wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...

Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
(same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
forum!)
But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
"test" , the other one has a modification of it.
Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
results only have shown up.

Liar.

It is up to you to show that the test will
reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
audiophiles and car audio lovers.

It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
people can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.

Till you have this evidence the
logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
much.

The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
hype.

Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
"test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
it does not!

Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.

To please you I looked for components where
differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.

Ludovic Mirabel

There is no way to do any such test that will convince you ever. You
completely ignore the fact that DBT is the standard for all research into
subtle audio difference.

Hey, it has been a pretty good troll...

** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
speakers should sound different. No takers.
Krueger answers:

Too easy. Been there, done that:

You've admitted that you've been to the ABX website and seen the results
of previous ABX tests that showed difference. That should be enough to
convince you that when the differences are there, they are heard.

We're talking articles of faith here - nothing that upsets as many golden
ear applecarts as ABX could possibly be valid, right? ;-)