A New "McDonald's Argument"

[Arny Krueger]

Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/index.html

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better,
preschoolers said in a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising
can trick the taste buds of young children.
Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the kids when they were
wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.

The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald's foods in name-brand and
unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost the taste test.

"You see a McDonald's label and kids start salivating," said Diane Levin, a
childhood development specialist who campaigns against advertising to kids.
She had no role in the research.

Levin said it was "the first study I know of that has shown so simply and
clearly what's going on with (marketing to) young children."

Study author Dr. Tom Robinson said the kids' perception of taste was
"physically altered by the branding." The Stanford University researcher
said it was remarkable how children so young were already so influenced by
advertising.

The study involved 63 low-income children ages 3 to 5 from Head Start
centers in San Mateo County, Calif. Robinson believes the results would be
similar for children from wealthier families.

The research, appearing in August's Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, was funded by Stanford and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The study is likely to stir more debate over the movement to restrict ads to
kids. It comes less than a month after 11 major food and drink companies,
including McDonald's, announced new curbs on marketing to children under 12.

McDonald's says the only Happy Meals it will promote to young children will
contain fruit and have fewer calories and less fat.

"This is an important subject and McDonald's has been actively addressing it
for quite some time," said company spokesman Walt Riker. "We've always
wanted to be part of the solution and we are providing solutions."

But Dr. Victor Strasburger, an author of an American Academy of Pediatrics
policy urging limits on marketing to children, said the study shows too
little is being done.

"It's an amazing study and it's very sad," Strasburger said.

"Advertisers have tried to do exactly what this study is talking about -- to
brand younger and younger children, to instill in them an almost obsessional
desire for a particular brand-name product," he said.

Just two of the 63 children studied said they'd never eaten at McDonald's,
and about one-third ate there at least weekly. Most recognized the
McDonald's logo but it was mentioned to those who didn't.

The study included three McDonald's menu items -- hamburgers, chicken
nuggets and french fries -- and store-bought milk or juice and carrots.
Children got two identical samples of each food on a tray, one in McDonald's
wrappers or cups and the other in plain, unmarked packaging. The kids were
asked whether they tasted the same or whether one was better. (Some children
didn't taste all the foods.)

McDonald's-labeled samples were the clear favorites. French fries were the
biggest winner; almost 77 percent said the labeled fries tasted best while
only 13 percent preferred the others.

Fifty-four percent preferred McDonald's-wrapped carrots versus 23 percent
who liked the plain-wrapped sample.

The only results not statistically clear-cut involved the hamburgers, with
29 kids choosing McDonald's-wrapped burgers and 22 choosing the unmarked
ones.

Fewer than one-fourth of the children said both samples of all foods tasted
the same.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/in
> dex.html

Or, alternatively, how powerful branding is to the consumer experience.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 7, 9:59 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> The study involved 63 low-income children ages 3 to 5 from Head Start
> centers in San Mateo County, Calif. Robinson believes the results would be
> similar for children from wealthier families.

Well, the researcher "believes" the same as you do, Arns. I'm sure
this is some kind of "proof" to you.

The wealthy people I know feed their children well and educate them.
It's hilarious: my girlfriend's kids don't like candy. My eldest
daughter is a vegetarian. We eat fast food infrequently and as a
matter of convenience, not demand. But since they aren't enrolled in
Head Start in San Mateo County, CA, their views don't get accounted
for. As and you know, Arns, because you are a scientist, you have to
account for all potential variables.

Any good researcher would know that a very small sample of children
from the same class in the same program in the same geographical
location from parents that are likely from the same socio-economic
group just might not generalize to the entire population.

I know, Arns: why don't you add to the body of knowledge and continue
the experiment on children you know?

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/index.html
>
> CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better

Curiously I find exactly the reverse.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brayed:

> > CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better

> Curiously I find exactly the reverse.

What does McDogfood serve in the UK? It can't be as dreadful as their
"original" (American) menu.

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Aug, 19:27, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> wrote:


> I know, Arns: why don't you add to the body of knowledge and continue
> the experiment on children you know?


You are walking on dangerous waters.
Hasn't he done enough tests on the neighborhood boys?

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Aug, 20:55, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Poopie brayed:
>
> > > CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better
> > Curiously I find exactly the reverse.
>
> What does McDogfood serve in the UK? It can't be as dreadful as their
> "original" (American) menu.

in Bucharest it is a Royal Chees meniu (meal)
at least they don't use the sorry local beef,
so comparaitely, its not bad

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Aug, 17:59, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschool...
>
> CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better,
> preschoolers said in a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising
> can trick the taste buds of young children.
> Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the kids when they were
> wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.
>
> The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald's foods in name-brand and
> unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost the taste test.
>
> "You see a McDonald's label and kids start salivating," said Diane Levin, a
> childhood development specialist who campaigns against advertising to kids.
> She had no role in the research.
>
> Levin said it was "the first study I know of that has shown so simply and
> clearly what's going on with (marketing to) young children."
>
> Study author Dr. Tom Robinson said the kids' perception of taste was
> "physically altered by the branding." The Stanford University researcher
> said it was remarkable how children so young were already so influenced by
> advertising.
>
> The study involved 63 low-income children ages 3 to 5 from Head Start
> centers in San Mateo County, Calif. Robinson believes the results would be
> similar for children from wealthier families.
>
> The research, appearing in August's Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
> Medicine, was funded by Stanford and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
>
> The study is likely to stir more debate over the movement to restrict ads to
> kids. It comes less than a month after 11 major food and drink companies,
> including McDonald's, announced new curbs on marketing to children under 12.
>
> McDonald's says the only Happy Meals it will promote to young children will
> contain fruit and have fewer calories and less fat.
>
> "This is an important subject and McDonald's has been actively addressing it
> for quite some time," said company spokesman Walt Riker. "We've always
> wanted to be part of the solution and we are providing solutions."
>
> But Dr. Victor Strasburger, an author of an American Academy of Pediatrics
> policy urging limits on marketing to children, said the study shows too
> little is being done.
>
> "It's an amazing study and it's very sad," Strasburger said.
>
> "Advertisers have tried to do exactly what this study is talking about -- to
> brand younger and younger children, to instill in them an almost obsessional
> desire for a particular brand-name product," he said.
>
> Just two of the 63 children studied said they'd never eaten at McDonald's,
> and about one-third ate there at least weekly. Most recognized the
> McDonald's logo but it was mentioned to those who didn't.
>
> The study included three McDonald's menu items -- hamburgers, chicken
> nuggets and french fries -- and store-bought milk or juice and carrots.
> Children got two identical samples of each food on a tray, one in McDonald's
> wrappers or cups and the other in plain, unmarked packaging. The kids were
> asked whether they tasted the same or whether one was better. (Some children
> didn't taste all the foods.)
>
> McDonald's-labeled samples were the clear favorites. French fries were the
> biggest winner; almost 77 percent said the labeled fries tasted best while
> only 13 percent preferred the others.
>
> Fifty-four percent preferred McDonald's-wrapped carrots versus 23 percent
> who liked the plain-wrapped sample.
>
> The only results not statistically clear-cut involved the hamburgers, with
> 29 kids choosing McDonald's-wrapped burgers and 22 choosing the unmarked
> ones.
>
> Fewer than one-fourth of the children said both samples of all foods tasted
> the same.

Arny special orders his Big
Macs to be wrapped in the local Detroit newspaper.
They give him a penny discount.

[Harry Lavo]

This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what "branding"
is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything intrinsically
dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the brand" is valid.

I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned before
children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that is, of
course, forever.

As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people arguing
about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted bias.
That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off criticism of
the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as required even to discuss
sound.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/index.html
>
> CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better,
> preschoolers said in a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising
> can trick the taste buds of young children.
> Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the kids when they
> were wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.
>
> The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald's foods in name-brand
> and unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost the taste test.
>
> "You see a McDonald's label and kids start salivating," said Diane Levin,
> a childhood development specialist who campaigns against advertising to
> kids. She had no role in the research.
>
> Levin said it was "the first study I know of that has shown so simply and
> clearly what's going on with (marketing to) young children."
>
> Study author Dr. Tom Robinson said the kids' perception of taste was
> "physically altered by the branding." The Stanford University researcher
> said it was remarkable how children so young were already so influenced by
> advertising.
>
> The study involved 63 low-income children ages 3 to 5 from Head Start
> centers in San Mateo County, Calif. Robinson believes the results would be
> similar for children from wealthier families.
>
> The research, appearing in August's Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
> Medicine, was funded by Stanford and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
>
> The study is likely to stir more debate over the movement to restrict ads
> to kids. It comes less than a month after 11 major food and drink
> companies, including McDonald's, announced new curbs on marketing to
> children under 12.
>
> McDonald's says the only Happy Meals it will promote to young children
> will contain fruit and have fewer calories and less fat.
>
> "This is an important subject and McDonald's has been actively addressing
> it for quite some time," said company spokesman Walt Riker. "We've always
> wanted to be part of the solution and we are providing solutions."
>
> But Dr. Victor Strasburger, an author of an American Academy of Pediatrics
> policy urging limits on marketing to children, said the study shows too
> little is being done.
>
> "It's an amazing study and it's very sad," Strasburger said.
>
> "Advertisers have tried to do exactly what this study is talking about --
> to brand younger and younger children, to instill in them an almost
> obsessional desire for a particular brand-name product," he said.
>
> Just two of the 63 children studied said they'd never eaten at McDonald's,
> and about one-third ate there at least weekly. Most recognized the
> McDonald's logo but it was mentioned to those who didn't.
>
> The study included three McDonald's menu items -- hamburgers, chicken
> nuggets and french fries -- and store-bought milk or juice and carrots.
> Children got two identical samples of each food on a tray, one in
> McDonald's wrappers or cups and the other in plain, unmarked packaging.
> The kids were asked whether they tasted the same or whether one was
> better. (Some children didn't taste all the foods.)
>
> McDonald's-labeled samples were the clear favorites. French fries were the
> biggest winner; almost 77 percent said the labeled fries tasted best while
> only 13 percent preferred the others.
>
> Fifty-four percent preferred McDonald's-wrapped carrots versus 23 percent
> who liked the plain-wrapped sample.
>
> The only results not statistically clear-cut involved the hamburgers, with
> 29 kids choosing McDonald's-wrapped burgers and 22 choosing the unmarked
> ones.
>
> Fewer than one-fourth of the children said both samples of all foods
> tasted the same.
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/in
>> dex.html
>
> Or, alternatively, how powerful branding is to the consumer experience.

Yes, branding is so powerful that it can make people perceive differences
that have zero basis in fact, in sighted evaluations.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/index.html


> This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what "branding"
> is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything intrinsically
> dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the brand" is valid.
>
> I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned before
> children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that is, of
> course, forever.
>
> As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people arguing
> about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted
> bias. That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off
> criticism of the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as required
> even to discuss sound.

Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products, how do
you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>> >
>> > http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/index.html
>
>
>> This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what "branding"
>> is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything
>> intrinsically dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the
>> brand" is valid.
>>
>> I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned
>> before children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that
>> is, of course, forever.
>>
>> As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people arguing
>> about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted
>> bias. That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off
>> criticism of the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as required
>> even to discuss sound.
>
> Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products, how
> do you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?

In the first place, being "identified" or "sighted" is not the same as being
branded. Being "branded" means enough money has been spent over the years
propagating a consistent image that is congruent with the product itself, so
for example Krell amplifiers are noted for power into difficult loads based
on early Krell technology that did impart that characteristic. Then it was
furthered along by sustained marketing, pr, etc. until now many people look
at a Krell, any Krell, and assume it will handle bass well. And BTW,
marketing people also know that if the the "branding " is not congruent with
the actual product, that fact eventually catches up and simply results in
wasted marketing effort.

So now, a skeptical audiophile will be aware of most of this and factor it
in as perhaps being true, perhaps not, when compared to Brand "O". A
gullible audiophile may buy a salesman's pitch and think that Krell is
automatically superior in bass to other amps. The skeptical audiophile can
probably do a test where the "sound" bias outweighs the "appearance" bias,
the "reputation" bias, etc. built into the brand. The gullible audiophile
may not. The serious audiophile may or may not think ABX is valid, but he
knows blind testing can tell him something if he really comes away from the
comparisons without a strong preference, or with a mixed preference. He
also knows it is a pain to set up a blind (non-ABX) test to allow him to
"do-it-his-way" if he is an ABX skeptic. Then he has to make a decision
about the amount of risk involved. The gullible audiophile will probably
not consider any comparative testing at all, blind or non-blind, because he
has already made his mind up (perhaps with the help of the salesman/dealer).

For myself, I usually find non-blind testing okay. There have been times I
have done blind testing. I will NOT use ABX testing because on the surface
it violates the first principle of test design...by radically changing the
listening challenge from evaluation to discrimination, and not just any
discrimination, but "identification". And when done using short snippets,
and via a computerized .wav recording, it makes a mockery out of true
audiophile listening habits. And when done using a junction box, it
destroys the oft-times very real interface interactions of the components
under test and therefore is pretty useless in system-matching up a really
fine real-world system.

You've asked the question; I've answered (as I have done before). You are
not going to change my thoughts or behavior so don't even try. If you do,
you will be ignored by me because I am in a very busy time crunch for the
next 10 days or so. Talk about it with others if you like.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/in
>>> dex.html
>>
>> Or, alternatively, how powerful branding is to the consumer experience.
>
> Yes, branding is so powerful that it can make people perceive differences
> that have zero basis in fact, in sighted evaluations.

Marketers know better. "Branding" doesn't work if it is not congruent with
reality over a period of time. See my other response to your post.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/in
>>>> dex.html
>>>
>>> Or, alternatively, how powerful branding is to the consumer experience.
>>
>> Yes, branding is so powerful that it can make people perceive differences
>> that have zero basis in fact, in sighted evaluations.

> Marketers know better. "Branding" doesn't work if it is not congruent
> with reality over a period of time.

I agree that McDonald's marketing wouldn't work if their product tasted
appreciably worse. Beyond that, its easy to believe that ads could convince
people that an acceptable product was at least a little better than some of
its competition.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
> >>
> >> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap
> >> /in
> >> dex.html
> >
> > Or, alternatively, how powerful branding is to the consumer experience.
>
> Yes, branding is so powerful that it can make people perceive differences
> that have zero basis in fact, in sighted evaluations.

Once again you demonstrate understanding of what is said to you, except
you slightly misuse the word 'fact'.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>> > Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/index.html
>>
>>
>>> This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what
>>> "branding" is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything
>>> intrinsically dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the
>>> brand" is valid.
>>>
>>> I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned
>>> before children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that
>>> is, of course, forever.
>>>
>>> As for sighted vs. blind evaluations....there are very few people
>>> arguing about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate
>>> sighted bias. That tends to be a straw man used by you and others to
>>> ward off criticism of the ABX test, and/or your proselytizing for it as
>>> required even to discuss sound.
>>
>> Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products, how
>> do you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?
>
> In the first place, being "identified" or "sighted" is not the same as
> being branded. Being "branded" means enough money has been spent over the
> years propagating a consistent image that is congruent with the product
> itself, so for example Krell amplifiers are noted for power into difficult
> loads based on early Krell technology that did impart that characteristic.
> Then it was furthered along by sustained marketing, pr, etc. until now
> many people look at a Krell, any Krell, and assume it will handle bass
> well. And BTW, marketing people also know that if the "branding " is not
> congruent with the actual product, that fact eventually catches up and
> simply results in wasted marketing effort.

Nice straw man argument Harry. I was hoping for better from you, but you
were cornered.

> So now, a skeptical audiophile will be aware of most of this and factor it
> in as perhaps being true, perhaps not, when compared to Brand "O". A
> gullible audiophile may buy a salesman's pitch and think that Krell is
> automatically superior in bass to other amps. The skeptical audiophile
> can probably do a test where the "sound" bias outweighs the "appearance"
> bias, the "reputation" bias, etc. built into the brand.

Obviously a truly skeptical audiophile will do a level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled listening test. Since you've questioned the
effectiveness of such tests by saying that it is only probable that such
tests are effective, you are again running true to form, Harry.

> The gullible audiophile may not.

Since you don't do level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening
tests Harry, we know what category to put you into.

> he serious audiophile may or may not think ABX is valid, but he knows
> blind testing can tell him something if he really comes away from the
> comparisons without a strong preference, or with a mixed preference. He
> also knows it is a pain to set up a blind (non-ABX) test to allow him to
> "do-it-his-way" if he is an ABX skeptic.

Typical Harry approach - pretend that ABX is the only alternative, and
hobble blind testing in general with your personally fears that you lack
what it takes to do a good listening test.

> Then he has to make a decision about the amount of risk involved. The
> gullible audiophile will probably not consider any comparative testing at
> all, blind or non-blind, because he has already made his mind up (perhaps
> with the help of the salesman/dealer).

That's clearly true of you Harry - thanks again for characterizing your
historical behavior as matching that of a gullible audiophile.

> For myself, I usually find non-blind testing okay.

Right Harry, because you've got that "gullible audiophile" thing going on in
your life.

> There have been times I have done blind testing.

I believe Harry you've admitted that your blind tests didn't involve audio
gear, that you did them to appear to be professional, and that you had to
have the resources of a very major corporation at your disposal to actually
do the deeds.

> I will NOT use ABX testing because on the surface it violates the first
> principle of test design...by radically changing the listening challenge
> from evaluation to discrimination,

That's false, but Harry, keep up the good work.

> and not just any discrimination, but "identification".

That's false too, but again thanks Harry for again running true to form.


> And when done using short snippets, and via a computerized .wav
> recording, it makes a mockery out of true audiophile listening habits.

Many audiophile listening habits are detrimental to sensitivity. For
example, long term listening tests can force delays of minutes or even hours
between the times when the listener hears the same passage of music. It is
well known, and easy to demonstrate that human memory for small differences
looses a great deal of its effectiveness in seconds. So, audiophile
listening tests can enforce delays measured in minutes or hours, while
delays of more than a very few seconds are well-known to ruin listener
sensitivity.

> And when done using a junction box, it destroys the oft-times very real
> interface interactions of the components under test

That's another false claim, but again Harry thanks for running true to form
and dredging up every urban legend about reliable listening test that you
can still remember.

The most common audible interface interactions are between loudspeakers and
amplifiers. It is very easy to build a switchbox that adds only a few
milliohms to the interface between the speaker and the amplifiers. The ABX
Company RM-2 switchbox delivered that kind of excellent performance. Even a
few feet of heavy-gauge speaker cables add far more resistance than a good
switchbox.

> and therefore is pretty useless in system-matching up a really fine
> real-world system.

What's useless in a really fine real-world system is sighted evaluations of
the kinds that are commonly done, such as comparisons between amplifiers, CD
players, and cables.

> You've asked the question; I've answered (as I have done before). You are
> not going to change my thoughts or behavior so don't even try.

Right Harry, you are truly incorrigible and have proven to be impossible to
educate.

> If you do,> you will be ignored by me because I am in a very busy time
> crunch for the next 10 days or so. Talk about it with others if you like.

Fact is Harry, I didn't address you personally, and didn't encourage or
force you to reply. You could have just kept your pie-hole shut and revealed
far less of your hysteria, ignorance, and incorrigibility.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >
> >
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> > Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.
> >> > ap/index.html
> >
> >
> >> This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what "branding"
> >> is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything
> >> intrinsically dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the
> >> brand" is valid.
> >>
> >> I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned
> >> before children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that
> >> is, of course, forever.
> >>
> >> As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people arguing
> >> about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted
> >> bias. That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off
> >> criticism of the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as required
> >> even to discuss sound.
> >
> > Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products, how
> > do you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?
>
> In the first place, being "identified" or "sighted" is not the same as being
> branded. Being "branded" means enough money has been spent over the years
> propagating a consistent image that is congruent with the product itself, so
> for example Krell amplifiers are noted for power into difficult loads based
> on early Krell technology that did impart that characteristic. Then it was
> furthered along by sustained marketing, pr, etc. until now many people look
> at a Krell, any Krell, and assume it will handle bass well. And BTW,
> marketing people also know that if the the "branding " is not congruent with
> the actual product, that fact eventually catches up and simply results in
> wasted marketing effort.
>
> So now, a skeptical audiophile will be aware of most of this and factor it
> in as perhaps being true, perhaps not, when compared to Brand "O". A
> gullible audiophile may buy a salesman's pitch and think that Krell is
> automatically superior in bass to other amps. The skeptical audiophile can
> probably do a test where the "sound" bias outweighs the "appearance" bias,
> the "reputation" bias, etc. built into the brand. The gullible audiophile
> may not. The serious audiophile may or may not think ABX is valid, but he
> knows blind testing can tell him something if he really comes away from the
> comparisons without a strong preference, or with a mixed preference. He
> also knows it is a pain to set up a blind (non-ABX) test to allow him to
> "do-it-his-way" if he is an ABX skeptic. Then he has to make a decision
> about the amount of risk involved. The gullible audiophile will probably
> not consider any comparative testing at all, blind or non-blind, because he
> has already made his mind up (perhaps with the help of the salesman/dealer).
>
> For myself, I usually find non-blind testing okay. There have been times I
> have done blind testing. I will NOT use ABX testing because on the surface
> it violates the first principle of test design...by radically changing the
> listening challenge from evaluation to discrimination, and not just any
> discrimination, but "identification". And when done using short snippets,
> and via a computerized .wav recording, it makes a mockery out of true
> audiophile listening habits. And when done using a junction box, it
> destroys the oft-times very real interface interactions of the components
> under test and therefore is pretty useless in system-matching up a really
> fine real-world system.
>
> You've asked the question; I've answered (as I have done before). You are
> not going to change my thoughts or behavior so don't even try. If you do,
> you will be ignored by me because I am in a very busy time crunch for the
> next 10 days or so. Talk about it with others if you like.

I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
invalid:
If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you to
demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice. For
example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer the
sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
A. Larger amps
B. More powerful amps
C. More expensive amps
D. Krell amps
However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion about
the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
speakers.
Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
actually hold such a bias?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...

> I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
> I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
> invalid:

> If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
> because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you to
> demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice.

A cursory study of experimental psychology (arts program) or experimental
design (science program) would teach you that the bias must be presumed to
exist.

> For example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer
> the
> sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
> that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
> A. Larger amps
> B. More powerful amps
> C. More expensive amps
> D. Krell amps

No, all I have to say Jenn is that you're human. Humans are well known to
base their decisions on every piece of evidence that is available to them.
Would you have it any other way? ;-)

> However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
> the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
> prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion about
> the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
> speakers.

The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that you
reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a little
about their biases, but they are stiff often surprised when their biases are
determined by scientific means.

> Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
> actually hold such a bias?

Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence as they can
gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.

If I don't want to take a chance that you are basing your decision on your
perceptions related to the identity of the product being listened to, the
proven approach is to simply keep you from knowing what you are listening to
at the moment.

[George M. Middius]

Arnii "**** for Dinner" Krooger blabbers about the heights of burger
cuisine he pretends to know.

> its[sic] easy to believe that ads could convince
> people that an acceptable product was at least a little better than some of
> its competition.

Translated, this wishy-washy wobbler means Arnii is still waiting for
one of the big chains to market his dreamed-for meal, the "Dirty
Burger".

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
> > I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
> > invalid:
>
> > If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
> > because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you to
> > demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice.
>
> A cursory study of experimental psychology (arts program) or experimental
> design (science program) would teach you that the bias must be presumed to
> exist.

I fully understand this. I've conducted graduate level research. But
I'm not arguing against the inevitability of bias.

>
> > For example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer
> > the
> > sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
> > that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
> > A. Larger amps
> > B. More powerful amps
> > C. More expensive amps
> > D. Krell amps
>
> No, all I have to say Jenn is that you're human. Humans are well known to
> base their decisions on every piece of evidence that is available to them.
> Would you have it any other way? ;-)

But what about when the sonic choice is working AGAINST one's bias?

>
> > However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
> > the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
> > prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion about
> > the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
> > speakers.
>
> The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that you
> reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a little
> about their biases, but they are stiff often surprised when their biases are
> determined by scientific means.

I state that I have a bias toward less expensive gear. How can you show
that this isn't true?

>
> > Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
> > actually hold such a bias?
>
> Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
> presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence as they can
> gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.

No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
decision?

>
> If I don't want to take a chance that you are basing your decision on your
> perceptions related to the identity of the product being listened to, the
> proven approach is to simply keep you from knowing what you are listening to
> at the moment.

I totally agree, but this isn't always possible, is it?

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

ScottW wrote:
> On Aug 7, 10:23 am, Eeyore >
> wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschool...
>>> CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better
>> Curiously I find exactly the reverse.
>
> Sausage and Egg McMuffins :).
> Their coffee also beat out Starbucks burnt acid
> in a taste test.

**Hardly surprising. Starbucks does not do all that well here in
Australia. Apparently Starbucks coffee is crap (I'm not a coffee
drinker), compared to the local specialist coffee places. Last Winter I
travelled to my favourite chocolate shop (as I do every year on my
birthday). Whilst there, I wandered down to a very crowded coffee shop.
The shop has no doors, as such and it is just as cold inside, or
outside. The queue went well out of the shop and down the block. The 4
baristers were frantically making coffee as fast as humanly possible.
People were sitting on milk crates, or standing outside the shop (in the
cool, windy August Sydney weather) consuming their bevarages. Prices did
not appear to be especially cheap. Two doors down the street was a
Starbucks. All wood panelling, air condictioned and very inviting. There
were no customers to be seen.

For the record, this is where the finest chocolates in Sydney can be found:

http://www.bellefleur.com.au/



Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
>> > I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
>> > invalid:
>>
>> > If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
>> > because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you
>> > to
>> > demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice.
>>
>> A cursory study of experimental psychology (arts program) or experimental
>> design (science program) would teach you that the bias must be presumed
>> to
>> exist.

> I fully understand this. I've conducted graduate level research. But
> I'm not arguing against the inevitability of bias.

Really? You had me fooled!

>> > For example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer
>> > the
>> > sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
>> > that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
>> > A. Larger amps
>> > B. More powerful amps
>> > C. More expensive amps
>> > D. Krell amps
>>
>> No, all I have to say Jenn is that you're human. Humans are well known to
>> base their decisions on every piece of evidence that is available to
>> them.
>> Would you have it any other way? ;-)
>
> But what about when the sonic choice is working AGAINST one's bias?

You've got a mess. Better to eliminate the possibility of bias as much as
possible.

>> > However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
>> > the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
>> > prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion
>> > about
>> > the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
>> > speakers.

>> The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that you
>> reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a little
>> about their biases, but they are still often surprised when their biases
>> are
>> determined by scientific means.

> I state that I have a bias toward less expensive gear. How can you show
> that this isn't true?

Set up a test where the piece of equipment under test remains the same, but
we tell you that it is changing between gear that is more expensive and less
expensive.

>> > Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
>> > actually hold such a bias?
>>
>> Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
>> presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence as they
>> can
>> gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.

> No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
> toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
> piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
> decision?

This is a hypothetical question, and not worth worrying about until the
situation actually manifests itself.

The root of the problem is the sighted evaluation that makes your biases
significant parts of the evaluation. Any competent experimentalist would
just cut to the chase and do bias-controlled tests.

>> If I don't want to take a chance that you are basing your decision on
>> your
>> perceptions related to the identity of the product being listened to, the
>> proven approach is to simply keep you from knowing what you are listening
>> to
>> at the moment.

> I totally agree, but this isn't always possible, is it?

I haven't got time to worry about hypothetical, made-up situations. Reality
calls!

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
> >
> > >http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschool...
> >
> > > CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better
> >
> > Curiously I find exactly the reverse.
>
> Sausage and Egg McMuffins :).
> Their coffee also beat out Starbucks burnt acid
> in a taste test.

I've never been to a Starbuck's. What's the point ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie brayed:
>
> > > CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better
>
> > Curiously I find exactly the reverse.
>
> What does McDogfood serve in the UK? It can't be as dreadful as their
> "original" (American) menu.

I think that originally, the idea was indeed to offer the same menu worldwide.

They had to abandon that when setting up shop in India for one since Hindus
don't eat beef. Instead of a Big Mac, the Indian McDonalds offer an Maharajah
Mac which I gather is now made with chicken but I was told it was once made with
lamb.

However since I avoid McDonalds like the plague I'm hardly the right person to
ask.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschool...
>>>> CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better
>>> Curiously I find exactly the reverse.
>> Sausage and Egg McMuffins :).
>> Their coffee also beat out Starbucks burnt acid
>> in a taste test.
>
> I've never been to a Starbuck's. What's the point ?

**AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[John Atkinson]

On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
> > presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence
> > as they can gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.
>
> No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
> toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
> piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
> decision?

This was the point of the parable with which I started my
presentation at the HE2005 debate, Jenn. The amplifier I
chose to buy based on blind tests proved unsatisfactory
despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 00:46, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:


>
> Marketers know better. "Branding" doesn't work if it is not congruent with
> reality over a period of time. See my other response to your post.


Bose.
Got Ya!!!!!

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 02:10, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> > . ..
>
> > >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >> > Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>
> > >> >http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.
> > >> > ap/index.html
>
> > >> This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what "branding"
> > >> is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything
> > >> intrinsically dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the
> > >> brand" is valid.
>
> > >> I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned
> > >> before children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that
> > >> is, of course, forever.
>
> > >> As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people arguing
> > >> about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted
> > >> bias. That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off
> > >> criticism of the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as required
> > >> even to discuss sound.
>
> > > Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products, how
> > > do you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?
>
> > In the first place, being "identified" or "sighted" is not the same as being
> > branded. Being "branded" means enough money has been spent over the years
> > propagating a consistent image that is congruent with the product itself, so
> > for example Krell amplifiers are noted for power into difficult loads based
> > on early Krell technology that did impart that characteristic. Then it was
> > furthered along by sustained marketing, pr, etc. until now many people look
> > at a Krell, any Krell, and assume it will handle bass well. And BTW,
> > marketing people also know that if the the "branding " is not congruent with
> > the actual product, that fact eventually catches up and simply results in
> > wasted marketing effort.
>
> > So now, a skeptical audiophile will be aware of most of this and factor it
> > in as perhaps being true, perhaps not, when compared to Brand "O". A
> > gullible audiophile may buy a salesman's pitch and think that Krell is
> > automatically superior in bass to other amps. The skeptical audiophile can
> > probably do a test where the "sound" bias outweighs the "appearance" bias,
> > the "reputation" bias, etc. built into the brand. The gullible audiophile
> > may not. The serious audiophile may or may not think ABX is valid, but he
> > knows blind testing can tell him something if he really comes away from the
> > comparisons without a strong preference, or with a mixed preference. He
> > also knows it is a pain to set up a blind (non-ABX) test to allow him to
> > "do-it-his-way" if he is an ABX skeptic. Then he has to make a decision
> > about the amount of risk involved. The gullible audiophile will probably
> > not consider any comparative testing at all, blind or non-blind, because he
> > has already made his mind up (perhaps with the help of the salesman/dealer).
>
> > For myself, I usually find non-blind testing okay. There have been times I
> > have done blind testing. I will NOT use ABX testing because on the surface
> > it violates the first principle of test design...by radically changing the
> > listening challenge from evaluation to discrimination, and not just any
> > discrimination, but "identification". And when done using short snippets,
> > and via a computerized .wav recording, it makes a mockery out of true
> > audiophile listening habits. And when done using a junction box, it
> > destroys the oft-times very real interface interactions of the components
> > under test and therefore is pretty useless in system-matching up a really
> > fine real-world system.
>
> > You've asked the question; I've answered (as I have done before). You are
> > not going to change my thoughts or behavior so don't even try. If you do,
> > you will be ignored by me because I am in a very busy time crunch for the
> > next 10 days or so. Talk about it with others if you like.
>
> I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
> I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
> invalid:
> If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
> because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you to
> demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice. For
> example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer the
> sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
> that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
> A. Larger amps
> B. More powerful amps
> C. More expensive amps
> D. Krell amps
> However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
> the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
> prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion about
> the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
> speakers.
> Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
> actually hold such a bias?- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afi are text în citat -

This is the big picture.
ABX fails to address the preconceived bias that things appear the
same.
It is useless.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 02:20, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that you
> reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a little
> about their biases, but they are stiff often surprised when their biases are
> determined by scientific means.
>

Your buas is that things sound the same.
The tragedy is that you do not have a test that can eliminate your
bias.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 03:09, Trevor Wilson >
wrote:


The 4
> baristers were frantically making coffee as fast as humanly possible.

not enough jobs for lawyers there?

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 13:14, Trevor Wilson >
wrote:


>
> **AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
> Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.
>


I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the roasting of it
is hideous.
burnt.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> > Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
>> > presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence
>> > as they can gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.
>>
>> No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
>> toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
>> piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
>> decision?
>
> This was the point of the parable with which I started my
> presentation at the HE2005 debate, Jenn. The amplifier I
> chose to buy based on blind tests proved unsatisfactory
> despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.

The parable was highly flawed because John might have stopped liking the
Quad amp because someone made fun of it, and he became biased against it.
We everything is based on pure opinion, there are fixed points of reference.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 14:57, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> We everything is based on pure opinion, there are fixed points of reference.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afi are text în citat -


you are finally making some sense, in a Kruglish sort of way.

[John Stone]

On 8/8/07 6:53 AM, in article
m, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

> On 8 Aug, 13:14, Trevor Wilson >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> **AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
>> Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.
>>
>
>
> I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the roasting of it
> is hideous.
> burnt.
>
Such blanket statements are ludicrous-as is the comparison with McDonalds.
McDonalds has exactly 2 varieties; regular coffee and decaf. Starbucks has
many different varieties, some of which are very dark roasted, and others
that are very mild. Some are too "burnt" for my taste, but some are quite
well balanced. I guarantee you can make a good cup of coffee using
Starbucks beans, if you buy the right ones, grind them yourself, and brew
the coffee properly. I've done it many times. They aren't my favorite
coffees-those come from local roasters-but to say they are "hideous" is
ridiculous, especially since most of these comments come from people who
don't even drink coffee.
There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
be doing something right.

[George M. Middius]

John Stone said:

> ... the comparison with McDonalds [is ludicrous].
[snip]
> There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
> be doing something right.

You must have a unique definition of "ludicrous".

[Arny Krueger]

"John Stone" > wrote in message

> On 8/8/07 6:53 AM, in article
> m,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> On 8 Aug, 13:14, Trevor Wilson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> **AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know,
>>> shun the place. Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in
>>> large containers.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the
>> roasting of it is hideous.
>> burnt.
>>
> Such blanket statements are ludicrous-as is the
> comparison with McDonalds. McDonalds has exactly 2
> varieties; regular coffee and decaf. Starbucks has many
> different varieties, some of which are very dark roasted,
> and others that are very mild. Some are too "burnt" for
> my taste, but some are quite well balanced. I guarantee
> you can make a good cup of coffee using Starbucks beans,
> if you buy the right ones, grind them yourself, and brew
> the coffee properly. I've done it many times. They aren't
> my favorite coffees-those come from local roasters-but to
> say they are "hideous" is ridiculous, especially since
> most of these comments come from people who don't even
> drink coffee.

> There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in
> Australia) They must be doing something right.

Note that the McDonalds in the U.S. are now serving a wider variety of
coffee products.

If you look here under beverages, and skip past the three kinds of plain
coffee, you'll see the dozen or so permutations of iced coffee:

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> Trevor Wilson > wrote:
> >
> > **AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
> > Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.
>
> I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the roasting of it
> is hideous. burnt.

Shameful.

As a kid, I recall walking past the 'Importers' shop next to the clock tower.
They roasted coffee every day and it was wonderful to smell it as you walked
past.


Graham

[Eeyore]

John Stone wrote:

> There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
> be doing something right.

So where does gullibility fit into that equation ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie said:

> As a kid, I recall walking past the 'Importers' shop next to the clock tower.
> They roasted coffee every day and it was wonderful to smell it as you walked
> past.

Did any coffee bunnies hit on you?

[John Stone]

On 8/8/07 11:21 AM, in article , "Eeyore"
> wrote:

>
>
> John Stone wrote:
>
>> There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
>> be doing something right.
>
> So where does gullibility fit into that equation ?
>
I have no idea. But I highly doubt that they've succeeded by fooling 100% of
their customers 100% of the time. They clearly sell a product, which isn't
just coffee, that a lot of people enjoy. Companies like McDonalds never paid
any attention to the swill they served until Starbucks came on the scene. At
least give them some credit for raising the quality bar to another level, if
not to the ultimate. It sure beats the pants off the canned **** from the
likes of Folgers or Maxwell House that many Americans wake up to every day.

[John Atkinson]

On Aug 8, 7:57 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> > Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
> >> > presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence
> >> > as they can gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.
> >>
> >> No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
> >> toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
> >> piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
> >> decision?
> >
> > This was the point of the parable with which I started my
> > presentation at the HE2005 debate, Jenn. The amplifier I
> > chose to buy based on blind tests proved unsatisfactory
> > despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.
>
> The parable was highly flawed because John might have stopped
> liking the Quad amp because someone made fun of it, and he
> became biased against it.

Hmm. What the word I used? Ah yes, it is still there in my
response to Jenn: "all," as in "all the non-audio factors working
in its favor."

Your claim to be able to read minds does not impress, Mr. Krueger. :-)
And since when has your name been "Jenn"?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn]

On Aug 8, 4:34 am, John Atkinson >
wrote:
> On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
> > > presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence
> > > as they can gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.
>
> > No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
> > toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
> > piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
> > decision?
>
> This was the point of the parable with which I started my
> presentation at the HE2005 debate, Jenn. The amplifier I
> chose to buy based on blind tests proved unsatisfactory
> despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Understood. I fully understand that we all have bias. And in any
testing methodology, it's important to recognize that bias. But it
makes sense that when one's choice is made despite that bias it must
be shown what if any OTHER bias is affecting the decision if one is to
claim that a bias is at work.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
> >> > I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
> >> > invalid:
> >>
> >> > If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
> >> > because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you
> >> > to
> >> > demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice.
> >>
> >> A cursory study of experimental psychology (arts program) or experimental
> >> design (science program) would teach you that the bias must be presumed
> >> to
> >> exist.
>
> > I fully understand this. I've conducted graduate level research. But
> > I'm not arguing against the inevitability of bias.
>
> Really? You had me fooled!

Why? My argument is clearly not about the existence of bias.

>
> >> > For example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer
> >> > the
> >> > sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
> >> > that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
> >> > A. Larger amps
> >> > B. More powerful amps
> >> > C. More expensive amps
> >> > D. Krell amps
> >>
> >> No, all I have to say Jenn is that you're human. Humans are well known to
> >> base their decisions on every piece of evidence that is available to
> >> them.
> >> Would you have it any other way? ;-)
> >
> > But what about when the sonic choice is working AGAINST one's bias?
>
> You've got a mess. Better to eliminate the possibility of bias as much as
> possible.

Of course it's better, but in practical terms (i.e. real life) it's
quite difficult to do.

>
> >> > However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
> >> > the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
> >> > prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion
> >> > about
> >> > the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
> >> > speakers.
>
> >> The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that you
> >> reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a little
> >> about their biases, but they are still often surprised when their biases
> >> are
> >> determined by scientific means.
>
> > I state that I have a bias toward less expensive gear. How can you show
> > that this isn't true?
>
> Set up a test where the piece of equipment under test remains the same, but
> we tell you that it is changing between gear that is more expensive and less
> expensive.
>
> >> > Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
> >> > actually hold such a bias?
> >>
> >> Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
> >> presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence as they
> >> can
> >> gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.
>
> > No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
> > toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
> > piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
> > decision?
>
> This is a hypothetical question, and not worth worrying about until the
> situation actually manifests itself.

I'm not "worrying" about it, but it has happened several times in my
listening experience.

>
> The root of the problem is the sighted evaluation that makes your biases
> significant parts of the evaluation. Any competent experimentalist would
> just cut to the chase and do bias-controlled tests.

When possible, yes.

>
> >> If I don't want to take a chance that you are basing your decision on
> >> your
> >> perceptions related to the identity of the product being listened to, the
> >> proven approach is to simply keep you from knowing what you are listening
> >> to
> >> at the moment.
>
> > I totally agree, but this isn't always possible, is it?
>
> I haven't got time to worry about hypothetical, made-up situations. Reality
> calls!

My situation IS the most common reality. I believe that you've stated
that you don't commonly shop in actual stores, but many people do.

BTW, I saw the footage of that chase and crash in Grosse Pointe last
night. Scary.

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 8, 9:21 am, Eeyore >
> wrote:
> > John Stone wrote:
> > > There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They
> > > must
> > > be doing something right.
> >
> > So where does gullibility fit into that equation ?
>
> Is Starbucks the coffee equivalent of hi-end audio cables?

No, Monster.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com

> I fully understand that we all have bias.

What you don't seem to understand Jenn is that bias is not quantifiable and
reliable.

> And in any testing methodology, it's important to
> recognize that bias.

Wrong again. In a good testing methodology, you avoid having the test be
affected by any bias.

> But it makes sense that when one's
> choice is made despite that bias

The error here is that the presumption that bias is accurately quantifiable
and reliable.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 17:42, John Stone > wrote:
> On 8/8/07 6:53 AM, in article
> m, "Clyde Slick"
>
> > wrote:
> > On 8 Aug, 13:14, Trevor Wilson >
> > wrote:
>
> >> **AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
> >> Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.
>
> > I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the roasting of it
> > is hideous.
> > burnt.
>
> Such blanket statements are ludicrous-as is the comparison with McDonalds.
> McDonalds has exactly 2 varieties; regular coffee and decaf. Starbucks has
> many different varieties, some of which are very dark roasted, and others
> that are very mild. Some are too "burnt" for my taste, but some are quite
> well balanced. I guarantee you can make a good cup of coffee using
> Starbucks beans, if you buy the right ones, grind them yourself, and brew
> the coffee properly. I've done it many times. They aren't my favorite
> coffees-those come from local roasters-but to say they are "hideous" is
> ridiculous, especially since most of these comments come from people who
> don't even drink coffee.
> There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
> be doing something right.

Thanks for your taking time off from listeneing to your Bose (They
must be doing something right), just
to answer my post.

BTW, I can't make a good cup of coffee using ANYONE'S light roasts.

I have ground Starbuck's myself, also. Still tastes unappealing..

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 20:36, ScottW > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 9:21 am, Eeyore >
> wrote:
>
> > John Stone wrote:
> > > There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
> > > be doing something right.
>
> > So where does gullibility fit into that equation ?
>
> Is Starbucks the coffee equivalent of hi-end audio cables?
>
> ScottW

more like "Monster' cable.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 19:52, John Stone > wrote:
> On 8/8/07 11:21 AM, in article , "Eeyore"
>
> > wrote:
>
> > John Stone wrote:
>
> >> There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
> >> be doing something right.
>
> > So where does gullibility fit into that equation ?
>
> I have no idea. But I highly doubt that they've succeeded by fooling 100% of
> their customers 100% of the time. They clearly sell a product, which isn't
> just coffee, that a lot of people enjoy. Companies like McDonalds never paid
> any attention to the swill they served until Starbucks came on the scene. At
> least give them some credit for raising the quality bar to another level, if
> not to the ultimate. It sure beats the pants off the canned **** from the
> likes of Folgers or Maxwell House that many Americans wake up to every day.

you can make a decent cup, if you use enough
of one of tjhe better blends.
but using 'less' Stqarbucks does not help.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 23:03, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com
>
> > I fully understand that we all have bias.
>
> What you don't seem to understand Jenn is that bias is not quantifiable and
> reliable.
>
> > And in any testing methodology, it's important to
> > recognize that bias.
>
> Wrong again. In a good testing methodology, you avoid having the test be
> affected by any bias.
>

too bad abx does not fit that bill!

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 21:21, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > .
> > >> com
> > >> ...
>
> > >> > I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
> > >> > I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
> > >> > invalid:
>
> > >> > If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
> > >> > because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you
> > >> > to
> > >> > demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice.
>
> > >> A cursory study of experimental psychology (arts program) or experimental
> > >> design (science program) would teach you that the bias must be presumed
> > >> to
> > >> exist.
>
> > > I fully understand this. I've conducted graduate level research. But
> > > I'm not arguing against the inevitability of bias.
>
> > Really? You had me fooled!
>
> Why? My argument is clearly not about the existence of bias.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> > For example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer
> > >> > the
> > >> > sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
> > >> > that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
> > >> > A. Larger amps
> > >> > B. More powerful amps
> > >> > C. More expensive amps
> > >> > D. Krell amps
>
> > >> No, all I have to say Jenn is that you're human. Humans are well known to
> > >> base their decisions on every piece of evidence that is available to
> > >> them.
> > >> Would you have it any other way? ;-)
>
> > > But what about when the sonic choice is working AGAINST one's bias?
>
> > You've got a mess. Better to eliminate the possibility of bias as much as
> > possible.
>
> Of course it's better, but in practical terms (i.e. real life) it's
> quite difficult to do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> > However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
> > >> > the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
> > >> > prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion
> > >> > about
> > >> > the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
> > >> > speakers.
>
> > >> The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that you
> > >> reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a little
> > >> about their biases, but they are still often surprised when their biases
> > >> are
> > >> determined by scientific means.
>
> > > I state that I have a bias toward less expensive gear. How can you show
> > > that this isn't true?
>
> > Set up a test where the piece of equipment under test remains the same, but
> > we tell you that it is changing between gear that is more expensive and less
> > expensive.
>
> > >> > Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
> > >> > actually hold such a bias?
>
> > >> Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
> > >> presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence as they
> > >> can
> > >> gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.
>
> > > No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
> > > toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
> > > piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
> > > decision?
>
> > This is a hypothetical question, and not worth worrying about until the
> > situation actually manifests itself.
>
> I'm not "worrying" about it, but it has happened several times in my
> listening experience.
>
>
>
> > The root of the problem is the sighted evaluation that makes your biases
> > significant parts of the evaluation. Any competent experimentalist would
> > just cut to the chase and do bias-controlled tests.
>
> When possible, yes.
>
>
>
> > >> If I don't want to take a chance that you are basing your decision on
> > >> your
> > >> perceptions related to the identity of the product being listened to, the
> > >> proven approach is to simply keep you from knowing what you are listening
> > >> to
> > >> at the moment.
>
> > > I totally agree, but this isn't always possible, is it?
>
> > I haven't got time to worry about hypothetical, made-up situations. Reality
> > calls!
>
> My situation IS the most common reality. I believe that you've stated
> that you don't commonly shop in actual stores, but many people do.
>
> BTW, I saw the footage of that chase and crash in Grosse Pointe last
> night. Scary.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afi are text în citat -- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afi are text în citat -- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afi are text în citat -

did involve a city bus?

[Jenn]

In article om>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 8 Aug, 21:21, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > .
> > >com
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > >>gy.
> > > >> com
> > > >> ...
> >
> > > >> > I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's
> > > >> > what
> > > >> > I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
> > > >> > invalid:
> >
> > > >> > If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over
> > > >> > another
> > > >> > because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to
> > > >> > you
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice.
> >
> > > >> A cursory study of experimental psychology (arts program) or
> > > >> experimental
> > > >> design (science program) would teach you that the bias must be
> > > >> presumed
> > > >> to
> > > >> exist.
> >
> > > > I fully understand this. I've conducted graduate level research. But
> > > > I'm not arguing against the inevitability of bias.
> >
> > > Really? You had me fooled!
> >
> > Why? My argument is clearly not about the existence of bias.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >> > For example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that
> > > >> > prefer
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might
> > > >> > say
> > > >> > that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
> > > >> > A. Larger amps
> > > >> > B. More powerful amps
> > > >> > C. More expensive amps
> > > >> > D. Krell amps
> >
> > > >> No, all I have to say Jenn is that you're human. Humans are well known
> > > >> to
> > > >> base their decisions on every piece of evidence that is available to
> > > >> them.
> > > >> Would you have it any other way? ;-)
> >
> > > > But what about when the sonic choice is working AGAINST one's bias?
> >
> > > You've got a mess. Better to eliminate the possibility of bias as much as
> > > possible.
> >
> > Of course it's better, but in practical terms (i.e. real life) it's
> > quite difficult to do.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >> > However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases,
> > > >> > because I
> > > >> > prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion
> > > >> > about
> > > >> > the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
> > > >> > speakers.
> >
> > > >> The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that
> > > >> you
> > > >> reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a
> > > >> little
> > > >> about their biases, but they are still often surprised when their
> > > >> biases
> > > >> are
> > > >> determined by scientific means.
> >
> > > > I state that I have a bias toward less expensive gear. How can you
> > > > show
> > > > that this isn't true?
> >
> > > Set up a test where the piece of equipment under test remains the same,
> > > but
> > > we tell you that it is changing between gear that is more expensive and
> > > less
> > > expensive.
> >
> > > >> > Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
> > > >> > actually hold such a bias?
> >
> > > >> Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
> > > >> presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence as
> > > >> they
> > > >> can
> > > >> gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.
> >
> > > > No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
> > > > toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
> > > > piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
> > > > decision?
> >
> > > This is a hypothetical question, and not worth worrying about until the
> > > situation actually manifests itself.
> >
> > I'm not "worrying" about it, but it has happened several times in my
> > listening experience.
> >
> >
> >
> > > The root of the problem is the sighted evaluation that makes your biases
> > > significant parts of the evaluation. Any competent experimentalist would
> > > just cut to the chase and do bias-controlled tests.
> >
> > When possible, yes.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >> If I don't want to take a chance that you are basing your decision on
> > > >> your
> > > >> perceptions related to the identity of the product being listened to,
> > > >> the
> > > >> proven approach is to simply keep you from knowing what you are
> > > >> listening
> > > >> to
> > > >> at the moment.
> >
> > > > I totally agree, but this isn't always possible, is it?
> >
> > > I haven't got time to worry about hypothetical, made-up situations.
> > > Reality
> > > calls!
> >
> > My situation IS the most common reality. I believe that you've stated
> > that you don't commonly shop in actual stores, but many people do.
> >
> > BTW, I saw the footage of that chase and crash in Grosse Pointe last
> > night. Scary.- Ascunde citatul -
> >
> > - Afi are text ?n citat -- Ascunde citatul -
> >
> > - Afi are text ?n citat -- Ascunde citatul -
> >
> > - Afi are text ?n citat -
>
> did involve a city bus?

Nah, a PU and at least a couple of cars.

[John Stone]

On 8/8/07 3:06 PM, in article
. com, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:


> Thanks for your taking time off from listeneing to your Bose (They
> must be doing something right), just
> to answer my post.
>
You're welcome, and how clever of you to make the Bose analogy. But what
exactly is "listeneing" anyway?


> BTW, I can't make a good cup of coffee using ANYONE'S light roasts.
>
> I have ground Starbuck's myself, also. Still tastes unappealing..
>
Starbucks what? There's over 30 different roasts. You've tried all of them?

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

John Stone wrote:
> On 8/8/07 6:53 AM, in article
> m, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 8 Aug, 13:14, Trevor Wilson >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> **AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
>>> Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the roasting of it
>> is hideous.
>> burnt.
>>
> Such blanket statements are ludicrous-as is the comparison with McDonalds.
> McDonalds has exactly 2 varieties; regular coffee and decaf. Starbucks has
> many different varieties, some of which are very dark roasted, and others
> that are very mild. Some are too "burnt" for my taste, but some are quite
> well balanced. I guarantee you can make a good cup of coffee using
> Starbucks beans, if you buy the right ones, grind them yourself, and brew
> the coffee properly. I've done it many times. They aren't my favorite
> coffees-those come from local roasters-but to say they are "hideous" is
> ridiculous, especially since most of these comments come from people who
> don't even drink coffee.
> There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
> be doing something right.
>

**That's the McDonalds argument. There are 730 McDonalds restaurants
(??!!) in Australia. Every single one, sells the same crap food. I've
tasted McDonalds burgers. I can only taste three flavours - Salt, sugar
and fat. There is zero depth and zero complexity.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[ScottW]

On Aug 8, 11:07 am, Jenn > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 4:34 am, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
> > > > presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence
> > > > as they can gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.
>
> > > No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
> > > toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
> > > piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
> > > decision?
>
> > This was the point of the parable with which I started my
> > presentation at the HE2005 debate, Jenn. The amplifier I
> > chose to buy based on blind tests proved unsatisfactory
> > despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.
>
> > John Atkinson
> > Editor, Stereophile
>
> Understood. I fully understand that we all have bias. And in any
> testing methodology, it's important to recognize that bias. But it
> makes sense that when one's choice is made despite that bias it must
> be shown what if any OTHER bias is affecting the decision if one is to
> claim that a bias is at work.

You want to take a shot at how to do that?
I think you've posed the impossible to prove negative.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Witlessmongrel tries some Krooglish.

> I think you've posed the impossible to prove negative.

Slowly dancer to shave snow downly frou-frou, haven't you.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 8, 11:07 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 4:34 am, John Atkinson >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > > Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
> > > > > presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence
> > > > > as they can gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.
> >
> > > > No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
> > > > toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
> > > > piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
> > > > decision?
> >
> > > This was the point of the parable with which I started my
> > > presentation at the HE2005 debate, Jenn. The amplifier I
> > > chose to buy based on blind tests proved unsatisfactory
> > > despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.
> >
> > > John Atkinson
> > > Editor, Stereophile
> >
> > Understood. I fully understand that we all have bias. And in any
> > testing methodology, it's important to recognize that bias. But it
> > makes sense that when one's choice is made despite that bias it must
> > be shown what if any OTHER bias is affecting the decision if one is to
> > claim that a bias is at work.
>
> You want to take a shot at how to do that?
> I think you've posed the impossible to prove negative.
>
> ScottW

It's not proving a negative. A statement is made that I (or someone
else) has a bias that affects a decision. I'm asking to show me what
that bias is.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article om>,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >> On Aug 8, 11:07 am, Jenn > wrote:
> >> > On Aug 8, 4:34 am, John Atkinson >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > In article >,
> >> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> > > > > Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
> >> > > > > presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence
> >> > > > > as they can gather, has proven itself to be true over and over
> >> > > > > again.
> >> >
> >> > > > No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a
> >> > > > bias
> >> > > > toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more
> >> > > > expensive
> >> > > > piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
> >> > > > decision?
> >> >
> >> > > This was the point of the parable with which I started my
> >> > > presentation at the HE2005 debate, Jenn. The amplifier I
> >> > > chose to buy based on blind tests proved unsatisfactory
> >> > > despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.
> >> >
> >> > > John Atkinson
> >> > > Editor, Stereophile
> >> >
> >> > Understood. I fully understand that we all have bias. And in any
> >> > testing methodology, it's important to recognize that bias. But it
> >> > makes sense that when one's choice is made despite that bias it must
> >> > be shown what if any OTHER bias is affecting the decision if one is to
> >> > claim that a bias is at work.
> >>
> >> You want to take a shot at how to do that?
> >> I think you've posed the impossible to prove negative.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > It's not proving a negative. A statement is made that I (or someone
> > else) has a bias that affects a decision.
>
> For humans...that is a given.

Of course.

>
> > I'm asking to show me what
> > that bias is.
>
> That does not equal this, "But it makes sense that when one's choice
> is made despite that bias it must
> be shown what if any OTHER bias is affecting the decision if one is to
> claim that a bias is at work."

It's all part of the same question. How can one say that I have a bias
that affects my decision without naming that bias, particularly if my
decision is going against a well established bias?

>
> Anyway, it might not be a negative

Correct.

> but since the possibilities are
> nearly infinite I don't know how it
> can be done. Next we'll be discussing bias interaction and the
> possibilities become 2^^biascount....and don't forget the everchanging
> magnetic flux of the planet being a problem. It gets a bit
> silly at times.
>
> ScottW

I agree. It's silly in a similar way to accusing someone of having a
racial bias, without showing that this is a fact.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> On 8 Aug, 03:09, Trevor Wilson >
> wrote:
>
>
> The 4
>> baristers were frantically making coffee as fast as humanly possible.
>
> not enough jobs for lawyers there?
>
>


**Whoops. That should be "barristas".

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said:

> >> baristers were frantically making coffee as fast as humanly possible.

> > not enough jobs for lawyers there?

> **Whoops. That should be "barristas".

Or maybe "baristas".

[KMM[_3_]]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/index.html
>>
>> CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better
>
> Curiously I find exactly the reverse.
>
> Graham
>
On everything except the fries.

[KMM[_3_]]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
.. .
> John Stone wrote:
>> On 8/8/07 6:53 AM, in article
>> m, "Clyde Slick"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 Aug, 13:14, Trevor Wilson >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> **AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
>>>> Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the roasting of it
>>> is hideous.
>>> burnt.
>>>
>> Such blanket statements are ludicrous-as is the comparison with
>> McDonalds.
>> McDonalds has exactly 2 varieties; regular coffee and decaf. Starbucks
>> has
>> many different varieties, some of which are very dark roasted, and others
>> that are very mild. Some are too "burnt" for my taste, but some are quite
>> well balanced. I guarantee you can make a good cup of coffee using
>> Starbucks beans, if you buy the right ones, grind them yourself, and brew
>> the coffee properly. I've done it many times. They aren't my favorite
>> coffees-those come from local roasters-but to say they are "hideous" is
>> ridiculous, especially since most of these comments come from people who
>> don't even drink coffee.
>> There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They
>> must
>> be doing something right.
>>
>
> **That's the McDonalds argument. There are 730 McDonalds restaurants
> (??!!) in Australia. Every single one, sells the same crap food. I've
> tasted McDonalds burgers. I can only taste three flavours - Salt, sugar
> and fat. There is zero depth and zero complexity.
>
Yet there is a market for their products. They aren't pretending to be
anything they aren't. They sell a product that you can count on. Some
people (mostly kids) like it and others don't. My kids are split on McD's.
My son prefers almost any other burber place, but my daughter prefers McD,
even though she never orders burgers.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

KMM wrote:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/index.html
>>>
>>> CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better
>> Curiously I find exactly the reverse.
>>
>> Graham
>>
> On everything except the fries.
>
>

**Oh, get real. McDonalds fries are disgusting. They have no flavour,
except that of salt and racid fat. Those skinny, barely recognisable
bits of potato soak up so much of the crap oil used by McDaonalds, that
the mild type of potato used by McDonalds can't hope to compete. If you
think that McDonalds makes good fries, you need to get out more. Much more.

My local fish and chip shop makes much better fries. Of course, my own
are vastly superior. As well they should be. I only use virgin olive oil
and they are par fried first. They'd be far too expensive for McDonalds
to make. Of course, food with actual flavour tend to take time and money
to get right. I can certainly attest to how long it takes to make a home
cooked burger. But the flavour makes it all worthwhile.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[KMM[_3_]]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
> This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what "branding"
> is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything intrinsically
> dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the brand" is valid.
>

That would exclude virtuall all audio components, since they seem to all
sound the same when compared fairly. There tends to be no difference in the
sound of a $20K Solid state amp and a $600.00 one

> I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned before
> children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that is, of
> course, forever.
>

How old do you think audiophiles are when they reach the age of reason about
audio hype?

> As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people arguing
> about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted
> bias. That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off
> criticism of the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as required
> even to discuss sound.
>

If a comparison for sound quality is to be anything close to fair, it needs
to blind, without the potential buyer being able to see the brand names
under comparison.
Bias is very real and is precisely the reason that "high end" audio is
marketed the way it is.

Lots of blather about higher quality wire and capacitors and other
components that mean absoultely nothing as long the correct design
principles are followed.

[KMM[_3_]]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>> > Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/index.html
>>
>>
>>> This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what
>>> "branding" is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything
>>> intrinsically dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the
>>> brand" is valid.
>>>
>>> I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned
>>> before children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that
>>> is, of course, forever.
>>>
>>> As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people arguing
>>> about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted
>>> bias. That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off
>>> criticism of the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as required
>>> even to discuss sound.
>>
>> Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products, how
>> do you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?
>
> In the first place, being "identified" or "sighted" is not the same as
> being branded. Being "branded" means enough money has been spent over the
> years propagating a consistent image that is congruent with the product
> itself, so for example Krell amplifiers are noted for power into difficult
> loads based on early Krell technology that did impart that characteristic.
> Then it was furthered along by sustained marketing, pr, etc. until now
> many people look at a Krell, any Krell, and assume it will handle bass
> well. And BTW, marketing people also know that if the the "branding " is
> not congruent with the actual product, that fact eventually catches up and
> simply results in wasted marketing effort.
>
> So now, a skeptical audiophile will be aware of most of this and factor it
> in as perhaps being true, perhaps not, when compared to Brand "O". A
> gullible audiophile may buy a salesman's pitch and think that Krell is
> automatically superior in bass to other amps. The skeptical audiophile
> can probably do a test where the "sound" bias outweighs the "appearance"
> bias, the "reputation" bias, etc. built into the brand. The gullible
> audiophile may not. The serious audiophile may or may not think ABX is
> valid, but he knows blind testing can tell him something if he really
> comes away from the comparisons without a strong preference, or with a
> mixed preference. He also knows it is a pain to set up a blind (non-ABX)
> test to allow him to "do-it-his-way" if he is an ABX skeptic. Then he has
> to make a decision about the amount of risk involved. The gullible
> audiophile will probably not consider any comparative testing at all,
> blind or non-blind, because he has already made his mind up (perhaps with
> the help of the salesman/dealer).
>
> For myself, I usually find non-blind testing okay. There have been times
> I have done blind testing. I will NOT use ABX testing because on the
> surface it violates the first principle of test design...by radically
> changing the listening challenge from evaluation to discrimination, and
> not just any discrimination, but "identification". And when done using
> short snippets, and via a computerized .wav recording, it makes a mockery
> out of true audiophile listening habits. And when done using a junction
> box, it destroys the oft-times very real interface interactions of the
> components under test and therefore is pretty useless in system-matching
> up a really fine real-world system.


So you don't really uinderstand how ABX testing is done then do you?

Listeners can use whatever they choose to help them make an identification,
it just happens that short snippets of certain kids, help make it possible
to make an identification when a difference exists.
>
> You've asked the question; I've answered (as I have done before). You are
> not going to change my thoughts or behavior so don't even try. If you do,
> you will be ignored by me because I am in a very busy time crunch for the
> next 10 days or so. Talk about it with others if you like.
>
So, your mind is made up and you won't be swayed with facts.

Does Shhhhsshh think you're 2pid?

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

KMM wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> John Stone wrote:
>>> On 8/8/07 6:53 AM, in article
>>> m, "Clyde Slick"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8 Aug, 13:14, Trevor Wilson >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> **AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
>>>>> Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the roasting of it
>>>> is hideous.
>>>> burnt.
>>>>
>>> Such blanket statements are ludicrous-as is the comparison with
>>> McDonalds.
>>> McDonalds has exactly 2 varieties; regular coffee and decaf. Starbucks
>>> has
>>> many different varieties, some of which are very dark roasted, and others
>>> that are very mild. Some are too "burnt" for my taste, but some are quite
>>> well balanced. I guarantee you can make a good cup of coffee using
>>> Starbucks beans, if you buy the right ones, grind them yourself, and brew
>>> the coffee properly. I've done it many times. They aren't my favorite
>>> coffees-those come from local roasters-but to say they are "hideous" is
>>> ridiculous, especially since most of these comments come from people who
>>> don't even drink coffee.
>>> There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They
>>> must
>>> be doing something right.
>>>
>> **That's the McDonalds argument. There are 730 McDonalds restaurants
>> (??!!) in Australia. Every single one, sells the same crap food. I've
>> tasted McDonalds burgers. I can only taste three flavours - Salt, sugar
>> and fat. There is zero depth and zero complexity.
>>
> Yet there is a market for their products.

**Of course. Mediocrity (and I use that term sparingly with McDonalds)
has its place.


They aren't pretending to be
> anything they aren't.

**Yeah, they are. Here's an advertisment for McDonalds. Tell me if you
have EVER seen one of their burgers look remotely close to the photograph:

http://www.mcdonalds.com.au/HTML/home/default.asp

I know I haven't.


They sell a product that you can count on.

**True enough. You KNOW you're getting crap. YOu KNOW there's zero depth
and complexity of flavours, beyond: Salt, sugar and fat.

Some
> people (mostly kids) like it and others don't.

**Sure. There's the rub: Kids don't get exposed to real food, when they
go out. They choose McDonalds because the power of the advertising
pursuades them that the stuff is good. It isn't. Its crap.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[KMM[_3_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
>> I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
>> invalid:
>
>> If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
>> because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you to
>> demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice.
>
> A cursory study of experimental psychology (arts program) or experimental
> design (science program) would teach you that the bias must be presumed to
> exist.
>
>> For example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer
>> the
>> sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
>> that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
>> A. Larger amps
>> B. More powerful amps
>> C. More expensive amps
>> D. Krell amps
>
> No, all I have to say Jenn is that you're human. Humans are well known to
> base their decisions on every piece of evidence that is available to them.
> Would you have it any other way? ;-)
>
>> However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
>> the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
>> prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion about
>> the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
>> speakers.
>
> The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that you
> reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a little
> about their biases, but they are stiff often surprised when their biases
> are determined by scientific means.
>

Most people are "stiff often"????

Fruedian slip? :-)


>> Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
>> actually hold such a bias?
>
> Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
> presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence as they
> can gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.
>
> If I don't want to take a chance that you are basing your decision on your
> perceptions related to the identity of the product being listened to, the
> proven approach is to simply keep you from knowing what you are listening
> to at the moment.
>

[KMM[_3_]]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
>> On Aug 8, 11:07 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> > On Aug 8, 4:34 am, John Atkinson >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > In article >,
>> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> > > > > Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
>> > > > > presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence
>> > > > > as they can gather, has proven itself to be true over and over
>> > > > > again.
>> >
>> > > > No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a
>> > > > bias
>> > > > toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more
>> > > > expensive
>> > > > piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
>> > > > decision?
>> >
>> > > This was the point of the parable with which I started my
>> > > presentation at the HE2005 debate, Jenn. The amplifier I
>> > > chose to buy based on blind tests proved unsatisfactory
>> > > despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.
>> >
>> > > John Atkinson
>> > > Editor, Stereophile
>> >
>> > Understood. I fully understand that we all have bias. And in any
>> > testing methodology, it's important to recognize that bias. But it
>> > makes sense that when one's choice is made despite that bias it must
>> > be shown what if any OTHER bias is affecting the decision if one is to
>> > claim that a bias is at work.
>>
>> You want to take a shot at how to do that?
>> I think you've posed the impossible to prove negative.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> It's not proving a negative. A statement is made that I (or someone
> else) has a bias that affects a decision. I'm asking to show me what
> that bias is.

The bias is that you are human and can see. A totally unnecessary thing for
listening for audio differences.

[KMM[_3_]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
ups.com...
On 8 Aug, 02:10, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> > . ..
>
> > >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >> > Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>
> > >> >http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.
> > >> > ap/index.html
>
> > >> This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what
> > >> "branding"
> > >> is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything
> > >> intrinsically dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the
> > >> brand" is valid.
>
> > >> I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned
> > >> before children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when
> > >> that
> > >> is, of course, forever.
>
> > >> As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people
> > >> arguing
> > >> about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted
> > >> bias. That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off
> > >> criticism of the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as
> > >> required
> > >> even to discuss sound.
>
> > > Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products,
> > > how
> > > do you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?
>
> > In the first place, being "identified" or "sighted" is not the same as
> > being
> > branded. Being "branded" means enough money has been spent over the
> > years
> > propagating a consistent image that is congruent with the product
> > itself, so
> > for example Krell amplifiers are noted for power into difficult loads
> > based
> > on early Krell technology that did impart that characteristic. Then it
> > was
> > furthered along by sustained marketing, pr, etc. until now many people
> > look
> > at a Krell, any Krell, and assume it will handle bass well. And BTW,
> > marketing people also know that if the the "branding " is not congruent
> > with
> > the actual product, that fact eventually catches up and simply results
> > in
> > wasted marketing effort.
>
> > So now, a skeptical audiophile will be aware of most of this and factor
> > it
> > in as perhaps being true, perhaps not, when compared to Brand "O". A
> > gullible audiophile may buy a salesman's pitch and think that Krell is
> > automatically superior in bass to other amps. The skeptical audiophile
> > can
> > probably do a test where the "sound" bias outweighs the "appearance"
> > bias,
> > the "reputation" bias, etc. built into the brand. The gullible
> > audiophile
> > may not. The serious audiophile may or may not think ABX is valid, but
> > he
> > knows blind testing can tell him something if he really comes away from
> > the
> > comparisons without a strong preference, or with a mixed preference. He
> > also knows it is a pain to set up a blind (non-ABX) test to allow him to
> > "do-it-his-way" if he is an ABX skeptic. Then he has to make a decision
> > about the amount of risk involved. The gullible audiophile will
> > probably
> > not consider any comparative testing at all, blind or non-blind, because
> > he
> > has already made his mind up (perhaps with the help of the
> > salesman/dealer).
>
> > For myself, I usually find non-blind testing okay. There have been
> > times I
> > have done blind testing. I will NOT use ABX testing because on the
> > surface
> > it violates the first principle of test design...by radically changing
> > the
> > listening challenge from evaluation to discrimination, and not just any
> > discrimination, but "identification". And when done using short
> > snippets,
> > and via a computerized .wav recording, it makes a mockery out of true
> > audiophile listening habits. And when done using a junction box, it
> > destroys the oft-times very real interface interactions of the
> > components
> > under test and therefore is pretty useless in system-matching up a
> > really
> > fine real-world system.
>
> > You've asked the question; I've answered (as I have done before). You
> > are
> > not going to change my thoughts or behavior so don't even try. If you
> > do,
> > you will be ignored by me because I am in a very busy time crunch for
> > the
> > next 10 days or so. Talk about it with others if you like.
>
> I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
> I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
> invalid:
> If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
> because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you to
> demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice. For
> example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer the
> sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
> that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
> A. Larger amps
> B. More powerful amps
> C. More expensive amps
> D. Krell amps
> However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
> the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
> prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion about
> the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
> speakers.
> Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
> actually hold such a bias?- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afi are text în citat -

This is the big picture.
ABX fails to address the preconceived bias that things appear the
same.
It is useless.

That things in audio that are well made sound the same is simply a fact.

If the listener doesn't know that both things being listened to are equally
well made then there is no sounds the dame bias to deal with.

Things sound the same when properly made.
Other things that are not properly made can do sound different, these
inferior products will have a measurement signature that will make it
possible to predict that they will sound different. Not everybody will
perceive that "difference" as inferior.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Aug, 00:05, Trevor Wilson >
wrote:
> John Stone wrote:
> > On 8/8/07 6:53 AM, in article
> > m, "Clyde Slick"
> > > wrote:
>
> >> On 8 Aug, 13:14, Trevor Wilson >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> **AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
> >>> Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.
>
> >> I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the roasting of it
> >> is hideous.
> >> burnt.
>
> > Such blanket statements are ludicrous-as is the comparison with McDonalds.
> > McDonalds has exactly 2 varieties; regular coffee and decaf. Starbucks has
> > many different varieties, some of which are very dark roasted, and others
> > that are very mild. Some are too "burnt" for my taste, but some are quite
> > well balanced. I guarantee you can make a good cup of coffee using
> > Starbucks beans, if you buy the right ones, grind them yourself, and brew
> > the coffee properly. I've done it many times. They aren't my favorite
> > coffees-those come from local roasters-but to say they are "hideous" is
> > ridiculous, especially since most of these comments come from people who
> > don't even drink coffee.
> > There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
> > be doing something right.
>
> **That's the McDonalds argument. There are 730 McDonalds restaurants
> (??!!) in Australia. Every single one, sells the same crap food. I've
> tasted McDonalds burgers. I can only taste three flavours - Salt, sugar
> and fat. There is zero depth and zero complexity.
>
> Trevor Wilson
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afi are text în citat -

a
"at least" i can taste the ketchup, mustard, onions and pickles.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Aug, 08:32, Trevor Wilson >
wrote:
> KMM wrote:
> > "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >>> Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>
> >>>http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschool...
>
> >>> CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better
> >> Curiously I find exactly the reverse.
>
> >> Graham
>
> > On everything except the fries.
>
> **Oh, get real. McDonalds fries are disgusting. They have no flavour,
> except that of salt and racid fat. Those skinny, barely recognisable
> bits of potato soak up so much of the crap oil used by McDaonalds, that
> the mild type of potato used by McDonalds can't hope to compete. If you
> think that McDonalds makes good fries, you need to get out more. Much more.
>
> My local fish and chip shop makes much better fries. Of course, my own
> are vastly superior. As well they should be. I only use virgin olive oil
> and they are par fried first. They'd be far too expensive for McDonalds
> to make. Of course, food with actual flavour tend to take time and money
> to get right. I can certainly attest to how long it takes to make a home
> cooked burger. But the flavour makes it all worthwhile.
>
> Trevor Wilson
>
> >

My first job was at McDonald's in 1966.
The fries were made from real fresh cut potatos and par fried.
oh, for the good ole days.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Aug, 09:10, "KMM" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
> On 8 Aug, 02:10, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > > "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
>
> > > >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > >> > Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
>
> > > >> >http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.
> > > >> > ap/index.html
>
> > > >> This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what
> > > >> "branding"
> > > >> is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything
> > > >> intrinsically dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the
> > > >> brand" is valid.
>
> > > >> I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned
> > > >> before children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when
> > > >> that
> > > >> is, of course, forever.
>
> > > >> As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people
> > > >> arguing
> > > >> about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted
> > > >> bias. That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off
> > > >> criticism of the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as
> > > >> required
> > > >> even to discuss sound.
>
> > > > Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products,
> > > > how
> > > > do you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?
>
> > > In the first place, being "identified" or "sighted" is not the same as
> > > being
> > > branded. Being "branded" means enough money has been spent over the
> > > years
> > > propagating a consistent image that is congruent with the product
> > > itself, so
> > > for example Krell amplifiers are noted for power into difficult loads
> > > based
> > > on early Krell technology that did impart that characteristic. Then it
> > > was
> > > furthered along by sustained marketing, pr, etc. until now many people
> > > look
> > > at a Krell, any Krell, and assume it will handle bass well. And BTW,
> > > marketing people also know that if the the "branding " is not congruent
> > > with
> > > the actual product, that fact eventually catches up and simply results
> > > in
> > > wasted marketing effort.
>
> > > So now, a skeptical audiophile will be aware of most of this and factor
> > > it
> > > in as perhaps being true, perhaps not, when compared to Brand "O". A
> > > gullible audiophile may buy a salesman's pitch and think that Krell is
> > > automatically superior in bass to other amps. The skeptical audiophile
> > > can
> > > probably do a test where the "sound" bias outweighs the "appearance"
> > > bias,
> > > the "reputation" bias, etc. built into the brand. The gullible
> > > audiophile
> > > may not. The serious audiophile may or may not think ABX is valid, but
> > > he
> > > knows blind testing can tell him something if he really comes away from
> > > the
> > > comparisons without a strong preference, or with a mixed preference. He
> > > also knows it is a pain to set up a blind (non-ABX) test to allow him to
> > > "do-it-his-way" if he is an ABX skeptic. Then he has to make a decision
> > > about the amount of risk involved. The gullible audiophile will
> > > probably
> > > not consider any comparative testing at all, blind or non-blind, because
> > > he
> > > has already made his mind up (perhaps with the help of the
> > > salesman/dealer).
>
> > > For myself, I usually find non-blind testing okay. There have been
> > > times I
> > > have done blind testing. I will NOT use ABX testing because on the
> > > surface
> > > it violates the first principle of test design...by radically changing
> > > the
> > > listening challenge from evaluation to discrimination, and not just any
> > > discrimination, but "identification". And when done using short
> > > snippets,
> > > and via a computerized .wav recording, it makes a mockery out of true
> > > audiophile listening habits. And when done using a junction box, it
> > > destroys the oft-times very real interface interactions of the
> > > components
> > > under test and therefore is pretty useless in system-matching up a
> > > really
> > > fine real-world system.
>
> > > You've asked the question; I've answered (as I have done before). You
> > > are
> > > not going to change my thoughts or behavior so don't even try. If you
> > > do,
> > > you will be ignored by me because I am in a very busy time crunch for
> > > the
> > > next 10 days or so. Talk about it with others if you like.
>
> > I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
> > I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
> > invalid:
> > If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
> > because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you to
> > demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice. For
> > example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer the
> > sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
> > that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
> > A. Larger amps
> > B. More powerful amps
> > C. More expensive amps
> > D. Krell amps
> > However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
> > the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
> > prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion about
> > the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
> > speakers.
> > Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
> > actually hold such a bias?- Ascunde citatul -
>
> > - Afi are text în citat -
>
> This is the big picture.
> ABX fails to address the preconceived bias that things appear the
> same.
> It is useless.
>
> That things in audio that are well made sound the same is simply a fact.
>
> If the listener doesn't know that both things being listened to are equally
> well made then there is no sounds the dame bias to deal with.
>
> Things sound the same when properly made.
> Other things that are not properly made can do sound different, these
> inferior products will have a measurement signature that will make it
> possible to predict that they will sound different. Not everybody will
> perceive that "difference" as inferior.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afi are text în citat -

Thanks for exposing your bias.
Too bad there is not yet a proper test that can eliminate that.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > tasted McDonalds burgers. I can only taste three flavours - Salt, sugar
> > and fat. There is zero depth and zero complexity.

> "at least" i can taste the ketchup, mustard, onions and pickles.

Is there no limit to your talents?

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> My first job was at McDonald's in 1966.

Good for you. Is that why you went into government work?

> The fries were made from real fresh cut potatos and par fried.

These days, McDoggie's fries are consistently undercooked. I agree with,
Trevor about making your own. The biggest problem is finding fresh
potatoes. Supermarkets don't give a crap about freshness.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


> It's silly in a similar way to accusing someone
> of having a racial bias, without showing that this is a
> fact.

Irrelevant. A racial bias is a specific kind of bias. Futhermore, racial
bias reflects adversely on the character of the person exhibiting racial
bias.

The purpose of bias-controlled listening tests is to address *all* possible
forms of bias, even those kinds of bias that don't reflect on the character
of the listener.

What you seem to be saying Jenn is that bias in audio is comparable to
racial bias. That's pretty extreme of you, no?

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Aug, 23:00, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> The purpose of bias-controlled listening tests is to address *all* possible
> forms of bias, even those kinds of bias that don't reflect on the character
> of the listener.
>

That includes the bias that would have you presuppose things will
sound the same.
Too bad abx can't solve that.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Aug, 20:41, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > My first job was at McDonald's in 1966.
>
> Good for you. Is that why you went into government work?
>
> > The fries were made from real fresh cut potatos and par fried.
>
> These days, McDoggie's fries are consistently undercooked. I agree with,
> Trevor about making your own. The biggest problem is finding fresh
> potatoes. Supermarkets don't give a crap about freshness.

Try the weekend farmers market in Burtonsville

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > The purpose of bias-controlled listening tests[sic] is to address *all* possible
> > forms of bias

> That includes the bias that would have you presuppose things will
> sound the same.
> Too bad abx can't solve that.

Arnii "solves" that issue through prayer.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > These days, McDoggie's fries are consistently undercooked. I agree with,
> > Trevor about making your own. The biggest problem is finding fresh
> > potatoes. Supermarkets don't give a crap about freshness.

> Try the weekend farmers market in Burtonsville

Thanks, I'll charter a plane.

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot plays dumb (even for him).

> I don't agree that people are predisposed to think things sound
> the same.

Of course we're not talking about "people", Scooter, a category in which
you (barely) qualify for membership. The inference was that the Krooborg
and its fellow travelers have the sameness bias.

As a general rule, you should refrain from generalizing. Your documented
inability to reason logically renders all your attempts at
generalization totally random and, therefore, worthless.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > It's silly in a similar way to accusing someone
> > of having a racial bias, without showing that this is a
> > fact.
>
> Irrelevant. A racial bias is a specific kind of bias.

So when some is accused of having a bias that affects a purchase
decision, isn't it a specific bias that is supposedly being acted upon?

> Futhermore, racial
> bias reflects adversely on the character of the person exhibiting racial
> bias.

I agree.

>
> The purpose of bias-controlled listening tests is to address *all* possible
> forms of bias, even those kinds of bias that don't reflect on the character
> of the listener.

Of course.

>
> What you seem to be saying Jenn is that bias in audio is comparable to
> racial bias. That's pretty extreme of you, no?

I think that you're brighter than this.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 9, 2:20 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > message
> > .
> > >com
> >
> > > > It's silly in a similar way to accusing someone
> > > > of having a racial bias, without showing that this is a
> > > > fact.
> >
> > > Irrelevant. A racial bias is a specific kind of bias.
> >
> > So when some is accused of having a bias that affects a purchase
> > decision, isn't it a specific bias that is supposedly being acted upon?
>
> No. Might be the sum result of many bias.

As can be racial bias, of course.

> Again, the bias in play and nature/origin of them is not the
> primary interest being investigated.

It is if someone is said to have a bias when it is against established
pattern.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>> It's silly in a similar way to accusing someone
>>> of having a racial bias, without showing that this is a
>>> fact.
>>
>> Irrelevant. A racial bias is a specific kind of bias.

> So when some is accused of having a bias that affects a
> purchase decision, isn't it a specific bias that is
> supposedly being acted upon?

Read what you wrote, Jenn. A bias that affected the outcome of a listening
test is a general kind of bias.

>> Futhermore, racial
>> bias reflects adversely on the character of the person
>> exhibiting racial bias.

> I agree.
>
>> The purpose of bias-controlled listening tests is to
>> address *all* possible forms of bias, even those kinds
>> of bias that don't reflect on the character of the
>> listener.
>
> Of course.
>
>> What you seem to be saying Jenn is that bias in audio is
>> comparable to racial bias. That's pretty extreme of you,
>> no?

> I think that you're brighter than this.

I think you're cornered, Jenn.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com

> But of all the different types of DBT....since ABX isn't
> a same or different response

But it is. ABX is at its core a same/different test.

The two questions in ABX are:

Is "X" the same or different as "A"?

Is "X" the same or different as "B?

There's an obvious logical connection between the answers to these two
questions that simply and naturally leads to a conclusion about whether "X"
is "A" or "B"

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Aug, 00:20, Jenn > wrote:

>
> I think that you're brighter than this.

his insanity suppresses his innate intelligence.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Aug, 13:35, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> But it is. ABX is at its core a same/different test.
>
> The two questions in ABX are:
>
> Is "X" the same or different as "A"?
>
> Is "X" the same or different as "B?
>

Yet there is no option to answer "same"
what a tragic flaw.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>
> >>> It's silly in a similar way to accusing someone
> >>> of having a racial bias, without showing that this is a
> >>> fact.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant. A racial bias is a specific kind of bias.
>
> > So when some is accused of having a bias that affects a
> > purchase decision, isn't it a specific bias that is
> > supposedly being acted upon?
>
> Read what you wrote, Jenn. A bias that affected the outcome of a listening
> test is a general kind of bias.

If one of the DUT is, say, a unit that I previously didn't like due to a
specific reason (size, brand, cost, a previous bad encounter, etc.) that
would be a specific bias, would it not?

>
> >> Futhermore, racial
> >> bias reflects adversely on the character of the person
> >> exhibiting racial bias.
>
> > I agree.
> >
> >> The purpose of bias-controlled listening tests is to
> >> address *all* possible forms of bias, even those kinds
> >> of bias that don't reflect on the character of the
> >> listener.
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> >> What you seem to be saying Jenn is that bias in audio is
> >> comparable to racial bias. That's pretty extreme of you,
> >> no?
>
> > I think that you're brighter than this.
>
> I think you're cornered, Jenn.

Incorrect, but believe whatever you wish.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 9, 2:49 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Aug 9, 2:20 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > > > message
> > > >
> > > > >igy.
> > > > >com
> >
> > > > > > It's silly in a similar way to accusing someone
> > > > > > of having a racial bias, without showing that this is a
> > > > > > fact.
> >
> > > > > Irrelevant. A racial bias is a specific kind of bias.
> >
> > > > So when some is accused of having a bias that affects a purchase
> > > > decision, isn't it a specific bias that is supposedly being acted upon?
> >
> > > No. Might be the sum result of many bias.
> >
> > As can be racial bias, of course.
>
> What is up with you and racial bias today?
> Somebody call you a honkey?

Nope, but I confess that racial bias issues are always on the front
burner with me. I just mentioned once how the two situations are
similarly silly.

>
> >
> > > Again, the bias in play and nature/origin of them is not the
> > > primary interest being investigated.
> >
> > It is if someone is said to have a bias when it is against established
> > pattern.
>
> Don't be so easily led astray by what someone said.

I just find it strange that people accuse others of making a decision
due to bias when there is no evidence of having a bias about the
specific gear.

>
> Bias are not static. What you did yesterday is no proof of your
> tendencies tomorrow.
> This whole thing is a strawman IMO. The question in audio
> is not what bias influenced you, it is what impact, if any,
> did all your personal bias have on your perception of the
> sound.
> I tend to think that these bias influenced perceptions only
> come into play when differences are very very subtle
> and might be easily missed in tests.
>
> ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>
>>>>> It's silly in a similar way to accusing someone
>>>>> of having a racial bias, without showing that this is
>>>>> a fact.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. A racial bias is a specific kind of bias.
>>
>>> So when some is accused of having a bias that affects a
>>> purchase decision, isn't it a specific bias that is
>>> supposedly being acted upon?
>>
>> Read what you wrote, Jenn. A bias that affected the
>> outcome of a listening test is a general kind of bias.

> If one of the DUT is, say, a unit that I previously
> didn't like due to a specific reason (size, brand, cost,
> a previous bad encounter, etc.) that would be a specific
> bias, would it not?

Jenn you compared that kind of bias to racial discrimination, right?

Here's a news flash - not the same thing at all.

>>>> Futhermore, racial
>>>> bias reflects adversely on the character of the person
>>>> exhibiting racial bias.
>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>>> The purpose of bias-controlled listening tests is to
>>>> address *all* possible forms of bias, even those kinds
>>>> of bias that don't reflect on the character of the
>>>> listener.
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>>>> What you seem to be saying Jenn is that bias in audio
>>>> is comparable to racial bias. That's pretty extreme of
>>>> you, no?
>>
>>> I think that you're brighter than this.

Use of insult as a debating trade device noted.

>> I think you're cornered, Jenn.

> Incorrect, but believe whatever you wish.

Post again when you regain your perspective, Jenn

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> On Aug 10, 3:35 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com
>>
>>> But of all the different types of DBT....since ABX isn't
>>> a same or different response
>>
>> But it is. ABX is at its core a same/different test.
>>
>> The two questions in ABX are:
>>
>> Is "X" the same or different as "A"?
>>
>> Is "X" the same or different as "B?
>>
>> There's an obvious logical connection between the
>> answers to these two questions that simply and naturally
>> leads to a conclusion about whether "X" is "A" or "B"
>
> How do you deal with same same or different different
> responses?

The listener is required to make his own choice.

> The responder then goes to more same than same or less
> different than different?

It is up to the listener to choose. If there is too little evidence for him
to make a reliable decision, then his guessing is revealed by simple
statistics.

[George M. Middius]

Scottie and Arnii continue their aBxism circle-jerk.

> > The two questions in
> > Is "X" the same or dif
> > Is "X" the same or di
> > logical
> > "X"
> > "A" or "B"

> How do you deal with same same or different different responses?

Why don't you strap on an aBxism box and find out for yourself?

Those of us who are still sane wonder what you hope to accomplish by
feeding Krazy Krooger's paranoid megalomania.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>>
> >>>>> It's silly in a similar way to accusing someone
> >>>>> of having a racial bias, without showing that this is
> >>>>> a fact.
> >>>>
> >>>> Irrelevant. A racial bias is a specific kind of bias.
> >>
> >>> So when some is accused of having a bias that affects a
> >>> purchase decision, isn't it a specific bias that is
> >>> supposedly being acted upon?
> >>
> >> Read what you wrote, Jenn. A bias that affected the
> >> outcome of a listening test is a general kind of bias.
>
> > If one of the DUT is, say, a unit that I previously
> > didn't like due to a specific reason (size, brand, cost,
> > a previous bad encounter, etc.) that would be a specific
> > bias, would it not?
>
> Jenn you compared that kind of bias to racial discrimination, right?
>
> Here's a news flash - not the same thing at all.

Here's a news flash: I didn't say that they are. I said that they are
just as silly as one another.

>
> >>>> Futhermore, racial
> >>>> bias reflects adversely on the character of the person
> >>>> exhibiting racial bias.
> >>
> >>> I agree.
> >>>
> >>>> The purpose of bias-controlled listening tests is to
> >>>> address *all* possible forms of bias, even those kinds
> >>>> of bias that don't reflect on the character of the
> >>>> listener.
> >>>
> >>> Of course.
> >>>
> >>>> What you seem to be saying Jenn is that bias in audio
> >>>> is comparable to racial bias. That's pretty extreme of
> >>>> you, no?
> >>
> >>> I think that you're brighter than this.
>
> Use of insult as a debating trade device noted.

What insult? I said that you're bright.

>
> >> I think you're cornered, Jenn.
>
> > Incorrect, but believe whatever you wish.
>
> Post again when you regain your perspective, Jenn

lol

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> said:


>Those of us who are still sane wonder what you hope to accomplish by
>feeding Krazy Krooger's paranoid megalomania.


Death by exhaustion?

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Aug, 20:54, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 3:35 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com
>
> >>> But of all the different types of DBT....since ABX isn't
> >>> a same or different response
>
> >> But it is. ABX is at its core a same/different test.
>
> >> The two questions in ABX are:
>
> >> Is "X" the same or different as "A"?
>
> >> Is "X" the same or different as "B?
>
> >> There's an obvious logical connection between the
> >> answers to these two questions that simply and naturally
> >> leads to a conclusion about whether "X" is "A" or "B"
>
> > How do you deal with same same or different different
> > responses?
>
> The listener is required to make his own choice.
>
> > The responder then goes to more same than same or less
> > different than different?
>
> It is up to the listener to choose. If there is too little evidence for him
> to make a reliable decision, then his guessing is revealed by simple
> statistics.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afi are text în citat -

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Aug, 20:54, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 3:35 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com
>
> >>> But of all the different types of DBT....since ABX isn't
> >>> a same or different response
>
> >> But it is. ABX is at its core a same/different test.
>
> >> The two questions in ABX are:
>
> >> Is "X" the same or different as "A"?
>
> >> Is "X" the same or different as "B?
>
> >> There's an obvious logical connection between the
> >> answers to these two questions that simply and naturally
> >> leads to a conclusion about whether "X" is "A" or "B"
>
> > How do you deal with same same or different different
> > responses?
>
> The listener is required to make his own choice.
>
> > The responder then goes to more same than same or less
> > different than different?
>
> It is up to the listener to choose. If there is too little evidence for him
> to make a reliable decision, then his guessing is revealed by simple
> statistics.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afi are text în citat -

ABX fails to address the three p[ossible response, A, B or can't
tell.

Your tests mix identifications with guesses, there is no
differentiation.
BTW,an erroneous identification is different
than an acknowledgement of not perceiving
a difference.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Aug, 21:06, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Scottie and Arnii continue their aBxism circle-jerk.
>
> > > The two questions in
> > > Is "X" the same or dif
> > > Is "X" the same or di
> > > logical
> > > "X"
> > > "A" or "B"
> > How do you deal with same same or different different responses?
>
> Why don't you strap on an aBxism box and find out for yourself?
>
> Those of us who are still sane wonder what you hope to accomplish by
> feeding Krazy Krooger's paranoid megalomania.

to provoke another kroo meltdown.

[Howard Ferstler]

John Atkinson wrote:

> This was the point of the parable with which I started my
> presentation at the HE2005 debate, Jenn. The amplifier I
> chose to buy based on blind tests proved unsatisfactory
> despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.

John, I can understand the issue of "non-audio factors"
working in a product's favor or against it. I mean, many of
us are influenced by such things, even if they only rate to
operational ergonomics and front-panel style.

What I am curious about is whether you discovered any
"audio-related factors" that made the sound of the amp sour
you once you had lived with it for a while. Obviously, they
were not audible with a blind analysis, but became obvious
(probably in a subtle way) once you knew the brand, had
lived with it, and became dissatisfied. What specific and
detectable (and hopefully measurable) audio qualities that
were not audible blind allowed you to perceive its defects
once you knew what the brand name was?

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Scottie and Arnii continue their aBxism circle-jerk.

>>>The two questions in
>>>Is "X" the same or dif
>>>Is "X" the same or di
>>>logical
>>>"X"
>>>"A" or "B"

>> How do you deal with same same or different different responses?

> Why don't you strap on an aBxism box and find out for yourself?

Well, bigmouth, why don't you?

Howard Ferstler

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Aug, 23:10, ScottW > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 12:58 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Aug, 20:54, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> > oups.com
>
> > > > On Aug 10, 3:35 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> > > ups.com
>
> > > >>> But of all the different types of DBT....since ABX isn't
> > > >>> a same or different response
>
> > > >> But it is. ABX is at its core a same/different test.
>
> > > >> The two questions in ABX are:
>
> > > >> Is "X" the same or different as "A"?
>
> > > >> Is "X" the same or different as "B?
>
> > > >> There's an obvious logical connection between the
> > > >> answers to these two questions that simply and naturally
> > > >> leads to a conclusion about whether "X" is "A" or "B"
>
> > > > How do you deal with same same or different different
> > > > responses?
>
> > > The listener is required to make his own choice.
>
> > > > The responder then goes to more same than same or less
> > > > different than different?
>
> > > It is up to the listener to choose. If there is too little evidence for him
> > > to make a reliable decision, then his guessing is revealed by simple
> > > statistics.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> > > - Afi are text în citat -
>
> > ABX fails to address the three p[ossible response, A, B or can't
> > tell.
>
> If you couldn't tell sighted, blindness will not improve the
> senses :).
>

I have read that it dos.
You got any spare eye-gougers?
I haver a Big Mac that needs inproving.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Aug, 23:32, Howard Ferstler > wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:
> > Scottie and Arnii continue their aBxism circle-jerk.
> >>>The two questions in
> >>>Is "X" the same or dif
> >>>Is "X" the same or di
> >>>logical
> >>>"X"
> >>>"A" or "B"
> >> How do you deal with same same or different different responses?
> > Why don't you strap on an aBxism box and find out for yourself?
>
> Well, bigmouth, why don't you?

his bra isn't big enough

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> On 10 Aug, 23:32, Howard Ferstler > wrote:

>>George M. Middius wrote:

>>>Why don't you strap on an aBxism box and find out for yourself?

>>Well, bigmouth, why don't you?

> his bra isn't big enough

Nifty answer. I hope you and this guy are not buddies,
because the friendship is now probably over.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >Those of us who are still sane wonder what you hope to accomplish by
> >feeding Krazy Krooger's paranoid megalomania.

> Death by exhaustion?

I'm sure even Scottie is clever enough to figure out a less tedious way
to shuffle off his mortal coil.

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace, Polisher of the Retrograde Lamp of Eternal Dysphasia,
dons his mantle of all-encompassing ignorance and parades it with
Clerkish pride.

> > Why don't you strap on an aBxism box and find out for yourself?

> Well, bigmouth, why don't you?

This is a new low for you, Harold. Only a newbie could be excused from
knowing my views on the crack-brained aBxism religion. You have no
excuse whatsoever.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Aug, 05:53, "ScottW" > wrote:


>
> Hey Art, My backordered Pious Bird of Good Omen
> just arrived. Elusive disc f'd up so they gave me
> a break on Lucinda Williams World Without Tears
> double album.
> Eat your heart out :).
>
it's better than the beef here.

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Aug, 00:27, ScottW > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 10:52 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 11 Aug, 05:53, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > Hey Art, My backordered Pious Bird of Good Omen
> > > just arrived. Elusive disc f'd up so they gave me
> > > a break on Lucinda Williams World Without Tears
> > > double album.
> > > Eat your heart out :).
>
> > it's better than the beef here.
>
> Are you back in Romania?

yes

We've got a beef shortage
> as the price of corn rockets due to ethanol and
> global warming mania.
>
> Now I see a new MoFi Crown of Creation at Acoustic Sounds
> for $70....somebody, hold me back....:).
>
no steak tonight!

[Howard Ferstler]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Brother Horace, Polisher of the Retrograde Lamp of Eternal Dysphasia,
> dons his mantle of all-encompassing ignorance and parades it with
> Clerkish pride.

>>>Why don't you strap on an aBxism box and find out for yourself?

>>Well, bigmouth, why don't you?

> This is a new low for you, Harold. Only a newbie could be excused from
> knowing my views on the crack-brained aBxism religion. You have no
> excuse whatsoever.

I am posting my stuff for the benefits of those newbies,
George. One reason I come and go at intervals is because I
figure that after on of my posting marathons the current
group of newbies will be filled in about people like you.

I then leave for a while and come back when a new group of
newbies are on hand to be duped by the audio con-artist
guild. I fill those new people in on the facts of audio
life, and then retire again for a while.

And, George, when are you going to get a job?

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace tries to hunt mosquito with a slingshot.

> > Brother Horace, Polisher of the Retrograde Lamp of Eternal Dysphasia,
> > dons his mantle of all-encompassing ignorance and parades it with
> > Clerkish pride.

> >>>Why don't you strap on an aBxism box and find out for yourself?

> >>Well, bigmouth, why don't you?

> > This is a new low for you, Harold. Only a newbie could be excused from
> > knowing my views on the crack-brained aBxism religion. You have no
> > excuse whatsoever.

[snip random, unresponsive babbling]

> And, George, when are you going to get a job?

While we're asking questions, Clerkie, here's one: Why haven't you
answered the questions I asked you yesterday?

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
news:46be3c49$1@kcnews01

> I am posting my stuff for the benefits of those newbies,
> George. One reason I come and go at intervals is because I
> figure that after on of my posting marathons the current
> group of newbies will be filled in about people like you.

Howard, when you trick George into posting incoherently and
non-responsively, as you have done here, his mental problems become clearly
visible for all to see. Only Middiot true-believers like Jenn are able to
hold onto their illusions about there being hope for Georges' recovery.

> I then leave for a while and come back when a new group of
> newbies are on hand to be duped by the audio con-artist
> guild. I fill those new people in on the facts of audio
> life, and then retire again for a while.

> And, George, when are you going to get a job?

George is obviously too mentally disabled to hold down any other full-time
job than Atkinson sycophant.

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Aug, 13:19, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> George is obviously too mentally disabled to hold down any other full-time
> job than Atkinson sycophant.

or maybe as a designer of Omni ashtrays.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> or maybe as a designer of Omni ashtrays.

That vocation was a mere dalliance for Turdborg. Krooger is much prouder
of his "Usenet career", where he makes a mint doing "the debating trade"
and flogging aBxism torture boxes.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:

> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > or maybe as a designer of Omni ashtrays.
>
> That vocation was a mere dalliance for Turdborg. Krooger is much prouder
> of his "Usenet career", where he makes a mint doing "the debating trade"
> and flogging aBxism torture boxes.

Ashtray designers should get credit for their efforts. I'm not a smoker,
but having ashtrays in the driver's door would surely require
uncomfortable twisting and turning in addition to the hazardous demands
on the attention while driving. Add chimes and a voice saying, "Is this
more like 'A' or more like 'B'?" and you have a training machine worthy
of NASA.

Stephen

[Howard Ferstler]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Brother Horace tries to hunt mosquito with a slingshot.

>>And, George, when are you going to get a job?

> While we're asking questions, Clerkie, here's one: Why haven't you
> answered the questions I asked you yesterday?

I back searched this thread and saw no such question from
you. Actually, most of your so-called "questions" are
nothing more that posturing on your part anyway.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace tries to hunt mosquito with a slingshot.

> > Brother Horace, Polisher of the Retrograde Lamp of Eternal Dysphasia,
> > dons his mantle of all-encompassing ignorance and parades it with
> > Clerkish pride.

> >>>Why don't you strap on an aBxism box and find out for yourself?

> >>Well, bigmouth, why don't you?

> > This is a new low for you, Harold. Only a newbie could be excused from
> > knowing my views on the crack-brained aBxism religion. You have no
> > excuse whatsoever.

[snip random, unresponsive babbling]

> And, George, when are you going to get a job?

While we're asking questions, Clerkie, here's one: Why haven't you
answered the questions I asked you yesterday?

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace, Keeper of the Flame of Eternal Irony, intoned:

> >>And, George, when are you going to get a job?

> > While we're asking questions, Clerkie, here's one: Why haven't you
> > answered the questions I asked you yesterday?

> I back searched this thread and saw no such question from
> you. Actually, most of your so-called "questions" are
> nothing more that posturing on your part anyway.

Bwahahahaha!!!! This from the Professional Audio Clown who just postured
about a documented history of lying on Usenet.

[Howard Ferstler]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Brother Horace, Keeper of the Flame of Eternal Irony, intoned:
>
>
>>>>And, George, when are you going to get a job?
>
>
>>>While we're asking questions, Clerkie, here's one: Why haven't you
>>>answered the questions I asked you yesterday?
>
>
>>I back searched this thread and saw no such question from
>>you. Actually, most of your so-called "questions" are
>>nothing more that posturing on your part anyway.
>
>
> Bwahahahaha!!!! This from the Professional Audio Clown who just postured
> about a documented history of lying on Usenet.

One can only deal with children for so much time, and your
rao time (and the rao time of phony goofballs like "Boon")
is up, George. Yep, it is time for me to move on to
something else for a while. Only real monomaniacs hang
around here for months at a pop.

No doubt, YOU will continue to hang around, as you have
continued to do for years - day and night, apparently. I do
hope you can find something interesting to do while I take
my lengthy break, because while I am here your world appears
to be centered upon me.

If you need to read something else by me for comfort, go
hunt up a copy of issue 113 of The Sensible Sound. If you
must, write a letter to the editor with your usual witty
comments.

Howard Ferstler

[Clyde Slick]

On 13 Aug, 00:00, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > or maybe as a designer of Omni ashtrays.
>
> > That vocation was a mere dalliance for Turdborg. Krooger is much prouder
> > of his "Usenet career", where he makes a mint doing "the debating trade"
> > and flogging aBxism torture boxes.
>
> Ashtray designers should get credit for their efforts. I'm not a smoker,
> but having ashtrays in the driver's door would surely require
> uncomfortable twisting and turning in addition to the hazardous demands
> on the attention while driving. Add chimes and a voice saying, "Is this
> more like 'A' or more like 'B'?" and you have a training machine worthy
> of NASA.
>
> Stephen

make thst castanets, instead of chimes.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 13 Aug, 00:00, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:
> >
> > > Clyde Slick said:
> >
> > > > or maybe as a designer of Omni ashtrays.
> >
> > > That vocation was a mere dalliance for Turdborg. Krooger is much prouder
> > > of his "Usenet career", where he makes a mint doing "the debating trade"
> > > and flogging aBxism torture boxes.
> >
> > Ashtray designers should get credit for their efforts. I'm not a smoker,
> > but having ashtrays in the driver's door would surely require
> > uncomfortable twisting and turning in addition to the hazardous demands
> > on the attention while driving. Add chimes and a voice saying, "Is this
> > more like 'A' or more like 'B'?" and you have a training machine worthy
> > of NASA.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> make thst castanets, instead of chimes.

Or keys.