chance, a mere possibility, that Jenn who
> started this thread and who I understand is a conductor could tell a
> difference between two cellos that might seem to sound quite alike to
> you? And that she would not call that difference "subtle"? And is
> there a chance that even she may have some difficulty substantiating
> her experiences when trying to memorise cello A playing Bach, then
> cello B and then being asked if cello X sounded more like A or more
> like B and repeating this feat 15 or more times. Is there a possibility
> that even you might get a bit uncertain and end up marking your exam
> paper randomly getting 50% correct guesses in the end?.
>
> On Sept. 2 you clarified:
> "Which is the reason DBTs are not generally used for speakers, the
> differences are not subtle".
>
> Would you care to define "generally"?. I have in front of me an
> article by Sean E. Olive called: "Differences in performance and
> preference of trained versus untrained listeners in loudspeakers
> tests... ( J.A.E.S., vol. 51, Nr.9, 2003 Sept.) He and Floyd Toole went
> to Harmon Kardon from their audio research lab. at Ottawa Univ. where,
> JAES editor says, they "worked on research related to subjective and
> objective testing of loudspeakers and microphones". In California
> he's been AES Fellow and past AES governor.
> I have 8 reprints of 8 pa[ers papers, sent to me by S. Olive, written
> by himself and/or with F.Toole. They all ARE about loudspeaker
> testing One of these papers has 36 references to other loudspeaker
> researchers.
> The paper quoted above relates comparison by DBT of four
> prestigious loudspeakers (priced from $ 5000 to 11.000) There were 268
> listeners.
> The mean performance scores VARIED FROM 32.35 TO 857.04. (P.819).
> Young audio student group performed at the bottom when identifying the
> speakers, trained H-K personnel did best
> But, lo and behold, when the panel members were not bothered with
> trying to guess which speaker was which but simply asked for their
> preference (Sean Olive used music not pink noises) there was near
> uniformity between groups in preference for the smoothest, full
> frequency range speakers.
> So much for:
> Myth Nr. 1. Loudspeakers are not worth DBTiing because differences sre
> too obvious
> Myth Nr. 2 DBT makes recognition of "subtle' differences easier.

Never heard that one. What I have heard is that rapid switching
can make differentiation easier.


> Myth Nr. 3. You must be able to differentiate by ABX/DBT before you can
> prefer.

But you didn't say they could not differentiate. You said they could not
identify.
Once again I don't have the papers to reference.. so I must go on your
words.
But identification is a much more difficult task than differentiation.

> On the contrary it would appear that DBT is a barrier to recognition of
> difference.

A strawman argument with no proof AFAICT.

> It is of some significance that no one, and least of all you, has been
> able to point to ONE SINGLE properly conducted DBT/ABX test which
> resulted in recognition of differences between anything and anything
> else in audio.

Here's two. What's wrong with them?
http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm

Why Mike ignores them is beyond me... since Arny is above reproach in his
eyes.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW says:(Sept4):

Quotes me:
Myth Nr. 1. Loudspeakers are not worth DBTiing because differences are
too obvious
And answers:
" Never heard that one. What I have heard is that rapid switching can
make differentiation easier.
Why in this debate does it seem more a competition of who
can distort more rather than reveal?"

"Distort" is next door to "deliberately falsify". Even
though it comes from the same stable as your previous lightly tossed
"Bull****" to me it is a serious accusation, to be justified only
by serious evidence.
So let's see: -
It would appear that not only you can not find one public
library in a city with some million+ inhabitants but you can not even
read a message just above yours:
Arny Krueger quotes:
>That indeed there ARE differences,
> but what you came up with simply didn't serve to
> demonstrate them?
And answers:
"Yes.
However, thus far no known legitimate subjective testing
procedure is known to be more sensitive than ABX.
There are other blind and semi-blind procedures, but they
produce similar or less-sensitive results"
This statement was duplicated a hundred times on the usenet by all the
usual suspects.
If next you try to play with individual wording rather than sense
you're welcome..
It turns out you do:
You quote me:
> Myth Nr. 3. You must be able to differentiate by ABX/DBT before you can
> prefer.
You answer:
"But you didn't say they could not differentiate. You said they
could not identify.
Once again I don't have the papers to reference.. so I must go on your
words.
But identification is a much more difficult task than
differentiation."
Good Lord what nit will you pick next? The task in all the reported
ABX tests was to tell component A from component B.
Whenever any body said that they preferred this wire, cdplayer,
dac,preamp or amp to the other the chorus would sing: "You have first
to prove by DBT/ABX that you can "tell one from the other" or,
"differentiate",or "identify",or "reveal subtle
differences", or what have you.
Are you a lawyer by any chance?
I said:
> On the contrary it would appear that DBT is a barrier to >recognition of difference.
You answer:
"A strawman argument with no proof AFAICT".

I can't disprove that the little green men don't travel in UFOs.
I can only question the evidence in favour.
1)The fact that you are the 12th.
person to bring up in desperation this decades old worthless (see
below) pc/abx website, as the only "evidence" you could find at the
bottom of the garbage pile, makes it likely that ABX IS a barrier to
identification of differences
2) the fact that ALL the mag. published ( see below about web
"publication") component comparisons ended negative makes it
likely...etc.
3) The fact that most of S. Olive's loudspeaker panelists could not
differentiate or identify -take your pick-, but preferred those with
the best frequency measurements makes it likely... etc.
I said:
> It is of some significance that no one, and least of all you, >has been able to point to >ONE SINGLE properly conducted >DBT/ABX test which resulted in recognition of differences between anything and anything else in audio.
Your riposte:
Here's two. What's wrong with them?
http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
"Here is" ONE not TWO. But no matter. Mike was just as fact-starved
as you are and was the 11th. to bring it up on August 25 I discussed it
in this very thread and no more was heard about in subsequent exchange.
It seems that not only you can't find your way to public library
and/or research your topic in Google but you can't even read what's
literally in front of your nose.
This is what I said to Nousaine, when he raised the same topic in 2001
(Still available in Google for me and you too if you bestir yourself
just a little bit)
To Nousaine 26.11.01 RAHE "Here it is- Sota...."
"I did not expect to see the reference to this venerable, private
website ever again. Especially not coming from a respected audio
professional.
Well, let's see:

Statistically valid number of panelists? They had at random sometimes
one (yes one!) sometimes three,four or more sometimes number not
listed.

Unselected, untrained panelists as in real life? Well if Carlstrom,
Greenhill, Krueger and you Mr. Nousaine are "untrained" who is trained?

Statistically validable protocol? eg. how many tries, how many
repeats, confidence levels?
Sometimes reported, sometimes not.

Comparable high end components?
Well, let's see.the opening page the
amplifiers. There were three "positives' (and seven "negatives").
Positives first:
A) 7 watt home wired Heathkit and a home made 10watt amp vs. 400 watt
(yes, 400 this is not a typo!) Dynaco.
This specialist panel CAN hear
the difference (loud applause from the gallery!!!)
B) Paoli 60M (?watts/channel?) ditto.
C) Unstable, buzzing ARC vs CM Labs. amp. All (?) three panelists
hear the buzz and report it as "difference"

The six "no difference" comparisons were between amps roughly
comparable power wise though not in design, component quality etc.
Needless to say they all "sounded the same"
But the panel failed to hear the difference
between a 20 watt/ch. Swartz amp and 400 wat Dynaco. (Yes, they did not
hear it!!!)
Quaintly Mr.Carlstrom comments that this proves that all amps. sound
the same.
Even if they * measure* (yes, measure!) very
differently? My alternative explanation: ABX fries more brains than
just mine. and the "measurements" are the objectivists' holy Grail only
when convenient" .
End of quote.
Do you know why this "research" appeared on the web and stayed
there for you to quote as your only "evidence"?
Because it would not make even a consumer mag. like "Stereo
Review", let alone a proper peer reviewed respectable Journal like
JAES?
Can I once more suggest, in all kindness, that you learn the basics of
research.
Especially so before accusing others of "distorting".
Unless, of course, you're writing just to see yourself in print.
You say about your precious find: (note the plural "them" for one
web address.)
"Why Mike ignores them is beyond me.. since Arny is above reproach in
his eyes".
No he did not. You just have to learn to pay attention before wasting
everybody's time Mr. ScottW
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

I gave mistaken reference to my exchange with Mr. McKelvy about
the pc/abx site.
It was in the "Stereophile not a shred of integrity" on Aug. 26 in
messages 176 200.
Mea culpa L.M.

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> ScottW says:(Sept4):
> Ludovic Mirabel
does his Brad Pitt impersonation in 12 Monkeys.

Sorry I don't have time for deciphering that mess.
There seem to be 2 subjectivist camps.
One that points to an ABX test of 16 vs 24 AWG wire
as evidence of positive difference.
And another that insists tests have never been positive thus
proving the protocol is faulty.

Which camp were you in?

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW says:
Ludovic Mirabel
does his Brad Pitt impersonation in 12 Monkeys.
Sorry I don't have time for deciphering that mess.
There seem to be 2 subjectivist camps.
One that points to an ABX test of 16 vs 24 AWG wire
as evidence of positive difference.
And another that insists tests have never been positive thus
proving the protocol is faulty.
Which camp were you in?
ScottW

Dear Mr. ScottW
You do know how to hurt one. I confess I have no clue who Brad Pitt
and his twelve monkeys are bur I'm guessing that you concealed one of
your pointed, witty barbs somewhere in there. Do these Pitts have
something to do with audio that I should have known about.?
You say hat you "do not have time" Surely it does not mean that
you'll cut your fun-filled postings from three to two per day.
Please, do not keep your admirers waiting too long for their daily dose
of your wit and wisdom.
Keep digging up your amazing discoveries about the "two
subjectivist camps", and about the enormous difference between
*distinguishing* snippet A from snippet B and *identifying* snippets A
and B. And above all - lest the world forgets- keep requoting more
*evidence* like that 30 years old web posting about successful
recognition that 400 watt Dynaco sounds different from 8 watt Heathkit
..Even while ABXing!!!. .There is no one else left out there quite like
you.. ..
Ludovic Mirabel

[Steven Sullivan]

Jenn > wrote:
> Hi all,

> Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> brands, etc?

> If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?

Only if you believe it's necessary to
recreate the last 50-100 years of psychoacoustic research.

If teh scientific work indicates that 'we all' bring such biases to any comparison
-- the most fundamental being the expectation of hearing difference when
you 'know' the two things are different in other ways --
then it shoudl be necessary to prove that the listener
*doesn't* hold such biases.




--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

Robert Morein > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> > brands, etc?
> >
> > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?

> Yes, Jenn.

No, if it is the case that we all bring psychological biases to the listening
experiences -- which it is -- then it is incumbent upon someone claiming
they *do not*, to prove it.

The case *for* the operation of psychological biases in all evaluations
may be perused by consulting standard psychological texts. One might
also ponder the fact that all scientific work requires the use of
controls to account for such biases.

Jenn is encouraged to learn more about psychology in general and
psychouacoustic research in particular, if she is still in doubt.


--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

Jenn > wrote:
> In article et>,
> " > wrote:

> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> > > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> > > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> > > brands, etc?
> > >
> > > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> > > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
> >
> > Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting the
> > research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
> > should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such vast
> > differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should tell you
> > all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in sighted
> > listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told that
> > there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.

> Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
> testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
> about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.

What makes you think that anyone is immune to psychological bias?

If that were true, science, for one , woudl be immensely easier to do.

--

-S

[ScottW]

wrote:
> ScottW says:
> Ludovic Mirabel
> does his Brad Pitt impersonation in 12 Monkeys.
> Sorry I don't have time for deciphering that mess.
> There seem to be 2 subjectivist camps.
> One that points to an ABX test of 16 vs 24 AWG wire
> as evidence of positive difference.
> And another that insists tests have never been positive thus
> proving the protocol is faulty.
> Which camp were you in?
> ScottW

Note: Ludo has failed to recognize nor reconcile his own hypocrisy in
that he has recently offered both of the above conflicting positions.

>
> Dear Mr. ScottW
> You do know how to hurt one. I confess I have no clue who Brad Pitt
> and his twelve monkeys are bur I'm guessing that you concealed one of
> your pointed, witty barbs somewhere in there. Do these Pitts have
> something to do with audio that I should have known about.?
> You say hat you "do not have time" Surely it does not mean that
> you'll cut your fun-filled postings from three to two per day.
> Please, do not keep your admirers waiting too long for their daily dose
> of your wit and wisdom.
> Keep digging up your amazing discoveries about the "two
> subjectivist camps", and about the enormous difference between
> *distinguishing* snippet A from snippet B and *identifying* snippets A
> and B. And above all - lest the world forgets- keep requoting more
> *evidence* like that 30 years old web posting about successful
> recognition that 400 watt Dynaco sounds different from 8 watt Heathkit
> .Even while ABXing!!!. .There is no one else left out there quite like
> you.. ..

Don't insult people, surely I'm not the only sane person left on RAO.

You're blanket statements are as full of exceptions as Mikes and the
rest of your prose is just spin.

ScottW

[George Middius]

SillyBorg prattles on.

>> Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
>> that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
>> tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
>> brands, etc?
>
>> If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>> biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>
>Only if you believe it's necessary to
>recreate the last 50-100 years of psychoacoustic research.


It should be noted that SillyBorg has ZERO experience with any DBTs. He has
never participated in one, never watched one, never evaluated one, and certainly
never designed one. His is the voice of pure ignorance and blind faith.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article et>,
> > " > wrote:
>
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> > > > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> > > > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> > > > brands, etc?
> > > >
> > > > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> > > > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
> > >
> > > Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting
> > > the
> > > research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
> > > should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such vast
> > > differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should tell
> > > you
> > > all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
> > > sighted
> > > listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
> > > that
> > > there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
>
> > Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
> > testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
> > about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
>
> What makes you think that anyone is immune to psychological bias?

What makes you think that any bias I hold, IF I hold any bias, affects
my listening judgement? How does an audio consumer find out what bias
she/he holds?

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Robert Morein > wrote:
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> > > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> > > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> > > brands, etc?
> > >
> > > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> > > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>
> > Yes, Jenn.
>
> No, if it is the case that we all bring psychological biases to the listening
> experiences -- which it is -- then it is incumbent upon someone claiming
> they *do not*, to prove it.

How does one do that?

My bias: the best sound that I can get in my home for the least amount
of money, and I don't care what the stuff looks like.

[MINe 109]

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> > What makes you think that anyone is immune to psychological bias?

Howard was.

> What makes you think that any bias I hold, IF I hold any bias, affects
> my listening judgement? How does an audio consumer find out what bias
> she/he holds?

Biases are unconscious, so even if you knew, you wouldn't really know,
or something like that.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > No, if it is the case that we all bring psychological biases to the listening
> > experiences -- which it is -- then it is incumbent upon someone claiming
> > they *do not*, to prove it.
>
> How does one do that?
>
> My bias: the best sound that I can get in my home for the least amount
> of money, and I don't care what the stuff looks like.

That's an objective, not a bias.

What SillyBorg means by "bias" is anybody's guess, but the traditional
'borg meaning of the term is well-defined: It means a pre-existing
preference toward the more expensive of two items. For Them, "bias" is
always a negative term that They use to put down Normal experiences.

There's a fundamental concept one should always keep in mind when
attempting to discuss "tests" with a 'borg. 'Borgs have no understanding
of human-style science; for them, science is an instrument of religious
devotion that can be perverted and used in their assimilation campaigns.
One example of this application is the way the hardcore 'borgs squawk
about "science" whenever a Normal reports hearing an audible improvement
after trying a specific piece of gear. You can tell that the 'borg is
engaging in holy war because it will always prefer to believe some hoary
old "test" done by somebody else, probably long retired or dead, using
equipment that's no longer available, rather than according any credence
to the new report.

For a 'borg, if it sounds good, it's "anti-science".

> Jenn > wrote:
>> Hi all,
>
>> Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
>> that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
>> tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
>> brands, etc?
>
>> If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
>> biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
>

What sort of proof would be persuasive to you?

Norm Strong

[[email protected]]

ScottW says:
" There seem to be 2 subjectivist camps.
> One that points to an ABX test of 16 vs 24 AWG wire
> as evidence of positive difference.
> And another that insists tests have never been positive thus
> proving the protocol is faulty.
> Which camp were you in?
> ScottW
Note: Ludo has failed to recognize nor reconcile his own hypocrisy in
that he has recently offered both of the above conflicting positions

1) Quote one sentence of mine in which I "offered" the
idiotic proposition that "an ABX test of 16 vs 24 AWG wire is
evidence of positive difference"
2) Quote one sentence of mine in which I insisted that
negative wire tests "prove the protocol is faulty"
It has to be a literal quote . Your
"interpretation" will not do.
If you fail I will not imitate the vermin infesting
RAO and call you "a liar and a crook". At the worst I'll say that
you have once again demonstrated that you substitute
your imaginings.for understanding of a simple enough text. And I'll
prove it.
Ludovic Mirabel
..

[ScottW]

wrote:
> ScottW says:
> " There seem to be 2 subjectivist camps.
> > One that points to an ABX test of 16 vs 24 AWG wire
> > as evidence of positive difference.
> > And another that insists tests have never been positive thus
> > proving the protocol is faulty.
> > Which camp were you in?
> > ScottW
> Note: Ludo has failed to recognize nor reconcile his own hypocrisy in
> that he has recently offered both of the above conflicting positions
>
> 1) Quote one sentence of mine in which I "offered" the
> idiotic proposition that "an ABX test of 16 vs 24 AWG wire is
> evidence of positive difference"

"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" "


> 2) Quote one sentence of mine in which I insisted that
> negative wire tests "prove the protocol is faulty"

I never said wire tests. I said tests.

> It has to be a literal quote . Your
> "interpretation" will not do.

"Myth Nr. 3. You must be able to differentiate by ABX/DBT before you
can
prefer.
On the contrary it would appear that DBT is a barrier to recognition of

difference.
It is of some significance that no one, and least of all you, has been

able to point to ONE SINGLE properly conducted DBT/ABX test which
resulted in recognition of differences between anything and anything
else in audio. "

> If you fail I will not imitate the vermin infesting
> RAO and call you "a liar and a crook". At the worst I'll say that
> you have once again demonstrated that you substitute
> your imaginings.for understanding of a simple enough text. And I'll
> prove it.

Good luck.

ScottW

[Steven Sullivan]

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

> > Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article et>,
> > > " > wrote:
> >
> > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> > > > > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> > > > > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> > > > > brands, etc?
> > > > >
> > > > > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> > > > > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
> > > >
> > > > Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them affecting
> > > > the
> > > > research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted bias
> > > > should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such vast
> > > > differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should tell
> > > > you
> > > > all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
> > > > sighted
> > > > listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely told
> > > > that
> > > > there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
> >
> > > Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
> > > testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
> > > about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
> >
> > What makes you think that anyone is immune to psychological bias?

> What makes you think that any bias I hold, IF I hold any bias, affects
> my listening judgement?

A vast body of scientific work.

> How does an audio consumer find out what bias
> she/he holds?

She could read some psychology references that discuss
such biases. If she did, she would see that it's not
a matter of 'IF'.

Or an audio consumer could simply accept that
her perception of difference
*is* inherently prone to psychological bias, which
becomes ever more of a factor
to consider as the real differences become smaller.

This is a view that is *utterly* uncontroversial in
science. It is *only* controversial among
the audiophile cult and others who seem to be
under the odd impression that perception is
an infallible guide to cause.



--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

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

> > Robert Morein > wrote:
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> > > > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> > > > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> > > > brands, etc?
> > > >
> > > > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> > > > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
> >
> > > Yes, Jenn.
> >
> > No, if it is the case that we all bring psychological biases to the listening
> > experiences -- which it is -- then it is incumbent upon someone claiming
> > they *do not*, to prove it.

> How does one do that?

> My bias: the best sound that I can get in my home for the least amount
> of money, and I don't care what the stuff looks like.

That's not your *only* bias.
You need to read up on the concept of perceptual bias.
You have been advised to do this before on RAHE, I believe.




--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Jenn > wrote:

> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> > > What makes you think that anyone is immune to psychological bias?

> Howard was.

> > What makes you think that any bias I hold, IF I hold any bias, affects
> > my listening judgement? How does an audio consumer find out what bias
> > she/he holds?

> Biases are unconscious, so even if you knew, you wouldn't really know,
> or something like that.

Allow me an extreme example, an *optical* illusion:

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

now, does *knowing* that A and B are the same, suddenly make them
*look* the same?

No. You can't *help* being 'biased' to see them as different.

Similarly, in some situations we tend to 'correct' visual
mistakes -- like the way we can easily miss tandem instances
of the word 'the' -- even though we *know* that 'the the' is
wrong.

Similarly, we seem to have evolved to over-detect audible
'difference'. Perhaps it was a survival mechanism -- better to
be mistaken about the reality of that faint sound in the tall grass
that made you to run away, than to be eaten by a predator.
In any case we seem inherently biased to 'scan' for audible
difference whenever we have reason to believe something might be
different...the reason can be a simple as the fact that two
'sound-making' things *look* different (e..g two amps, two
cables). Or even that someone has *told* us that two things
are different ...even if they aren't. We'll generally
expect different things to sound different, and perceive
them that way.

Moreover, we don't always interpret *real* audible
differences correctly either. We tend to report small
differences in loudness as *quality* difference, not
*loudness* difference, for example.

A search on 'psychoacoustics' or 'perceptual psychology'
on Amazon yields a number of academic books on the
subjects. This isn't new stuff; the perception of
sound has been under study for decades.



--

-S

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > Robert Morein > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad
> > > > > is
> > > > > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> > > > > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> > > > > brands, etc?
> > > > >
> > > > > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> > > > > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
> > >
> > > > Yes, Jenn.
> > >
> > > No, if it is the case that we all bring psychological biases to the
> > > listening
> > > experiences -- which it is -- then it is incumbent upon someone claiming
> > > they *do not*, to prove it.
>
> > How does one do that?
>
> > My bias: the best sound that I can get in my home for the least amount
> > of money, and I don't care what the stuff looks like.
>
> That's not your *only* bias.
> You need to read up on the concept of perceptual bias.

I will do so as time allows. Meanwhile, how does I determine what my
biases are, in a nutshell.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article et>,
> > > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > ..
> > > > > .
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is
> > > > > > bad is
> > > > > > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of
> > > > > > certain
> > > > > > brands, etc?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> > > > > > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such
> > > > > > biases?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them
> > > > > affecting
> > > > > the
> > > > > research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted
> > > > > bias
> > > > > should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are such
> > > > > vast
> > > > > differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should
> > > > > tell
> > > > > you
> > > > > all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences in
> > > > > sighted
> > > > > listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely
> > > > > told
> > > > > that
> > > > > there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
> > >
> > > > Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter, blind
> > > > testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
> > > > about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
> > >
> > > What makes you think that anyone is immune to psychological bias?
>
> > What makes you think that any bias I hold, IF I hold any bias, affects
> > my listening judgement?
>
> A vast body of scientific work.
>
> > How does an audio consumer find out what bias
> > she/he holds?
>
> She could read some psychology references that discuss
> such biases. If she did, she would see that it's not
> a matter of 'IF'.
>
> Or an audio consumer could simply accept that
> her perception of difference
> *is* inherently prone to psychological bias, which
> becomes ever more of a factor
> to consider as the real differences become smaller.

And those biases are....?

[Jenn]

In article >,
> wrote:

> > Jenn > wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >
> >> Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad is
> >> that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> >> tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> >> brands, etc?
> >
> >> If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> >> biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
> >
>
> What sort of proof would be persuasive to you?
>
> Norm Strong

Show me that I have biases, and show me how my decisions about equipment
have been affected by them.

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Jenn > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
>> > Jenn > wrote:
>> > > In article et>,
>> > > " > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is
>> > > > > bad is
>> > > > > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we
>> > > > > might
>> > > > > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of
>> > > > > certain
>> > > > > brands, etc?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that
>> > > > > such
>> > > > > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such
>> > > > > biases?
>> > > >
>> > > > Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them
>> > > > affecting
>> > > > the
>> > > > research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted
>> > > > bias
>> > > > should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are
>> > > > such vast
>> > > > differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should
>> > > > tell
>> > > > you
>> > > > all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences
>> > > > in
>> > > > sighted
>> > > > listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely
>> > > > told
>> > > > that
>> > > > there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
>> >
>> > > Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter,
>> > > blind
>> > > testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
>> > > about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
>> >
>> > What makes you think that anyone is immune to psychological bias?
>
>> What makes you think that any bias I hold, IF I hold any bias, affects
>> my listening judgement?
>
> A vast body of scientific work.
>
>> How does an audio consumer find out what bias
>> she/he holds?
>
> She could read some psychology references that discuss
> such biases. If she did, she would see that it's not
> a matter of 'IF'.
>
> Or an audio consumer could simply accept that
> her perception of difference
> *is* inherently prone to psychological bias, which
> becomes ever more of a factor
> to consider as the real differences become smaller.
>
> This is a view that is *utterly* uncontroversial in
> science. It is *only* controversial among
> the audiophile cult and others who seem to be
> under the odd impression that perception is
> an infallible guide to cause.

Sorry, Steven, you are wrong. The tests have bias controls to prevent the
*possibility* of a bias affecting the test. True scientists don't assume,
much less accuse, their subjects of "bias". They simply design a test to
protect against the possibility. Presumably this is why you prefer
double-blind testing. That is understandable. But that is a long stretch
from *insisting* that Jenn or any of the rest of us have biases that cannot
be/are not offset by an objective mindset when evaluating equipment. And as
Jenn points out (and as I did about two years ago when similarly accosted)
it is a real stretch to accuse someone of an equipment bias when the results
of their investigation come out *contrary* to their going in belief or
prevailing mindset. In my case, it was "well, you must have had cognitive
dissonance". Little did the poster know that I studied under the
behavioral psychologist who helped popularize the notice when it came to
human behavior in the real world. So I know when it is a legitimate issue,
and when it is likely not. That reply was just a simple case of passing off
a "glib" reply that had no real bearing on the situation. Accusing
everybody of overwhelming bias, and tossing around high-sounding terms with
not real apparent thought behind them, and then refusing to even discuss the
reality of the situation beyond simply chanting the mantra, is not
productive.

[[email protected]]

How is one to continue a discussion with a correspondent who:
1) complains that he searched *the web* and could not find the
text of an article that never appeared on the web. My reference to the
"Stereo Review" magazine was complete and unequivocal for anyone
with a high-school education.
2) when redirected complains that he can not find the reference.
According to him there are no Public Libraries in San Diego because of
the "liberals" and because it is "all in Spanish"
2) when given a summary says that he has "no time to read this
mess"
4) and next proceeds to give his imaginary summary of what he
had "no time to read"
5) when challenged to give a LITERAL quote supporting his
fantasies he picks two very *nonliteral* ones out of context or
incomplete.
A discussion about contending views has to be at least partly
interesting. This here is not about "views". It is about going back to
sources and correcting fabrications. It is very time-intensive, very
tedious and unproductive and I need a rest.
It is all yours. I'm bored.
Ludovic Mirabel
____________________________________________.:.

ScottW "Question about sighted testing' Message 82, Sept. 8
wrote:
> ScottW says:
> " There seem to be 2 subjectivist camps.
> > One that points to an ABX test of 16 vs 24 AWG wire
> > as evidence of positive difference.
> > And another that insists tests have never been positive thus
> > proving the protocol is faulty.
> > Which camp were you in?
> > ScottW
> Note: Ludo has failed to recognize nor reconcile his own hypocrisy in
> that he has recently offered both of the above conflicting positions
> 1) Quote one sentence of mine in which I "offered" the
> idiotic proposition that "an ABX test of 16 vs 24 AWG wire is
> evidence of positive difference"
ScottW sets to work. Quote Nr1

"Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
"test" work?

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" "
Remeber this was to be a LITERAL quote.
For a good reason. I anticipated manipulation and I got it.
He knows well that there were six tests with 15 repeats in each one and
that two were of wires of same diameter- *not 16 vs. 24*. In fact in
two tests comparing 16 vs. 24 with pink noise as signal all the
panelists had perfect scores recognising the difference, close to 100%-
as they should.. But I never quoted THAT as "evidence" that differences
between *comparable* cables exists- except in Mr. ScottW fertile
imagination.
On the contrary I quoted their failure, once music (not
pink noise) was used , as suggestive evidence that ABX interferes with
cognition
I did accept Greenhill's -the moderator and the
writer- description of one of the participants 83% overall score in six
different tests .as evidence of his "golden ear.".
I commented later:
... To John Corbett Message 273 Sept.1
" I am not prepared to lay my
life down for Greenhill's "golden ear"- once again the description is
Greenhill's not mine. Nor will I comment on your disagreement with his
statistics. The entire subject was thrashed out ad nauseam in the RAHE
2 years ago and I regret restarting it. . I quoted Greenhill only as a
bait to someone who pontificated on the subject that he obviously knew
little about.. "

And to NYOB, Sept 1. The Stereophile thread message 283:
"But enough of word games. I'd rather not have this topic
sidetracked into a pointless, unprovable argument about "Wire this,
wire that". It is about the "test" that you say "proves' how
right you are when you can not hear very much.
Are the loudspeakers, cartridges, amps, preamps, cdplayers
and Dacs same as the wires? Or have you finally found a test report
(Journak, author(s_. vol., year, Nr,. Page) where most members of an
ABX panel could tell one comparable component from another? "
Yes it is about the "test"- not the wires. I want to make it
clear that at this time there is no test to "prove" that anyone heard
differences or to "disprove" it- ABX least of all
Next challenge:
> 2) Quote one sentence of mine in which I insisted that
> negative wire tests "prove the protocol is faulty"
ScottW answers:
"I never said wire tests. I said tests".
> It has to be a literal quote . Your
> "interpretation" will not do.
He quotes from my message to NYOB:
"Myth Nr. 3. You must be able to differentiate by ABX/DBT before you
can prefer.
On the contrary it would appear that DBT is a barrier to recognition of

difference.
It is of some significance that no one, and least of all you, has been
able to point to ONE SINGLE properly conducted DBT/ABX test which
resulted in recognition of differences between anything and anything
else in audio. "
Apparently you either do not understand the
difference between "proving" and "appearing to suggest" (which calls
for proof / disproof). or ignore it for the sake of winning an
argument. Take your pick.

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com..

> A discussion about contending views has to be at least partly
> interesting. This here is not about "views".

Very good, you're absolutely right. It was about hypocrisy,
your hypocrisy to be specific.

> It is about going back to
> sources and correcting fabrications. It is very time-intensive, very
> tedious and unproductive and I need a rest.

Agreed. Every post of yours the story spins.

> It is all yours. I'm bored.
> Ludovic Mirabel
> ____________________________________________.:.
>
> ScottW "Question about sighted testing' Message 82, Sept. 8
> wrote:
>> ScottW says:
>> " There seem to be 2 subjectivist camps.
>> > One that points to an ABX test of 16 vs 24 AWG wire
>> > as evidence of positive difference.
>> > And another that insists tests have never been positive thus
>> > proving the protocol is faulty.
>> > Which camp were you in?
>> > ScottW
>> Note: Ludo has failed to recognize nor reconcile his own hypocrisy in
>> that he has recently offered both of the above conflicting positions
>> 1) Quote one sentence of mine in which I "offered" the
>> idiotic proposition that "an ABX test of 16 vs 24 AWG wire is
>> evidence of positive difference"
> ScottW sets to work. Quote Nr1
>
> "Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
> "test" work?
>
> 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" "
> Remeber this was to be a LITERAL quote.
> For a good reason. I anticipated manipulation and I got it.
> He knows well that there were six tests with 15 repeats in each one and
> that two were of wires of same diameter- *not 16 vs. 24*. In fact in
> two tests comparing 16 vs. 24 with pink noise as signal all the
> panelists had perfect scores recognising the difference, close to 100%-
> as they should.. But I never quoted THAT as "evidence" that differences
> between *comparable* cables exists- except in Mr. ScottW fertile
> imagination.

Ludo... get back on your meds... this example has nothing to do
with a cable debate. It simply points to a test, which you yourself
referenced, as an example of a test with a positive outcome.


> On the contrary I quoted their failure, once music (not
> pink noise) was used , as suggestive evidence that ABX interferes with
> cognition

BS... everyone knows pink noise is far more revealing of difference than
music and that fact has zero to do with ABX.

> I did accept Greenhill's -the moderator and the
> writer- description of one of the participants 83% overall score in six
> different tests .as evidence of his "golden ear.".
> I commented later:
> .. To John Corbett Message 273 Sept.1
> " I am not prepared to lay my
> life down for Greenhill's "golden ear"- once again the description is
> Greenhill's not mine. Nor will I comment on your disagreement with his
> statistics. The entire subject was thrashed out ad nauseam in the RAHE
> 2 years ago and I regret restarting it. . I quoted Greenhill only as a
> bait to someone who pontificated on the subject that he obviously knew
> little about.. "
>
> And to NYOB, Sept 1. The Stereophile thread message 283:
> "But enough of word games. I'd rather not have this topic
> sidetracked into a pointless, unprovable argument about "Wire this,
> wire that". It is about the "test" that you say "proves' how
> right you are when you can not hear very much.
> Are the loudspeakers, cartridges, amps, preamps, cdplayers
> and Dacs same as the wires? Or have you finally found a test report
> (Journak, author(s_. vol., year, Nr,. Page) where most members of an
> ABX panel could tell one comparable component from another? "
> Yes it is about the "test"- not the wires. I want to make it
> clear that at this time there is no test to "prove" that anyone heard
> differences or to "disprove" it- ABX least of all
> Next challenge:
>> 2) Quote one sentence of mine in which I insisted that
>> negative wire tests "prove the protocol is faulty"
> ScottW answers:
> "I never said wire tests. I said tests".
>> It has to be a literal quote . Your
>> "interpretation" will not do.
> He quotes from my message to NYOB:
> "Myth Nr. 3. You must be able to differentiate by ABX/DBT before you
> can prefer.
> On the contrary it would appear that DBT is a barrier to recognition of
>
> difference.
> It is of some significance that no one, and least of all you, has been
> able to point to ONE SINGLE properly conducted DBT/ABX test which
> resulted in recognition of differences between anything and anything
> else in audio. "
> Apparently you either do not understand the
> difference between "proving" and "appearing to suggest" (which calls
> for proof / disproof). or ignore it for the sake of winning an
> argument. Take your pick.

One question? Why can you never reference the exact words or
phrases in your own posts? You always select another phrase
("appearing to suggest" instead of "it would appear" which I think
but can't be certain is the reference you make). It always creates
subtle changes in meaning and intent. You keep moving the
very basis of the point of the discussion. No wonder you're tired.

ScottW

[Steven Sullivan]

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

> > Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >
> > > > Robert Morein > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is bad
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we might
> > > > > > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of certain
> > > > > > brands, etc?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that such
> > > > > > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such biases?
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, Jenn.
> > > >
> > > > No, if it is the case that we all bring psychological biases to the
> > > > listening
> > > > experiences -- which it is -- then it is incumbent upon someone claiming
> > > > they *do not*, to prove it.
> >
> > > How does one do that?
> >
> > > My bias: the best sound that I can get in my home for the least amount
> > > of money, and I don't care what the stuff looks like.
> >
> > That's not your *only* bias.
> > You need to read up on the concept of perceptual bias.

> I will do so as time allows. Meanwhile, how does I determine what my
> biases are, in a nutshell.

What makes you think 'your' biases are different from anyone else's?
Your question isn't framed correctly. It's not a matter of what
'your' biases are, it's a matter of what sorts of perceptual bias
are known to exist, and therefore have to be assumed to operate
in *anyone*. The question you're asking is like asking, 'how do I
know which optical illusions I in particular am subject to?"

Go do your reading.


--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo > wrote:

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jenn > wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >
> >> > Jenn > wrote:
> >> > > In article et>,
> >> > > " > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> > > > ...
> >> > > > > Hi all,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is
> >> > > > > bad is
> >> > > > > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we
> >> > > > > might
> >> > > > > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of
> >> > > > > certain
> >> > > > > brands, etc?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that
> >> > > > > such
> >> > > > > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such
> >> > > > > biases?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Not really, it's simpler just to eliminate the chance of them
> >> > > > affecting
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > research. In the end it's about listening, so eliminating sighted
> >> > > > bias
> >> > > > should have no effect on hearing acuity anyway. That there are
> >> > > > such vast
> >> > > > differences in the outcomes of sighted vs. blind comparisons should
> >> > > > tell
> >> > > > you
> >> > > > all you need. Add to that the fact that people claim differences
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > sighted
> >> > > > listening even if no changes were actually made, they were merely
> >> > > > told
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > there was, and you see how completely worthless they are.
> >> >
> >> > > Yeah, that makes sense. I just think that as a practical matter,
> >> > > blind
> >> > > testing is not always possible and I think that we should be careful
> >> > > about poo-pooing sighted tests, as not everyone has bias.
> >> >
> >> > What makes you think that anyone is immune to psychological bias?
> >
> >> What makes you think that any bias I hold, IF I hold any bias, affects
> >> my listening judgement?
> >
> > A vast body of scientific work.
> >
> >> How does an audio consumer find out what bias
> >> she/he holds?
> >
> > She could read some psychology references that discuss
> > such biases. If she did, she would see that it's not
> > a matter of 'IF'.
> >
> > Or an audio consumer could simply accept that
> > her perception of difference
> > *is* inherently prone to psychological bias, which
> > becomes ever more of a factor
> > to consider as the real differences become smaller.
> >
> > This is a view that is *utterly* uncontroversial in
> > science. It is *only* controversial among
> > the audiophile cult and others who seem to be
> > under the odd impression that perception is
> > an infallible guide to cause.

> Sorry, Steven, you are wrong. The tests have bias controls to prevent the
> *possibility* of a bias affecting the test. True scientists don't assume,
> much less accuse, their subjects of "bias".

Of course they do -- and it's not an 'accusation'. It's an assumption
from what's known about human behavior. They aren't 'accusing'
themselves of bias when they employ scientific controls in their
work...they're acknowledging their existence.

> They simply design a test to
> protect against the possibility. Presumably this is why you prefer
> double-blind testing. That is understandable. But that is a long stretch
> from *insisting* that Jenn or any of the rest of us have biases that cannot
> be/are not offset by an objective mindset when evaluating equipment.

Anyoen who *insists* they are free from known psychological biases, and
can therefore confidently assume that what they believe about cause
and effect must be true, is deluded. *That* is the lesson of scientific
research into human psychology.

Jenn's questions are naive, but you, Harry, should know better...

> it is a real stretch to accuse someone of an equipment bias when the results
> of their investigation come out *contrary* to their going in belief or
> prevailing mindset.

....or maybe not -- maybe you *still* simply don't understand what 'bias'
means.

You to shoudl go do some reading, therefore. Or simply ponder those
instances where you were *sure* you heard something, only to find,
you didn't.


> In my case, it was "well, you must have had cognitive
> dissonance". Little did the poster know that I studied under the
> behavioral psychologist who helped popularize the notice when it came to
> human behavior in the real world. So I know when it is a legitimate issue,
> and when it is likely not. That reply was just a simple case of passing off
> a "glib" reply that had no real bearing on the situation. Accusing
> everybody of overwhelming bias, and tossing around high-sounding terms with
> not real apparent thought behind them, and then refusing to even discuss the
> reality of the situation beyond simply chanting the mantra, is not
> productive.

*I* don't 'accuse' everyone of 'overwhelming' bias, an more than a competent
scientist using controls in an experiment does.




--

-S

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> What makes you think 'your' biases are different from anyone else's?
> Your question isn't framed correctly. It's not a matter of what
> 'your' biases are, it's a matter of what sorts of perceptual bias
> are known to exist, and therefore have to be assumed to operate
> in *anyone*. The question you're asking is like asking, 'how do I
> know which optical illusions I in particular am subject to?"

That's rather a broad stroke of the brush. Bias must be controlled in
certain tests because it *might* be present, not because it invariably
is.

Optical illusions are hard-wired. Auditory thresholds are constantly
changing.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Anyoen who *insists* they are free from known psychological biases, and
> can therefore confidently assume that what they believe about cause
> and effect must be true, is deluded.

Now we know Howard's gone for good!

Stephen

[Steven Sullivan]

MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> > What makes you think 'your' biases are different from anyone else's?
> > Your question isn't framed correctly. It's not a matter of what
> > 'your' biases are, it's a matter of what sorts of perceptual bias
> > are known to exist, and therefore have to be assumed to operate
> > in *anyone*. The question you're asking is like asking, 'how do I
> > know which optical illusions I in particular am subject to?"

> That's rather a broad stroke of the brush. Bias must be controlled in
> certain tests because it *might* be present, not because it invariably
> is.

Has it ever been shown *not* to be?

> Optical illusions are hard-wired. Auditory thresholds are constantly
> changing.

I have yet to hear in the scientific literature of anyone being found
to be 'immune' to perceptual biases.


--

-S

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > What makes you think 'your' biases are different from anyone else's?
> > > Your question isn't framed correctly. It's not a matter of what
> > > 'your' biases are, it's a matter of what sorts of perceptual bias
> > > are known to exist, and therefore have to be assumed to operate
> > > in *anyone*. The question you're asking is like asking, 'how do I
> > > know which optical illusions I in particular am subject to?"
>
> > That's rather a broad stroke of the brush. Bias must be controlled in
> > certain tests because it *might* be present, not because it invariably
> > is.
>
> Has it ever been shown *not* to be?

There's no way to know.

> > Optical illusions are hard-wired. Auditory thresholds are constantly
> > changing.
>
> I have yet to hear in the scientific literature of anyone being found
> to be 'immune' to perceptual biases.

Except Howard, of course. No, it's not "immune," it's that some may be
benign.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

Mr. Sullivan says:

"I have yet to hear in the scientific literature of anyone being found
to be 'immune' to perceptual biases"
And I fail to see why spend so much energy to heave out an open
door. Of course we have biases-all kinds .Our birth DNA, our social and
national circumstances, education and ability to absorb it.... And so
on. An infinite and unique bundle of biases go make up an individual.
And to get rid of them you have to unmake him.
But typically the consumer society biases people like you to
centre on and want to "cure" just one, the sighted bias .
Sighted bias is about keeping up with the Joneses, about the more it
costs the better it must be psychology, that you believe must affect
everyone equally. If you can *see* a Rolex, a Hummer, a Mark Levinson
your goose is cooked- you must and will prefer it to a 15$ watch that
keeps time, to a small car that gets you from one place to another, to
an amplifier that sounds good to you. Bind their eyes and you have a
cure. Let me inform you that many Europeans have had a reverse bias-
being ostentatiously well off was a sign of being a member of a
despised ,vulgar class: nouveau-riche.
You can bind a pianist's eyes three times over and he
still will go for the piano that he knows and likes best.
Unless... you manage to disorient some of them by a
"test" that was never properly researched and validated. I say
"some" because there too humans vary. In medical therapy trials,
where double-blind testing was first used and proved itself invaluable,
only some 30 to 40% respond to placebo. Not 100%. People are all
different Mr. Sullivan. If you go back to the books you tell everyone
to read you may find something about differences too.
Psychometrics bring me to another fallacy of yours. The
methods valid in one sphere can not be transferred mechanistically to
another one. The methods of astronomy do not work in particle physics.
Audio components may be mechanical devices but the way they handle
complex musical signals (forget pink noises, codecs and such like) is
not yet 100% categorized by engineers. If you believe it is you have
not lived long enough to see favourite parameters replaced by others
and not long enough to realize that science is never completed.
Especially such a new and often questionable science as audiometrics.
So far your "test" served only to demonstrate that people subject
to it can not differentiate. When will it help to distinguish?
Ludovic Mirabel


I

[Steven Sullivan]

MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >
> > > > What makes you think 'your' biases are different from anyone else's?
> > > > Your question isn't framed correctly. It's not a matter of what
> > > > 'your' biases are, it's a matter of what sorts of perceptual bias
> > > > are known to exist, and therefore have to be assumed to operate
> > > > in *anyone*. The question you're asking is like asking, 'how do I
> > > > know which optical illusions I in particular am subject to?"
> >
> > > That's rather a broad stroke of the brush. Bias must be controlled in
> > > certain tests because it *might* be present, not because it invariably
> > > is.
> >
> > Has it ever been shown *not* to be?

> There's no way to know.

Ah. So the claim that someone is actually free from psychological bias, cannot
be tested?

> > > Optical illusions are hard-wired. Auditory thresholds are constantly
> > > changing.
> >
> > I have yet to hear in the scientific literature of anyone being found
> > to be 'immune' to perceptual biases.

> Except Howard, of course. No, it's not "immune," it's that some may be
> benign.

Which?

The bias towards level difference being heard as a qualitative difference?
(this is not an expectation bias, but it is a perceptual bias nonetheless,
and of course it need not be conscious)

The bias towards hearing difference when there's visual or verbal evidence
of difference? (this is a form of expectation bias, and it certainly need not
be conscious)

Or some others?



--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
> Mr. Sullivan says:

> "I have yet to hear in the scientific literature of anyone being found
> to be 'immune' to perceptual biases"
> And I fail to see why spend so much energy to heave out an open
> door. Of course we have biases-all kinds .

Thank you. If you continute to post this sensibly, you'll do better
at staying out of my killfile.




--

-S

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > What makes you think 'your' biases are different from anyone else's?
> > > > > Your question isn't framed correctly. It's not a matter of what
> > > > > 'your' biases are, it's a matter of what sorts of perceptual bias
> > > > > are known to exist, and therefore have to be assumed to operate
> > > > > in *anyone*. The question you're asking is like asking, 'how do I
> > > > > know which optical illusions I in particular am subject to?"
> > >
> > > > That's rather a broad stroke of the brush. Bias must be controlled in
> > > > certain tests because it *might* be present, not because it invariably
> > > > is.
> > >
> > > Has it ever been shown *not* to be?
>
> > There's no way to know.
>
> Ah. So the claim that someone is actually free from psychological bias, cannot
> be tested?

In the sense that that would be proving a negative, no.

> > > > Optical illusions are hard-wired. Auditory thresholds are constantly
> > > > changing.
> > >
> > > I have yet to hear in the scientific literature of anyone being found
> > > to be 'immune' to perceptual biases.
>
> > Except Howard, of course. No, it's not "immune," it's that some may be
> > benign.
>
> Which?

Any.

> The bias towards level difference being heard as a qualitative difference?
> (this is not an expectation bias, but it is a perceptual bias nonetheless,
> and of course it need not be conscious)

Ah. Can be ameliorated by listener training.

> The bias towards hearing difference when there's visual or verbal evidence
> of difference? (this is a form of expectation bias, and it certainly need not
> be conscious)

Not always present.

> Or some others?

Any, all, or none.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Mr. Sullivan says:
> "I have yet to hear in the scientific literature of anyone being found
> to be 'immune' to perceptual biases"
> And I fail to see why spend so much energy to heave out an open
> door. Of course we have biases-all kinds .


Thank you. If you continute to post this sensibly, you'll do better
at staying out of my killfile.
S.
Lord have mercy. I must be doing something wrong.-
L.M.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Robert Morein > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am I correct in assuming that the reason that sighted testing is
> > > > > > > bad
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > that we all bring prejudices to the listening experience, so we
> > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > tend to favor gear that looks a certain way, or favor gear of
> > > > > > > certain
> > > > > > > brands, etc?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If that is the case, isn't it incumbent on those claiming that
> > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > biases exist to show that the listener does indeed hold such
> > > > > > > biases?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, Jenn.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, if it is the case that we all bring psychological biases to the
> > > > > listening
> > > > > experiences -- which it is -- then it is incumbent upon someone
> > > > > claiming
> > > > > they *do not*, to prove it.
> > >
> > > > How does one do that?
> > >
> > > > My bias: the best sound that I can get in my home for the least amount
> > > > of money, and I don't care what the stuff looks like.
> > >
> > > That's not your *only* bias.
> > > You need to read up on the concept of perceptual bias.
>
> > I will do so as time allows. Meanwhile, how does I determine what my
> > biases are, in a nutshell.
>
> What makes you think 'your' biases are different from anyone else's?

I don't know; that's why I have asked what these biases might be. I
don't seem to have a bias toward "flashing lights and bells and
whistles", nor do I have a bias toward more expensive gear. How do I
find out what these biases are?

> Your question isn't framed correctly. It's not a matter of what
> 'your' biases are, it's a matter of what sorts of perceptual bias
> are known to exist, and therefore have to be assumed to operate
> in *anyone*. The question you're asking is like asking, 'how do I
> know which optical illusions I in particular am subject to?"

So what are those biases?

>
> Go do your reading.

I shall, as I've said before, as time allows.

[[email protected]]

Jenn asks:
So what are those biases? and is told to "go and her reading".

Your question is neither "na=EFve" nor nonsensical.
Of course, we all have biases. One does not need to read the
psychologists laboriously rediscovering America to know that.
But what biases are we talking about? Who proved that we all share *the
same* biases?
To assume that "anyone" does, as Mr. Sullivan says is very
"unscientific" coming from one of the RAO scientists.. Those telling
you that YOU must go for bells and whistles are merely informing you
what THEIR own bias is.
Your bias may be the very opposite. The more bells and whistles the
more you mistrust the gadget. The more it costs the more you suspect
that its reputation is due to its price (it is "exclusive" in the
ads linguo).
Needless to say I'm betraying my own bias.
All that, quite apart from the validity of their favourite way of
excluding one of all the possible biases: the sighted bias.
Ludovic Mirabel=20
________

[Steven Sullivan]

MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >
> > > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > What makes you think 'your' biases are different from anyone else's?
> > > > > > Your question isn't framed correctly. It's not a matter of what
> > > > > > 'your' biases are, it's a matter of what sorts of perceptual bias
> > > > > > are known to exist, and therefore have to be assumed to operate
> > > > > > in *anyone*. The question you're asking is like asking, 'how do I
> > > > > > know which optical illusions I in particular am subject to?"
> > > >
> > > > > That's rather a broad stroke of the brush. Bias must be controlled in
> > > > > certain tests because it *might* be present, not because it invariably
> > > > > is.
> > > >
> > > > Has it ever been shown *not* to be?
> >
> > > There's no way to know.
> >
> > Ah. So the claim that someone is actually free from psychological bias, cannot
> > be tested?

> In the sense that that would be proving a negative, no.
>
> > > > > Optical illusions are hard-wired. Auditory thresholds are constantly
> > > > > changing.
> > > >
> > > > I have yet to hear in the scientific literature of anyone being found
> > > > to be 'immune' to perceptual biases.
> >
> > > Except Howard, of course. No, it's not "immune," it's that some may be
> > > benign.
> >
> > Which?

> Any.

> > The bias towards level difference being heard as a qualitative difference?
> > (this is not an expectation bias, but it is a perceptual bias nonetheless,
> > and of course it need not be conscious)

> Ah. Can be ameliorated by listener training.

But one can never assume it's gone, can one?

> > The bias towards hearing difference when there's visual or verbal evidence
> > of difference? (this is a form of expectation bias, and it certainly need not
> > be conscious)

> Not always present.

You've demonstrated this how?

>
> > Or some others?

> Any, all, or none.

'nuisance' variables include

contrast effect
effect of interstimulus interval
effect of non-random presentation
effect of size
effect of brand
effect of price
effect of appearance

etc.

Do you seriously imagine anyone can ever be guaranteed free of all of
them? The only way to do that for any one of them is by yet more
scientific study.


F.E. Toole, "Subjective evaluation: identifying and controlling the
variables" , presented at the AES 8th Int ConfL The Sound of Audio (1990,
Apr) paper 8-013

F.E. Toole and S.E. Olive "Hearing is believing vs. believing is
hearing: blind vs. sighted listening tests and other interesting things"
presented at the 97th Conventions of the AES, JAES (abstracts) vol 42, p
1058 (1994 Dec) preprint 3894.

Parducci, A. "The relativism of absolute judgement' Scientific American,
vol 219, pp 84-90,(1968)

Meilgaard, Civille and Carr, Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 2nd Ed., (CRC
Press, Boca Raton FL, 1991).

Poulton, H. Bias in Quantifying Judgements, (Lawrence Erlmaub Associates,
Hoe UK, 1989)

Moore, BCJ An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing 4th ed, (Academic
Press, NY, 1997)

Piattelli-Palmarini, M. Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule
Our Minds (Wiley, 1996)



--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

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

> I don't know; that's why I have asked what these biases might be. I
> don't seem to have a bias toward "flashing lights and bells and
> whistles", nor do I have a bias toward more expensive gear.

Well, maybe you don't and maybe you do. Merely claiming you
don't, just because you can think of cases where it *hasn't*
apparently influenced you, is not sufficient proof that you
are free of such biases.

> How do I
> find out what these biases are?

To find out what sorts of biases have been identified, reading
up on sensory research.

To find out whether a certain species of bias has affected your
judgement in a comaprison, repeat the comparison with
a control in place for that bias.


> > Your question isn't framed correctly. It's not a matter of what
> > 'your' biases are, it's a matter of what sorts of perceptual bias
> > are known to exist, and therefore have to be assumed to operate
> > in *anyone*. The question you're asking is like asking, 'how do I
> > know which optical illusions I in particular am subject to?"

> So what are those biases?

off the top of my head, some are:

biases due to appearance, price, presentation order, presentation
context, previous knowledge (whether accurate or not), expectation

You can't know a priori how much effect bias will have on
your evaluation. You can only know how much effect it did have,
by making it the variable. That means you can't simply assume
it has no effect, without some good evidence. Just believing
you aren't biased isn't good evidence.

> >
> > Go do your reading.

> I shall, as I've said before, as time allows.

Good, because I'm not inclined to save you any more time.



--

-S

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > What makes you think 'your' biases are different from anyone
> > > > > > > else's?
> > > > > > > Your question isn't framed correctly. It's not a matter of what
> > > > > > > 'your' biases are, it's a matter of what sorts of perceptual bias
> > > > > > > are known to exist, and therefore have to be assumed to operate
> > > > > > > in *anyone*. The question you're asking is like asking, 'how do
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > know which optical illusions I in particular am subject to?"
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's rather a broad stroke of the brush. Bias must be controlled
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > certain tests because it *might* be present, not because it
> > > > > > invariably
> > > > > > is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Has it ever been shown *not* to be?
> > >
> > > > There's no way to know.
> > >
> > > Ah. So the claim that someone is actually free from psychological bias,
> > > cannot
> > > be tested?
>
> > In the sense that that would be proving a negative, no.

Well, that's that.

I'll play along with the rest for now.

> > > > > > Optical illusions are hard-wired. Auditory thresholds are
> > > > > > constantly
> > > > > > changing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have yet to hear in the scientific literature of anyone being found
> > > > > to be 'immune' to perceptual biases.
> > >
> > > > Except Howard, of course. No, it's not "immune," it's that some may be
> > > > benign.
> > >
> > > Which?
>
> > Any.
>
> > > The bias towards level difference being heard as a qualitative
> > > difference?
> > > (this is not an expectation bias, but it is a perceptual bias
> > > nonetheless,
> > > and of course it need not be conscious)
>
> > Ah. Can be ameliorated by listener training.
>
> But one can never assume it's gone, can one?

In a scientific comparison, one matches levels.

> > > The bias towards hearing difference when there's visual or verbal
> > > evidence
> > > of difference? (this is a form of expectation bias, and it certainly need
> > > not
> > > be conscious)
>
> > Not always present.
>
> You've demonstrated this how?

Logically.

> > > Or some others?
>
> > Any, all, or none.
>
> 'nuisance' variables include
>
> contrast effect
> effect of interstimulus interval
> effect of non-random presentation
> effect of size
> effect of brand
> effect of price
> effect of appearance
>
> etc.
>
> Do you seriously imagine anyone can ever be guaranteed free of all of
> them? The only way to do that for any one of them is by yet more
> scientific study.

No, there are no guarantees. However, you've reintroduced the concept of
"branding." Since branding can be considered the marketing equivalent of
appealing to bias, the consumer may simply choose to embrace the
positive aspects of this and enjoy "The Only Sound."

> F.E. Toole, "Subjective evaluation: identifying and controlling the
> variables" , presented at the AES 8th Int ConfL The Sound of Audio (1990,
> Apr) paper 8-013
>
> F.E. Toole and S.E. Olive "Hearing is believing vs. believing is
> hearing: blind vs. sighted listening tests and other interesting things"
> presented at the 97th Conventions of the AES, JAES (abstracts) vol 42, p
> 1058 (1994 Dec) preprint 3894.
>
> Parducci, A. "The relativism of absolute judgement' Scientific American,
> vol 219, pp 84-90,(1968)
>
> Meilgaard, Civille and Carr, Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 2nd Ed., (CRC
> Press, Boca Raton FL, 1991).
>
> Poulton, H. Bias in Quantifying Judgements, (Lawrence Erlmaub Associates,
> Hoe UK, 1989)
>
> Moore, BCJ An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing 4th ed, (Academic
> Press, NY, 1997)
>
> Piattelli-Palmarini, M. Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule
> Our Minds (Wiley, 1996)

None of these are about universally present biases in audio evaluation.

Stephen

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:

>
> > I don't know; that's why I have asked what these biases might be. I
> > don't seem to have a bias toward "flashing lights and bells and
> > whistles", nor do I have a bias toward more expensive gear.
>
> Well, maybe you don't and maybe you do. Merely claiming you
> don't, just because you can think of cases where it *hasn't*
> apparently influenced you, is not sufficient proof that you
> are free of such biases.

Fair enough. All of the evidence that I have is my purchasing record,
which is quite consistent in its eclecticness. (a new word!)
>
> > How do I
> > find out what these biases are?
>
> To find out what sorts of biases have been identified, reading
> up on sensory research.
>
> To find out whether a certain species of bias has affected your
> judgement in a comaprison, repeat the comparison with
> a control in place for that bias.

How might one, for example, control for bias in a turntable comparison
(which I am presently carrying out)? How does one compare three
different turntables using the same arm and cartridge? How does one
make the listening environment bias-proof, and do you know of any
dealers in my area who will aid in such a demonstration?
>
>
> > > Your question isn't framed correctly. It's not a matter of what
> > > 'your' biases are, it's a matter of what sorts of perceptual bias
> > > are known to exist, and therefore have to be assumed to operate
> > > in *anyone*. The question you're asking is like asking, 'how do I
> > > know which optical illusions I in particular am subject to?"
>
> > So what are those biases?
>
> off the top of my head, some are:
>
> biases due to appearance, price, presentation order, presentation
> context, previous knowledge (whether accurate or not), expectation

Where do I go to get tested to see if I hold such biases?
>
> You can't know a priori how much effect bias will have on
> your evaluation. You can only know how much effect it did have,
> by making it the variable. That means you can't simply assume
> it has no effect, without some good evidence. Just believing
> you aren't biased isn't good evidence.
>
> > >
> > > Go do your reading.
>
> > I shall, as I've said before, as time allows.
>
> Good, because I'm not inclined to save you any more time.

Well gee, Steven, as this is the very first time that you have answered
my questions concerning bias, I guess that I was sadly mistaken about
your desire (or perhaps, your ability) to help. I won't make that error
again.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Jenn asks:
> So what are those biases? and is told to "go and her reading".
>
> Your question is neither "naïve" nor nonsensical.
> Of course, we all have biases. One does not need to read the
> psychologists laboriously rediscovering America to know that.
> But what biases are we talking about? Who proved that we all share *the
> same* biases?
> To assume that "anyone" does, as Mr. Sullivan says is very
> "unscientific" coming from one of the RAO scientists.. Those telling
> you that YOU must go for bells and whistles are merely informing you
> what THEIR own bias is.
> Your bias may be the very opposite. The more bells and whistles the
> more you mistrust the gadget. The more it costs the more you suspect
> that its reputation is due to its price (it is "exclusive" in the
> ads linguo).
> Needless to say I'm betraying my own bias.
> All that, quite apart from the validity of their favourite way of
> excluding one of all the possible biases: the sighted bias.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>

Thanks for you post, which makes a great deal of sense. What I'm
wondering is how any of this discussion relates to actual purchase
decisions.

For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings were
identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
to reduce the effect of "bias"? At what point do we admit that we are
choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
when we are trained listeners?

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
> > Jenn asks:
> > So what are those biases? and is told to "go and her reading".
> >
> > Your question is neither "na=EFve" nor nonsensical.
> > Of course, we all have biases. One does not need to read the
> > psychologists laboriously rediscovering America to know that.
> > But what biases are we talking about? Who proved that we all share *the
> > same* biases?
> > To assume that "anyone" does, as Mr. Sullivan says is very
> > "unscientific" coming from one of the RAO scientists.. Those telling
> > you that YOU must go for bells and whistles are merely informing you
> > what THEIR own bias is.
> > Your bias may be the very opposite. The more bells and whistles the
> > more you mistrust the gadget. The more it costs the more you suspect
> > that its reputation is due to its price (it is "exclusive" in the
> > ads linguo).
> > Needless to say I'm betraying my own bias.
> > All that, quite apart from the validity of their favourite way of
> > excluding one of all the possible biases: the sighted bias.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
>
> Thanks for you post, which makes a great deal of sense. What I'm
> wondering is how any of this discussion relates to actual purchase
> decisions.

IMO... none of it matters to the individual for individual choices.

But it does matter to elements of the industry who are influential to
individuals... like manufacturers, sellers, and reviewers.

>
> For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
> front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
> Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
> TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings were
> identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
> to reduce the effect of "bias"? At what point do we admit that we are
> choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
> bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
> when we are trained listeners?

I'd be very interesed in your perception of these TT's. Was the
system you were using capable of deep bass response into the 20 hz
range?
One problem I find with my old TT is rumble but I can't tell if its the
TT or the pressings as some records seem to be much worse than others.

I would think if it was TT related it would be apparent during silent
passages but that isn't the case at all.

Did you use a test record or just your favorite music to evaluate?

ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>> Jenn asks:
>> So what are those biases? and is told to "go and her reading".
>>
>> Your question is neither "naïve" nor nonsensical.
>> Of course, we all have biases. One does not need to read the
>> psychologists laboriously rediscovering America to know that.
>> But what biases are we talking about? Who proved that we all share *the
>> same* biases?
>> To assume that "anyone" does, as Mr. Sullivan says is very
>> "unscientific" coming from one of the RAO scientists.. Those telling
>> you that YOU must go for bells and whistles are merely informing you
>> what THEIR own bias is.
>> Your bias may be the very opposite. The more bells and whistles the
>> more you mistrust the gadget. The more it costs the more you suspect
>> that its reputation is due to its price (it is "exclusive" in the
>> ads linguo).
>> Needless to say I'm betraying my own bias.
>> All that, quite apart from the validity of their favourite way of
>> excluding one of all the possible biases: the sighted bias.
>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>
>
> Thanks for you post, which makes a great deal of sense. What I'm
> wondering is how any of this discussion relates to actual purchase
> decisions.
>
> For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
> front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
> Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
> TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings were
> identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
> to reduce the effect of "bias"? At what point do we admit that we are
> choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
> bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
> when we are trained listeners?

At the point where you realize that you are the perfectly sane one. And that
it is a hobby. And that many objectivists use "bias" as an undefined (and
therefore non-arguable) catchphrase to hammer any and all over the head who
think they can actually make intelligent sighted choices, while claiming
that their ears are the primary vehicle for doing so.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . com>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn asks:
> >> So what are those biases? and is told to "go and her reading".
> >>
> >> Your question is neither "naïve" nor nonsensical.
> >> Of course, we all have biases. One does not need to read the
> >> psychologists laboriously rediscovering America to know that.
> >> But what biases are we talking about? Who proved that we all share *the
> >> same* biases?
> >> To assume that "anyone" does, as Mr. Sullivan says is very
> >> "unscientific" coming from one of the RAO scientists.. Those telling
> >> you that YOU must go for bells and whistles are merely informing you
> >> what THEIR own bias is.
> >> Your bias may be the very opposite. The more bells and whistles the
> >> more you mistrust the gadget. The more it costs the more you suspect
> >> that its reputation is due to its price (it is "exclusive" in the
> >> ads linguo).
> >> Needless to say I'm betraying my own bias.
> >> All that, quite apart from the validity of their favourite way of
> >> excluding one of all the possible biases: the sighted bias.
> >> Ludovic Mirabel
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for you post, which makes a great deal of sense. What I'm
> > wondering is how any of this discussion relates to actual purchase
> > decisions.
> >
> > For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
> > front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
> > Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
> > TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings were
> > identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
> > to reduce the effect of "bias"? At what point do we admit that we are
> > choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
> > bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
> > when we are trained listeners?
>
> At the point where you realize that you are the perfectly sane one. And that
> it is a hobby. And that many objectivists use "bias" as an undefined (and
> therefore non-arguable) catchphrase to hammer any and all over the head who
> think they can actually make intelligent sighted choices, while claiming
> that their ears are the primary vehicle for doing so.

We agree.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn asks:
> > > So what are those biases? and is told to "go and her reading".
> > >
> > > Your question is neither "naïve" nor nonsensical.
> > > Of course, we all have biases. One does not need to read the
> > > psychologists laboriously rediscovering America to know that.
> > > But what biases are we talking about? Who proved that we all share *the
> > > same* biases?
> > > To assume that "anyone" does, as Mr. Sullivan says is very
> > > "unscientific" coming from one of the RAO scientists.. Those telling
> > > you that YOU must go for bells and whistles are merely informing you
> > > what THEIR own bias is.
> > > Your bias may be the very opposite. The more bells and whistles the
> > > more you mistrust the gadget. The more it costs the more you suspect
> > > that its reputation is due to its price (it is "exclusive" in the
> > > ads linguo).
> > > Needless to say I'm betraying my own bias.
> > > All that, quite apart from the validity of their favourite way of
> > > excluding one of all the possible biases: the sighted bias.
> > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for you post, which makes a great deal of sense. What I'm
> > wondering is how any of this discussion relates to actual purchase
> > decisions.
>
> IMO... none of it matters to the individual for individual choices.
>
> But it does matter to elements of the industry who are influential to
> individuals... like manufacturers, sellers, and reviewers.

Well, that makes sense. So this discussion seems to be aimed at a very
small audience here, since the vast majority of us are none of those
things.
>
> >
> > For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
> > front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
> > Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
> > TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings were
> > identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
> > to reduce the effect of "bias"? At what point do we admit that we are
> > choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
> > bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
> > when we are trained listeners?
>
> I'd be very interesed in your perception of these TT's. Was the
> system you were using capable of deep bass response into the 20 hz
> range?

No, but how many really are? The speakers were Spendors, which I
perceived to have a very neutral midrange.

> One problem I find with my old TT is rumble but I can't tell if its the
> TT or the pressings as some records seem to be much worse than others.
>
> I would think if it was TT related it would be apparent during silent
> passages but that isn't the case at all.

I would think that as well.
>
> Did you use a test record or just your favorite music to evaluate?

Three favorite LPs of wind music, large orchestral, and solo piano.

The listening was quite revealing. I was comparing a Rega P3, a
Clearaudio Emotion, and a Michell. I heard all three with the Rega
RB300 arm and the Clearaudio $200 cartridge, and I also heard the
Clearaudio table with it's stock arm. The Michell was some $700 more in
price, and according to my listening, was the worse sounding of the
three.

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>> > In article . com>,
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Jenn asks:
>> > > So what are those biases? and is told to "go and her reading".
>> > >
>> > > Your question is neither "naïve" nor nonsensical.
>> > > Of course, we all have biases. One does not need to read the
>> > > psychologists laboriously rediscovering America to know that.
>> > > But what biases are we talking about? Who proved that we all share
>> > > *the
>> > > same* biases?
>> > > To assume that "anyone" does, as Mr. Sullivan says is very
>> > > "unscientific" coming from one of the RAO scientists.. Those telling
>> > > you that YOU must go for bells and whistles are merely informing
>> > > you
>> > > what THEIR own bias is.
>> > > Your bias may be the very opposite. The more bells and whistles the
>> > > more you mistrust the gadget. The more it costs the more you suspect
>> > > that its reputation is due to its price (it is "exclusive" in the
>> > > ads linguo).
>> > > Needless to say I'm betraying my own bias.
>> > > All that, quite apart from the validity of their favourite way of
>> > > excluding one of all the possible biases: the sighted bias.
>> > > Ludovic Mirabel
>> > >
>> >
>> > Thanks for you post, which makes a great deal of sense. What I'm
>> > wondering is how any of this discussion relates to actual purchase
>> > decisions.
>>
>> IMO... none of it matters to the individual for individual choices.
>>
>> But it does matter to elements of the industry who are influential to
>> individuals... like manufacturers, sellers, and reviewers.
>
> Well, that makes sense. So this discussion seems to be aimed at a very
> small audience here, since the vast majority of us are none of those
> things.
>>
>> >
>> > For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
>> > front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
>> > Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
>> > TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings
>> > were
>> > identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
>> > to reduce the effect of "bias"? At what point do we admit that we are
>> > choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
>> > bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
>> > when we are trained listeners?
>>
>> I'd be very interesed in your perception of these TT's. Was the
>> system you were using capable of deep bass response into the 20 hz
>> range?
>
> No, but how many really are? The speakers were Spendors, which I
> perceived to have a very neutral midrange.
>
>> One problem I find with my old TT is rumble but I can't tell if its the
>> TT or the pressings as some records seem to be much worse than others.
>>
>> I would think if it was TT related it would be apparent during silent
>> passages but that isn't the case at all.
>
> I would think that as well.
>>
>> Did you use a test record or just your favorite music to evaluate?
>
> Three favorite LPs of wind music, large orchestral, and solo piano.
>
> The listening was quite revealing. I was comparing a Rega P3, a
> Clearaudio Emotion, and a Michell. I heard all three with the Rega
> RB300 arm and the Clearaudio $200 cartridge, and I also heard the
> Clearaudio table with it's stock arm. The Michell was some $700 more in
> price, and according to my listening, was the worse sounding of the
> three.

Jenn, you are obviously biased, but your biases are so mixed up that even
your biases don't know which they are. So there!! :-)

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> > In article . com>,
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Jenn asks:
> >> > > So what are those biases? and is told to "go and her reading".
> >> > >
> >> > > Your question is neither "naïve" nor nonsensical.
> >> > > Of course, we all have biases. One does not need to read the
> >> > > psychologists laboriously rediscovering America to know that.
> >> > > But what biases are we talking about? Who proved that we all share
> >> > > *the
> >> > > same* biases?
> >> > > To assume that "anyone" does, as Mr. Sullivan says is very
> >> > > "unscientific" coming from one of the RAO scientists.. Those telling
> >> > > you that YOU must go for bells and whistles are merely informing
> >> > > you
> >> > > what THEIR own bias is.
> >> > > Your bias may be the very opposite. The more bells and whistles the
> >> > > more you mistrust the gadget. The more it costs the more you suspect
> >> > > that its reputation is due to its price (it is "exclusive" in the
> >> > > ads linguo).
> >> > > Needless to say I'm betraying my own bias.
> >> > > All that, quite apart from the validity of their favourite way of
> >> > > excluding one of all the possible biases: the sighted bias.
> >> > > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for you post, which makes a great deal of sense. What I'm
> >> > wondering is how any of this discussion relates to actual purchase
> >> > decisions.
> >>
> >> IMO... none of it matters to the individual for individual choices.
> >>
> >> But it does matter to elements of the industry who are influential to
> >> individuals... like manufacturers, sellers, and reviewers.
> >
> > Well, that makes sense. So this discussion seems to be aimed at a very
> > small audience here, since the vast majority of us are none of those
> > things.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
> >> > front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
> >> > Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
> >> > TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings
> >> > were
> >> > identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
> >> > to reduce the effect of "bias"? At what point do we admit that we are
> >> > choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
> >> > bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
> >> > when we are trained listeners?
> >>
> >> I'd be very interesed in your perception of these TT's. Was the
> >> system you were using capable of deep bass response into the 20 hz
> >> range?
> >
> > No, but how many really are? The speakers were Spendors, which I
> > perceived to have a very neutral midrange.
> >
> >> One problem I find with my old TT is rumble but I can't tell if its the
> >> TT or the pressings as some records seem to be much worse than others.
> >>
> >> I would think if it was TT related it would be apparent during silent
> >> passages but that isn't the case at all.
> >
> > I would think that as well.
> >>
> >> Did you use a test record or just your favorite music to evaluate?
> >
> > Three favorite LPs of wind music, large orchestral, and solo piano.
> >
> > The listening was quite revealing. I was comparing a Rega P3, a
> > Clearaudio Emotion, and a Michell. I heard all three with the Rega
> > RB300 arm and the Clearaudio $200 cartridge, and I also heard the
> > Clearaudio table with it's stock arm. The Michell was some $700 more in
> > price, and according to my listening, was the worse sounding of the
> > three.
>
> Jenn, you are obviously biased, but your biases are so mixed up that even
> your biases don't know which they are. So there!! :-)

LOL You are probably correct! (Harry, you have email from me...thanks)

[[email protected]]

S. Sullivan says:
" teh scientific work indicates that 'we all' bring such biases
to any comparison
"-- the most fundamental being the expectation of hearing difference
when
you 'know' the two things are different in other ways --
then it shoudl be necessary to prove that the listener
*doesn't* hold such biases."

How does one prove that the listener does not hold this bias: " I
do not believe that I can hear a difference even though these two
components look different and are priced differently? I'll think about
how right I am and write in "This is like A" and "This is like B" at
random". ?
Or another bias: " I don't care for this kind of artsy-fartsy
music. All of it sounds the same to me"?
Or this one: "I wonder when they will stop torturing me with
this boom-boom pseudo-music. Can't wait. I'll think of my dinner"?
L.M.


--

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> Well, that makes sense. So this discussion seems to be aimed at a very
> small audience here, since the vast majority of us are none of those
> things.

Doesn't prevent people from having strong opinions on the subject.

>>
>> >
>> > For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
>> > front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
>> > Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
>> > TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings
>> > were
>> > identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
>> > to reduce the effect of "bias"? At what point do we admit that we are
>> > choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
>> > bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
>> > when we are trained listeners?
>>
>> I'd be very interesed in your perception of these TT's. Was the
>> system you were using capable of deep bass response into the 20 hz
>> range?
>
> No, but how many really are? The speakers were Spendors, which I
> perceived to have a very neutral midrange.

One reason I ask is because that is my perceived weakness of my TT and I
only became aware of it after adding a subwoofer to my Quads.
I wasn't listening to vinyl much before that.

Marc (former RAO participant and Gene Rubin customer, he gives
him very high praise) once brought his Rega P3 (now replaced by a
Michell) to my house
from LA to allow me a chance to listen to it after a we had a discussion on
my Mitsubishi LT-30. He had some larger Spendors in his place.
I had Legacy Focus at the time for my mains.
During the listening he played a cut from a jazz album, 3 Blind Mice.
The bass set off a serious bloom/boom. Just short of self sustaining
and rocked us all out of our chairs. He felt it was room bloom but I never
heard anything like it before and have some deep bass CDs like Rutters
Requiem which never did anything like that.
I felt something in his cart/arm/isolation table had a resonance.
Only happenned on that one album.
His Spendors are only 40 hz or so spec'd which might have not been
able to set it off. No way to know for sure but it was an interesting
experience.

My own table according to Hi Fi news test record has a rather high
18 -22 hz resonance. We didn't get to play 3 Blind Mice on it.

>
>> One problem I find with my old TT is rumble but I can't tell if its the
>> TT or the pressings as some records seem to be much worse than others.
>>
>> I would think if it was TT related it would be apparent during silent
>> passages but that isn't the case at all.
>
> I would think that as well.
>>
>> Did you use a test record or just your favorite music to evaluate?
>
> Three favorite LPs of wind music, large orchestral, and solo piano.
>
> The listening was quite revealing. I was comparing a Rega P3, a
> Clearaudio Emotion, and a Michell. I heard all three with the Rega
> RB300 arm and the Clearaudio $200 cartridge, and I also heard the
> Clearaudio table with it's stock arm. The Michell was some $700 more in
> price, and according to my listening, was the worse sounding of the
> three.

Was it the same cart or just same make model on 3 different tables?
I remember going through M93es back in the day on my AR and
they sure sounded different. My buddy had exact same
TT and cart (some mail order house was selling AR XAs with
Shure M93e for about $80 when I was in high school. We all
bought one.) Anyway we swapped carts and they didn't sound
the same. Neither was bad... just different.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article <kSrVe.119763$Ep.119205@lakeread02>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > Well, that makes sense. So this discussion seems to be aimed at a very
> > small audience here, since the vast majority of us are none of those
> > things.
>
> Doesn't prevent people from having strong opinions on the subject.

Obviously, and rightfully so, I suppose.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
> >> > front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
> >> > Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
> >> > TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings
> >> > were
> >> > identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
> >> > to reduce the effect of "bias"? At what point do we admit that we are
> >> > choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
> >> > bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
> >> > when we are trained listeners?
> >>
> >> I'd be very interesed in your perception of these TT's. Was the
> >> system you were using capable of deep bass response into the 20 hz
> >> range?
> >
> > No, but how many really are? The speakers were Spendors, which I
> > perceived to have a very neutral midrange.
>
> One reason I ask is because that is my perceived weakness of my TT and I
> only became aware of it after adding a subwoofer to my Quads.
> I wasn't listening to vinyl much before that.
>
> Marc (former RAO participant and Gene Rubin customer, he gives
> him very high praise)

Gene was VERY good to me this weekend; I was there for several hours,
and it turns out that I might go and play in his bluegrass jams...great
guy.

> once brought his Rega P3 (now replaced by a
> Michell) to my house
> from LA to allow me a chance to listen to it after a we had a discussion on
> my Mitsubishi LT-30. He had some larger Spendors in his place.

Yep, it all sounds like stuff from Gene :-)


> I had Legacy Focus at the time for my mains.
> During the listening he played a cut from a jazz album, 3 Blind Mice.
> The bass set off a serious bloom/boom. Just short of self sustaining
> and rocked us all out of our chairs. He felt it was room bloom but I never
> heard anything like it before and have some deep bass CDs like Rutters
> Requiem which never did anything like that.
> I felt something in his cart/arm/isolation table had a resonance.
> Only happenned on that one album.
> His Spendors are only 40 hz or so spec'd which might have not been
> able to set it off. No way to know for sure but it was an interesting
> experience.

Sounds interesting. Possibly TT location problem?
>
> My own table according to Hi Fi news test record has a rather high
> 18 -22 hz resonance. We didn't get to play 3 Blind Mice on it.

What TT are you using?

>
> >
> >> One problem I find with my old TT is rumble but I can't tell if its the
> >> TT or the pressings as some records seem to be much worse than others.
> >>
> >> I would think if it was TT related it would be apparent during silent
> >> passages but that isn't the case at all.
> >
> > I would think that as well.
> >>
> >> Did you use a test record or just your favorite music to evaluate?
> >
> > Three favorite LPs of wind music, large orchestral, and solo piano.
> >
> > The listening was quite revealing. I was comparing a Rega P3, a
> > Clearaudio Emotion, and a Michell. I heard all three with the Rega
> > RB300 arm and the Clearaudio $200 cartridge, and I also heard the
> > Clearaudio table with it's stock arm. The Michell was some $700 more in
> > price, and according to my listening, was the worse sounding of the
> > three.
>
> Was it the same cart or just same make model on 3 different tables?
> I remember going through M93es back in the day on my AR and
> they sure sounded different. My buddy had exact same
> TT and cart (some mail order house was selling AR XAs with
> Shure M93e for about $80 when I was in high school. We all
> bought one.) Anyway we swapped carts and they didn't sound
> the same. Neither was bad... just different.

We first used three different samples of the same model so we could make
faster switches, then used one cartridge on all three. Same results, in
this case.
>
> ScottW

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article <kSrVe.119763$Ep.119205@lakeread02>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>> I had Legacy Focus at the time for my mains.
>> During the listening he played a cut from a jazz album, 3 Blind Mice.
>> The bass set off a serious bloom/boom. Just short of self sustaining
>> and rocked us all out of our chairs. He felt it was room bloom but I
>> never
>> heard anything like it before and have some deep bass CDs like Rutters
>> Requiem which never did anything like that.
>> I felt something in his cart/arm/isolation table had a resonance.
>> Only happenned on that one album.
>> His Spendors are only 40 hz or so spec'd which might have not been
>> able to set it off. No way to know for sure but it was an interesting
>> experience.
>
> Sounds interesting. Possibly TT location problem?

Very possible... both tables were front and center of the listening
position
on a rittan glass top coffee table. Certainly not ideal.
Still.... feedback or resonance at that frequency would be a challenge to
isolate. Every other album was fine.

>>
>> My own table according to Hi Fi news test record has a rather high
>> 18 -22 hz resonance. We didn't get to play 3 Blind Mice on it.
>
> What TT are you using?

1980 vintage Mitusbishi LT-30.
Few are familiar with it, most think of the more common vertical
version LT-5 which wasn't the greatest to put it mildly.
The LT-30 is a servo controlled linear tracker. It has an
arm in universal gymbal base and the entire base is moved to maintain
tracking angle which is sensed with optocouplers (light sensitive devices).
The concept is good... the implementation could be better but
the only thing I've seen better are the various air bearing linear arms.
The platter is DD but seems decent enough.
I can't tell if what I've focused on is cutter noise or platter rumble.
I also think records with severely misplace center holes the tracking
and arm movement can get out sync. It actually tries to maintain
a <.05 degree error and the arm can chase a record back and forth.

>
>>
>> >
>> >> One problem I find with my old TT is rumble but I can't tell if its
>> >> the
>> >> TT or the pressings as some records seem to be much worse than others.
>> >>
>> >> I would think if it was TT related it would be apparent during silent
>> >> passages but that isn't the case at all.
>> >
>> > I would think that as well.
>> >>
>> >> Did you use a test record or just your favorite music to evaluate?
>> >
>> > Three favorite LPs of wind music, large orchestral, and solo piano.
>> >
>> > The listening was quite revealing. I was comparing a Rega P3, a
>> > Clearaudio Emotion, and a Michell. I heard all three with the Rega
>> > RB300 arm and the Clearaudio $200 cartridge, and I also heard the
>> > Clearaudio table with it's stock arm. The Michell was some $700 more
>> > in
>> > price, and according to my listening, was the worse sounding of the
>> > three.
>>
>> Was it the same cart or just same make model on 3 different tables?
>> I remember going through M93es back in the day on my AR and
>> they sure sounded different. My buddy had exact same
>> TT and cart (some mail order house was selling AR XAs with
>> Shure M93e for about $80 when I was in high school. We all
>> bought one.) Anyway we swapped carts and they didn't sound
>> the same. Neither was bad... just different.
>
> We first used three different samples of the same model so we could make
> faster switches, then used one cartridge on all three. Same results, in
> this case.

Thats good.. indicates the cart manufacturer has a degree of QC.
That Shure was manufactured in the 10s of thousands. It was a
staple of entry level tables back then.

So what did the Michell do wrong that the others didn't and
which one was it?

and thanks for sharing your experience...

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article <UDsVe.119767$Ep.116756@lakeread02>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <kSrVe.119763$Ep.119205@lakeread02>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I had Legacy Focus at the time for my mains.
> >> During the listening he played a cut from a jazz album, 3 Blind Mice.
> >> The bass set off a serious bloom/boom. Just short of self sustaining
> >> and rocked us all out of our chairs. He felt it was room bloom but I
> >> never
> >> heard anything like it before and have some deep bass CDs like Rutters
> >> Requiem which never did anything like that.
> >> I felt something in his cart/arm/isolation table had a resonance.
> >> Only happenned on that one album.
> >> His Spendors are only 40 hz or so spec'd which might have not been
> >> able to set it off. No way to know for sure but it was an interesting
> >> experience.
> >
> > Sounds interesting. Possibly TT location problem?
>
> Very possible... both tables were front and center of the listening
> position
> on a rittan glass top coffee table. Certainly not ideal.
> Still.... feedback or resonance at that frequency would be a challenge to
> isolate. Every other album was fine.
>
> >>
> >> My own table according to Hi Fi news test record has a rather high
> >> 18 -22 hz resonance. We didn't get to play 3 Blind Mice on it.
> >
> > What TT are you using?
>
> 1980 vintage Mitusbishi LT-30.
> Few are familiar with it, most think of the more common vertical
> version LT-5 which wasn't the greatest to put it mildly.
> The LT-30 is a servo controlled linear tracker. It has an
> arm in universal gymbal base and the entire base is moved to maintain
> tracking angle which is sensed with optocouplers (light sensitive devices).
> The concept is good... the implementation could be better but
> the only thing I've seen better are the various air bearing linear arms.
> The platter is DD but seems decent enough.
> I can't tell if what I've focused on is cutter noise or platter rumble.
> I also think records with severely misplace center holes the tracking
> and arm movement can get out sync. It actually tries to maintain
> a <.05 degree error and the arm can chase a record back and forth.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> One problem I find with my old TT is rumble but I can't tell if its
> >> >> the
> >> >> TT or the pressings as some records seem to be much worse than others.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would think if it was TT related it would be apparent during silent
> >> >> passages but that isn't the case at all.
> >> >
> >> > I would think that as well.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did you use a test record or just your favorite music to evaluate?
> >> >
> >> > Three favorite LPs of wind music, large orchestral, and solo piano.
> >> >
> >> > The listening was quite revealing. I was comparing a Rega P3, a
> >> > Clearaudio Emotion, and a Michell. I heard all three with the Rega
> >> > RB300 arm and the Clearaudio $200 cartridge, and I also heard the
> >> > Clearaudio table with it's stock arm. The Michell was some $700 more
> >> > in
> >> > price, and according to my listening, was the worse sounding of the
> >> > three.
> >>
> >> Was it the same cart or just same make model on 3 different tables?
> >> I remember going through M93es back in the day on my AR and
> >> they sure sounded different. My buddy had exact same
> >> TT and cart (some mail order house was selling AR XAs with
> >> Shure M93e for about $80 when I was in high school. We all
> >> bought one.) Anyway we swapped carts and they didn't sound
> >> the same. Neither was bad... just different.
> >
> > We first used three different samples of the same model so we could make
> > faster switches, then used one cartridge on all three. Same results, in
> > this case.
>
> Thats good.. indicates the cart manufacturer has a degree of QC.
> That Shure was manufactured in the 10s of thousands. It was a
> staple of entry level tables back then.
>
> So what did the Michell do wrong that the others didn't and
> which one was it?
>
> and thanks for sharing your experience...
>
> ScottW

I'll have to get the Michell model number from my notes, which are at
work. What I didn't like about it was that it seemed to "shrink"
everything, compared to the others; kind of like looking the wrong way
through binoculars. The instrument timbres were very good, however.

By the way, is the Marc that you mentioned now living in Seatle, do you
know?

Jenn

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'll have to get the Michell model number from my notes, which are at
> work. What I didn't like about it was that it seemed to "shrink"
> everything, compared to the others; kind of like looking the wrong way
> through binoculars. The instrument timbres were very good, however.

Sounds like the feeling I get with my Quads compared to the Legacy's.
I'm listening from afar... but the clarity, timbre, ..everything else is
very satisfying.
>
> By the way, is the Marc that you mentioned now living in Seatle, do you
> know?

No, I don't. Haven't talked to him in a couple of years I guess.
I must say it was incredibly gracious of him to drag his rig down to SD,
to a guys house he'd never met and gone a few rounds with on RAO.
He's a great guy once you get to meet him :).

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article <aOsVe.119769$Ep.43412@lakeread02>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'll have to get the Michell model number from my notes, which are at
> > work. What I didn't like about it was that it seemed to "shrink"
> > everything, compared to the others; kind of like looking the wrong way
> > through binoculars. The instrument timbres were very good, however.
>
> Sounds like the feeling I get with my Quads compared to the Legacy's.
> I'm listening from afar... but the clarity, timbre, ..everything else is
> very satisfying.
> >
> > By the way, is the Marc that you mentioned now living in Seatle, do you
> > know?
>
> No, I don't. Haven't talked to him in a couple of years I guess.
> I must say it was incredibly gracious of him to drag his rig down to SD,
> to a guys house he'd never met and gone a few rounds with on RAO.
> He's a great guy once you get to meet him :).
>
> ScottW

I'm wondering because I've had some emails with a Marc from WA who
answered some questions that I posted to Vinyl Asylum. Nice guy... he
has a Rega P25 for sale.

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article <aOsVe.119769$Ep.43412@lakeread02>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > I'll have to get the Michell model number from my notes, which are at
>> > work. What I didn't like about it was that it seemed to "shrink"
>> > everything, compared to the others; kind of like looking the wrong way
>> > through binoculars. The instrument timbres were very good, however.
>>
>> Sounds like the feeling I get with my Quads compared to the Legacy's.
>> I'm listening from afar... but the clarity, timbre, ..everything else is
>> very satisfying.
>> >
>> > By the way, is the Marc that you mentioned now living in Seatle, do you
>> > know?
>>
>> No, I don't. Haven't talked to him in a couple of years I guess.
>> I must say it was incredibly gracious of him to drag his rig down to SD,
>> to a guys house he'd never met and gone a few rounds with on RAO.
>> He's a great guy once you get to meet him :).
>>
>> ScottW
>
> I'm wondering because I've had some emails with a Marc from WA who
> answered some questions that I posted to Vinyl Asylum. Nice guy... he
> has a Rega P25 for sale.

Ask him if he used to haunt RAO... tell him we miss him...well some of us
anyway :).

You should have bought the Forsell Air Reference on auction on Audiogon
a few months back. It went for under 5K... they look so cool.
I only heard one once... Scott Wheeler has one along with an awesome
album collection... he seems to have left
the group as well.

ScottW

[Steven Sullivan]

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

> > Jenn > wrote:

> >
> > > I don't know; that's why I have asked what these biases might be. I
> > > don't seem to have a bias toward "flashing lights and bells and
> > > whistles", nor do I have a bias toward more expensive gear.
> >
> > Well, maybe you don't and maybe you do. Merely claiming you
> > don't, just because you can think of cases where it *hasn't*
> > apparently influenced you, is not sufficient proof that you
> > are free of such biases.

> Fair enough. All of the evidence that I have is my purchasing record,
> which is quite consistent in its eclecticness. (a new word!)
> >
> > > How do I
> > > find out what these biases are?
> >
> > To find out what sorts of biases have been identified, reading
> > up on sensory research.
> >
> > To find out whether a certain species of bias has affected your
> > judgement in a comaprison, repeat the comparison with
> > a control in place for that bias.

> How might one, for example, control for bias in a turntable comparison
> (which I am presently carrying out)? How does one compare three
> different turntables using the same arm and cartridge?

<etc>

With some difficulty, and likley considerable expense,
in the case of turntables, but it's not impossible.

Or, you could just accept the *fact*
that the choice you do make without having done the comparison in
a controlled fashion, is going to have been
influenced by psychological 'noise' as well as the actual
audio signal.

And then you'll temper the strength of
your claims about the sound accordingly, right?

> Where do I go to get tested to see if I hold such biases?

Just assume that you do. There is no place that will 'test' you
to 'see if you hold them'. That's like 'testing' to see if
you have a brain.


> Well gee, Steven, as this is the very first time that you have answered
> my questions concerning bias, I guess that I was sadly mistaken about
> your desire (or perhaps, your ability) to help. I won't make that error
> again.

When a person has been told how to help themselves, but refuses to,
and jsut keeps asking the same badly-formed questions,
it's rather pointless to keep going.


--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

Jenn > wrote:
> In article . com>,
> wrote:

> > Jenn asks:
> > So what are those biases? and is told to "go and her reading".
> >
> > Your question is neither "na?ve" nor nonsensical.
> > Of course, we all have biases. One does not need to read the
> > psychologists laboriously rediscovering America to know that.
> > But what biases are we talking about? Who proved that we all share *the
> > same* biases?
> > To assume that "anyone" does, as Mr. Sullivan says is very
> > "unscientific" coming from one of the RAO scientists.. Those telling
> > you that YOU must go for bells and whistles are merely informing you
> > what THEIR own bias is.
> > Your bias may be the very opposite. The more bells and whistles the
> > more you mistrust the gadget. The more it costs the more you suspect
> > that its reputation is due to its price (it is "exclusive" in the
> > ads linguo).
> > Needless to say I'm betraying my own bias.
> > All that, quite apart from the validity of their favourite way of
> > excluding one of all the possible biases: the sighted bias.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >

> Thanks for you post, which makes a great deal of sense. What I'm
> wondering is how any of this discussion relates to actual purchase
> decisions.

Actual purchase decisions are influenced by factors other than sound
alone, unless you actually go to the trouble of isolating the sound
alone as the variable.

All that means is that when you do make your claims about how
your purchase 'sounds', you are assuming a 'cause' that may
be the wrong one.



> For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
> front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
> Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
> TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings were
> identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
> to reduce the effect of "bias"?

If the gear and program material are the same, and
the levels have been matched to 0.1 dB, the most urgent bias controls
needed would be randomizing and blinding the comparison, so that
you don't 'know' which TT you're listening to *except* by its sound.
Time synching would remain a rather tough problem too.

Assuming, of cousre , that you really only want to make *sound* the
criterion for choosing your TT.


> At what point do we admit that we are
> choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
> bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
> when we are trained listeners?

Right at the start, if you like. Funny thing is, so many people like
you later *forget* that there was *considerable* room for error in
your method.





--

-S

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > Jenn > wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > I don't know; that's why I have asked what these biases might be. I
> > > > don't seem to have a bias toward "flashing lights and bells and
> > > > whistles", nor do I have a bias toward more expensive gear.
> > >
> > > Well, maybe you don't and maybe you do. Merely claiming you
> > > don't, just because you can think of cases where it *hasn't*
> > > apparently influenced you, is not sufficient proof that you
> > > are free of such biases.
>
> > Fair enough. All of the evidence that I have is my purchasing record,
> > which is quite consistent in its eclecticness. (a new word!)
> > >
> > > > How do I
> > > > find out what these biases are?
> > >
> > > To find out what sorts of biases have been identified, reading
> > > up on sensory research.
> > >
> > > To find out whether a certain species of bias has affected your
> > > judgement in a comaprison, repeat the comparison with
> > > a control in place for that bias.
>
> > How might one, for example, control for bias in a turntable comparison
> > (which I am presently carrying out)? How does one compare three
> > different turntables using the same arm and cartridge?
>
> <etc>
>
> With some difficulty, and likley considerable expense,
> in the case of turntables, but it's not impossible.
>
> Or, you could just accept the *fact*
> that the choice you do make without having done the comparison in
> a controlled fashion, is going to have been
> influenced by psychological 'noise' as well as the actual
> audio signal.
>
> And then you'll temper the strength of
> your claims about the sound accordingly, right?

Please see my answer to your next post to me, to follow.

>
> > Where do I go to get tested to see if I hold such biases?
>
> Just assume that you do. There is no place that will 'test' you
> to 'see if you hold them'. That's like 'testing' to see if
> you have a brain.

So there is no way to know what biases I suffer from, nor their effect
on my decision.

>
>
> > Well gee, Steven, as this is the very first time that you have answered
> > my questions concerning bias, I guess that I was sadly mistaken about
> > your desire (or perhaps, your ability) to help. I won't make that error
> > again.
>
> When a person has been told how to help themselves, but refuses to,
> and jsut keeps asking the same badly-formed questions,
> it's rather pointless to keep going.

I've not "refused" to do anything, Steven. I have stated (several
times) that I will read as time allows. The reading and studying that I
do in order to do my job well is more important for me to carry out.
Badly formed questions? I have no idea which questions those would be;
perhaps I can find them located near your badly spelled responses.

[Steven Sullivan]

Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >
> > > Where do I go to get tested to see if I hold such biases?
> >
> > Just assume that you do. There is no place that will 'test' you
> > to 'see if you hold them'. That's like 'testing' to see if
> > you have a brain.

> So there is no way to know what biases I suffer from, nor their effect
> on my decision.

No, that's not what I wrote.

Let's try the Socratic method.

Tell me, how do you think psychological biases were identified as existing
in the first place?

> > > Well gee, Steven, as this is the very first time that you have answered
> > > my questions concerning bias, I guess that I was sadly mistaken about
> > > your desire (or perhaps, your ability) to help. I won't make that error
> > > again.
> >
> > When a person has been told how to help themselves, but refuses to,
> > and jsut keeps asking the same badly-formed questions,
> > it's rather pointless to keep going.

> I've not "refused" to do anything, Steven. I have stated (several
> times) that I will read as time allows. The reading and studying that I
> do in order to do my job well is more important for me to carry out.
> Badly formed questions? I have no idea which questions those would be;
> perhaps I can find them located near your badly spelled responses.

Oh dear..spelling flames. The discourse *has* deteriorated.



--

-S

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > wrote:
>
> > > Jenn asks:
> > > So what are those biases? and is told to "go and her reading".
> > >
> > > Your question is neither "na?ve" nor nonsensical.
> > > Of course, we all have biases. One does not need to read the
> > > psychologists laboriously rediscovering America to know that.
> > > But what biases are we talking about? Who proved that we all share *the
> > > same* biases?
> > > To assume that "anyone" does, as Mr. Sullivan says is very
> > > "unscientific" coming from one of the RAO scientists.. Those telling
> > > you that YOU must go for bells and whistles are merely informing you
> > > what THEIR own bias is.
> > > Your bias may be the very opposite. The more bells and whistles the
> > > more you mistrust the gadget. The more it costs the more you suspect
> > > that its reputation is due to its price (it is "exclusive" in the
> > > ads linguo).
> > > Needless to say I'm betraying my own bias.
> > > All that, quite apart from the validity of their favourite way of
> > > excluding one of all the possible biases: the sighted bias.
> > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > >
>
> > Thanks for you post, which makes a great deal of sense. What I'm
> > wondering is how any of this discussion relates to actual purchase
> > decisions.
>
> Actual purchase decisions are influenced by factors other than sound
> alone, unless you actually go to the trouble of isolating the sound
> alone as the variable.
>
> All that means is that when you do make your claims about how
> your purchase 'sounds', you are assuming a 'cause' that may
> be the wrong one.

True, I suppose. But in practical terms, this is fairly meaningless.
When one attends a concert, for example, one makes value judgments
concerning the merits of the concert. Bias obviously takes its "toll"
on the validity of these judgments. For example, what is the reputation
of the performer(s)? What is the appearance of the performer? Was the
level matched to that of another set of performers that you are
comparing the present performance to? How did dinner set that evening?
But still, at the end of the day, all of us make a judgment concerning
the quality of the performance. We don't say, "I think that the Chicago
Symphony played Tchaikovsky better than the SFS did last week, but my
cause for thinking this could be wrong." In fact, this kind of thinking
would not even cross our minds. We simply make the best judgments that
we can, and we live with it.
>
>
>
> > For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
> > front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
> > Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
> > TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings were
> > identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
> > to reduce the effect of "bias"?
>
> If the gear and program material are the same, and
> the levels have been matched to 0.1 dB, the most urgent bias controls
> needed would be randomizing and blinding the comparison, so that
> you don't 'know' which TT you're listening to *except* by its sound.
> Time synching would remain a rather tough problem too.
>
> Assuming, of cousre , that you really only want to make *sound* the
> criterion for choosing your TT.
>
>
> > At what point do we admit that we are
> > choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
> > bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
> > when we are trained listeners?
>
> Right at the start, if you like. Funny thing is, so many people like
> you later *forget* that there was *considerable* room for error in
> your method.

Please see what I wrote above. I suppose that I've simply trod down
this road mistakingly; this matter, IMO, seems to have very little to
do with home audio on the consumer level. In my recent turntable
listening day, for example, I did every practical thing that could be
done to assure that I was making judgments based on the sound alone. If
any further bias seeped into the decisions, I can live with it, as can
any other consumer I know. I would be curious to read a narrative of
your latest audio buying experience.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Where do I go to get tested to see if I hold such biases?
> > >
> > > Just assume that you do. There is no place that will 'test' you
> > > to 'see if you hold them'. That's like 'testing' to see if
> > > you have a brain.
>
> > So there is no way to know what biases I suffer from, nor their effect
> > on my decision.
>
> No, that's not what I wrote.

Is there indeed a way to know the answer to my question? Not
information concerning biases in general, but rather which specific
biases affect ME, and to what extent. Or, are we to assume that all
identified biases affect each person equally?
>
> Let's try the Socratic method.
>
> Tell me, how do you think psychological biases were identified as existing
> in the first place?

I presume that testing was carried out.

>
> > > > Well gee, Steven, as this is the very first time that you have answered
> > > > my questions concerning bias, I guess that I was sadly mistaken about
> > > > your desire (or perhaps, your ability) to help. I won't make that
> > > > error
> > > > again.
> > >
> > > When a person has been told how to help themselves, but refuses to,
> > > and jsut keeps asking the same badly-formed questions,
> > > it's rather pointless to keep going.
>
> > I've not "refused" to do anything, Steven. I have stated (several
> > times) that I will read as time allows. The reading and studying that I
> > do in order to do my job well is more important for me to carry out.
> > Badly formed questions? I have no idea which questions those would be;
> > perhaps I can find them located near your badly spelled responses.
>
> Oh dear..spelling flames. The discourse *has* deteriorated.

I can't remember any other time in these forums that I brought up the
spelling ability of others. Then again, I don't think that I've ever
been flamed with accusations of "badly-formed questions".

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> I can't remember any other time in these forums that I brought up the
> spelling ability of others. Then again, I don't think that I've ever
> been flamed with accusations of "badly-formed questions".

You've flouted Sillyborg's religious tenets... unforgivable. You're now an
Enemy of the Hive.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > MINe 109 > wrote:

> > In a scientific comparison, one matches levels.
>
> Right -- that's because one assumes the bias is operating.

Wrong -- it's because one wishes to prevent any bias that may be present
from operating.

> > > > > The bias towards hearing difference when there's visual or verbal
> > > > > evidence
> > > > > of difference? (this is a form of expectation bias, and it certainly
> > > > > need
> > > > > not
> > > > > be conscious)
> > >
> > > > Not always present.
> > >
> > > You've demonstrated this how?
>
> > Logically.
>
>
> Not yet.

Not gonna play any more.

> > > > > Or some others?
> > >
> > > > Any, all, or none.
> > >
> > > 'nuisance' variables include
> > >
> > > contrast effect
> > > effect of interstimulus interval
> > > effect of non-random presentation
> > > effect of size
> > > effect of brand
> > > effect of price
> > > effect of appearance
> > >
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Do you seriously imagine anyone can ever be guaranteed free of all of
> > > them? The only way to do that for any one of them is by yet more
> > > scientific study.
>
> > No, there are no guarantees. However, you've reintroduced the concept of
> > "branding." Since branding can be considered the marketing equivalent of
> > appealing to bias, the consumer may simply choose to embrace the
> > positive aspects of this and enjoy "The Only Sound."
>
> Of course, but I thought we were talking about the things that interfere
> with making a choice that's *really* based on the *sound*.

We're not. In fact, based on your input, I have changed my mind and now
feel that biases are universally present and can't be corrected for in
sighted listening. Therefore, all future gear decisions will be made
sighted so as to maximize appeal to my biases. To further strengthen
those biases, I'm going to subscribe to every magazine I can, peruse
websites and hang out in audio stores.

This way, I know I'll get the sound that appeals to me the most, and
knowing that you assure the actual sound can't be different, I know I
won't be disappointed in the result.

Stephen

[ScottW]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >
> > > > MINe 109 > wrote:
>
> > > In a scientific comparison, one matches levels.
> >
> > Right -- that's because one assumes the bias is operating.
>
> Wrong -- it's because one wishes to prevent any bias that may be present
> from operating.

and I thought it was simply to prevent an insignificant factor which
is easily controlled in even cheap systems from masking other more
subtle differences.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >
> > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> >
> > > > In a scientific comparison, one matches levels.
> > >
> > > Right -- that's because one assumes the bias is operating.
> >
> > Wrong -- it's because one wishes to prevent any bias that may be present
> > from operating.
>
> and I thought it was simply to prevent an insignificant factor which
> is easily controlled in even cheap systems from masking other more
> subtle differences.

Wiki awaits!

Stephen

[Steven Sullivan]

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

> > Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article . com>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Jenn asks:
> > > > So what are those biases? and is told to "go and her reading".
> > > >
> > > > Your question is neither "na?ve" nor nonsensical.
> > > > Of course, we all have biases. One does not need to read the
> > > > psychologists laboriously rediscovering America to know that.
> > > > But what biases are we talking about? Who proved that we all share *the
> > > > same* biases?
> > > > To assume that "anyone" does, as Mr. Sullivan says is very
> > > > "unscientific" coming from one of the RAO scientists.. Those telling
> > > > you that YOU must go for bells and whistles are merely informing you
> > > > what THEIR own bias is.
> > > > Your bias may be the very opposite. The more bells and whistles the
> > > > more you mistrust the gadget. The more it costs the more you suspect
> > > > that its reputation is due to its price (it is "exclusive" in the
> > > > ads linguo).
> > > > Needless to say I'm betraying my own bias.
> > > > All that, quite apart from the validity of their favourite way of
> > > > excluding one of all the possible biases: the sighted bias.
> > > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > > >
> >
> > > Thanks for you post, which makes a great deal of sense. What I'm
> > > wondering is how any of this discussion relates to actual purchase
> > > decisions.
> >
> > Actual purchase decisions are influenced by factors other than sound
> > alone, unless you actually go to the trouble of isolating the sound
> > alone as the variable.
> >
> > All that means is that when you do make your claims about how
> > your purchase 'sounds', you are assuming a 'cause' that may
> > be the wrong one.

> True, I suppose. But in practical terms, this is fairly meaningless.

And there was much rejoicing at Shakti.

> When one attends a concert, for example, one makes value judgments
> concerning the merits of the concert. Bias obviously takes its "toll"
> on the validity of these judgments. For example, what is the reputation
> of the performer(s)? What is the appearance of the performer? Was the
> level matched to that of another set of performers that you are
> comparing the present performance to? How did dinner set that evening?
> But still, at the end of the day, all of us make a judgment concerning
> the quality of the performance. We don't say, "I think that the Chicago
> Symphony played Tchaikovsky better than the SFS did last week, but my
> cause for thinking this could be wrong." In fact, this kind of thinking
> would not even cross our minds. We simply make the best judgments that
> we can, and we live with it.

The fact that we make judgements, hardly makes the judgements accurate.
Not *everything* is simply a matter of opinion, you know.

> > > For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
> > > front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
> > > Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
> > > TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings were
> > > identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
> > > to reduce the effect of "bias"?
> >
> > If the gear and program material are the same, and
> > the levels have been matched to 0.1 dB, the most urgent bias controls
> > needed would be randomizing and blinding the comparison, so that
> > you don't 'know' which TT you're listening to *except* by its sound.
> > Time synching would remain a rather tough problem too.
> >
> > Assuming, of cousre , that you really only want to make *sound* the
> > criterion for choosing your TT.

No reply?


> > > At what point do we admit that we are
> > > choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
> > > bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
> > > when we are trained listeners?
> >
> > Right at the start, if you like. Funny thing is, so many people like
> > you later *forget* that there was *considerable* room for error in
> > your method.

> Please see what I wrote above. I suppose that I've simply trod down
> this road mistakingly; this matter, IMO, seems to have very little to
> do with home audio on the consumer level.

So, at the consumer level,
it only matters what you *believe* to be true. Not what *really is*
true?

If so, the makers and marketers of snake-oil, in all its forms,
salute you.

> In my recent turntable
> listening day, for example, I did every practical thing that could be
> done to assure that I was making judgments based on the sound alone. If
> any further bias seeped into the decisions, I can live with it, as can
> any other consumer I know. I would be curious to read a narrative of
> your latest audio buying experience.

But the rationalist beef isn't with 'living with' the limitations of
sighted comparison -- that's what 'objectivists' do too. That *is* the
reasonable response. The beef is with the
*claims* made about the sound -- and more specifically, the claim made
about *why* the sound is what it is. Objectivists recognize the limitations
of uncontrolled comparison both *during* and *after* the purchase --
meaning, they won't be making the sort of absurdly definite claims
about how different A and B sound, merely based on that sort of
evidence. These claims emanate from the manufacturers, the high end
press, and the audiophile consumer culture -- an almost
perfect hermetic circle that is at times ludicrously disconnected
from reality.

My latest audio buy, a Pioneer AVR, didn't even involve auditioning
the receiver. I looked up the features I desired and found the lowest
price. I wouldn't claim it sounds different from another receiver
operated under similar conditions. I *would* claim it works
far better with an ilink connection...than receivers that don't
have an ilink connection. ;>



--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

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

> > Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Where do I go to get tested to see if I hold such biases?
> > > >
> > > > Just assume that you do. There is no place that will 'test' you
> > > > to 'see if you hold them'. That's like 'testing' to see if
> > > > you have a brain.
> >
> > > So there is no way to know what biases I suffer from, nor their effect
> > > on my decision.
> >
> > No, that's not what I wrote.

> Is there indeed a way to know the answer to my question? Not
> information concerning biases in general, but rather which specific
> biases affect ME, and to what extent. Or, are we to assume that all
> identified biases affect each person equally?

I told you elsewhere -- to test if you are biased by 'X'
(where X is any nuisance factor -- brand, price, appearance,
level-mismatch etc.) in a particular instance, repeat the
comparison with 'X' disguised or eliminated.
This won't eliminate bias from nuisance factors yiu haven't
controlled for, nor, if your choice remains statistically the
same, does it mean that you are 'immune' from 'X' bias in your
*next* comparison.

One factor that *is* certainly subject to variation
is simple lack of discrimination. Not being trained to hear
certain types of 'difference', could yield a false report
of 'sameness'. This can be improved by listener training.
But note that this truly does concern the audible dimension,
not some other psychological mode. Nor is listener
discrimination infinitely improvable. There are limits
to human hearing and resolution.

> > Let's try the Socratic method.
> >
> > Tell me, how do you think psychological biases were identified as existing
> > in the first place?

> I presume that testing was carried out.

Correct. Psychological biases are so well-established as a reality,
that they are required to be controlled for in pretty much every
scientific investigation involving human subjects and the study
of human perception.


> > > > > Well gee, Steven, as this is the very first time that you have answered
> > > > > my questions concerning bias, I guess that I was sadly mistaken about
> > > > > your desire (or perhaps, your ability) to help. I won't make that
> > > > > error
> > > > > again.
> > > >
> > > > When a person has been told how to help themselves, but refuses to,
> > > > and jsut keeps asking the same badly-formed questions,
> > > > it's rather pointless to keep going.
> >
> > > I've not "refused" to do anything, Steven. I have stated (several
> > > times) that I will read as time allows. The reading and studying that I
> > > do in order to do my job well is more important for me to carry out.
> > > Badly formed questions? I have no idea which questions those would be;
> > > perhaps I can find them located near your badly spelled responses.
> >
> > Oh dear..spelling flames. The discourse *has* deteriorated.

> I can't remember any other time in these forums that I brought up the
> spelling ability of others. Then again, I don't think that I've ever
> been flamed with accusations of "badly-formed questions".

A question from a deep ignorance of what *is* known, is prone to
being badly-formed.


--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >
> > > > MINe 109 > wrote:

> > > In a scientific comparison, one matches levels.
> >
> > Right -- that's because one assumes the bias is operating.

> Wrong -- it's because one wishes to prevent any bias that may be present
> from operating.

The effect is the same.


> > > > Do you seriously imagine anyone can ever be guaranteed free of all of
> > > > them? The only way to do that for any one of them is by yet more
> > > > scientific study.
> >
> > > No, there are no guarantees. However, you've reintroduced the concept of
> > > "branding." Since branding can be considered the marketing equivalent of
> > > appealing to bias, the consumer may simply choose to embrace the
> > > positive aspects of this and enjoy "The Only Sound."
> >
> > Of course, but I thought we were talking about the things that interfere
> > with making a choice that's *really* based on the *sound*.

> We're not. In fact, based on your input, I have changed my mind and now
> feel that biases are universally present and can't be corrected for in
> sighted listening. Therefore, all future gear decisions will be made
> sighted so as to maximize appeal to my biases. To further strengthen
> those biases, I'm going to subscribe to every magazine I can, peruse
> websites and hang out in audio stores.

Great! Such honesty is refreshing.

> This way, I know I'll get the sound that appeals to me the most, and
> knowing that you assure the actual sound can't be different, I know I
> won't be disappointed in the result.

Oh dear, I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your most excellent
plan, but: I don't assure that the actual sound can't be
different.


--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:

> > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > In a scientific comparison, one matches levels.
> > > >
> > > > Right -- that's because one assumes the bias is operating.
> > >
> > > Wrong -- it's because one wishes to prevent any bias that may be present
> > > from operating.
> >
> > and I thought it was simply to prevent an insignificant factor which
> > is easily controlled in even cheap systems from masking other more
> > subtle differences.

> Wiki awaits!

wiki where?


--

-S

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > In a scientific comparison, one matches levels.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right -- that's because one assumes the bias is operating.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong -- it's because one wishes to prevent any bias that may be present
> > > > from operating.
> > >
> > > and I thought it was simply to prevent an insignificant factor which
> > > is easily controlled in even cheap systems from masking other more
> > > subtle differences.
>
> > Wiki awaits!
>
> wiki where?

The wikipedia entry on DBT.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > MINe 109 > wrote:
>
> > > > In a scientific comparison, one matches levels.
> > >
> > > Right -- that's because one assumes the bias is operating.
>
> > Wrong -- it's because one wishes to prevent any bias that may be present
> > from operating.
>
> The effect is the same.

But the reasoning is more correct.

> > > > > Do you seriously imagine anyone can ever be guaranteed free of all of
> > > > > them? The only way to do that for any one of them is by yet more
> > > > > scientific study.
> > >
> > > > No, there are no guarantees. However, you've reintroduced the concept
> > > > of
> > > > "branding." Since branding can be considered the marketing equivalent
> > > > of
> > > > appealing to bias, the consumer may simply choose to embrace the
> > > > positive aspects of this and enjoy "The Only Sound."
> > >
> > > Of course, but I thought we were talking about the things that interfere
> > > with making a choice that's *really* based on the *sound*.
>
> > We're not. In fact, based on your input, I have changed my mind and now
> > feel that biases are universally present and can't be corrected for in
> > sighted listening. Therefore, all future gear decisions will be made
> > sighted so as to maximize appeal to my biases. To further strengthen
> > those biases, I'm going to subscribe to every magazine I can, peruse
> > websites and hang out in audio stores.
>
> Great! Such honesty is refreshing.

Too bad I'm not planning to buy anything soon.

> > This way, I know I'll get the sound that appeals to me the most, and
> > knowing that you assure the actual sound can't be different, I know I
> > won't be disappointed in the result.
>
> Oh dear, I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your most excellent
> plan, but: I don't assure that the actual sound can't be
> different.

That's terrible. I'll have to continue relying on my ears.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

Jenn:
> > True, I suppose. But in practical terms, this is fairly meaningless.
>
> And there was much rejoicing at Shakti.

Shakti makes a turntable?

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

Sillyborg finally gives us a context for his mindless bleating about the
holy blinding rituals.

> My latest audio buy, a Pioneer AVR, didn't even involve auditioning
> the receiver. I looked up the features I desired and found the lowest
> price.

I believe that says it all. We can now see that your interest in audio
newsgroups is purely trolling, since you have no interest in audio at all.

[Clyde Slick]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...

>
> My latest audio buy, a Pioneer AVR, didn't even involve auditioning
> the receiver. I looked up the features I desired and found the lowest
> price.

Is that how you selected your mail order bride?

[Clyde Slick]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...

>
> A question from a deep ignorance of what *is* known, is prone to
> being badly-formed.
>

but "at least" not as badly formed as the above sentemce

[Lionel]

George's dildo wrote :


> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> A question from a deep ignorance of what *is* known, is prone to
>> being badly-formed.
>>
>
> but "at least" not as badly formed as the above
> sentemce

Or the above word... :-)

[Steven Sullivan]

MINe 109 > wrote:
> >
> > Oh dear, I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your most excellent
> > plan, but: I don't assure that the actual sound can't be
> > different.

> That's terrible. I'll have to continue relying on my ears.


Well, you don't *have* to, but it's certainly more convenient to
*choose* to. But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
aren't really relying on your ears.


--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn:
> > > True, I suppose. But in practical terms, this is fairly meaningless.
> >
> > And there was much rejoicing at Shakti.

> Shakti makes a turntable?


Don't give them any ideas.

Jenn's airy dismissal of any practical use for verifying whether
*claims* about a product are actually, you know, *true* or
anything, is surely the sort of mindset that much of the
the high end depends on commercially. Hell, Shakti couldn't
exist without it.






--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

Lionel > wrote:
> George's dildo wrote :


> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >> A question from a deep ignorance of what *is* known, is prone to
> >> being badly-formed.
> >>
> >
> > but "at least" not as badly formed as the above
> > sentemce

> Or the above word... :-)

Surely it's a wonder the dildo can read at all, much less spell. ;>

--
-S

[Clyde Slick]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> MINe 109 > wrote:
>> >
>> > Oh dear, I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your most
>> > excellent
>> > plan, but: I don't assure that the actual sound can't be
>> > different.
>
>> That's terrible. I'll have to continue relying on my ears.
>
>
> Well, you don't *have* to, but it's certainly more convenient to
> *choose* to. But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
> reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
> aren't really relying on your ears.
>

Be sure to plug up your ears when looking at things.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Where do I go to get tested to see if I hold such biases?
> > > > >
> > > > > Just assume that you do. There is no place that will 'test' you
> > > > > to 'see if you hold them'. That's like 'testing' to see if
> > > > > you have a brain.
> > >
> > > > So there is no way to know what biases I suffer from, nor their effect
> > > > on my decision.
> > >
> > > No, that's not what I wrote.
>
> > Is there indeed a way to know the answer to my question? Not
> > information concerning biases in general, but rather which specific
> > biases affect ME, and to what extent. Or, are we to assume that all
> > identified biases affect each person equally?
>
> I told you elsewhere -- to test if you are biased by 'X'
> (where X is any nuisance factor -- brand, price, appearance,
> level-mismatch etc.) in a particular instance, repeat the
> comparison with 'X' disguised or eliminated.
> This won't eliminate bias from nuisance factors yiu haven't
> controlled for, nor, if your choice remains statistically the
> same, does it mean that you are 'immune' from 'X' bias in your
> *next* comparison.

I understand that. What I don't understand is how that affects my
shopping for stereo equipment. But again, it was my error to believe
that this conversation had any relevance to that.

>
> One factor that *is* certainly subject to variation
> is simple lack of discrimination. Not being trained to hear
> certain types of 'difference', could yield a false report
> of 'sameness'. This can be improved by listener training.

I understand that as well, and I'm quite well trained to hear the
differences in sound that are most important to me.

> But note that this truly does concern the audible dimension,
> not some other psychological mode. Nor is listener
> discrimination infinitely improvable. There are limits
> to human hearing and resolution.

Hence the problems with clarinet intonation.

>
> > > Let's try the Socratic method.
> > >
> > > Tell me, how do you think psychological biases were identified as
> > > existing
> > > in the first place?
>
> > I presume that testing was carried out.
>
> Correct. Psychological biases are so well-established as a reality,
> that they are required to be controlled for in pretty much every
> scientific investigation involving human subjects and the study
> of human perception.
>
>
> > > > > > Well gee, Steven, as this is the very first time that you have
> > > > > > answered
> > > > > > my questions concerning bias, I guess that I was sadly mistaken
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > your desire (or perhaps, your ability) to help. I won't make that
> > > > > > error
> > > > > > again.
> > > > >
> > > > > When a person has been told how to help themselves, but refuses to,
> > > > > and jsut keeps asking the same badly-formed questions,
> > > > > it's rather pointless to keep going.
> > >
> > > > I've not "refused" to do anything, Steven. I have stated (several
> > > > times) that I will read as time allows. The reading and studying that
> > > > I
> > > > do in order to do my job well is more important for me to carry out.
> > > > Badly formed questions? I have no idea which questions those would be;
> > > > perhaps I can find them located near your badly spelled responses.
> > >
> > > Oh dear..spelling flames. The discourse *has* deteriorated.
>
> > I can't remember any other time in these forums that I brought up the
> > spelling ability of others. Then again, I don't think that I've ever
> > been flamed with accusations of "badly-formed questions".
>
> A question from a deep ignorance of what *is* known, is prone to
> being badly-formed.

I ask questions to learn what I want to know. Silly me.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Jenn asks:
> > > > > So what are those biases? and is told to "go and her reading".
> > > > >
> > > > > Your question is neither "na?ve" nor nonsensical.
> > > > > Of course, we all have biases. One does not need to read the
> > > > > psychologists laboriously rediscovering America to know that.
> > > > > But what biases are we talking about? Who proved that we all share
> > > > > *the
> > > > > same* biases?
> > > > > To assume that "anyone" does, as Mr. Sullivan says is very
> > > > > "unscientific" coming from one of the RAO scientists.. Those telling
> > > > > you that YOU must go for bells and whistles are merely informing
> > > > > you
> > > > > what THEIR own bias is.
> > > > > Your bias may be the very opposite. The more bells and whistles the
> > > > > more you mistrust the gadget. The more it costs the more you suspect
> > > > > that its reputation is due to its price (it is "exclusive" in the
> > > > > ads linguo).
> > > > > Needless to say I'm betraying my own bias.
> > > > > All that, quite apart from the validity of their favourite way of
> > > > > excluding one of all the possible biases: the sighted bias.
> > > > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > Thanks for you post, which makes a great deal of sense. What I'm
> > > > wondering is how any of this discussion relates to actual purchase
> > > > decisions.
> > >
> > > Actual purchase decisions are influenced by factors other than sound
> > > alone, unless you actually go to the trouble of isolating the sound
> > > alone as the variable.
> > >
> > > All that means is that when you do make your claims about how
> > > your purchase 'sounds', you are assuming a 'cause' that may
> > > be the wrong one.
>
> > True, I suppose. But in practical terms, this is fairly meaningless.
>
> And there was much rejoicing at Shakti.
>
> > When one attends a concert, for example, one makes value judgments
> > concerning the merits of the concert. Bias obviously takes its "toll"
> > on the validity of these judgments. For example, what is the reputation
> > of the performer(s)? What is the appearance of the performer? Was the
> > level matched to that of another set of performers that you are
> > comparing the present performance to? How did dinner set that evening?
> > But still, at the end of the day, all of us make a judgment concerning
> > the quality of the performance. We don't say, "I think that the Chicago
> > Symphony played Tchaikovsky better than the SFS did last week, but my
> > cause for thinking this could be wrong." In fact, this kind of thinking
> > would not even cross our minds. We simply make the best judgments that
> > we can, and we live with it.
>
> The fact that we make judgements, hardly makes the judgements accurate.
> Not *everything* is simply a matter of opinion, you know.

I think that you miss the point. My point is, yes, I agree that
listener bias affects judgment. But we seem to have different levels of
tolerance. When I go to the concert, I'm satisfied with simply saying,
"That's the best I've ever heard the SFS play." I don't think, "That
may be the best I've ever heard the SFS play, but I could be wrong
because I sat two rows closer to the stage tonight, therefore the levels
weren't matched."

>
> > > > For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
> > > > front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
> > > > Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
> > > > TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings
> > > > were
> > > > identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
> > > > to reduce the effect of "bias"?
> > >
> > > If the gear and program material are the same, and
> > > the levels have been matched to 0.1 dB, the most urgent bias controls
> > > needed would be randomizing and blinding the comparison, so that
> > > you don't 'know' which TT you're listening to *except* by its sound.
> > > Time synching would remain a rather tough problem too.
> > >
> > > Assuming, of cousre , that you really only want to make *sound* the
> > > criterion for choosing your TT.
>
> No reply?

I didn't think that it required an answer as I have already stated that
the only thing (other than price) that matters to me is the sound.
>
>
> > > > At what point do we admit that we are
> > > > choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
> > > > bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
> > > > when we are trained listeners?
> > >
> > > Right at the start, if you like. Funny thing is, so many people like
> > > you later *forget* that there was *considerable* room for error in
> > > your method.
>
> > Please see what I wrote above. I suppose that I've simply trod down
> > this road mistakingly; this matter, IMO, seems to have very little to
> > do with home audio on the consumer level.
>
> So, at the consumer level,
> it only matters what you *believe* to be true. Not what *really is*
> true?
>
> If so, the makers and marketers of snake-oil, in all its forms,
> salute you.

Why should anything matter besides how I experience the sound?

>
> > In my recent turntable
> > listening day, for example, I did every practical thing that could be
> > done to assure that I was making judgments based on the sound alone. If
> > any further bias seeped into the decisions, I can live with it, as can
> > any other consumer I know. I would be curious to read a narrative of
> > your latest audio buying experience.
>
> But the rationalist beef isn't with 'living with' the limitations of
> sighted comparison -- that's what 'objectivists' do too. That *is* the
> reasonable response. The beef is with the
> *claims* made about the sound -- and more specifically, the claim made
> about *why* the sound is what it is.

I would never make a claim about why something sounds the way it does.
My only claims are concerning the sound of music.

> Objectivists recognize the limitations
> of uncontrolled comparison both *during* and *after* the purchase --
> meaning, they won't be making the sort of absurdly definite claims
> about how different A and B sound, merely based on that sort of
> evidence. These claims emanate from the manufacturers, the high end
> press, and the audiophile consumer culture -- an almost
> perfect hermetic circle that is at times ludicrously disconnected
> from reality.

I agree that this is often true. I use the audio press and the opinions
of other audio buffs as starting points of where to start listening only.
>
> My latest audio buy, a Pioneer AVR, didn't even involve auditioning
> the receiver. I looked up the features I desired and found the lowest
> price. I wouldn't claim it sounds different from another receiver
> operated under similar conditions. I *would* claim it works
> far better with an ilink connection...than receivers that don't
> have an ilink connection. ;>

OK. What did you do the last time you went shopping for speakers?

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > Jenn:
> > > > True, I suppose. But in practical terms, this is fairly meaningless.
> > >
> > > And there was much rejoicing at Shakti.
>
> > Shakti makes a turntable?
>
>
> Don't give them any ideas.
>
> Jenn's airy dismissal of any practical use for verifying whether
> *claims* about a product are actually, you know, *true* or
> anything, is surely the sort of mindset that much of the
> the high end depends on commercially.

How would you shop for a turntable?

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>MINe 109 > wrote:
>>
>>>>Oh dear, I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your most
>>>>excellent
>>>>plan, but: I don't assure that the actual sound can't be
>>>>different.
>>
>>>That's terrible. I'll have to continue relying on my ears.
>>
>>
>>Well, you don't *have* to, but it's certainly more convenient to
>>*choose* to. But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
>>reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
>>aren't really relying on your ears.
>>
>
>
> Be sure to plug up your ears when looking at things.

Be sure to unplug your ass before trying to speak.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > Jenn:
> > > > True, I suppose. But in practical terms, this is fairly meaningless.
> > >
> > > And there was much rejoicing at Shakti.
>
> > Shakti makes a turntable?
>
>
> Don't give them any ideas.

> Jenn's airy dismissal of any practical use for verifying whether
> *claims* about a product are actually, you know, *true* or
> anything, is surely the sort of mindset that much of the
> the high end depends on commercially. Hell, Shakti couldn't
> exist without it.

Sophisticated consumers recognize "claims" as the marketing tools they
are. Ivory soap probably would work just as well if it were only 99%
pure. Milk can't really be 98% fat free.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh dear, I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your most
> > > excellent
> > > plan, but: I don't assure that the actual sound can't be
> > > different.
>
> > That's terrible. I'll have to continue relying on my ears.
>
>
> Well, you don't *have* to, but it's certainly more convenient to
> *choose* to. But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
> reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
> aren't really relying on your ears.

I meant "relying on my ears" to refer to the gestalt of the sighted
listening experience.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to Sillyborg:

> How would you shop for a turntable?

We know his general method for buying audio equipment: Make a list of the
features, then buy online based only on price. He can't afford a decent
turntable, though, so his only remaining option is yard sales and pawn
shops.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to Sillyborg:

> OK. What did you do the last time you went shopping for speakers?

Speakers don't have to be the most expensive part of your system if you
have access to your grandmother's attic.

[George M. Middius]

MINe 109 said:

> Milk can't really be 98% fat free.

What do you mean? They sell 96, 98, 99, and 100.

[George Middius]

Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears.

>But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
>reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
>aren't really relying on your ears.

This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes purchase
decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price.

I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the
supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg.

[George Middius]

A breakthrough for Gibberella!

>> Be sure to plug up your ears when looking at things.

>Be sure to unplug your ass before trying to speak.

Congratulations, Slut -- an entire post that's completely free of garbled
syntax, malformed grammar, and bizarro spelling.

Maybe you can maintain the streak over two entire sentences next time. You can
practice the next time you're licking Krooger's butt clean.

[Steven Sullivan]

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

> > Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >
> > > > Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Where do I go to get tested to see if I hold such biases?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just assume that you do. There is no place that will 'test' you
> > > > > > to 'see if you hold them'. That's like 'testing' to see if
> > > > > > you have a brain.
> > > >
> > > > > So there is no way to know what biases I suffer from, nor their effect
> > > > > on my decision.
> > > >
> > > > No, that's not what I wrote.
> >
> > > Is there indeed a way to know the answer to my question? Not
> > > information concerning biases in general, but rather which specific
> > > biases affect ME, and to what extent. Or, are we to assume that all
> > > identified biases affect each person equally?
> >
> > I told you elsewhere -- to test if you are biased by 'X'
> > (where X is any nuisance factor -- brand, price, appearance,
> > level-mismatch etc.) in a particular instance, repeat the
> > comparison with 'X' disguised or eliminated.
> > This won't eliminate bias from nuisance factors yiu haven't
> > controlled for, nor, if your choice remains statistically the
> > same, does it mean that you are 'immune' from 'X' bias in your
> > *next* comparison.

> I understand that. What I don't understand is how that affects my
> shopping for stereo equipment. But again, it was my error to believe
> that this conversation had any relevance to that.

It has relevance if you care about the truth of claims about
the products you buy. If you don't, congratulations,
the corporate world wishes you long life.

> > A question from a deep ignorance of what *is* known, is prone to
> > being badly-formed.

> I ask questions to learn what I want to know. Silly me.

You ask the same question over and over, yet don't seem to
learn from the answers.


--

-S

[MINe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> MINe 109 said:
>
> > Milk can't really be 98% fat free.
>
> What do you mean? They sell 96, 98, 99, and 100.

Which part of the glass does the 2% fat-bearing milk go to?

Stephen

[Steven Sullivan]

Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > The fact that we make judgements, hardly makes the judgements accurate.
> > Not *everything* is simply a matter of opinion, you know.

> I think that you miss the point. My point is, yes, I agree that
> listener bias affects judgment. But we seem to have different levels of
> tolerance. When I go to the concert, I'm satisfied with simply saying,
> "That's the best I've ever heard the SFS play." I don't think, "That
> may be the best I've ever heard the SFS play, but I could be wrong
> because I sat two rows closer to the stage tonight, therefore the levels
> weren't matched."

Which is funny, because the second explanaiton could well be true.
Why *wouldn't* you, as a supposedly rational creature, consider
that possibility? Because it simply doesn't *appeal* to you?

(And too, we're talking about a case where where *difference* is
hardly in question, so you're really talking about preference...
which is not alwyas the case in audio, where sometimes *difference*
itself is questionable.)


> > > > > For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
> > > > > front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles (Gene
> > > > > Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three different
> > > > > TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings
> > > > > were
> > > > > identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any further
> > > > > to reduce the effect of "bias"?
> > > >
> > > > If the gear and program material are the same, and
> > > > the levels have been matched to 0.1 dB, the most urgent bias controls
> > > > needed would be randomizing and blinding the comparison, so that
> > > > you don't 'know' which TT you're listening to *except* by its sound.
> > > > Time synching would remain a rather tough problem too.
> > > >
> > > > Assuming, of cousre , that you really only want to make *sound* the
> > > > criterion for choosing your TT.
> >
> > No reply?

> I didn't think that it required an answer as I have already stated that
> the only thing (other than price) that matters to me is the sound.

How much does it matter? Enough to want to know if you have made your
choice *truly* based on sound, or on some other factor?

> > > > > At what point do we admit that we are
> > > > > choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to control
> > > > > bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in particular
> > > > > when we are trained listeners?
> > > >
> > > > Right at the start, if you like. Funny thing is, so many people like
> > > > you later *forget* that there was *considerable* room for error in
> > > > your method.
> >
> > > Please see what I wrote above. I suppose that I've simply trod down
> > > this road mistakingly; this matter, IMO, seems to have very little to
> > > do with home audio on the consumer level.
> >
> > So, at the consumer level,
> > it only matters what you *believe* to be true. Not what *really is*
> > true?
> >
> > If so, the makers and marketers of snake-oil, in all its forms,
> > salute you.

> Why should anything matter besides how I experience the sound?

If the universe consisted of just you, it wouldn't. But is it your
belief that whether claims about a product are true or not, doesn't
really matter, as long as the consumer *believes* something to be
true?

> > > In my recent turntable
> > > listening day, for example, I did every practical thing that could be
> > > done to assure that I was making judgments based on the sound alone. If
> > > any further bias seeped into the decisions, I can live with it, as can
> > > any other consumer I know. I would be curious to read a narrative of
> > > your latest audio buying experience.
> >
> > But the rationalist beef isn't with 'living with' the limitations of
> > sighted comparison -- that's what 'objectivists' do too. That *is* the
> > reasonable response. The beef is with the
> > *claims* made about the sound -- and more specifically, the claim made
> > about *why* the sound is what it is.

> I would never make a claim about why something sounds the way it does.
> My only claims are concerning the sound of music.

So, if you claimed that music sounded better when reproduced
by CD player A versus CD player B, you aren't really claiming that CD
player and B were the cause of the difference?

> > Objectivists recognize the limitations
> > of uncontrolled comparison both *during* and *after* the purchase --
> > meaning, they won't be making the sort of absurdly definite claims
> > about how different A and B sound, merely based on that sort of
> > evidence. These claims emanate from the manufacturers, the high end
> > press, and the audiophile consumer culture -- an almost
> > perfect hermetic circle that is at times ludicrously disconnected
> > from reality.

> I agree that this is often true. I use the audio press and the opinions
> of other audio buffs as starting points of where to start listening only.

If you agree that qualities you 'hear' in A vs B in a sighted comparison
might not be due to the actual differences in sound-production of the
devices in question, then I really have no argument with you.

> > My latest audio buy, a Pioneer AVR, didn't even involve auditioning
> > the receiver. I looked up the features I desired and found the lowest
> > price. I wouldn't claim it sounds different from another receiver
> > operated under similar conditions. I *would* claim it works
> > far better with an ilink connection...than receivers that don't
> > have an ilink connection. ;>

> OK. What did you do the last time you went shopping for speakers?

Speakers *are* likely to sound different. But again, I was looking
for certain 'features' such as size and price-point, as well as good
*measurable* performance. I didn't both auditioning them
in store either, because the room effect is likely to be so
different from my own, that the only 'audition' that has meaning
is one at home.

Then again, I don't recall ever making any claims about how
my speakers or system 'sound' in comparison to other systems,
here or anywhere.



--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

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

> > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn:
> > > > > True, I suppose. But in practical terms, this is fairly meaningless.
> > > >
> > > > And there was much rejoicing at Shakti.
> >
> > > Shakti makes a turntable?
> >
> >
> > Don't give them any ideas.
> >
> > Jenn's airy dismissal of any practical use for verifying whether
> > *claims* about a product are actually, you know, *true* or
> > anything, is surely the sort of mindset that much of the
> > the high end depends on commercially.

> How would you shop for a turntable?

Features, measured specs, price. And once bought, I'd be
very conservative about making claims about the sound
of it *compared to others*, even though turntable/cartridge
systems *are* likely to sound different from one another.

But I'm highly unlikely to ever be in the market for a TT
again -- haven't bought one since 1985.




--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh dear, I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your most
> > > > excellent
> > > > plan, but: I don't assure that the actual sound can't be
> > > > different.
> >
> > > That's terrible. I'll have to continue relying on my ears.
> >
> >
> > Well, you don't *have* to, but it's certainly more convenient to
> > *choose* to. But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
> > reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
> > aren't really relying on your ears.

> I meant "relying on my ears" to refer to the gestalt of the sighted
> listening experience.

The 'gestalt' experience isn't particularly reliable for determining
whether two things actually sound different, though. It's easy
to fool.






--

-S

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh dear, I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your most
> > > > > excellent
> > > > > plan, but: I don't assure that the actual sound can't be
> > > > > different.
> > >
> > > > That's terrible. I'll have to continue relying on my ears.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, you don't *have* to, but it's certainly more convenient to
> > > *choose* to. But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
> > > reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
> > > aren't really relying on your ears.
>
> > I meant "relying on my ears" to refer to the gestalt of the sighted
> > listening experience.
>
> The 'gestalt' experience isn't particularly reliable for determining
> whether two things actually sound different, though. It's easy
> to fool.

I assume they sound the same. I'm interested if the gestalt seems
different.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MINe 109 said:

> > > Milk can't really be 98% fat free.
> >
> > What do you mean? They sell 96, 98, 99, and 100.
>
> Which part of the glass does the 2% fat-bearing milk go to?

Are you criticizing the adspeak? Otherwise, I don't get it.

[George M. Middius]

Stupey Sillyborg gets a bug up his ass.

> > I ask questions to learn what I want to know. Silly me.

> You ask the same question over and over, yet don't seem to
> learn from the answers.

Translation from Sillyspeak: "You're not praying hard enough to the Gods
of Inaudibility. You need more piety and less realism."

[George M. Middius]

Stupey, you probably have no idea how much of an ass you look now.

> > How would you shop for a turntable?

> Features, measured specs, price.

Why even bother? Do what Kroo**** does -- invest all your extra money in a
pair of headphones and call it a day.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> MINe 109 said:
>
> > > > Milk can't really be 98% fat free.
> > >
> > > What do you mean? They sell 96, 98, 99, and 100.
> >
> > Which part of the glass does the 2% fat-bearing milk go to?
>
> Are you criticizing the adspeak? Otherwise, I don't get it.

Of course. 2% fat content doesn't mean 98% doesn't have any fat.

Stephen

[ScottW]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jenn:
> > > > > > True, I suppose. But in practical terms, this is fairly meaningless.
> > > > >
> > > > > And there was much rejoicing at Shakti.
> > >
> > > > Shakti makes a turntable?
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't give them any ideas.
> > >
> > > Jenn's airy dismissal of any practical use for verifying whether
> > > *claims* about a product are actually, you know, *true* or
> > > anything, is surely the sort of mindset that much of the
> > > the high end depends on commercially.
>
> > How would you shop for a turntable?
>
> Features, measured specs, price. And once bought, I'd be
> very conservative about making claims about the sound
> of it *compared to others*, even though turntable/cartridge
> systems *are* likely to sound different from one another.
>
> But I'm highly unlikely to ever be in the market for a TT
> again -- haven't bought one since 1985.

You'd be hurting. Most TTs in todays market are pathetically spec'd.
I'm not saying the specs are bad... I'm saying they don't exist. Many
carts lack critical specs from manufacturers as well... try to find
equivalent tonearm mass specs and cart compliance specs so you can at
do a theoretical resonance calc. Rega, AFAICT, offers nothing on their
web site for either their carts or their arms.

Definitely an area where a good dealer that allows trials is
important.
FWIW...Needle Doctor lets you try a cart and if it doesn't match well
you can return it for something else as long as it is in new condition
and in original packaging.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:46:44 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

>> I think that you miss the point. My point is, yes, I agree that
>> listener bias affects judgment. But we seem to have different levels of
>> tolerance. When I go to the concert, I'm satisfied with simply saying,
>> "That's the best I've ever heard the SFS play." I don't think, "That
>> may be the best I've ever heard the SFS play, but I could be wrong
>> because I sat two rows closer to the stage tonight, therefore the levels
>> weren't matched."
>
>Which is funny, because the second explanaiton could well be true.
>Why *wouldn't* you, as a supposedly rational creature, consider
>that possibility? Because it simply doesn't *appeal* to you?

So Steven, why don't you, as a supposedly rational creature, ask why
someone might have difference aural preferences than others?

Why is this important? Because "specs" don't have "preferences". If
everyone correlated "specs" with their opinion of how the music sounds
exactly the same, then there would be no issue at all. However, I can
poll 10 friends after listening to a specific piece of music (whether
played live or on a system) and I'll probably get 10 different
judgments on the "sound" (performance notwithstanding).

I don't like super deep bass if it sounds "unnatural" to me. Others
might find the same bass perfectly natural and some might not even
find it "strong" enough. It's been postulated that the sexes perceive
music differently. It's even been theorized that handedness has an
influence on how people perceive sound, in a startlingly concrete way.
I've mentioned this before, but I took part in a hearing test done in
support of a study (which unfortunately I've forgotten the source of -
for some reason University of Minn. keeps coming to mind). Some music
department folks from Belmont College here in Nashville conducted a
test which fed tones in certain sequences (arpeggios in each ear in
ascending, decending and/or overlapped sequences), to determine if
handedness determines how we reconstruct music. They told me that they
were compiling data to cast light on the findings that in some cases,
people reported hearing the "proper" sequence of arpeggio'ed notes as
delivered to the headphones and others heard chord clusters or
reversed sequences and the difference was based on whether they were
"left brained" or "right brained".

I've always wondered what ever became of those tests, and I've been
unable to find the original study (wish I had recorded what they told
me at the time about the original study and I wish I had asked for a
followup, because it sounds like an intriguing postulate).

Also, as I've noted before, it's pretty clear that cultural biases
affect how people perceive sound. All you have to do is look at
speaker preferences in different countries.

So, to separate these biases and possible hard-wired issues from the
concept of evaluative listening is a bit specious. and also, the test
itself changes the dynamic in a far more dramatic fashion than doing a
sighted test in a fashion much closer to the actual way that they
listen to music.

[George Middius]

MINe 109 said:

>> > > > Milk can't really be 98% fat free.
>> > >
>> > > What do you mean? They sell 96, 98, 99, and 100.
>> >
>> > Which part of the glass does the 2% fat-bearing milk go to?
>>
>> Are you criticizing the adspeak? Otherwise, I don't get it.
>
>Of course. 2% fat content doesn't mean 98% doesn't have any fat.

I assume this reinforces whatever point you were trying to drive through
Scottie's thick skull.

In a slight departure, when I say Arnii Krooger is 98% pure feces, I mean it.

[George Middius]

Scottie loses the thread.

>> > How would you shop for a turntable?

>> Features, measured specs, price.

> You'd be hurting. Most TTs in todays market are pathetically spec'd.

The point you should be focusing on how ridiculous Sillyborg's approach is.

> Definitely an area where a good dealer that allows trials is
>important.

Sillyborg can't hear any difference between any components, ever. No point in
comparing for him -- everything sounds the same, literally.

[George Middius]

dave weil said to Stupey:

>So, to separate these biases and possible hard-wired issues from the
>concept of evaluative listening is a bit specious. and also, the test
>itself changes the dynamic in a far more dramatic fashion than doing a
>sighted test in a fashion much closer to the actual way that they
>listen to music.

Good summary of the issue. I'll just add that according to Stupey's own posts on
the subject, the way he listens to music is robotically.

[[email protected]]

S. Sullivan says:
'nuisance' variables include
contrast effect
effect of interstimulus interval
effect of non-random presentation
effect of size
effect of brand
effect of price
effect of appearance
etc.
Do you seriously imagine anyone can ever be guaranteed free of all of
them? The only way to do that for any one of them is by yet more
scientific study.
F.E. Toole, "Subjective evaluation: identifying and controlling the
variables" , presented at the AES 8th Int ConfL The Sound of Audio
(1990,
Apr) paper 8-013 a ......
__________________________________________________ _______

Mr. Sullivan continues butting his head against the open door in an
attempt to prove that you must have biases. But which particular
biases out of the archipelago of possible biases he attributes to you
and... everyone else in the world.? Why- of course the two he knows
from the intimate personal acquaintance: the sighted bias. and what he
calls the "expectation bias" aka marketing hype.
Putting on his borrowed hat of a professor of audio science he gives
you a list of recommended reading.
As it happens I have the reprints of his first reference handy. Let's
have a look at it.
F. Toole's list of variables (p97-98) differs from Sullivan's pick.
Toole includes :
"Familiarity with the program"- F. Toole says:"Practice is the only
solution"

"Judgement ability or aptitude- since humans differ in so many respects
, it would hardly be surprising to find that they differ in their
ability to hear differences in sound quality."

"Relevant accumulated experience" And an unexpected comment: "It is
interesting to note that experience or training as a musician may not
be as useful as other kind of experience. In those experiments where
this has been examined, the most consistent and discriminating
listeners tended to be those with professional audio, or audiophile
experience".
It would appear that familiarity with live eg. cello sound is a barrier
to "consistency and discrimination" in deciding as between more or
less successful ways of reproducing it.
Perhaps to a cello player all the loudspeakers sound the same.
In contrast to Sullivan, who is sure that everyone shares his bag of
biases, Mr. Toole recognises that simple proposition : we are all
different: in "familiarity with the program", "relevant accumulated
experience" and so on And of course you are right; no "test" exiists to
find which particular biases you or any other individual has and/or
acquires
Now if we substitute a more neutral (and more faithful) word such as
traits or mind-sets for "biases" we will see that any such "test"
involving decent-sized group of unselected audio fans must result in
"everything sounds the same" irrelevancy- the accumulated "Yes" , "no"
results nearing the middle average.
There is nothing wrong with comparing components blind. As long as one
does not think that one's results are valid for anyone other than
himself. As for the ABX protocol S.Olive rejected it for his excellent
loudspeaker comparison- Harry Lavo has been explaining the reasons for
a long time in this forum.
No wonder that Mr. Sullivan puts in his kill-file the repeated requests
for a reference to one single , statistically decent component
comparison with a positive result . This way he can go on with his
fantasy world of speculative fables away from the unpleasant reality.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Lionel]

George Minus Middius wrote :

> Maybe you can maintain the streak over two entire sentences next time.

Don't be so presomptuous, George, this is the maximum you
can understand. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote:
>
>> MINe 109 said:
>>
>> > Milk can't really be 98% fat free.
>>
>> What do you mean? They sell 96, 98, 99, and 100.
>
> Which part of the glass does the 2% fat-bearing milk go to?
>

oh dear!
The price of the different milks are the same,
so I thought I was getting free fat. Of course,
I bought the one with the most free fat.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> George Minus Middius wrote :
>
>> Maybe you can maintain the streak over two entire sentences next time.
>
> Don't be so presomptuous, George, this is the maximum you can understand.
> ;-)


Hoooweeey!
"At least" Lionel tried.

[Lionel]

George's dildo wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> George Minus Middius wrote :
>>
>>> Maybe you can maintain the streak over two entire sentences next time.
>>
>> Don't be so presomptuous, George, this is the maximum you can understand.
>> ;-)
>
>
> Hoooweeey!
> "At least" Lionel tried.

....and once again you failed.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
George Middius > wrote:

> MINe 109 said:
>
> >> > > > Milk can't really be 98% fat free.
> >> > >
> >> > > What do you mean? They sell 96, 98, 99, and 100.
> >> >
> >> > Which part of the glass does the 2% fat-bearing milk go to?
> >>
> >> Are you criticizing the adspeak? Otherwise, I don't get it.
> >
> >Of course. 2% fat content doesn't mean 98% doesn't have any fat.
>
> I assume this reinforces whatever point you were trying to drive through
> Scottie's thick skull.

Sully this time! In honor of his Socratic persistence, I've decided to
embrace my biases and choose gear according to what I think I like
whether the marketing claims make sense or not.

Stephen

> In a slight departure, when I say Arnii Krooger is 98% pure feces, I mean it.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> >> > Milk can't really be 98% fat free.

> >> What do you mean? They sell 96, 98, 99, and 100.

> > Which part of the glass does the 2% fat-bearing milk go to?

> oh dear!
> The price of the different milks are the same,

Not true. Check again.

> so I thought I was getting free fat. Of course,
> I bought the one with the most free fat.

The fat displaces fairy dust, so you may or may not come out ahead.

[ScottW]

George Middius wrote:
> MINe 109 said:
>
> >> > > > Milk can't really be 98% fat free.
> >> > >
> >> > > What do you mean? They sell 96, 98, 99, and 100.
> >> >
> >> > Which part of the glass does the 2% fat-bearing milk go to?
> >>
> >> Are you criticizing the adspeak? Otherwise, I don't get it.
> >
> >Of course. 2% fat content doesn't mean 98% doesn't have any fat.
>
> I assume this reinforces whatever point you were trying to drive through
> Scottie's thick skull.

Stupidity detected... hey Robert check this idiot George... he can't
follow a thread. Better give him the test.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jenn:
> > > > > > True, I suppose. But in practical terms, this is fairly
> > > > > > meaningless.
> > > > >
> > > > > And there was much rejoicing at Shakti.
> > >
> > > > Shakti makes a turntable?
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't give them any ideas.
> > >
> > > Jenn's airy dismissal of any practical use for verifying whether
> > > *claims* about a product are actually, you know, *true* or
> > > anything, is surely the sort of mindset that much of the
> > > the high end depends on commercially.
>
> > How would you shop for a turntable?
>
> Features, measured specs, price. And once bought, I'd be
> very conservative about making claims about the sound
> of it *compared to others*, even though turntable/cartridge
> systems *are* likely to sound different from one another.

I see... thanks.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > > The fact that we make judgements, hardly makes the judgements accurate.
> > > Not *everything* is simply a matter of opinion, you know.
>
> > I think that you miss the point. My point is, yes, I agree that
> > listener bias affects judgment. But we seem to have different levels of
> > tolerance. When I go to the concert, I'm satisfied with simply saying,
> > "That's the best I've ever heard the SFS play." I don't think, "That
> > may be the best I've ever heard the SFS play, but I could be wrong
> > because I sat two rows closer to the stage tonight, therefore the levels
> > weren't matched."
>
> Which is funny, because the second explanaiton could well be true.
> Why *wouldn't* you, as a supposedly rational creature, consider
> that possibility? Because it simply doesn't *appeal* to you?

OF COURSE it may be true, but my enjoyment (or analysis) of music is not
enhanced by this kind of thought. The human element of a particular
performance on a particular evening makes MUCH more difference than does
the difference in space of two rows.

> (And too, we're talking about a case where where *difference* is
> hardly in question, so you're really talking about preference...
> which is not alwyas the case in audio, where sometimes *difference*
> itself is questionable.)
>
>
> > > > > > For example, I'm presently looking to upgrade my system's analogue
> > > > > > front-end. This past weekend, I found a dealer near Los Angeles
> > > > > > (Gene
> > > > > > Rubin Audio...HIGHLY commended) where I could compare three
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > TTs, all using the same arm and same cartridge. Amplifier settings
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > identical for each demo. How can I control the environment any
> > > > > > further
> > > > > > to reduce the effect of "bias"?
> > > > >
> > > > > If the gear and program material are the same, and
> > > > > the levels have been matched to 0.1 dB, the most urgent bias controls
> > > > > needed would be randomizing and blinding the comparison, so that
> > > > > you don't 'know' which TT you're listening to *except* by its sound.
> > > > > Time synching would remain a rather tough problem too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Assuming, of cousre , that you really only want to make *sound* the
> > > > > criterion for choosing your TT.
> > >
> > > No reply?
>
> > I didn't think that it required an answer as I have already stated that
> > the only thing (other than price) that matters to me is the sound.
>
> How much does it matter? Enough to want to know if you have made your
> choice *truly* based on sound, or on some other factor?

Yes, and as I've stated several times now, I do take step to do
listening evaluations blindly, to the extent that it's practical.

>
> > > > > > At what point do we admit that we are
> > > > > > choosing equipment as part of a HOBBY, do the best we can to
> > > > > > control
> > > > > > bias, and simply pick the piece that sounds best to us, in
> > > > > > particular
> > > > > > when we are trained listeners?
> > > > >
> > > > > Right at the start, if you like. Funny thing is, so many people like
> > > > > you later *forget* that there was *considerable* room for error in
> > > > > your method.
> > >
> > > > Please see what I wrote above. I suppose that I've simply trod down
> > > > this road mistakingly; this matter, IMO, seems to have very little to
> > > > do with home audio on the consumer level.
> > >
> > > So, at the consumer level,
> > > it only matters what you *believe* to be true. Not what *really is*
> > > true?
> > >
> > > If so, the makers and marketers of snake-oil, in all its forms,
> > > salute you.
>
> > Why should anything matter besides how I experience the sound?
>
> If the universe consisted of just you, it wouldn't.

No, how many other people there are in the universe matters not a bit.
**I** am the only one to whom the sound of my system matters.

> But is it your
> belief that whether claims about a product are true or not, doesn't
> really matter, as long as the consumer *believes* something to be
> true?

In matters that are subjective in nature (the taste of mustard, the
beauty of a painting, the sound of a stereo), yes. It is the CONSUMER'S
judgement and ONLY the consumer's judgement, that matters.
>
> > > > In my recent turntable
> > > > listening day, for example, I did every practical thing that could be
> > > > done to assure that I was making judgments based on the sound alone.
> > > > If
> > > > any further bias seeped into the decisions, I can live with it, as can
> > > > any other consumer I know. I would be curious to read a narrative of
> > > > your latest audio buying experience.
> > >
> > > But the rationalist beef isn't with 'living with' the limitations of
> > > sighted comparison -- that's what 'objectivists' do too. That *is* the
> > > reasonable response. The beef is with the
> > > *claims* made about the sound -- and more specifically, the claim made
> > > about *why* the sound is what it is.
>
> > I would never make a claim about why something sounds the way it does.
> > My only claims are concerning the sound of music.
>
> So, if you claimed that music sounded better when reproduced
> by CD player A versus CD player B, you aren't really claiming that CD
> player and B were the cause of the difference?

Yes I am, but that wasn't what I meant by my statement. When you said
"why" I thought that you meant the technical reasons.
>
> > > Objectivists recognize the limitations
> > > of uncontrolled comparison both *during* and *after* the purchase --
> > > meaning, they won't be making the sort of absurdly definite claims
> > > about how different A and B sound, merely based on that sort of
> > > evidence. These claims emanate from the manufacturers, the high end
> > > press, and the audiophile consumer culture -- an almost
> > > perfect hermetic circle that is at times ludicrously disconnected
> > > from reality.
>
> > I agree that this is often true. I use the audio press and the opinions
> > of other audio buffs as starting points of where to start listening only.
>
> If you agree that qualities you 'hear' in A vs B in a sighted comparison
> might not be due to the actual differences in sound-production of the
> devices in question, then I really have no argument with you.

Cool. But when sighted listening is the only choice, I have nothing to
depend on but my ears, which are quite good.

>
> > > My latest audio buy, a Pioneer AVR, didn't even involve auditioning
> > > the receiver. I looked up the features I desired and found the lowest
> > > price. I wouldn't claim it sounds different from another receiver
> > > operated under similar conditions. I *would* claim it works
> > > far better with an ilink connection...than receivers that don't
> > > have an ilink connection. ;>
>
> > OK. What did you do the last time you went shopping for speakers?
>
> Speakers *are* likely to sound different. But again, I was looking
> for certain 'features' such as size and price-point, as well as good
> *measurable* performance. I didn't both auditioning them
> in store either, because the room effect is likely to be so
> different from my own, that the only 'audition' that has meaning
> is one at home.
>
> Then again, I don't recall ever making any claims about how
> my speakers or system 'sound' in comparison to other systems,
> here or anywhere.

You honestly believe that everything you need to know about the sound of
two speaker systems can be had by the measurements (short of hearing
them in your own space, which I certainly agree is ideal)?

[Jenn]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:46:44 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > wrote:
>
> >> I think that you miss the point. My point is, yes, I agree that
> >> listener bias affects judgment. But we seem to have different levels of
> >> tolerance. When I go to the concert, I'm satisfied with simply saying,
> >> "That's the best I've ever heard the SFS play." I don't think, "That
> >> may be the best I've ever heard the SFS play, but I could be wrong
> >> because I sat two rows closer to the stage tonight, therefore the levels
> >> weren't matched."
> >
> >Which is funny, because the second explanaiton could well be true.
> >Why *wouldn't* you, as a supposedly rational creature, consider
> >that possibility? Because it simply doesn't *appeal* to you?
>
> So Steven, why don't you, as a supposedly rational creature, ask why
> someone might have difference aural preferences than others?
>
> Why is this important? Because "specs" don't have "preferences". If
> everyone correlated "specs" with their opinion of how the music sounds
> exactly the same, then there would be no issue at all. However, I can
> poll 10 friends after listening to a specific piece of music (whether
> played live or on a system) and I'll probably get 10 different
> judgments on the "sound" (performance notwithstanding).
>
> I don't like super deep bass if it sounds "unnatural" to me. Others
> might find the same bass perfectly natural and some might not even
> find it "strong" enough. It's been postulated that the sexes perceive
> music differently. It's even been theorized that handedness has an
> influence on how people perceive sound, in a startlingly concrete way.
> I've mentioned this before, but I took part in a hearing test done in
> support of a study (which unfortunately I've forgotten the source of -
> for some reason University of Minn. keeps coming to mind). Some music
> department folks from Belmont College here in Nashville conducted a
> test which fed tones in certain sequences (arpeggios in each ear in
> ascending, decending and/or overlapped sequences), to determine if
> handedness determines how we reconstruct music. They told me that they
> were compiling data to cast light on the findings that in some cases,
> people reported hearing the "proper" sequence of arpeggio'ed notes as
> delivered to the headphones and others heard chord clusters or
> reversed sequences and the difference was based on whether they were
> "left brained" or "right brained".
>
> I've always wondered what ever became of those tests, and I've been
> unable to find the original study (wish I had recorded what they told
> me at the time about the original study and I wish I had asked for a
> followup, because it sounds like an intriguing postulate).
>
> Also, as I've noted before, it's pretty clear that cultural biases
> affect how people perceive sound. All you have to do is look at
> speaker preferences in different countries.
>
> So, to separate these biases and possible hard-wired issues from the
> concept of evaluative listening is a bit specious. and also, the test
> itself changes the dynamic in a far more dramatic fashion than doing a
> sighted test in a fashion much closer to the actual way that they
> listen to music.

Dave, you might want to check the Journal of Music Perception for
information that could speak to issues you bring up.

[Jenn]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:46:44 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > wrote:
>
> >> I think that you miss the point. My point is, yes, I agree that
> >> listener bias affects judgment. But we seem to have different levels of
> >> tolerance. When I go to the concert, I'm satisfied with simply saying,
> >> "That's the best I've ever heard the SFS play." I don't think, "That
> >> may be the best I've ever heard the SFS play, but I could be wrong
> >> because I sat two rows closer to the stage tonight, therefore the levels
> >> weren't matched."
> >
> >Which is funny, because the second explanaiton could well be true.
> >Why *wouldn't* you, as a supposedly rational creature, consider
> >that possibility? Because it simply doesn't *appeal* to you?
>
> So Steven, why don't you, as a supposedly rational creature, ask why
> someone might have difference aural preferences than others?
>
> Why is this important? Because "specs" don't have "preferences". If
> everyone correlated "specs" with their opinion of how the music sounds
> exactly the same, then there would be no issue at all. However, I can
> poll 10 friends after listening to a specific piece of music (whether
> played live or on a system) and I'll probably get 10 different
> judgments on the "sound" (performance notwithstanding).
>
> I don't like super deep bass if it sounds "unnatural" to me. Others
> might find the same bass perfectly natural and some might not even
> find it "strong" enough. It's been postulated that the sexes perceive
> music differently. It's even been theorized that handedness has an
> influence on how people perceive sound, in a startlingly concrete way.
> I've mentioned this before, but I took part in a hearing test done in
> support of a study (which unfortunately I've forgotten the source of -
> for some reason University of Minn. keeps coming to mind). Some music
> department folks from Belmont College here in Nashville conducted a
> test which fed tones in certain sequences (arpeggios in each ear in
> ascending, decending and/or overlapped sequences), to determine if
> handedness determines how we reconstruct music. They told me that they
> were compiling data to cast light on the findings that in some cases,
> people reported hearing the "proper" sequence of arpeggio'ed notes as
> delivered to the headphones and others heard chord clusters or
> reversed sequences and the difference was based on whether they were
> "left brained" or "right brained".
>
> I've always wondered what ever became of those tests, and I've been
> unable to find the original study (wish I had recorded what they told
> me at the time about the original study and I wish I had asked for a
> followup, because it sounds like an intriguing postulate).
>
> Also, as I've noted before, it's pretty clear that cultural biases
> affect how people perceive sound. All you have to do is look at
> speaker preferences in different countries.
>
> So, to separate these biases and possible hard-wired issues from the
> concept of evaluative listening is a bit specious. and also, the test
> itself changes the dynamic in a far more dramatic fashion than doing a
> sighted test in a fashion much closer to the actual way that they
> listen to music.

Dave, you might want to check the Journal of Music Perception for
information that could speak to issues you bring up.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Where do I go to get tested to see if I hold such biases?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just assume that you do. There is no place that will 'test' you
> > > > > > > to 'see if you hold them'. That's like 'testing' to see if
> > > > > > > you have a brain.
> > > > >
> > > > > > So there is no way to know what biases I suffer from, nor their
> > > > > > effect
> > > > > > on my decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, that's not what I wrote.
> > >
> > > > Is there indeed a way to know the answer to my question? Not
> > > > information concerning biases in general, but rather which specific
> > > > biases affect ME, and to what extent. Or, are we to assume that all
> > > > identified biases affect each person equally?
> > >
> > > I told you elsewhere -- to test if you are biased by 'X'
> > > (where X is any nuisance factor -- brand, price, appearance,
> > > level-mismatch etc.) in a particular instance, repeat the
> > > comparison with 'X' disguised or eliminated.
> > > This won't eliminate bias from nuisance factors yiu haven't
> > > controlled for, nor, if your choice remains statistically the
> > > same, does it mean that you are 'immune' from 'X' bias in your
> > > *next* comparison.
>
> > I understand that. What I don't understand is how that affects my
> > shopping for stereo equipment. But again, it was my error to believe
> > that this conversation had any relevance to that.
>
> It has relevance if you care about the truth of claims about
> the products you buy.

Yet again.... the only claims that I care about are what my ears tell me.

> If you don't, congratulations,
> the corporate world wishes you long life.
>
> > > A question from a deep ignorance of what *is* known, is prone to
> > > being badly-formed.
>
> > I ask questions to learn what I want to know. Silly me.
>
> You ask the same question over and over, yet don't seem to
> learn from the answers.

When the answers are relevant to my questions, I do.

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Jenn > wrote:


> But I'm highly unlikely to ever be in the market for a TT
> again -- haven't bought one since 1985.
>
> Please,please don't change your mind Mr. Sullivan. It is only because there are quite a few like you out there that I can pick up gorgeous vinyl (sonically and content-wise) for +/- $1 in Salvation Army and such. .
Just the other day: Van Cliburn playing Liszt on Rca, Rubinstein at
Carnegie Hall, Britten and Haydn cello concertos etc. etc.
> Trusting you will not give up one inch of your credo
regards Ludovic Mirabel
>
> --
>
> -S

[Gareth Magennis]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears.
>
>>But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
>>reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
>>aren't really relying on your ears.
>
> This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes
> purchase
> decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price.
>
> I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the
> supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg.
>


This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
resolved to eithers' satisfaction.

Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and
only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms,
then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true,
proof etc".

Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what
they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known
scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this intellectual
persuit. It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by
scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well be
unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for
them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway.

How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond me.
All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to
agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its existance.
Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining if
we want it to agree with such observations.

So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
going to win this argument.




Gareth.

[George M. Middius]

Gareth Magennis said:

> So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
> going to win this argument.

My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
hypocrite.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Gareth Magennis > wrote:

> "George Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears.
> >
> >>But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
> >>reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
> >>aren't really relying on your ears.
> >
> > This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes
> > purchase
> > decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price.
> >
> > I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the
> > supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg.
> >


> This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
> resolved to eithers' satisfaction.

er..scientists *are* objectivists

> Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and
> only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms,
> then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
> again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true,
> proof etc".

> Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what
> they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known
> scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this intellectual
> persuit.

Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly
means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply
ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply
assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it
'feels' right, is the right one.

> It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by
> scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well be
> unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for
> them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway.

Except, that's NOT true, otherwise technology wouldn't work, including
the technology that allowed you to post this message. It isn't true
that everything people believe is true, is equally likely to be true.
Science is a method for testing models about the real world, to see
if they are accurate. It's worked rather spectacularly well so far.
It wouldn't work at all if all that was true, is what you *believe*
is true.

> How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond me.

Apparently.

> All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to
> agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its existance.

And do you imaigne that model came out of nowhere?

> Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining if
> we want it to agree with such observations.

Indeed. But the observation that two things are *perceived* to
sound different in a sighted comparision, simply doesn't
require revision of current models to explain --
it is in fact *predicted* to be likely, from those current models.

> So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
> going to win this argument.

Well, it would help if people like you actually understood the rationale
for the 'objectivist' skepticism.




--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:


> Gareth Magennis said:

> > So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
> > going to win this argument.

> My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
> hypocrite.

For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features?
That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.

Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the
mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you.



--

-S

[George M. Middius]

Sillyborg stuttered:

> > My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
> > hypocrite.

> For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features?

Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
limit of your understanding.

> That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
> of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
> about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
> I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.

This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.

> Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the
> mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you.

Yes, do. Pull my wings off.

I'm afraid your head is so far up your ass that you have no idea how
stupid your "reasoning" is. I'll sum it up as concisely as I can:

1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.

2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
pecuniousness and/or penury.

3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
density of your ossified mind)

4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?

Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:


> Sillyborg stuttered:

> > > My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
> > > hypocrite.

> > For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features?

> Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
> limit of your understanding.


Oh, you'll answer anyway, I have no doubt. You're thrilled just
to be getting the attention.


> > That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
> > of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
> > about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
> > I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.

> This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.

It's not hypocritical, though.

> > Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the
> > mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you.

> Yes, do. Pull my wings off.

> I'm afraid your head is so far up your ass that you have no idea how
> stupid your "reasoning" is. I'll sum it up as concisely as I can:

Oh goody.

> 1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
> any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
> have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.

Your opinion is foolish, since it's foolish to insist that someone
perform standard scientific tests *themselves*, before they can
ever understand and accept their rationale.
I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection
doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg.

Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you
haven't personally experienced yourself, George?
Like, say, sexual intercourse?

> 2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
> system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
> posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
> fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
> pecuniousness and/or penury.

I certainly do care about the quality of my system. That's why I
didn't buy just any gear. I want it to deliver all the features that I
specifically bought it for. This includes, but isn't confined
to, good sound. Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as
amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price,
processing, connectivity.

Can you prove that the $1700 Pioneer 56txi -- the AVR I
eventually bought -- *doesn't* offer good sound? Or even
one objective reason why it *wouldn't*?
Btw, the 'golden ear' Michael Fremer praised the 49tx -- the
first of the Pioneer Elite AVR line -- "one of the best, if not the best,
A/V receiver on the market today."

N.B. I'd certainly have bought a less expensive rig if it
had the same feature set. Your mention of 'penury and pecuniousness'
marks you as the most ludicrous (and easily fleeced)
of audiophool species: the price snob.


> 3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
> undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
> actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
> performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
> density of your ossified mind)

These aren't arguments, George, they're rants. Sonic performance
*is* a factor for amps, but the good news is, if you ran them
level-matched and with controls from bias in place, sonic
performance is likely to be at THE SAME high level. The
technology is mature, even if you aren't.

If I wanted to be *reliably sure* that my amp wasn't
underperforming sonically, I'd have to set up such a test.
And so would you.
But you aren't *really* that motivated, and neither am I.
You, because you believe you can
depend on your sighted listening to tell you whether two things
are sonically different -- when in fact it's easily shown to
be unreliable for that purpose. Me, because I accept
that one amp isn't likely to sound intrinsically
different from another.

I also accept that a perpetual motion machine isn't likely
to do what it's claimed to do. But silly me,
I'm just going by the scientific reasoning...I've never
actually *built* or *tested* one. I just kind of, you know,
have a grasp on reality.


> 4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
> choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
> because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?

> Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.


Consumers generally want something that sounds good to them, has the features
they want, looks good, and is affordable yet better than average.

They also want generally believe they'll live forever,
to think they're beautiful/handsome/popular, to think they are successful
and smart (including smart in their audio buying).

High-end marketing is happy to encourage them on all those counts except
perhaps price.

Now, what is the relation of what people *believe* about what they buy,
to the truth about what they buy? Is it always a one-to-one
correspondence? How do we know when it isn't?

'Normals' don't want to be told that something costing far
less -- or which costs nothing -- stands a good chance of sounding
just the same than what they bought. But some of them might
appreciate being told that *before* their next purchase.



--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

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


> Stupey, you probably have no idea how much of an ass you look now.


Could be. Is that why when I read this post I got a
picture of you, sitting all by yourself in a section of
the bleachers, jeering crazily at the field, the
rest of the fans having moved as far away from
you as possible?



--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> >
> > > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh dear, I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your most
> > > > > > excellent
> > > > > > plan, but: I don't assure that the actual sound can't be
> > > > > > different.
> > > >
> > > > > That's terrible. I'll have to continue relying on my ears.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, you don't *have* to, but it's certainly more convenient to
> > > > *choose* to. But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
> > > > reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
> > > > aren't really relying on your ears.
> >
> > > I meant "relying on my ears" to refer to the gestalt of the sighted
> > > listening experience.
> >
> > The 'gestalt' experience isn't particularly reliable for determining
> > whether two things actually sound different, though. It's easy
> > to fool.

> I assume they sound the same. I'm interested if the gestalt seems
> different.

Even if hte gestalt does that, it's not a particularly reliable indicator
that is *is* different.


--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

dave weil > wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:46:44 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > wrote:

> >> I think that you miss the point. My point is, yes, I agree that
> >> listener bias affects judgment. But we seem to have different levels of
> >> tolerance. When I go to the concert, I'm satisfied with simply saying,
> >> "That's the best I've ever heard the SFS play." I don't think, "That
> >> may be the best I've ever heard the SFS play, but I could be wrong
> >> because I sat two rows closer to the stage tonight, therefore the levels
> >> weren't matched."
> >
> >Which is funny, because the second explanaiton could well be true.
> >Why *wouldn't* you, as a supposedly rational creature, consider
> >that possibility? Because it simply doesn't *appeal* to you?

> So Steven, why don't you, as a supposedly rational creature, ask why
> someone might have difference aural preferences than others?

Because I know that someone might have different 'aural preferences'
....when there is a real aural difference. When it's possible
that there aren't any, it's presumptuous to talk about 'aural
preferences'.

> Why is this important? Because "specs" don't have "preferences". If
> everyone correlated "specs" with their opinion of how the music sounds
> exactly the same, then there would be no issue at all. However, I can
> poll 10 friends after listening to a specific piece of music (whether
> played live or on a system) and I'll probably get 10 different
> judgments on the "sound" (performance notwithstanding).


Of course you'll get different judgements. What you haven't determined
by that method is whether there was any real difference. But of cousre,
a piece of music played live versus at home is going to sound
VASTLY different. For real. So, are you under the mistaken impression that
scientists believe NO differences are likely to be real?

You need to pick a much better example -- not something
that could be shown by simple independent means, to be likely
to sound different. Hell, even putting two listeners in
two different seats in a room will result in them reporting
different sound for the same track -- and it really
WILL be different sound . But not because of the gear , it's
because of acoustics.

The rest of your post seems to be proceeding from the same
incorrect presumptions about the 'objectivist' argument.


--

-S

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message



> This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never
> going to be resolved to eithers' satisfaction.

This is especially true since most audiophiles who throw
these terms around don't seem to know what the generally
accepted meanings of these words are. I pointed this out in
pretty good detail and by citing some pretty fair references
as part of my opening remarks at the HE2005 debate with John
Atkinson. While I didn't quite come right out and say it,
Atkinson tortured these words in the style of Saddam Hussein
in his publicity blurb for the debate.

> Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in
> their terms, and only those terms that are currently
> known about qualify to be such terms, then such things
> are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
> again according to their own defined meaning of the words
> "false, true, proof etc".

That would be sheerist BS. Scientists have literally
centuries of experience dealing with things that they can't
fully explain.One of the most if not the most fundamental
rules of science is that any particular explanation is
provisional, and only valid until it is falsified. The
falsification of long-standing beliefs is very common in
Science. Furthermore, beliefs that are in essence falsified
continue to have valid applications in broad areas of
scientific endeavor.

> Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they
> just know what they experience and don't know how to
> explain it in currently known scientific terms, or they
> simply aren't that interested in this intellectual
> persuit.

This would also be sheerist BS. So-called audio
objectivists are just people who are more comfortable
applying a fairly small and simple requirements to their
observations and beliefs. For example most so-called
objectivists affirm the validity of bias-controlled
listening tests. The whole idea of bias-controlled listening
tests is simple and common-sense. The basic idea of bias
controlled listening tests is that relevant influences that
are not directly related to hearing be managed in a
reasoanble way during the listening test. Furthermore, a
listening test is kind of a subjective evaluation, and if
objectivists were really the narrow fools that certain
people like to make them out to be, they should have no
interest in subjective evaluations of *any* kind. But these
so-called objectivists are quite interested and involved in
subjective evaluations, which brings the very fact that they
are called *objectivists* by some into question. Why are
these *objectivists* so interested and involved in
*subjective* evaluations? Perhaps they are not
*objectivists* at all but some kind of *subjectivist* after
all?

> It must be very frustrating for them to be
> confronted by scientists demanding that they explain
> themselves in terms that may well be unexplainable at the
> present.

As I explained just a few paragraphs back this is a straw
man argument based on Gareth's poor understanding of audio
objectivists and science itself.

> How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be
> "true" is beyond me.

Well, now we get down to Gareth's *real* problem. He doesn't
really believe in anything at all. He seems to doubt that
anybody can believe anything.

> All that can really be shown,
> surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to agree with
> the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its
> existance.

This ignores the converse possibility that an observation
can agree with a model or hypothesis. In the real world, as
opposed to Gerth's world of constant disagrement,
observations may or may not agree with a hypothesis.

[Steven Sullivan]

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

> > Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > > > The fact that we make judgements, hardly makes the judgements accurate.
> > > > Not *everything* is simply a matter of opinion, you know.
> >
> > > I think that you miss the point. My point is, yes, I agree that
> > > listener bias affects judgment. But we seem to have different levels of
> > > tolerance. When I go to the concert, I'm satisfied with simply saying,
> > > "That's the best I've ever heard the SFS play." I don't think, "That
> > > may be the best I've ever heard the SFS play, but I could be wrong
> > > because I sat two rows closer to the stage tonight, therefore the levels
> > > weren't matched."
> >
> > Which is funny, because the second explanaiton could well be true.
> > Why *wouldn't* you, as a supposedly rational creature, consider
> > that possibility? Because it simply doesn't *appeal* to you?

> OF COURSE it may be true, but my enjoyment (or analysis) of music is not
> enhanced by this kind of thought.

so...*bad* thoughts, out!

> The human element of a particular
> performance on a particular evening makes MUCH more difference than does
> the difference in space of two rows.

Quite likely, yes. However, do you believe there's so much difference
between the sound of two turntables that the difference you hear betweem them can
be safely attributed to the TT, rather than to all the other differences
between listening sessions?

(Since we're talking TTs/cartridges, I'll say again that they're a class of gear that
*does* stand a good chance of sounding different, even when other differences
are controlled for.)


> > (And too, we're talking about a case where where *difference* is
> > hardly in question, so you're really talking about preference...
> > which is not alwyas the case in audio, where sometimes *difference*
> > itself is questionable.)

This is the important point. Some audible difference are reasonably assumed
from objective evidence, to be great. Some, not. No reply?


> > > I didn't think that it required an answer as I have already stated that
> > > the only thing (other than price) that matters to me is the sound.
> >
> > How much does it matter? Enough to want to know if you have made your
> > choice *truly* based on sound, or on some other factor?

> Yes, and as I've stated several times now, I do take step to do
> listening evaluations blindly, to the extent that it's practical.

So...this presumes you feel there *are* biases -- perhaps not
specifically named or conscious -- that need to be addressed.
Why are you even arguing with me?

> > > Why should anything matter besides how I experience the sound?
> >
> > If the universe consisted of just you, it wouldn't.

> No, how many other people there are in the universe matters not a bit.
> **I** am the only one to whom the sound of my system matters.

Yes, but the same piece of gear might 'sound different' to different
listener. Surely nothing about the *gear* is changing, right?
So how could the different claims about it all be true? Do you
think it matters to the design of gear, whether it has 'true'
sound qualities, versus whatever people claim to hear?


> > But is it your
> > belief that whether claims about a product are true or not, doesn't
> > really matter, as long as the consumer *believes* something to be
> > true?

> In matters that are subjective in nature (the taste of mustard, the
> beauty of a painting, the sound of a stereo), yes. It is the CONSUMER'S
> judgement and ONLY the consumer's judgement, that matters.

The *sound* is not the gear. Making claims about the different
*sound* but attributing the difference to the different
*gear* is a logical fallacy in this case, unless you have
independently determined that.

Basically you're saying you believe what you want, and you don't
care if it's demonstrably true by any other means. That's faith-based
consumerism.


> > So, if you claimed that music sounded better when reproduced
> > by CD player A versus CD player B, you aren't really claiming that CD
> > player and B were the cause of the difference?

> Yes I am, but that wasn't what I meant by my statement. When you said
> "why" I thought that you meant the technical reasons.

Well, if that's what you're claiming, your reasoning is off.

> > > I agree that this is often true. I use the audio press and the opinions
> > > of other audio buffs as starting points of where to start listening only.
> >
> > If you agree that qualities you 'hear' in A vs B in a sighted comparison
> > might not be due to the actual differences in sound-production of the
> > devices in question, then I really have no argument with you.

> Cool. But when sighted listening is the only choice, I have nothing to
> depend on but my ears, which are quite good.

Perhaps, but it doesn't follow that sighted listening becomes more
reliable because it's the only choice you have. Was it Neitzche who
said something like, of that which one can say nothing, one should
remain silent? If all you have is sighted listening, then by all means
temper what you claim to be the *cause* of what you
hear, with knowledge of how unreliable sighted listening is for
that purpose.


> > > > My latest audio buy, a Pioneer AVR, didn't even involve auditioning
> > > > the receiver. I looked up the features I desired and found the lowest
> > > > price. I wouldn't claim it sounds different from another receiver
> > > > operated under similar conditions. I *would* claim it works
> > > > far better with an ilink connection...than receivers that don't
> > > > have an ilink connection. ;>
> >
> > > OK. What did you do the last time you went shopping for speakers?
> >
> > Speakers *are* likely to sound different. But again, I was looking
> > for certain 'features' such as size and price-point, as well as good
> > *measurable* performance. I didn't both auditioning them
> > in store either, because the room effect is likely to be so
> > different from my own, that the only 'audition' that has meaning
> > is one at home.
> >
> > Then again, I don't recall ever making any claims about how
> > my speakers or system 'sound' in comparison to other systems,
> > here or anywhere.

> You honestly believe that everything you need to know about the sound of
> two speaker systems can be had by the measurements (short of hearing
> them in your own space, which I certainly agree is ideal)?

Of course not. But I honestly believe that listening to them in the
salon isn't a reliable way to predict what they'll sound like at home.
In fact it might lead me *away from* speakers that could sound good
at home. THAT'S how big a difference different rooms make.

So why bother?



--

-S

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > George Middius > wrote:
>
> > > MINe 109 said:
> > >
> > > >> > > > Milk can't really be 98% fat free.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > What do you mean? They sell 96, 98, 99, and 100.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Which part of the glass does the 2% fat-bearing milk go to?
> > > >>
> > > >> Are you criticizing the adspeak? Otherwise, I don't get it.
> > > >
> > > >Of course. 2% fat content doesn't mean 98% doesn't have any fat.
> > >
> > > I assume this reinforces whatever point you were trying to drive through
> > > Scottie's thick skull.
>
> > Sully this time! In honor of his Socratic persistence, I've decided to
> > embrace my biases and choose gear according to what I think I like
> > whether the marketing claims make sense or not.
>
> Welcome to audiophilia.

Oddly, I've escaped the "buying unreasonable claims" and the constant
need to upgrade. Must be a mild case.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > MINe 109 > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh dear, I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your most
> > > > > > > excellent
> > > > > > > plan, but: I don't assure that the actual sound can't be
> > > > > > > different.
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's terrible. I'll have to continue relying on my ears.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, you don't *have* to, but it's certainly more convenient to
> > > > > *choose* to. But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
> > > > > reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
> > > > > aren't really relying on your ears.
> > >
> > > > I meant "relying on my ears" to refer to the gestalt of the sighted
> > > > listening experience.
> > >
> > > The 'gestalt' experience isn't particularly reliable for determining
> > > whether two things actually sound different, though. It's easy
> > > to fool.
>
> > I assume they sound the same. I'm interested if the gestalt seems
> > different.
>
> Even if hte gestalt does that, it's not a particularly reliable indicator
> that is *is* different.

It's a reliable indicator that the gestalt is different.

Stephen

[Gareth Magennis]

Sorry, my mistake, I meant Subjectivist, not Objectivist.

[Gareth Magennis]

>> This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
>> resolved to eithers' satisfaction.
>
> er..scientists *are* objectivists
>


My mistake - I meant of course Subjectivists




>> Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and
>> only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms,
>> then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
>> again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true,
>> proof etc".
>
>> Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what
>> they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known
>> scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this
>> intellectual
>> persuit.
>
> Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly
> means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply
> ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply
> assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it
> 'feels' right, is the right one.
>



My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as yet
unknown, why current "knowledge" about listening to music is going to look
pretty archaic and silly some hundred years from now, yet the general trait
amongst scientists is to ignore this possibility and constantly say things
like "we now know that ...." so that automatically makes oposing opinions
"wrong".
Science is not about "knowing" anything at all, it is only about trying to
make hypotheses fit observations, until they no longer fit and aother
hypothesis has to be generated. Therefore it can never be judged to be
saying anything at all about how things really are, be it the nature of
Deep Space or whether there is something that happens or doesn't happen in
controlled experiments that doesn't happen or happens when things aren't
actually being tested. It is simply an incorrect model to be changed and
updated when necessary. There is no such thing as something being "true",
except in the mind of a scientist who needs to have a belief in such
concepts.


Gareth..









>> It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by
>> scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well
>> be
>> unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for
>> them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway.
>
> Except, that's NOT true, otherwise technology wouldn't work, including
> the technology that allowed you to post this message. It isn't true
> that everything people believe is true, is equally likely to be true.
> Science is a method for testing models about the real world, to see
> if they are accurate. It's worked rather spectacularly well so far.
> It wouldn't work at all if all that was true, is what you *believe*
> is true.
>
>> How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond
>> me.
>
> Apparently.
>

>> All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem
>> to
>> agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its
>> existance.
>
> And do you imaigne that model came out of nowhere?
>
>> Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining
>> if
>> we want it to agree with such observations.
>
> Indeed. But the observation that two things are *perceived* to
> sound different in a sighted comparision, simply doesn't
> require revision of current models to explain --
> it is in fact *predicted* to be likely, from those current models.
>
>> So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are
>> never
>> going to win this argument.
>
> Well, it would help if people like you actually understood the rationale
> for the 'objectivist' skepticism.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> -S

[Denis Sbragion]

Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
:

> My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
> scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
> possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
> explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
> fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as
....

you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead
we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away,
accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
actually works.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it

[Gareth Magennis]

"Denis Sbragion" > wrote in message
6.1...
> Hello Gareth,
>
> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> :
>
>> My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
>> scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
>> possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
>> explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
>> fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as
> ...
>
> you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
> subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics.
> Instead
> we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
> new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
> It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
> man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
> we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years
> away,
> accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
> things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
> actually works.
>
> Bye,
>
> --
> Denis Sbragion
> InfoTecna
> Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
> URL: http://www.infotecna.it


I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking about how
people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are
talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but
there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this
happening. And I believe that as we progess we will discover, as man always
has done, new ways of modelling or attempting to explain what is going on.
And maybe there will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding
that knocks every current theory on its head. That is the nature of
science. The theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory
as the opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of
conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of which
could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to believe that
right now we have everything worked out the way we would like it to be. We
are constantly learning, changing our views, discovering new ways of
thinking. I am saying be open to all possibilities, not be blinkered by
thinking we know it all now.


Gareth.

[Denis Sbragion]

Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
:

> I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
> about how people react with science, and I think it is little
> understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
> between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
> experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we

mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
available evidence.

> progess we will discover, as man always has done, new ways of
> modelling or attempting to explain what is going on. And maybe there
> will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding that knocks
> every current theory on its head. That is the nature of science. The
> theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory as the
> opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of
> conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of
> which could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to
> believe that right now we have everything worked out the way we would
> like it to be. We are constantly learning, changing our views,
> discovering new ways of thinking. I am saying be open to all
> possibilities, not be blinkered by thinking we know it all now.

The way people react to science, paradigm leaps, nature of science,
something that knocks every (!?!) current theory, odd philosophies,
everything (!?!) worked out, and so on. Are we still talking about audio? I
don't think so. I don't even think we're talking about science.
BTW, I agree with you: we have to just get over it and agree to
disagree.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it

[Gareth Magennis]

"Denis Sbragion" > wrote in message
6.1...
> Hello Gareth,
>
> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> :
>
>> I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
>> about how people react with science, and I think it is little
>> understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
>> between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
>> experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we
>
> mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
> like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
> available evidence.
>

But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the reality
and experience of the Audiophile.



>> progess we will discover, as man always has done, new ways of
>> modelling or attempting to explain what is going on. And maybe there
>> will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding that knocks
>> every current theory on its head. That is the nature of science. The
>> theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory as the
>> opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of
>> conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of
>> which could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to
>> believe that right now we have everything worked out the way we would
>> like it to be. We are constantly learning, changing our views,
>> discovering new ways of thinking. I am saying be open to all
>> possibilities, not be blinkered by thinking we know it all now.
>
> The way people react to science, paradigm leaps, nature of science,
> something that knocks every (!?!) current theory, odd philosophies,
> everything (!?!) worked out, and so on. Are we still talking about audio?
> I
> don't think so. I don't even think we're talking about science.
> BTW, I agree with you: we have to just get over it and agree to
> disagree.
>


Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other they
are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful to
confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
agree to disagree.


Gareth.





> Bye,
>
> --
> Denis Sbragion
> InfoTecna
> Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
> URL: http://www.infotecna.it

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:
> >> This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
> >
> > Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly
> > means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply
> > ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply
> > assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it
> > 'feels' right, is the right one.
> >



> My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
> scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
> possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.

No, it doesn't imply that. All scientific explanations are provisional.
All *you* need to do is provide scientific evidence of equal power, that the
current explanation is the wrong one.

Invoking subjective feelings isn't scientific evidence.

> You are basing your
> explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
> fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as yet
> unknown, why current "knowledge" about listening to music is going to look
> pretty archaic and silly some hundred years from now, yet the general trait
> amongst scientists is to ignore this possibility and constantly say things
> like "we now know that ...." so that automatically makes oposing opinions
> "wrong".

This is a hugely flawed line of reasoning. It says that because not everything
is known, then nothing is known. It says that because one can imagine
another answer, then all answers are equally likely. It says that because
something *might* be wrong (or right), then all things are equally likely
to be wrong (or right).

Of course, if either of these two ideas were true, then we would have
NO technology, for one thing.

> Science is not about "knowing" anything at all, it is only about trying to
> make hypotheses fit observations, until they no longer fit and aother
> hypothesis has to be generated. Therefore it can never be judged to be
> saying anything at all about how things really are, be it the nature of
> Deep Space or whether there is something that happens or doesn't happen in
> controlled experiments that doesn't happen or happens when things aren't
> actually being tested. It is simply an incorrect model to be changed and
> updated when necessary. There is no such thing as something being "true",
> except in the mind of a scientist who needs to have a belief in such
> concepts.

You were right except for the last phrase of the last sentence. A
scienctific fact isn't true *just* for the individual scientist who
believes it. It should be demonstrably true to any other person
who repeats the observation under the same conditions.
That's what makes it science. There are not different scientific
facts in India versus Canada versus the US.

Btw, if there is no scientific 'knowing' then by the same criterion
there is no 'knowing' at all. This suggests that one needs to
adjust the definition of 'knowing' so that it means something.
It's not sufficient to say that introspection leads to one
determining how things 'really are' -- this is simply another
form of model building.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Denis Sbragion > wrote:
> Hello Gareth,

> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> :

> > My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
> > scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
> > possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
> > explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
> > fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as
> ...

> you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
> subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead
> we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
> new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
> It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
> man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
> we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away,
> accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
> things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
> actually works.

Well, we don't *really* know if the moon is actually
green cheese, or whether it's 'real' at all.

I mean, by Gareth's logic.

Try to keep an open mind, will you? ;>

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:

> "Denis Sbragion" > wrote in message
> 6.1...
> > Hello Gareth,
> >
> > "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >> I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
> >> about how people react with science, and I think it is little
> >> understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
> >> between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
> >> experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we
> >
> > mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
> > like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
> > available evidence.
> >

> But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
> perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the reality
> and experience of the Audiophile.

The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate
model of reality.

Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and
illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem
not to shake his faith one tiny bit.

Is this rational?

All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test.
Not *everything* one can believe, is true.


> Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other they
> are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful to
> confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
> agree to disagree.


Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?

In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices
or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them.
But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.

You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because
the listener *heard* them as different.

Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?

Not everything is just a 'difference of opinion'. Planes
don't fly , computers don't crunch data, audio gear doesn;t
emit sound, simply because the 'opinions' of the designers
turned out to be *lucky guesses*.


--

-S

[George Middius]

The redoubtable SillyBot impales himself on a spike of hypocrisy.

>> Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
>> limit of your understanding.

>Oh, you'll answer anyway, I have no doubt. You're thrilled just
>to be getting the attention.

I’ll take that as a Yes to the serious question.

BTW, I’ve demoted you from cyborg to robot. You earned it. ;-)


>> > That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
>> > of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
>> > about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
>> > I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.
>
>> This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.
>
>It's not hypocritical, though.

It sure is hypocritical. You see, Silly, on the one hand you claim only “tests”
can tell you how something sounds, but you don’t do any yourself. Where’s the
honesty? Where’s the integrity? Do I hear a flushing sound? ;-)


>> 1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
>> any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
>> have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.

>Your opinion is foolish, since it's foolish to insist that someone
>perform standard scientific tests *themselves*, before they can
>ever understand and accept their rationale.

That’s still zero knowledge. (By knowledge I mean *direct* knowledge, not
hypothetical understanding of what knowledgeable people have done. You cannot
know what the “tests” in question are really like until you’ve actually done
them.)

>I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection
>doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg.

That doesn’t count because it’s only practice, not real. You have zero
experience and zero knowledge of your precious “tests”.

In my view, there’s no point in you actually participating in any tests. You’re
not motivated to discover the truth because you don’t care at all how any system
sounds.

>Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you
>haven't personally experienced yourself, George?
>Like, say, sexual intercourse?

Did you make a joke, Silly? Better apply some WD40 to your rictus muscles.

>> 2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
>> system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
>> posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
>> fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
>> pecuniousness and/or penury.
>
>I certainly do care about the quality of my system.

No, all you care about is how much it cost. You said so yourself, two or three
times.

>That's why I didn't buy just any gear. I want it to deliver all the features
>that I
>specifically bought it for. This includes, but isn't confined
>to, good sound.

You don’t mean “includes good sound”. You mean “regardless of how it sounds”.
You bought a commodity box without auditioning it.

I have news for you, Sillybot: Low-end receivers sound crappy in various
different ways. I’ve listened to a lot of different brands and I’ve owned a
couple too. All low-priced electronics make serious compromises. They try to do
well on one or two aspects of reproduction and they sacrifice the rest. It’s not
at all difficult to hear differences among them.

But you bought one without listening to any of them, even the one you
mail-ordered. You are a robot.

> Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as
>amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price,
>processing, connectivity.

Low-end receivers are commodities in that they perform a basic function, but
they’re not interchangeable in terms of quality. But you wouldn’t know any of
this because you didn’t bother to find out.

The word for somebody who thinks that no audition at all is better than one in a
store is “robot”. That’s you, Sillybot.

>Can you prove that the $1700 Pioneer 56txi -- the AVR I
>eventually bought -- *doesn't* offer good sound? Or even
>one objective reason why it *wouldn't*?

Hey, that’s better than low-end. I’ll bet it sounds decent.

BTW, your demand that somebody else prove you do or don’t hear something is
idiotic. You da ‘bot!

>Btw, the 'golden ear' Michael Fremer praised the 49tx -- the
>first of the Pioneer Elite AVR line -- "one of the best, if not the best,
>A/V receiver on the market today."

Oh, so you do base your decision on subjective reviews. How hypocritical of you.

>N.B. I'd certainly have bought a less expensive rig if it
>had the same feature set. Your mention of 'penury and pecuniousness'
>marks you as the most ludicrous (and easily fleeced)
>of audiophool species: the price snob.

Hardly™. You have no idea how much I paid for my stuff. I’m as pecunious as
anybody, but I shop for bargains. Ask your hero Ferstler about this. He shares
my philosophy, although he implements in the sleaziest way imaginable.

>> 3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
>> undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
>> actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
>> performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
>> density of your ossified mind)
>
>These aren't arguments, George, they're rants. Sonic performance
>*is* a factor for amps, but the good news is, if you ran them
>level-matched and with controls from bias in place, sonic
>performance is likely to be at THE SAME high level. The
>technology is mature, even if you aren't.

But you bought a receiver, not an amplifier. Did you foolishly believe the
preamp section of a receiver is somehow sonically transparent, more so than a
separate preamp would be? If so, you’re the most ignorant robot ever.

>If I wanted to be *reliably sure* that my amp wasn't
>underperforming sonically, I'd have to set up such a test.
>And so would you.

0101011! 000111010, 001 1000011 00100110101101!

>But you aren't *really* that motivated, and neither am I.
>You, because you believe you can
>depend on your sighted listening to tell you whether two things
>are sonically different -- when in fact it's easily shown to
>be unreliable for that purpose. Me, because I accept
>that one amp isn't likely to sound intrinsically
>different from another.

This is truly twisted. You’re a pervbot.

>I also accept that a perpetual motion machine isn't likely
>to do what it's claimed to do. But silly me,
>I'm just going by the scientific reasoning...I've never
>actually *built* or *tested* one. I just kind of, you know,
>have a grasp on reality.

Have you thought about having your metallic exoskeleton refurbished? It might
cost a few bucks, but it’ll stop the drunks from peeing on you.

>> 4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
>> choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
>> because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?
>
>> Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.
>
>
>Consumers generally want something that sounds good to them, has the features
>they want, looks good, and is affordable yet better than average.

But you bought your box without knowing how it would sound. Do you see the
fallacy, or are you having a binary seizure?

>'Normals' don't want to be told that something costing far
>less -- or which costs nothing -- stands a good chance of sounding
>just the same than what they bought. But some of them might
>appreciate being told that *before* their next purchase.

You don’t even know how human beings actually evaluate audio gear. Sad.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message


> Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?

I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.

> In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
> devices
> or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
> between them.
> But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.

Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.

> You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
> because
> the listener *heard* them as different.

The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.

> Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?

Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be
severely attenuated.

> Not everything is just a 'difference of opinion'. Planes
> don't fly , computers don't crunch data, audio gear
> doesn;t
> emit sound, simply because the 'opinions' of the designers
> turned out to be *lucky guesses*.

Agreed. Things like the Space Shuttle and farily reliable
cures for once-fatal cancers are in some sense the "ultimate
truth".

Useful stuff like Flash USB storage doesn't work because of
favorable reviewer opinions.

[George Middius]

Sillybot clanks into the listening room.

>But I honestly believe that listening to them in the
>salon isn't a reliable way to predict what they'll sound like at home.

Yes. better to memorize some specifications and be completely in the dark.
Having no information at all is much better than having first-hand experience.

[Denis Sbragion]

Hello Steven,

Steven Sullivan > wrote in
:

> Try to keep an open mind, will you? ;>

no, not with this meaning of "open". I'm quite confident (which is quite
different from having "faith") that science has found a way to describe the
reality that is reliable enough for most of our needs, so I stick with it.
To tell the whole truth I'm even a bit reluctant to use the word
"science" when applied to audio. For the most part audio is just proper
application of well known scientific facts, so probably the word
"technology" is more adequate than "science" when talking about it.
Does this means that I have a closed mind? Don't know, but I wonder
if audio deserves so much "philosophycal" discussion about it. For me it's
just a matter of reproducing what's on records with as much accuracy as
possible. That's just because I have great respect for the artists and
their work, so I hate to have it modified by my audio system. So far I saw
no better way to ensure accuracy than relying on technology and, when
needed, science, at least as I know it, which is no different than your
intepretation.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it

[Gareth Magennis]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>
>> "Denis Sbragion" > wrote in message
>> 6.1...
>> > Hello Gareth,
>> >
>> > "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
>> > :
>> >
>> >> I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
>> >> about how people react with science, and I think it is little
>> >> understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
>> >> between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
>> >> experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we
>> >
>> > mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
>> > like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
>> > available evidence.
>> >
>
>> But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
>> perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the
>> reality
>> and experience of the Audiophile.
>
> The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate
> model of reality.
>
> Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and
> illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem
> not to shake his faith one tiny bit.
>
> Is this rational?
>

It may be perfectly rational to him, after all his music is sounding better.
And yes, the difference between him and yourself is that he believes that
the experience he is experiencing is real whereas you are trying to tell him
that what he is experiencing isn't what he is experiencing at all. That
doesn't sound very rational either, it sounds impossible.



> All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test.
> Not *everything* one can believe, is true.
>
>
>> Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other
>> they
>> are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful
>> to
>> confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
>> agree to disagree.
>
>
> Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
>
> In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices
> or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them.
> But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
>
> You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because
> the listener *heard* them as different.
>
> Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?
>


Well no, that is a well known philosophical argument that cannot be proved
either way. It is as much a theory as any other scientific theory. And I
think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
you are in. And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
each other.




> Not everything is just a 'difference of opinion'. Planes
> don't fly , computers don't crunch data, audio gear doesn;t
> emit sound, simply because the 'opinions' of the designers
> turned out to be *lucky guesses*.
>
>
> --
>
> -S

[George M. Middius]

Gareth Magennis said:

> And I
> think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
> the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
> you are in.

Yep, that's the nub. Perceptions are everything.

> And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
> each other.

Sillybot is in the throes of a complete mechanical breakdown.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
> wrote:

>My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
>scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
>possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.

You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
which cable was connected.

Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
*really* trust their ears.

Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to
back your opinion. That's how science works.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:28:59 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
> wrote:

>I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff.

No, you'd just like to pretend that it is, in order to cook up some
fanciful theory to justify your own prejudice. There's a century of
scientific investigation that says you're wrong.

> We are talking about how
>people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are
>talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but
>there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this
>happening.

There is *lots* of explanation of why people *imagine* such
differences, there is *zero* likelihood that they really exist.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
>
> I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
> orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
>
> > In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
> > devices
> > or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
> > between them.
> > But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
>
> Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
> Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.
>
> > You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
> > because
> > the listener *heard* them as different.
>
> The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.
>
> > Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?
>
> Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be
> severely attenuated.

I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming
for bragging about his high-priced amps.

BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience."

Stephen

[dave weil]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:34:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

>
>> Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
>
>I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
>orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
>
>> In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
>> devices
>> or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
>> between them.
>> But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
>
>Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
>Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.
>
>> You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
>> because
>> the listener *heard* them as different.
>
>The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.

It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do
the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who
claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be
similarly fooled.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:
> >
> >> "Denis Sbragion" > wrote in message
> >> 6.1...
> >> > Hello Gareth,
> >> >
> >> > "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> >> > :
> >> >
> >> >> I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
> >> >> about how people react with science, and I think it is little
> >> >> understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
> >> >> between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
> >> >> experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we
> >> >
> >> > mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
> >> > like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
> >> > available evidence.
> >> >
> >
> >> But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
> >> perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the
> >> reality
> >> and experience of the Audiophile.
> >
> > The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate
> > model of reality.
> >
> > Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and
> > illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem
> > not to shake his faith one tiny bit.
> >
> > Is this rational?
> >

> It may be perfectly rational to him, after all his music is sounding better.

But it may be only as 'real' as that mirage, or that *mistaken idea*.

Or are there *no* mistaken ideas, only 'personal truths'?

> And yes, the difference between him and yourself is that he believes that
> the experience he is experiencing is real whereas you are trying to tell him
> that what he is experiencing isn't what he is experiencing at all. That
> doesn't sound very rational either, it sounds impossible.

Wrong. I'm telling him that the *cause* that *he* has deduced
for his experience isn't *necessarily* what he believes it is.
A person stares at a cloud and experiences that it changes shape.
The person concludes that the cloud changed shape because he stared at it.
That's his personal idea of the 'truth' of the matter, but wouldn't you agree
that this line of reasoning is open to question, and that other
causes for the perceived shape change are not only plausible,
but perhaps even more likely to be true?

> > All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test.
> > Not *everything* one can believe, is true.> >
> >
> >> Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other
> >> they
> >> are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful
> >> to
> >> confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
> >> agree to disagree.
> >
> >
> > Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
> >
> > In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices
> > or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them.
> > But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
> >
> > You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because
> > the listener *heard* them as different.
> >
> > Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?
> >


> Well no, that is a well known philosophical argument that cannot be proved
> either way. It is as much a theory as any other scientific theory. And I
> think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
> the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
> you are in. And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
> each other.


Yet the subjectivist will go on using an example of
the patent evidence that some 'realities' are 'universal' --
namely, his computer.

Remarkable.



--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:


> Gareth Magennis said:

> > And I
> > think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
> > the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
> > you are in.

> Yep, that's the nub. Perceptions are everything.

Indeed? FWIW, I perceive you to be a malignant coward with only
the most tenuous grasp of logic.

> > And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
> > each other.

> Sillybot is in the throes of a complete mechanical breakdown.

The two of you seem to have agreed on a shared reality, at least.
Enjoy yourselves.




--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
> >
> > I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
> > orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
> >
> > > In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
> > > devices
> > > or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
> > > between them.
> > > But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
> >
> > Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
> > Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.
> >
> > > You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
> > > because
> > > the listener *heard* them as different.
> >
> > The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.
> >
> > > Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?
> >
> > Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be
> > severely attenuated.

> I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming
> for bragging about his high-priced amps.

> BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience."

Nope, you're thinking of the Nousaine/Maki tests of Steve
Zipser. Different situation, different amps...same
outcome ;>





--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion George Middius > wrote:


> The redoubtable SillyBot impales himself on a spike of hypocrisy.

> >> Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
> >> limit of your understanding.

> >Oh, you'll answer anyway, I have no doubt. You're thrilled just
> >to be getting the attention.

> I?ll take that as a Yes to the serious question.

> BTW, I?ve demoted you from cyborg to robot. You earned it. ;-)

Yes, your little Napoleon hat fits you quite nicely. Feel free to
demote or promote at will, general.


> >> > That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
> >> > of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
> >> > about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
> >> > I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.
> >
> >> This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.
> >
> >It's not hypocritical, though.

> It sure is hypocritical. You see, Silly, on the one hand you claim only ?tests?
> can tell you how something sounds, but you don?t do any yourself. Where?s the
> honesty? Where?s the integrity? Do I hear a flushing sound? ;-)


No, because generally I don't talk about how something sounded to
me, do I?


> >> 1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
> >> any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
> >> have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.

> >Your opinion is foolish, since it's foolish to insist that someone
> >perform standard scientific tests *themselves*, before they can
> >ever understand and accept their rationale.

> That?s still zero knowledge. (By knowledge I mean *direct* knowledge, not
> hypothetical understanding of what knowledgeable people have done. You cannot
> know what the ?tests? in question are really like until you?ve actually done
> them.)

If it were true that such 'direct' knowledge was the only valid basis
for accepting the rationale for a method, then it would be pointless
to cite scientific work. The only
allowable cites would be from those who actually have repeated the
particular experiment, which isn't what happens, of course.
Certainly actually *doing* it could *help* a dullard understand it, but
it's not *necessary*. Some people are smart enough to grasp
the facts and reasoning behind DBTs without actually doing them.

Btw, if your claims about 'real' knowlege were true,
it would also mean that *you* must acknowledge the validity of say,
Tom Nousaine or Arny Kruger's *direct* experience with gear DBTs.

And too, it would mean that your dismissal of my, or anyone's,
sound system and/or hearing abilities would be invalid,s ince you've
never experienced them firsthand.

Somehow, I don't see you doing either any time soon.

However, you ranting that it's 'zero knowlege' alas doesn't make it
true in the real world.



> >I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection
> >doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg.

> That doesn?t count because it?s only practice, not real. You have zero
> experience and zero knowledge of your precious ?tests?.


Curious. How is doing a DBT only *practice* for doing a DBT? You're flailing
here, generalissimo.


> In my view, there?s no point in you actually participating in any tests. You?re
> not motivated to discover the truth because you don?t care at all how any system
> sounds.

Gosh, then why castigate me for not having done gear DBTs? You wouldn't believe my
results if I did.


> >Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you
> >haven't personally experienced yourself, George?
> >Like, say, sexual intercourse?

> Did you make a joke, Silly? Better apply some WD40 to your rictus muscles.

I'll take that as a 'no', then.


> >> 2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
> >> system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
> >> posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
> >> fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
> >> pecuniousness and/or penury.
> >
> >I certainly do care about the quality of my system.

> No, all you care about is how much it cost. You said so yourself, two or three
> times.

No, I didn't say that. However, if you're going to simply lie about what I've written,
you'll make it back into my killfile that much faster.


> >That's why I didn't buy just any gear. I want it to deliver all the features
> >that I
> >specifically bought it for. This includes, but isn't confined
> >to, good sound.

> You don?t mean ?includes good sound?. You mean ?regardless of how it sounds?.
> You bought a commodity box without auditioning it.

I didn't audition in, true. But of course
if it had sounded broken to me when I heard it at home, I'd have
returned it. If DPL II hadn't functioned I'd have returned it. If the
ilink and USB inputs hadn't worked I'd have returned it. Etc.


> I have news for you, Sillybot: Low-end receivers sound crappy in various
> different ways. I?ve listened to a lot of different brands and I?ve owned a
> couple too. All low-priced electronics make serious compromises. They try to do
> well on one or two aspects of reproduction and they sacrifice the rest. It?s not
> at all difficult to hear differences among them.

Those 'differences' tend to amount to differences in ability to power different
loads at different levels before clipping. They don't tend to be
intrinsic differences about sound quality (ie, at matched levels, below clipping).

However, there's a few thousand dollars waiting for you, if you can
prove I'm wrong by demonstarting your ability to distinguish such amps.
Are you brave enough to claim it? I suspect not. You're a miserable
tinpot coward, generalissimo.

And of course, you *haven't* listened to the 56txi (which isn't considered
part of a 'low end' line by audiophile mags, including Stereophile),
nor, if you did, would your anecdotal reportage about its sound be worth
the pixels you wasted on it -- even if your review was positive.

> But you bought one without listening to any of them, even the one you
> mail-ordered. You are a robot.

Clearly, robots are smarter than 'normals'. ;>

> > Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as
> >amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price,
> >processing, connectivity.

> Low-end receivers are commodities in that they perform a basic function, but
> they?re not interchangeable in terms of quality. But you wouldn?t know any of
> this because you didn?t bother to find out.

Actually, I did quite a bit of research to find this out.
I certainly don't claim complete 'interchangeability' in all dimenstions
of quality -- some are *built* better than others, for sure, and are likely to last longer;
some have more sophisticated features than others, etc -- but I'm rather
confident that the evidence points to *intrinsic differences in sound*
being rather a non-issue.

Then again, you can ask people who *have* had direct DBT experience
with amps even you would have to admit are 'high end'. Their
experience seems to contradict yours.

> The word for somebody who thinks that no audition at all is better than one in a
> store is ?robot?. That?s you, Sillybot.

'Robot, robot , robot' -- gracious,
*you* look like the one stuck in a loop, General G.

In-store audition for solid state gear would be fine, *if* one could
be sure to do it double blind , level-matched, with all other
gear the same. Lacking that, one might just as well buy without
audition. Nothing unreasonable about that. Of course, make
sure you have a money-back return guarantee either way.

In-store audition of speakers, even 'blind', would not likely
predict how the speakers would sound in one's own home, except
as regards gross differences (e.g. full-range vs satellite)
-- certainly not at the resolution that appears to matter to
'audiophiles', where 'subtle nuances' are everything.



> >Can you prove that the $1700 Pioneer 56txi -- the AVR I
> >eventually bought -- *doesn't* offer good sound? Or even
> >one objective reason why it *wouldn't*?

> Hey, that?s better than low-end. I?ll bet it sounds decent.

That's a good bet, but not for the reasons you think.

> BTW, your demand that somebody else prove you do or don?t hear something is
> idiotic. You da ?bot!

If I *did* make such a demand (and I haven't), it'd surely be no
more idiotic that your own spittle-flecked contributions to the
newsgroups.


> >Btw, the 'golden ear' Michael Fremer praised the 49tx -- the
> >first of the Pioneer Elite AVR line -- "one of the best, if not the best,
> >A/V receiver on the market today."

> Oh, so you do base your decision on subjective reviews. How hypocritical of you.

Sorry, general, but I happened upon Fremer's review long after I bought the gear (and btw,
he's talking abotu a different model, the 49tx). So it couldn't have
influenced me. However, a review that did
was the one in Sound & Vision of the 59txi, which described its
ilink capabilities and room correction features. I suspect David Ranada,
who did that review, would take the high quality of the sound as a given,
as he is an objectivist -- but they also helpfully included bench test
info to back that up.

So, again, my buying behavior is quite consistent with my recommendations,
general. So why the call to arms?


> >N.B. I'd certainly have bought a less expensive rig if it
> >had the same feature set. Your mention of 'penury and pecuniousness'
> >marks you as the most ludicrous (and easily fleeced)
> >of audiophool species: the price snob.

> Hardly?.
> You have no idea how much I paid for my stuff. I?m as pecunious as
> anybody, but I shop for bargains. Ask your hero Ferstler about this. He shares
> my philosophy, although he implements in the sleaziest way imaginable.

So, you're as pecunious as anybody?
Why, then, someone who is admittedly pecunious, would use that as a pejorative,
or assume its a sign of *penury*, is admittedly a question even my robot logic can't answer.
Unless it's that you're simply a *miserable creep*.


> >> 3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
> >> undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
> >> actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
> >> performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
> >> density of your ossified mind)
> >
> >These aren't arguments, George, they're rants. Sonic performance
> >*is* a factor for amps, but the good news is, if you ran them
> >level-matched and with controls from bias in place, sonic
> >performance is likely to be at THE SAME high level. The
> >technology is mature, even if you aren't.

> But you bought a receiver, not an amplifier. Did you foolishly believe the
> preamp section of a receiver is somehow sonically transparent, more so than a
> separate preamp would be? If so, you?re the most ignorant robot ever.

Do you foolishly believe that preamps are likely to sound different
when auditioned with the proper controls in place? Permission to
disagree, SIR! Where's the evidence? Your own experience with
blind comparisons of preamps, perhaps?

The fact is, the supposed 'superiority' of high-end separates
may sometimes be measurable, sometimes audible, sometimes neither.


> >If I wanted to be *reliably sure* that my amp wasn't
> >underperforming sonically, I'd have to set up such a test.
> >And so would you.

> 0101011! 000111010, 001 1000011 00100110101101!

Garbage in, garbage out. ;>


> >But you aren't *really* that motivated, and neither am I.
> >You, because you believe you can
> >depend on your sighted listening to tell you whether two things
> >are sonically different -- when in fact it's easily shown to
> >be unreliable for that purpose. Me, because I accept
> >that one amp isn't likely to sound intrinsically
> >different from another.

> This is truly twisted. You?re a pervbot.

If reasoning annoys you, it's *got* to be good, clean fun.


> >I also accept that a perpetual motion machine isn't likely
> >to do what it's claimed to do. But silly me,
> >I'm just going by the scientific reasoning...I've never
> >actually *built* or *tested* one. I just kind of, you know,
> >have a grasp on reality.

> Have you thought about having your metallic exoskeleton refurbished? It might
> cost a few bucks, but it?ll stop the drunks from peeing on you.

Lacking any real arguments, you do seem to rely on your endless supply of bile
for 'rebuttals'. And I suppose that had to come from somewhere...


> >> 4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
> >> choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
> >> because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?
> >
> >> Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.
> >
> >
> >Consumers generally want something that sounds good to them, has the features
> >they want, looks good, and is affordable yet better than average.

> But you bought your box without knowing how it would sound. Do you see the
> fallacy, or are you having a binary seizure?

I made reasonable predictions that it would sound just fine, that its features
would be as advertised, and that it would look the way it did in the
photos. Wow, lucky me, I was right!

> >'Normals' don't want to be told that something costing far
> >less -- or which costs nothing -- stands a good chance of sounding
> >just the same than what they bought. But some of them might
> >appreciate being told that *before* their next purchase.

> You don?t even know how human beings actually evaluate audio gear. Sad.

Human being, myself included, are fallible. Some of them are smart and
realize this. Others pretend it's not true or that it doesn't matter.
Sad.


--

-S

[George M. Middius]

Sillybot, did you get an Emotion Chip? How daring. ;-)

> > > his reality is not necessarily the same one that you are in.

> > Yep, that's the nub. Perceptions are everything.

> Indeed? FWIW, I perceive you to be a malignant coward with only
> the most tenuous grasp of logic.

Actually, you feel that. You can look up "emotion" in any dictionary, in
case your programming didn't cover it.

> > Sillybot is in the throes of a complete mechanical breakdown.

> The two of you seem to have agreed on a shared reality, at least.
> Enjoy yourselves.

What do you think of this, Silly: "Existence exists." Is that a good
summary by a clever person or a fatuous copout by a lazy jackass?

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
> > >
> > > I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
> > > orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
> > >
> > > > In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
> > > > devices
> > > > or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
> > > > between them.
> > > > But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
> > >
> > > Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
> > > Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.
> > >
> > > > You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
> > > > because
> > > > the listener *heard* them as different.
> > >
> > > The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.
> > >
> > > > Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?
> > >
> > > Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be
> > > severely attenuated.
>
> > I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming
> > for bragging about his high-priced amps.
>
> > BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience."
>
> Nope, you're thinking of the Nousaine/Maki tests of Steve
> Zipser. Different situation, different amps...same
> outcome ;>

No, I'm recalling how Arny once described the Pioneer/Krell party trick.

And the Zip tests proved... zip.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
>> In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 >
>> wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
>>>> orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
>>>>
>>>>> In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
>>>>> devices
>>>>> or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
>>>>> between them.
>>>>> But in fact, A and B are the very same device or
>>>>> setting.
>>>>
>>>> Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
>>>> Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer
>>>> receiver.
>>>>
>>>>> You would claim that no, really, they *were*
>>>>> different, because
>>>>> the listener *heard* them as different.
>>>>
>>>> The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.
>>>>
>>>>> Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?
>>>>
>>>> Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might
>>>> be severely attenuated.
>>
>>> I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who
>>> had it coming for bragging about his high-priced amps.
>>
>>> BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch
>>> experience."
>>
>> Nope, you're thinking of the Nousaine/Maki tests of Steve
>> Zipser. Different situation, different amps...same
>> outcome ;>
>
> No, I'm recalling how Arny once described the
> Pioneer/Krell party trick.
>
> And the Zip tests proved... zip.

Actually they proved quite a bit about Zippy's lack of
honesty and general lack of character.

[Gareth Magennis]

This debate could go on forever, but has kind of digressed from my main
gripes about Science versus The Rest.

I still maintain that Science is trying to prove things by not taking into
account the unknown. The Subjectivist has a feeling something else is going
on, and has experiential evidence to prove it. The Scientist, seeing no
evidence of this, is saying that the Subjectivist is mistaken. Science
bases it's conclusions by assuming that current knowledge is correct, I am
still saying that this may not actually be true.

Go back to the early Astronomers - they were not stupid people, but of
similar intellect of the scientists of today. (This is thought to be so
because there were many Great Thinkers in History who were obviously very
smart, and there is thought and puzzlement why there are not more of these
Great Thinkers today). Anyway, they deduced eventually that the moving
stars were in fact planets. An amazing discovery back then. Only some
planets had weird paths - at some points they would even appear to go
backwards. If we were discussing this phenomena back then instead of this
one now, we would be arguing about what kind of forces are making this
planet go backwards. (After all, nothing can move unless a force makes it
move, can it?) Are there big invisible planets causing this, is there some
unknown force or God doing this? Is it the human mind causing this? Is it
an optical illusion? Yadda yadda yadda. Suddenly someone works out that we
had all been assuming all along that the orbits were circular, and that an
elliptical orbit explains everything. No force is making it move at all.

So in this current argument, what vital information are we missing? Science
assumes so much as initial conditions - that mind cannot affect matter, each
individual is in exactly the same reality as everyone else, collective
conciousness cannot change reality, a thing canot occupy more than one space
at one time etc etc. How much do you think we really know on this subject?
Do you not think that in 100 years time we are going to see ourselves as the
Early Astronomers in this field making the first tentaive steps to
undserstanding it?

Look at Quantum mechanics - extremely weird things going on. In some
instances, merely observing a situation changes it. You could extrapolate
this to the possibility that testing something in a Lab is not the same as a
long listening test in a home environment, which is what Audiophiles prefer
to do. Testing, looking for results, may in some way alter the experiment.
We simply do not know and do not test for it. And look at time, for
instance. There is no such thing as absolute time. Take 2 clocks, one up
on a tower and the other at the bottom of it, and they will run at different
times, as time is a function of gravity. This is well known. Which means
that time is subjective. Each person has his own personal time. Time is
measured by individual clocks on individual subjects. Extrapolate this a
bit and you get the possibility that the Subjectivist take on individual
realities is a very valid idea. And recently a scientist has apparently
been showing evidence of the same particle being in 2 different places at
the same time. Get your head around that one. (I can't qualify this
though, I heard it from my brother - it is apparently documented in the film
"What the bleep do we know").

And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow affect
the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond
the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle in
a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.



Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
> > wrote:
>
>>My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
>>scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
>>possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.
>
> You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
> mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
> simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
> nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
> that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
> despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
> ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
> an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
> which cable was connected.
>
> Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
> *really* trust their ears.
>
> Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to
> back your opinion. That's how science works.................
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.


Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
>>>scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
>>>possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.
>>
>> You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
>> mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
>> simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
>> nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
>> that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
>> despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
>> ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
>> an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
>> which cable was connected.
>>
>> Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
>> *really* trust their ears.
>>


You are missing the most basic point of all. You believe a test and the
real world environment will have exactly the same outcome. I believe that
it is not beyond the realms of possibility that something in the testing
process alters something in the test, by a process as yet unknown and
unobserved. On what grounds do you think this is not possible?


Gareth.






>> Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to
>> back your opinion. That's how science works.................
>> --
>>
>> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>
>
>
> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
> required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
> evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.
>
>
> Gareth.
>

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
> required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
> evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.

But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent.
There is a difference, you know.

d

[Gareth Magennis]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
>> required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
>> evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.
>
> But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent.
> There is a difference, you know.
>
> d



OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on the motorway and you
realise that you have no recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was
happening then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of that time
actually got stored in your memory? Were you concious at all? Lots of
possibilities. So you decide to conduct an experiment. The next time this
happens you will check out your conciousness and see what is happening.
Only you can't because the very act of attempting to carry out this test
alters your conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible.

Listening to music at home during a long term test may at first be altered
by you being concious that it is a test and you are listening for results.
Eventually you will tire of this and forget about the test, and over a long
period, say several days with the same CD player, you may be able to say
something like "I don't know why, but with the Philips CD player, I just
wanted to dance all the time, whereas 3 days with the Naim puts me in a
really peaceful mood and classical music sounds better than on the Philips.
But as soon as you start to analyse the sound system, something changes and
you are back to your test scenario, invalidating the test.


There is no reportable evidence here, or even any tangible evidence at all,
other than the Subjective experiential evidence the scientists don't count.




Gareth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message

> And there's more, like the observations that one particle
> can somehow affect the behaviour of another a large
> distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond the realms of
> fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a
> particle in a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.

Gareth, ever hear of Occam's razor? It basically says that
simple explanations are more likely to be correct.

When you have to call on astronomy, quantum physics and
hypothesize new scientific discoveries to explain things
that you perceive, which are easy to show are just audible
illusions, this should be a wake up call.

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message


> OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on
> the motorway and you realise that you have no
> recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was happening
> then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of
> that time actually got stored in your memory? Were you
> concious at all? Lots of possibilities. So you decide
> to conduct an experiment. The next time this happens you
> will check out your conciousness and see what is
> happening. Only you can't because the very act of
> attempting to carry out this test alters your
> conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible.

What freeways do you drive on Gareth? If you're having
routine blackouts while driving, pardon me if I want to be
driving some place else.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>
>>> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
>>> required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
>>> evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.
>>
>> But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent.
>> There is a difference, you know.
>>
>> d
>
>
>
> OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on the motorway and you
> realise that you have no recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was
> happening then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of that time
> actually got stored in your memory? Were you concious at all? Lots of
> possibilities. So you decide to conduct an experiment. The next time this
> happens you will check out your conciousness and see what is happening.
> Only you can't because the very act of attempting to carry out this test
> alters your conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible.
>
> Listening to music at home during a long term test may at first be altered
> by you being concious that it is a test and you are listening for results.
> Eventually you will tire of this and forget about the test, and over a long
> period, say several days with the same CD player, you may be able to say
> something like "I don't know why, but with the Philips CD player, I just
> wanted to dance all the time, whereas 3 days with the Naim puts me in a
> really peaceful mood and classical music sounds better than on the Philips.
> But as soon as you start to analyse the sound system, something changes and
> you are back to your test scenario, invalidating the test.
>
>
> There is no reportable evidence here, or even any tangible evidence at all,
> other than the Subjective experiential evidence the scientists don't count.
>
>
>
>
> Gareth.

OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound
different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference? It
is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his back
while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no
longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no
difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance
knowledge of which cable he is listening to.

That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects.

d

[George M. Middius]

Gareth Magennis said:

> You are missing the most basic point of all. You believe a test and the
> real world environment will have exactly the same outcome. I believe that
> it is not beyond the realms of possibility that something in the testing
> process alters something in the test, by a process as yet unknown and
> unobserved.

You're absolutely right, except that we do know what happens and why the
"tests" are not valid for consumers. The difference is psychological.
Different mindsets for human-style listening vs. lab-rat "tests".

There's another point about the two mindsets that's not so obvious: The
nerds can't separate the consumer viewpoint from the technician viewpoint.
They believe the DBT protocol is inherently better for everybody. In
reality it's only better for those who need it -- i.e. technicians. A
low-level characteristic of a system's performance may not register in
short-term listening sessions, but it can (and does) become apparent over
the long term. Humans are not robots; our brains filter information for
us. When we listen, we do so for pleasure, and that's what our brains
report. When we become accustomed to the sound of a system, we then start
to refine our impressions. We learn as we go. Robots don't do that, of
course -- they're fully programmed when they're "born".

The 'borgs refuse to acknowledge that using a tool the way you want to use
it is its best and highest purpose.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis
> wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth
>>> Magennis wrote:
>>>
>>>> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the
>>>> "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and
>>>> there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than
>>>> Science assumes it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it
>>> is merely absent.

This begs the question - how far do we have to look for
evidence of an improbable event before we conclude that it
doesn't happen?

>>> There is a difference, you know.

How do you know that there is a difference in the total
absence of reliable evidence?

[Gareth Magennis]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> message
>
>> And there's more, like the observations that one particle
>> can somehow affect the behaviour of another a large
>> distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond the realms of
>> fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a
>> particle in a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.
>
> Gareth, ever hear of Occam's razor? It basically says that simple
> explanations are more likely to be correct.
>
> When you have to call on astronomy, quantum physics and hypothesize new
> scientific discoveries to explain things that you perceive, which are easy
> to show are just audible illusions, this should be a wake up call.
>


I have heard of Mr Occam and his shaving device, and I am inclined to agree
with you. However, I lean more towards the idea that it is quite possible
we have been barking up the wrong tree all this time and the simple
explanation is that everything we think we know is wrong, because one, some
or all of the fundamental principles we hold so dear are wrong. The kind of
things I have mentioned in previous posts like Matter arising from Mind and
not the other way round, time not being at all what we think it is, reality
being illusory, Britney Spears being a better singer than Christina
Aguilera, Collective Conciousness meaning we are all part of some greater
being like leaves are part of a tree, hell, maybe even a God exists. And of
course other ideas and concepts that we just could not understand right now.

See, the Quantum Mechanics thing seems to be finding little things like mind
actually does affect matter and that things don't have to be near other
things to affect them or even to be part of them. Maybe we have
overcomplicated things enormously - maybe a paradigm leap in awareness would
bring everything down to the really simple level that it actually is. Can't
wait.


Gareth.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:15:45 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth
>>>> Magennis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the
>>>>> "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and
>>>>> there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than
>>>>> Science assumes it doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it
>>>> is merely absent.
>
> This begs the question - how far do we have to look for
> evidence of an improbable event before we conclude that it
> doesn't happen?
>
You already know the answer to that. If the event is improbable, then the
only way to settle the matter is to demonstrate that it happens, waiting
for it not to happen for an arbitrary length of time settles nothing.
Everybody just goes home bored and still arguing.

>>>> There is a difference, you know.
>
> How do you know that there is a difference in the total
> absence of reliable evidence?

Evidence of absence vs. absence of evidence?

I will stick with the good Friar William to make my choice there.

d

[Gareth Magennis]

> What freeways do you drive on Gareth? If you're having routine blackouts
> while driving, pardon me if I want to be driving some place else.
>

You'll be OK, I only drive on Motorways on the left hand side of the road.



Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>>
>>>> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
>>>> required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
>>>> evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent.
>>> There is a difference, you know.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on the motorway and
>> you
>> realise that you have no recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was
>> happening then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of that
>> time
>> actually got stored in your memory? Were you concious at all? Lots of
>> possibilities. So you decide to conduct an experiment. The next time
>> this
>> happens you will check out your conciousness and see what is happening.
>> Only you can't because the very act of attempting to carry out this test
>> alters your conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible.
>>
>> Listening to music at home during a long term test may at first be
>> altered
>> by you being concious that it is a test and you are listening for
>> results.
>> Eventually you will tire of this and forget about the test, and over a
>> long
>> period, say several days with the same CD player, you may be able to say
>> something like "I don't know why, but with the Philips CD player, I just
>> wanted to dance all the time, whereas 3 days with the Naim puts me in a
>> really peaceful mood and classical music sounds better than on the
>> Philips.
>> But as soon as you start to analyse the sound system, something changes
>> and
>> you are back to your test scenario, invalidating the test.
>>
>>
>> There is no reportable evidence here, or even any tangible evidence at
>> all,
>> other than the Subjective experiential evidence the scientists don't
>> count.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gareth.
>
> OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound
> different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference?
> It
> is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his
> back
> while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no
> longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no
> difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance
> knowledge of which cable he is listening to.
>
> That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects.
>
> d


Actually I don't think that these types of short term tests are valid at
all. There is an enormous propensity for bias, even Audiophiles must admit
that, surely. But I think, and hope, that most Audiophiles are really
talking about long term testing in their own homes. I don't think there is
much in common between the two situations so you can't use one to prove or
disprove the other, which I believe the scientific community is trying to
do.


Gareth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:15:45 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth
>>> Magennis wrote:

>>>>> But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it
>>>>> is merely absent.

>> This begs the question - how far do we have to look for
>> evidence of an improbable event before we conclude that
>> it doesn't happen?

> You already know the answer to that. If the event is
> improbable, then the only way to settle the matter is to
> demonstrate that it happens, waiting for it not to happen
> for an arbitrary length of time settles nothing.
> Everybody just goes home bored and still arguing.

....and that puts us exactly where we are today.

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message

> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...


>> OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for
>> instance) sound different. He swaps them around and says
>> "can't you hear the difference? It
>> is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell
>> him to turn his back
>> while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is
>> hearing. He can no longer hear the difference. There is
>> no trance, no memory loss, no difference to the previous
>> circumstance - just an absence of advance knowledge of
>> which cable he is listening to.
>
>> That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for
>> *audible* effects.

> Actually I don't think that these types of short term
> tests are valid at all.

I see no indication of short or long listening tests in
Don's example.

However Gareth, I see you imposing a short term test on
Don's example, and then you objecting to it.

I believe that the imposition is in essence lying, and the
objection is a straw man argument.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:34:02 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

>> OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound
>> different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference?
>> It
>> is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his
>> back
>> while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no
>> longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no
>> difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance
>> knowledge of which cable he is listening to.
>>
>> That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects.
>>
>> d
>
>
> Actually I don't think that these types of short term tests are valid at
> all. There is an enormous propensity for bias, even Audiophiles must admit
> that, surely. But I think, and hope, that most Audiophiles are really
> talking about long term testing in their own homes. I don't think there is
> much in common between the two situations so you can't use one to prove or
> disprove the other, which I believe the scientific community is trying to
> do.
>
>
> Gareth.

No, this won't wash. The "difference" man has no problem identifying his
differences in brief "can you hear it?" type tests when he knows which is
connected. He is also free to take just as long as he pleases when
unsighted.

I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.

d

[Gareth Magennis]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> message
>
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>
>>> OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for
>>> instance) sound different. He swaps them around and says
>>> "can't you hear the difference? It
>>> is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell
>>> him to turn his back
>>> while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is
>>> hearing. He can no longer hear the difference. There is
>>> no trance, no memory loss, no difference to the previous
>>> circumstance - just an absence of advance knowledge of
>>> which cable he is listening to.
>>
>>> That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for
>>> *audible* effects.
>
>> Actually I don't think that these types of short term
>> tests are valid at all.
>
> I see no indication of short or long listening tests in Don's example.
>
> However Gareth, I see you imposing a short term test on Don's example, and
> then you objecting to it.
>
> I believe that the imposition is in essence lying, and the objection is a
> straw man argument.
>
>

OK, I'm getting tired of all this typing. I didn't really mean short term
test. What I mean is that it is possible for a test like the above to
alter the circumstances of the test itself, as I have explained previously,
so it is not clear what is really being tested here. The result may not be
just an indication of "audible effects" or the lack thereof. It could be
showing the subject is suddenly unable to hear them during the test, for
whatever reason. If I held a gun to your head and told you I would shoot
you unless you clearly identified whether this was Coke or Pepsi, do you not
think that would alter what is actually being tested, and your perception of
what the drink tastes like, and your memories of what Pepsi and Coke taste
like without these conditions? Then it would be a taste test under duress,
not a normal taste test and the results may well be very different from
those taken at home over seveal days.

A long term test in real world conditions, I believe, tends to lose these
erroneous conditions and tests whether there has been any permanent
improvement or change in perceived sound, or whether it makes you dance to
all your CD's or not.


Gareth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message

>

> OK, I'm getting tired of all this typing. I didn't
> really mean short term test. What I mean is that it is
> possible for a test like the above to alter the
> circumstances of the test itself, as I have explained
> previously, so it is not clear what is really being
> tested here.

OK Gareth at this point you are backed way deep into a
corner. You're persisting that your favorite cables
absolutely positively do make a difference that can be
easily heard by anybody with good ears and a good system,
then you're clutching at straws when it comes to reasons why
that doesn't happen when listener bias is controlled by any
known means.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:34:02 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis
> wrote:
>> Actually I don't think that these types of short term
>> tests are valid at all. There is an enormous propensity
>> for bias, even Audiophiles must admit that, surely. But
>> I think, and hope, that most Audiophiles are really
>> talking about long term testing in their own homes. I
>> don't think there is much in common between the two
>> situations so you can't use one to prove or disprove the
>> other, which I believe the scientific community is
>> trying to do.
>>
>>
>> Gareth.

> No, this won't wash. The "difference" man has no problem
> identifying his differences in brief "can you hear it?"
> type tests when he knows which is connected. He is also
> free to take just as long as he pleases when unsighted.

> I have to say, though, that I find that systems with
> genuine differences tend to sound the same with
> protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the new sound
> and puts it back together the way Inthink it should
> sound.

> You can get used to the most appalling crap if you
> listen long enough.

I got a practical lesson in this at HE2005, in virtually
every room with SET amplifiers, and many others as well.

The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos sounded
great but the speakers!!!! ;-(

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce >
wrote:

>I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
>tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
>new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
>can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.

I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.

Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

> The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos sounded
> great but the speakers!!!! ;-(

Speakers and pianos in the same room? What genius thought that one up? Or
did they have blankets to throw over the strings while they used the
speakers?

d

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce >
> wrote:
>
>>I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
>>tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
>>new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
>>can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.
>
> I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
> audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
> that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
> than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.
>

I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few
seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing.

> Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
> talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
> Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.

I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you
mind?

d

[Harry Lavo]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
>>>>scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
>>>>possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.
>>>
>>> You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
>>> mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
>>> simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
>>> nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
>>> that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
>>> despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
>>> ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
>>> an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
>>> which cable was connected.
>>>
>>> Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
>>> *really* trust their ears.
>>>
>
>
> You are missing the most basic point of all. You believe a test and the
> real world environment will have exactly the same outcome. I believe that
> it is not beyond the realms of possibility that something in the testing
> process alters something in the test, by a process as yet unknown and
> unobserved. On what grounds do you think this is not possible?
>
>

It's not even totally unknown. Some work done by a group in Japan led by
Oohashi (
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=oohashi&searchid=1127314515517_819&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance )
found that short snippets of music did not allow enough time for an
emotional response by the brain to build (on average, this took 1.5-2
mins.). The difference in some of their tests was the difference between
"null" and "significantly different" on musical ratings.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:38:31 +0100, Don Pearce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
>>>tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
>>>new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
>>>can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.
>>
>> I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
>> audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
>> that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
>> than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.
>>
>
>I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few
>seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing.

Yes, and looping a 2 sec clip is especially unhelpful, especially when
it's an actual music clip.

>> Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
>> talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
>> Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.
>
>I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you
>mind?

You mean the "idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton" quip?

OK. Here it is revised:

Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
talking about what happens "in reality" like Mr.
Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.

If only you'd take HIM to task for HIS rude comments. But it's your
right to pull a nod and a wink to him.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:01:11 -0500, dave weil wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:38:31 +0100, Don Pearce >
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
>>>>tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
>>>>new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
>>>>can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.
>>>
>>> I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
>>> audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
>>> that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
>>> than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.
>>>
>>
>>I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few
>>seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing.
>
> Yes, and looping a 2 sec clip is especially unhelpful, especially when
> it's an actual music clip.
>

Looping is particularly unhelpful - it takes on a character of its own that
is wholly unrelated to the normal audio content.

>>> Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
>>> talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
>>> Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.
>>
>>I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you
>>mind?
>
> You mean the "idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton" quip?
>
> OK. Here it is revised:
>
> Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
> talking about what happens "in reality" like Mr.
> Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.
>
> If only you'd take HIM to task for HIS rude comments. But it's your
> right to pull a nod and a wink to him.

If he replies to me in this fashion, rest assured I will.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos
>> sounded great but the speakers!!!! ;-(
>
> Speakers and pianos in the same room?

Yes, but the speaker demo room and the piano room were
separated by a partial partition.

> What genius thought that one up?

really!

>Or did they have blankets to throw over the strings while
>they used the speakers?

none in sight, and I visited the room several times, for a
hors-d'oerves check.

[George M. Middius]

Gareth Magennis tries to have a human-style conversation with the
Krooborg.

> >> Actually I don't think that these types of short term
> >> tests are valid at all.

> > lying
> > straw man

> OK, I'm getting tired of all this typing. I didn't really mean short term
> test. What I mean is that it is possible for a test like the above to
> alter the circumstances of the test itself, as I have explained previously,
> so it is not clear what is really being tested here.

You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a waste of time.

[Arny Krueger]

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



> You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a
> waste of time.

In Middius' world, everybody but his disciples, the
Stereophile's staff, and himself are crazy. But, Middius
wastes his time with those crazy people, by the bucketload.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:25:52 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:34:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

>>
>>> Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
>>
>>I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
>>orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
>>
>>> In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
>>> devices
>>> or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
>>> between them.
>>> But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
>>
>>Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
>>Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.
>>
>>> You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
>>> because
>>> the listener *heard* them as different.
>>
>>The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.
>
>It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do
>the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who
>claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be
>similarly fooled.

So, you're saying that SETs are *not* sonically distinguishable from
cheap SS amps when used below clipping? If so, then what's the point
of them?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[George Middius]

The Krooborg trashes his christian "morality" whenever it's convenient. Like
now, for example.

>> You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a
>> waste of time.

>In Middius' world, everybody but his disciples, the
>Stereophile's staff, and himself are crazy.

Well, not exactly, Arnii. There's just you, the King of Mt. Crazy. Among that
impoverished group of apologists you kling to like a barnakle, there's a couple
of maladjusted cranks and a passel of class warriors. But no other crazies.

You could see a shrink, you know. Maybe they have meds that would help you.
Unless you're afraid the psychiatrists are part of the anti-Krooger plot, of
course. ;-)

[Sander deWaal]

Stewart Pinkerton > said:

>So, you're saying that SETs are *not* sonically distinguishable from
>cheap SS amps when used below clipping? If so, then what's the point
>of them?


They glow so nice ;-)

--

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

[ScottW]

George Middius wrote:
>
> Hardly=99. You have no idea how much I paid for my stuff. I'm as pecuniou=
s as
> anybody, but I shop for bargains. Ask your hero Ferstler about this. He s=
hares
> my philosophy, although he implements in the sleaziest way imaginable.

I didn't know Howard buddied up with a dealer on RAO, got him to sell
an amp cheap outside his sales area, then turned on him like a rabid
dog.
=20
ScottW

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:48:36 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>>It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do
>>the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who
>>claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be
>>similarly fooled.
>
>So, you're saying that SETs are *not* sonically distinguishable from
>cheap SS amps when used below clipping? If so, then what's the point
>of them?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Nice of you to show how your
reasoning is so skewed.

What I'm saying is that I could fool YOU in just the same way. I could
tell you that you were listening to your own Krell and substitute an
SET that you claimed was inferior and I bet you a dollar to a doughnut
that you'd buy it hook, line and sinker.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:


> This debate could go on forever, but has kind of digressed from my main
> gripes about Science versus The Rest.

> I still maintain that Science is trying to prove things by not taking into
> account the unknown. The Subjectivist has a feeling something else is going
> on, and has experiential evidence to prove it. The Scientist, seeing no
> evidence of this, is saying that the Subjectivist is mistaken. Science
> bases it's conclusions by assuming that current knowledge is correct, I am
> still saying that this may not actually be true.

Actaully, science 'says' that too. However, it requires that that you
demonstrate *why* it may not actually be true. For any claim of
'truth' for science, there's a line -- more likely a network -- of
repeatable evidence to back up *this* explanation and not *that* one.
Networks of evidence are not equally strong for *all*
explanations, except in the very early stages of an investigation.

Where is the network of evidence for your claims> And how does
it compare in strength to the network of evidence for, say,
the inherent fallibility of human perception?


> Go back to the early Astronomers - they were not stupid people, but of
> similar intellect of the scientists of today. (This is thought to be so
> because there were many Great Thinkers in History who were obviously very
> smart, and there is thought and puzzlement why there are not more of these
> Great Thinkers today). Anyway, they deduced eventually that the moving
> stars were in fact planets. An amazing discovery back then. Only some
> planets had weird paths - at some points they would even appear to go
> backwards. If we were discussing this phenomena back then instead of this
> one now, we would be arguing about what kind of forces are making this
> planet go backwards. (After all, nothing can move unless a force makes it
> move, can it?) Are there big invisible planets causing this, is there some
> unknown force or God doing this? Is it the human mind causing this? Is it
> an optical illusion? Yadda yadda yadda. Suddenly someone works out that we
> had all been assuming all along that the orbits were circular, and that an
> elliptical orbit explains everything. No force is making it move at all.

Well, that's not true -- of course there's a force 'making' them move.

But by all means, emulate the scientists and provide us with reality-based
evidence and testable hypotheses for your claims.

> So in this current argument, what vital information are we missing? Science
> assumes so much as initial conditions - that mind cannot affect matter, each
> individual is in exactly the same reality as everyone else, collective
> conciousness cannot change reality, a thing canot occupy more than one space
> at one time etc etc. How much do you think we really know on this subject?
> Do you not think that in 100 years time we are going to see ourselves as the
> Early Astronomers in this field making the first tentaive steps to
> undserstanding it?

By all means, emulate the scientists and provide us with reality-based
evidence for your 'what-ifs', and testable hypotheses.

> Look at Quantum mechanics - extremely weird things going on. In some
> instances, merely observing a situation changes it.

This occurs at sub-atomic levels. At 'macro' levels it's swamped by
'noise'.


> You could extrapolate
> this to the possibility that testing something in a Lab is not the same as a
> long listening test in a home environment, which is what Audiophiles prefer
> to do.

*You* could make that extrapolation from quantum physics, but it's
certainly not something that an actual physicist would do.
Because they understand what they're talking about.

> Testing, looking for results, may in some way alter the experiment.
> We simply do not know and do not test for it. And look at time, for
> instance. There is no such thing as absolute time. Take 2 clocks, one up
> on a tower and the other at the bottom of it, and they will run at different
> times, as time is a function of gravity. This is well known. Which means
> that time is subjective. Each person has his own personal time. Time is
> measured by individual clocks on individual subjects. Extrapolate this a
> bit and you get the possibility that the Subjectivist take on individual
> realities is a very valid idea. And recently a scientist has apparently
> been showing evidence of the same particle being in 2 different places at
> the same time. Get your head around that one. (I can't qualify this
> though, I heard it from my brother - it is apparently documented in the film
> "What the bleep do we know").

A film funded by, and serving a propaganda for, some rather kooky religious
characters.

If you take this, and books liek 'The Tao of Physics' as indicators of
what the evidence actually says, then it's no wonder your ideas are so
wooly.

> And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow affect
> the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond
> the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle in
> a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.

Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy.



--

-S

[dave weil]

On 21 Sep 2005 12:48:25 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>George Middius wrote:
>>
>> Hardly™. You have no idea how much I paid for my stuff. I'm as pecunious as
>> anybody, but I shop for bargains. Ask your hero Ferstler about this. He shares
>> my philosophy, although he implements in the sleaziest way imaginable.
>
> I didn't know Howard buddied up with a dealer on RAO, got him to sell
>an amp cheap outside his sales area, then turned on him like a rabid
>dog.

No, he buddied up with a manufactuer, got his to send him a "loaner"
and then kept the loaner when said manufacturer went out of business,
DESPITE Mr. Ferstler's rave reviews.

Actually, legally, he's possessing property that doesn't belong to
him, but is actually the property of the receiver. That might be
considered theft in some quarters.