"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.....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.