On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:57:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com

My answer to Arny is: if Greenhill
is out-of-date where on earth are the more up to date
professional journal acceptable studies?

They are unpublishable because they are too unremarkable. There's no news
value in finding that measurable differences of the size that Mirabel as
seized on are audible.

Nobody seems to take the few problems that Greenhill's listeners had
detecting differences too seriously. Greenhill's few problematical tests
AFAIK involved suboptimal program material, questionable listeners, and
cable-swapping with long switching delays. These are strong, well-known
detriments to listener performance.

I find it funny that you dismiss this test but haven't done the same
for the Nousaine "Zip tests". Perhaps guys like Mr. Pinkerton should
look at this...

Anybody who thinks that ABX tests eliminate everybody's ability to hear
differences in the 1-2 dB range need only perform their own tests using
tools and audio files they can download freely from:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/levels/index.htm

I don't have Greenhill's article at my disposal, but here's an "off the top
of my head" comparison of Greenhill's cable tests and the "10 Requirements
For Sensitive and Reliable listening tests" posted at www.pcabx.com :

(1) Program material must include critical passages that enable audible
differences to be most easily heard.

Greenhill's test fail to meet this critreria because he had to pander to the
immature musical tastes of his listeners. They balked at listening to some
musical selections that they didn't like, even though those particular
musical selections might yield more sensitive results.

I'm not sure that the tests fulfilled this criteria. AFAIK, the
selections weren't chosen such "critical passages". However, I'll let
this go at this time.

(2) Listeners must be sensitized to a audible differences, so that if an
audible difference is generated by the equipment, the listener will notice
it and have a useful reaction to it.

Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests included zero formal
listener training.

No "formal listening". All that was allowed to happen was that the
subjects were allowed to acclimate themselves to the program material.
This certainly isn't the same thing as you mean by "formal listener
training".

(3) Listeners must be trained to listen systematically so that audible
problems are heard.

Again, Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests included zero formal
listener training. I have some personal experience with them and they
basically wanted to do things their own way, and not take advantage of what
was known about getting the most sensitive and reliable test results.

No "systematic training".

(4) Procedures should be "open" to detecting problems that aren't
necessarily technically well-understood or even expected, at this time. A
classic problem with measurements and some listening tests is that each one
focuses on one or only a few problems, allowing others to escape notice.

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 3 strikes against them.

Well, we already have two firm strikes and one iffy strike against the
test.

(5) We must have confidence that the Unit Under Test (UUT) is
representative of the kind of equipment it represents. In other words the
UUT must not be broken, it must not be appreciably modified in some secret
way, and must not be the wrong make or model, among other things.

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 3 strikes against them.

No problem here.

(6) A suitable listening environment must be provided. It can't be too dull,
too bright, too noisy, too reverberant, or too harsh. The speakers and
other components have to be sufficiently free from distortion, the room must
be noise-free, etc..

It is unknown how chaotic things actually were at the time that Greenhill's
Stereo Review cable listening tests were performed. My experience with his
group was that they tended to dissolve into chaos.

Obviously not the case, base on the description of the events.

(7) Listeners need to be in a good mood for listening, in good physical
condition (no blocked-up ears!), and be well-trained for hearing
deficiencies in the reproduced sound.

It is unknown how motivated the listener's were at the time that Greenhill's
Stereo Review cable listening tests were performed. My experience with his
group was that they tended to have a defeatest attitude about blind tests.

Obviously there were problems in this regard.

(8) Sample volume levels need to be matched to each other or else the
listeners will perceive differences that are simply due to volume
differences.

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 4 or more strikes against
them.

No apparent problem here - but we have 4 1/2 strikes against the test
already.

(9) Non-audible influences need to be controlled so that the listener
reaches his conclusions due to "Just listening".

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 4 or more strikes against
them.

Here's the 5 1/2 strike. Obviously, this couldn't have been a "just
listening" environment because of the circumstances described.

(10) Listeners should control as many of the aspects of the listening test
as possible. Self-controlled tests usually facilitate this. Most
importantly, they should be able to switch among the alternatives at times
of their choosing. The switchover should be as instantaneous and
non-disruptive as possible.

AFAIK Greenhill's cable tests involved cable-swapping and therefore
prohibited fast switchovers. The listener's lacked fine control over the
listening test.

Same problem with the Zip test.

Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests were highly suboptimal
tests. The ready availability of online tests that meet all 10 requirements
show that the 10 requirements are not unrealistic goals.

So now we have 6 1/2 strikes against the Zip test. Therefore, why
bother trotting it out?

Anybody who uses Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests as
examples of blind listening tests is at the best is either badly mislead or
simply is trying to find grounds to criticize blind listening tests at any
cost, not matter how unreasonable their critique is.

Same with the Zip test.

An exception or a small number of exceptions obtained under questinable
circumstances does not disprove a rule.

Same with the Zip test.

On balance, a lot has been learned about doing proper listening tests since
Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests. I have no doubt that if
Greenhill chose to waste his time by redoing these tests, he'd do things
differently. Remember, these tests happened something like 20 years ago.

I guess we can also discount the results that Mr. Krueger trots out on
the ABX web site as well, based on the comments in the above
paragraph.