Don Pearce wrote:

On 13 Jan 2006 11:29:49 -0800, "andy" wrote:



I repeat. Sighted tests are valueless.


How about this proposal then?

Let's assume that a given "brand A" cd player, amp, cable, whatever is
said to have a given type of a sound in a given system. In the same
system, a given piece of brand B alternate equipment is said to have
quite the opposite style of sound. This determination is done by us the
audiophools, the retail business sellers, ie, audio con men, or the
EEMHE (the evil equipment manufacturers of high end).

Now, we take 1000 people (this could be done in a university) and have
them listen to this same system for separate sessions in two different
days. One session for brand A, the other for brand B. These sessions
would be in a comfortable room well arranged, acoustically treated, etc.
The subjects would of course know what equipment is being played, they
would be comfortable, they would be able to listen together with a
girl/boy freind, examine the equipment, drink, even eat a snack or two
during these sessions. And they would of course get paid for their time.

At the end of each session they get a sheet of multiple choice questions
designed to help them to characterize the sound they've heard. The
characterization of consensus by the overall majority would either
validate or invalidate the manufacturers', audiophools, etc, claims that:

a) Their equipment, brand A, sounds in a given way
b) The rival equipment, brand B, has a totaly different, non-desirable
type of a sound ass compared to brand A



Note that this proposal does not involve gauging out the eyes, stripping
one of knowledge, transforming an act of pleasure seeking into a puzzle
solving, guns being pointed to the head (tom nousiannes suggestion to
bring out the honesty and sharpen the sense of a subject being tested!)
or some such revenge being taken or punishment inflicted to these
over-indulgent, rich hedonists of audiophoolery. So in this context it
should be totally irrelevant, useless, valueless, bad, foolish, you name it.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:04:11 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On 13 Jan 2006 11:29:49 -0800, "andy" wrote:



I repeat. Sighted tests are valueless.


How about this proposal then?

Let's assume that a given "brand A" cd player, amp, cable, whatever is
said to have a given type of a sound in a given system. In the same
system, a given piece of brand B alternate equipment is said to have
quite the opposite style of sound. This determination is done by us the
audiophools, the retail business sellers, ie, audio con men, or the
EEMHE (the evil equipment manufacturers of high end).

Now, we take 1000 people (this could be done in a university) and have
them listen to this same system for separate sessions in two different
days. One session for brand A, the other for brand B. These sessions
would be in a comfortable room well arranged, acoustically treated, etc.
The subjects would of course know what equipment is being played, they
would be comfortable, they would be able to listen together with a
girl/boy freind, examine the equipment, drink, even eat a snack or two
during these sessions. And they would of course get paid for their time.

At the end of each session they get a sheet of multiple choice questions
designed to help them to characterize the sound they've heard. The
characterization of consensus by the overall majority would either
validate or invalidate the manufacturers', audiophools, etc, claims that:

a) Their equipment, brand A, sounds in a given way
b) The rival equipment, brand B, has a totaly different, non-desirable
type of a sound ass compared to brand A



Note that this proposal does not involve gauging out the eyes, stripping
one of knowledge, transforming an act of pleasure seeking into a puzzle
solving, guns being pointed to the head (tom nousiannes suggestion to
bring out the honesty and sharpen the sense of a subject being tested!)
or some such revenge being taken or punishment inflicted to these
over-indulgent, rich hedonists of audiophoolery. So in this context it
should be totally irrelevant, useless, valueless, bad, foolish, you name it.

Fine as an experiment - but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address, which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it. I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:



Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
combinations, schemes imaginable.

There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
DBT/ABX ritual.

which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
tell you anything?

Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?


And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.

You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?


I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
arrangements" privately via email the last time around...


d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:



Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
combinations, schemes imaginable.

No they don't. Visual senses help us in assessing an overall
situation, but don't be fooled into thinking they aid in putting
together sound information. Visual/optical illusions are very common.

There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
DBT/ABX ritual.

which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
tell you anything?

If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
them who claimed to hear a difference between cables. *THEY* are the
ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.
It would be a waste of time testing them.

More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,
because they simply should not be there. That is why they are the ones
who should be tested. It is simply interesting.

Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?


And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.

You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?


Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart.

As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
then say whether they think it sounds nice or not. If they care to let
it stress them, that is of course their choice. Would you find such a
thing stressful?


I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
arrangements" privately via email the last time around...


Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.

As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
arrangements for this should be kept public. The whole thing started
in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.

I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
when I have.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:



Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!



- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
combinations, schemes imaginable.


No they don't.

Yes they do.

Visual/optical illusions are very common.

So?



There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
DBT/ABX ritual.


which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
tell you anything?


If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
them who claimed to hear a difference between cables.

How do you know that? "Perhaps"?

*THEY* are the
ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.

It is NOT the people that are in question here, it is the cables, and
whether or not they indeed to sound in a given way. You have this all
topsy turvy upside down.

It would be a waste of time testing them.

So says you.


More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,

here you go again with this "night and day claims" anger. Audiophools
will be audiophools, just get over it. No need to be so angry and vengefull.


because they simply should not be there.

You get to have a "scientific" view on these things, yes, but would you
trust your measuring equipment more then the claims of hearing this or
that coming from 1000, or even 10000 people?

What are measuring equipment measuring? What you and I hear? Or is our
ability hear measured separately? Is *everything*, including
consciousness, àble to be measured, fully?

That is why they are the ones
who should be tested.

Why not try adress the problem from a different angle? Why go at the
audiophools dagger and chain?

It is simply interesting.

Finally, we agree on something.



Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?


And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.

You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?



Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart.

BRAVO!! You completely by pass the coercion bit. You COMPLETELY by-pass
the ""converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving"
bit.. Your vengefull attitude of "put your money where your mouth is !
Prove it!" is a GIVEN, your GOD given RIGHT... The issue now is how much
of a fair, nice, senile old man is stewart pinkerton.


As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
then say whether they think it sounds nice or not.

You are doing nothing of the sort. You are asking "which is which",
nothing about "sounds nice"..

Hmmm.. Debating trade sneeking in here.

If they care to let
it stress them, that is of course their choice.

Oh my goodt two shoes, how nice.

Would you find such a
thing stressful?

Listening to music? No.



I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
arrangements" privately via email the last time around...



Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.

Those terms are not directed at you.


As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
arrangements for this should be kept public.

Sure, when, approximately where (as in CITY), etc, why not..

The whole thing started
in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.

The results of which? Sure, why not.


I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
when I have.

Ok, both here and to the mail address let me know. But any arrangements
as to where in particular we meet, and when in particular, and go on
from there, are strictly private.


d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:21:24 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:



Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!



- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
combinations, schemes imaginable.


No they don't.

Yes they do.

Visual/optical illusions are very common.

So?

Do you not see the connection here?



There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
DBT/ABX ritual.


which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
tell you anything?


If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
them who claimed to hear a difference between cables.

How do you know that? "Perhaps"?

It is my estimate, based on all sorts of things. Where did you get
your 850 out of a thousand figure? Mine would seem far more
reasonable.

*THEY* are the
ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.

It is NOT the people that are in question here, it is the cables, and
whether or not they indeed to sound in a given way. You have this all
topsy turvy upside down.

It would be a waste of time testing them.

So says you.


OK - I'll buy it. What do you think would be gained by taking a group
of people who could not hear a difference between two cables sighted,
and asking them to identify them unsighted?


More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,

here you go again with this "night and day claims" anger. Audiophools
will be audiophools, just get over it. No need to be so angry and vengefull.


I don't do anger - it is not in my personality. You, on the other
hand, are appearing moderately distressed here and elsewhere ion the
thread.


because they simply should not be there.

You get to have a "scientific" view on these things, yes, but would you
trust your measuring equipment more then the claims of hearing this or
that coming from 1000, or even 10000 people?

Absolutely - every time.

What are measuring equipment measuring? What you and I hear? Or is our
ability hear measured separately? Is *everything*, including
consciousness, àble to be measured, fully?


You are getting a little fanciful here. I believe, on the evidence to
date, that I can measure everything that has any bearing on the sound
from a cable. There are those who assert otherwise, but refuse to
supply proof. Addressing that issue is what this whole thread is
about.

That is why they are the ones
who should be tested.

Why not try adress the problem from a different angle? Why go at the
audiophools dagger and chain?

It is simply interesting.

Finally, we agree on something.



Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?


And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.

You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?



Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart.

BRAVO!! You completely by pass the coercion bit. You COMPLETELY by-pass
the ""converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving"
bit.. Your vengefull attitude of "put your money where your mouth is !
Prove it!" is a GIVEN, your GOD given RIGHT... The issue now is how much
of a fair, nice, senile old man is stewart pinkerton.


Please try and calm down. There is nothing to be gained by either of
us from this kind of post.


As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
then say whether they think it sounds nice or not.

You are doing nothing of the sort. You are asking "which is which",
nothing about "sounds nice"..

Hmmm.. Debating trade sneeking in here.

Look - this is how it is. Somebody says "This cable sounds nice, that
one doesn't". So in the test the question at each trial will be "does
it sound nice, or not". If it sounds nice, write "Cable A", if it does
not, write "Cable B". So you see, it really is a question of whether
it sounds nice or not.

That is another reason why you shouldn't test people who have not
expressed a preference - the question does not resolve to whether the
music sounds nice.

If they care to let
it stress them, that is of course their choice.

Oh my goodt two shoes, how nice.

Would you find such a
thing stressful?

Listening to music? No.

And writing down whether you thought it was nice or not - would that
stress you?



I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
arrangements" privately via email the last time around...



Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.

Those terms are not directed at you.

I don't care who they are directed at, I don't need to encounter them
in conversations I am participating in.


As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
arrangements for this should be kept public.

Sure, when, approximately where (as in CITY), etc, why not..

The whole thing started
in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.

The results of which? Sure, why not.


I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
when I have.

Ok, both here and to the mail address let me know. But any arrangements
as to where in particular we meet, and when in particular, and go on
from there, are strictly private.

Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
know that they should keep alert for the results.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:



Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
combinations, schemes imaginable.

No they don't. Visual senses help us in assessing an overall
situation, but don't be fooled into thinking they aid in putting
together sound information. Visual/optical illusions are very common.

There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
DBT/ABX ritual.

which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
tell you anything?

If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
them who claimed to hear a difference between cables. *THEY* are the
ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.
It would be a waste of time testing them.

More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,
because they simply should not be there. That is why they are the ones
who should be tested. It is simply interesting.

Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?


And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.

You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?


Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart.

As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
then say whether they think it sounds nice or not. If they care to let
it stress them, that is of course their choice. Would you find such a
thing stressful?


I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
arrangements" privately via email the last time around...


Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.

As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
arrangements for this should be kept public. The whole thing started
in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.

I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
when I have.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr Pearce says to Forwarder:

"Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart"

I understand that Pinkerton called Forwarder a "dickhead" before he got
a response in kind. This is par for the course for this self-announced
scion of Scottish aristocracy who used to sign himself Lord Pinkerton
of something or other..
An example of Pinkerton's debating style:
Sept1 2005 "Stereophile and cable theory"
I said:
"No, he simply *did not do it* when comparing level-matched or similar
gauge, especially with your preferred music signal.
Pinkerton:
"Thank you for confirming that you are a lying sack of ****."
2) I continued: " All the panelists did well comparing
uneven diameter cables when pink noise was played to them. The scores
were much worse when music was used as a signal and became awful when
similar diameters were used. Oddly I'm interested in music not pink
noise.
Pinkerton answers:
"Thank you for confirming that you are a lying sack of ****. "
3) " I understand that 16 Gauge vs. 24
gauge over 50" means 1,70db volume difference. Six out of eleven
panelists failed to hear this difference in 5 (out of fifteen) tries
or more. I have, with my elderly ears, no difficulty hearing 1db volume
difference between the two speakers when my stepped volume control is
moved without my knowledge- but of course I'm not ABXing".
Ludovic Mirabel
Pinkerton answers:
Thank you for confirming that you are a lying sack of ****."

I did not respond. I didn't know how.
I think Forwarder should be congratulated for answering in kind and in
spades. It worked . Pinkerton shut up and the RAO air cleared just a
little bit.
Moderate IQ level and aggressive sociopathic behaviour are not mutually
exclusive. Plenty of examples in recent history.
Ludovic Mirabel

..

On 2006-01-16, Forwarder wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!

- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference; while Don's determines
an individual ability to detect a difference. These are completely
different matters and not at all equivalent, so you can't substitute
one test for the other and expect the same answer.

If Don and Forwarder place different personal values on the two different
answers that's OK but they are certainly different. The issue of the
personal value of the answer to a test seems to be at the centre of
this "discussion" but it seems to be conducted through argument about
other issues.

--
John Phillips

John Phillips wrote:

On 2006-01-16, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??


The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference;

You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
be drawn about the validity of ABX here.

while Don's determines
an individual ability to detect a difference.

Yes, thank you, Don's test puts the *testee*, the *subject* the *victim*
to the test, in the end. It is also a test for the subject to (not) see
(but hear) past the stressfull situation.

Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!

These are completely
different matters and not at all equivalent, so you can't substitute
one test for the other and expect the same answer.

My test tests the tests.. That is, it tries to answer the question
whether or not ABX/DBT is applicable to the phenomenon of
"audiophoolery" ...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:02:43 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

John Phillips wrote:

On 2006-01-16, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??


The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference;

You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
be drawn about the validity of ABX here.


Why would you draw such a conclusion? There is no evidence in this
test to support it. Do you believe that spiders become deaf when their
legs are pulled off?

while Don's determines
an individual ability to detect a difference.

Yes, thank you, Don's test puts the *testee*, the *subject* the *victim*
to the test, in the end. It is also a test for the subject to (not) see
(but hear) past the stressfull situation.

How do you have a test where the testee is *not* put to the test? I
would be interested to see one.

Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!

Is this how you believe I might conduct such a test? Remember I would
not even be in the room - you listen relaxing in your comfy chair,
then write down your answer when you are good and ready. Nothing could
be further from "tell me, bitch!".

These are completely
different matters and not at all equivalent, so you can't substitute
one test for the other and expect the same answer.

My test tests the tests.. That is, it tries to answer the question
whether or not ABX/DBT is applicable to the phenomenon of
"audiophoolery" ...

No, your test fails to test the test, because your conclusion depends
on a begged question - namely that if the result shows no difference,
the test must be at fault. That would be thrown out in the first
minute of any peer review.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:04:11 +0200, Forwarder wrote:
whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it. I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.



I didn't know sheeps weighed that much.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:14:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:04:11 +0200, Forwarder wrote:
whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it. I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.



I didn't know sheeps weighed that much.

?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

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


and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.


I didn't know sheeps weighed that much.




?


LoL !




d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

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?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com