Don Pearce wrote:
On 12 Jan 2006 11:59:32 -0800, wrote:
You misunderstand the test and its purpose. I have said before several
times, the purpose is not to see if cables have an audible effect. It
is to see if a person who claims to hear a difference does in fact
hear it, or merely imagines he heard it.
We understand your purpose. What is under discussion is your proposed
protocol for proving the "reality" versus the "imagination"
No evidence exists that any of the proposed "tests" (ABX and its
cousins) do show differences between audio components to most members
of a properly randomised (ie. representative), statistically valid
listener group. (Basic research was never done even though there were
four decades to do it in) On the contrary such, often faulty, studies
as were reported in audio mags. all resulted in "no difference"
verdict- whatever is being studied (cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers ,
dacs and yes loudspeakers.)
You're here again with randomized listener groups. They are *not* what
I am dealing with. There is no reason to believe such groups would
hear a difference even when sighted. I am dealing with one person who
has identified a difference.
One or two hundred persons. The "test" you want to stun him
with has to be first *experimentally* shown to be right for the job ie
capable of showing differences to a statistically valid majority of
testees. Experiment not conviction , not faith, not "logic', not
"common sense" is the key word. And the onus is on you to demonstrate
it not on anyone else to convince you that you're spouting bilge
water.
And your conclusion that such studies were faulty on the basis that
they yielded result of no difference is flatly ridiculous. Ever heard
of the fallacy of the begged question?
Dear Pearce, do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that "studies
were faulty because etc. etc.." I said that in four decades of
"testing" there stilll are no POSITIVE, statistically valid experiments
demonstrating that "testing" allows the majority of panelists to hear
differences beyween any audio components whatsoever.
The "studies" are not faulty. They just don't exist. What exists and
what iis faulty is bla bla bla about "tests" which have never been
shown to test anything except their proponents' ability for fairy
stories.
Agreed Mr. Pearce. There is no obligation on you to buy an
ABX switch, get someone to help you with double blinding etc. just to
get the pseudo-scientific confirmation for what you already believe
anyway.
I'd go further and say that there is no pleasure or
*profit* for *anyone* in embarking on a "test" that has never been
properly researched and validated as an instrument for showing
differences between audio components. Take it back : it may be good
teaching exercise for those who never learnt to *listen* to music as
more than wallpaper background noise.
So you think that listening is not a good way to determine what you
can hear? Interesting viewpoint, but not one that I suspect would find
much support among the sentient.
If you think that the above has any relation to what I said or that it
makes any kind of sensee I'll leave you to enjoy it.
As of now the negative results of playing at ABX are just
a placebo confirming the passionate conviction that "it all sounds
the same" to those who are not interested in hearing differences
between anything and anything else in audio components; sighted, blind
or triple blind.
So you don't know what a placebo is? You think a placebo is something
that prevents the fake medicine having a therapeutic effect? I'm
starting to patience with you, I'm afraid.
Pearce, Pearce your arrogance surpasses only your ignorance. I dealt
with the effects of placebos all of my long professional life and
you're teaching me about it and "losing patience" too. "Placebo" means
"I will please" ( Latin - look it up) It means that a substance or a
charm or an incantation without any physiological effect on the disease
makes the patient feel happy for its psychological effects. The way I
used it metaphorically (look up "metaphor" !!) is perfectly
legitimate. It makes those who can't hear a difference happy that
"science" and a "test" prove them right.
I suppose it is a waste of breath to say once again that
a "test" either proving or disproving the perceptions of millions
of individual differences in the the brain cortex auditory receptors
does not exist as yet. ABX it is not.
Ludovic Mirabel
At last you have said something I agree with.
Thank you . You made my day Pearce.
Luidovic Mirabel