Don, you've kept your upper lip brilliantly stiff during the barrage of
malformed spitballs from "Eddie" and, of course, my own attempts to
lampoon your anti-consumer posturing. My question: What do you hope to
gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Don, you've kept your upper lip brilliantly stiff during the barrage of
malformed spitballs from "Eddie" and, of course, my own attempts to
lampoon your anti-consumer posturing. My question: What do you hope to
gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

Don already made a valid point quite convincingly. That point he made is
that when you're dealing with audio true believers, there is no such thing
as a simple logical experience that will change their thinking one iota.

George M. Middius wrote:

Don, you've kept your upper lip brilliantly stiff during the barrage of
malformed spitballs from "Eddie" and, of course, my own attempts to
lampoon your anti-consumer posturing.

Pro-consumer.

My question: What do you hope to
gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

Incidentally, quotation marks for _test_ should be
removed.

--124

"124" wrote

My question: What do you hope to
gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

How is reality validated when the end result is
null testing? What new model have we found for
prediction? Answer: None.

"one's ego"... you really don't understand
consumer behavior.

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"124" wrote

My question: What do you hope to
gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

How is reality validated when the end result is
null testing? What new model have we found for
prediction? Answer: None.

"one's ego"... you really don't understand
consumer behavior.



Should the informations that reveals some advertised upgrades are not real,
be hidden?
Is it not OK to at least provide that information and then let them decide
what course they may want to pursue?

Seems like useful information for some people. There will always be people
who will refuse to beleive that their eyes can fool their ears, but for the
rest let them have any and all useful information.

wrote

A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

How is reality validated when the end result is
null testing? What new model have we found for
prediction? Answer: None.

"one's ego"... you really don't understand
consumer behavior.

Should the informations that reveals some
advertised upgrades are not real, be hidden?

While to much information can lead one to make
the wrong choice, in general more information is
better than none. And statistical information is
good when it’s worth believing.


Is it not OK to at least provide that information and
then let them decide what course they may want
to pursue?

Who should provide the information? All information
is tainted in one way or another. And in a way the
source you pick to provide the information will almost
certainly be based on your own personal
(non-science/cognitive/emotional) belief system.

In your own life experiences with audio equipment
do you place information (specifications) over your
actual empirical experiences? For example you
read a good review and audition the unit in you
home setup. Do you struggle to conform the
information into you experience or is the experience
(auditioning) a higher form of reality?

Do you have pride-of-ownership in anything audio
that you own? How does that manifest itself?


Seems like useful information for some people. There
will always be people who will refuse to beleive that their
eyes can fool their ears, but for the rest let them have
any and all useful information.

What's better than having choices? But you seem
to want censorship to your way of thinking because
you know what is best for everyone else.

You are missing the point. Hardly anyone purchasers
audio equipment based on specifications alone. It just
doesn't happen unless the purchase is an appliance/utility.
No pride of ownership is demonstrated in this behavior.
That is to say that the emotional component is also
necessary.

Here's what consumers are most interested in
when they make a purchase. Note that there is
no single reason and emotional components are
at play. And like shopping for cars if your
spouse is a party to the purchase no other
aspect/factor is more significant than their
approval (nontechnical factor).

Factors Considered Most Important When Purchasing
Hi'-Fi Equipment*:

Sound quality 97.5%
Price 77.0%
Quality of construction 74.2%
Reputation of manufacturer 70.5%
Reviews 59.6%
Design 49.7%
Appearance 33.1%
Reputation of dealer/supplier 30.4%
Brand 29.7%
Warranty 29.3%
Service 25.0%
Dealer recommendations 23.4%
Advice of friends 17.2%
Ease of operation 13.7%
Advertising 6.1%
Ease of installation 5.3%

* Stereophile paid survey.

"Powell" wrote in message
...

wrote

A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

How is reality validated when the end result is
null testing? What new model have we found for
prediction? Answer: None.

"one's ego"... you really don't understand
consumer behavior.

Should the informations that reveals some
advertised upgrades are not real, be hidden?

While to much information can lead one to make
the wrong choice, in general more information is
better than none. And statistical information is
good when it's worth believing.


Is it not OK to at least provide that information and
then let them decide what course they may want
to pursue?

Who should provide the information? All information
is tainted in one way or another.

A DBT is not tainted except by foolish people who dislike the truth of what
they reveal.
Relevant measurements done accurately are not tainted, they simply are what
they are.

And in a way the
source you pick to provide the information will almost
certainly be based on your own personal
(non-science/cognitive/emotional) belief system.

The personal taste in music is certainly a factor, but there are plenty of
known choices for evaluation that can be used for people who rely on them.

In your own life experiences with audio equipment
do you place information (specifications) over your
actual empirical experiences?

I use actual bench tests to evaluate what I buy. If you know what is
important in measurements, then you really can go without an audition. I
tend to perfer to hear the stuff I buy with my own speakers, but that's not
all that difficult since they are easy enough to carry around when I need
to.


For example you
read a good review and audition the unit in you
home setup. Do you struggle to conform the
information into you experience or is the experience
(auditioning) a higher form of reality?

I don't struggle at all, I find out how they perform on the test bench and
decide from that.

Do you have pride-of-ownership in anything audio
that you own? How does that manifest itself?

I take pride in the fact that whatever I own performs the way it is supposed
to, IOW without any sonic signature of its own, speakers excluded of course.
I don't look for things that have status attached to them, but I don't shy
away from well respected stuff either. I'm concerned with performance
first, features second and looks last.

Seems like useful information for some people. There
will always be people who will refuse to beleive that their
eyes can fool their ears, but for the rest let them have
any and all useful information.

What's better than having choices? But you seem
to want censorship to your way of thinking because
you know what is best for everyone else.

Nonsense, I want no such thing. I want honest reporting by the mags and I'd
like to have everything compared to some known reference in a DBT, although
I personally have no need for them, I think people who do rely on reviews
should have the most honest, and relevant ones possible. I'd like to see
more stuff from the pro sound market included in reviews aimed at commercial
buyers, since I think they are missing out on a lot of truly great deals.

You are missing the point. Hardly anyone purchasers
audio equipment based on specifications alone.

If they had all the relevant ones that were done accurately, it would be
possible to do exactly that.

It just
doesn't happen unless the purchase is an appliance/utility.
No pride of ownership is demonstrated in this behavior.
That is to say that the emotional component is also
necessary.

Not for me. The electronics are in a cabinet that are far enough away form
the listening position that they may as wll be invisible. The only thing
that is a source of pride is speakers and not just the fact that I built my
own, but the fact that they tend to represent some sort of form follows
function aspects,a nd that can lead to some very attractive looking designs.
such as with Avalon.

The only other emotional component is from the playing of the music.

Here's what consumers are most interested in
when they make a purchase. Note that there is
no single reason and emotional components are
at play. And like shopping for cars if your
spouse is a party to the purchase no other
aspect/factor is more significant than their
approval (nontechnical factor).

Factors Considered Most Important When Purchasing
Hi'-Fi Equipment*:

Sound quality 97.5%
That makes perfect sense.

Price 77.0%
An obvious factor for many people.

Quality of construction 74.2%
I might put that higher than price, but not neccessarilly.


Reputation of manufacturer 70.5%
Insofar as one should know if the company has a good customer service
department.


Reviews 59.6%
If from someplace like SP where their reviews are worthless asided from the
measurements, that makes sense as well.


Design 49.7%
Appearance 33.1%
Reputation of dealer/supplier 30.4%
Brand 29.7%
Warranty 29.3%
Service 25.0%
Dealer recommendations 23.4%
Advice of friends 17.2%
Ease of operation 13.7%
Advertising 6.1%
Ease of installation 5.3%

* Stereophile paid survey.


I think if more people knew what a DBT would show about audibilty, more
people would likely insist on them. Unfortunately, DBT has been maligned
for so long by the people they would harm, that only one source does them
AFAIK, and that's TAC.

Powell said:

My question: What do you hope to
gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

"one's ego"... you really don't understand
consumer behavior.

4 of 12 has no opportunity to be a consumer. Like all 'borgs, he's
perpetually broke.

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"124" wrote

My question: What do you hope to
gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

How is reality validated when the end result is
null testing?

Null results validate theories that predict null results and invalidate
theories that predict positive results. A well-known example from the
history of science would be the scientific tests that were used to look for
the "Ether Wind".

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Powell" wrote in message
...

"124" wrote

My question: What do you hope to
gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

How is reality validated when the end result is
null testing?

Null results validate theories that predict null results and invalidate
theories that predict positive results. A well-known example from the
history of science would be the scientific tests that were used to look for
the "Ether Wind".

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html

Dear Arny never mind "history". Just give a reference (Title,
author(s), journal, year, volume, Nr,, page(s)) .to one single
moderated , statistically valid, comparison of comparable audio
components by a sizable representative panel.
Elsewhere you pleaded inability to buy, borrow, rent an SET amp for
comparison. That was just my attempt to make it easy for you to show
that your test does ever, ever show up differences (not just the null-
"it all sounds the same" results). Please pick the comparisons YOU
like: loudspeakers, cartridges, whatever. Something must sound
different from something else in audio yes, no?
Sorry it has to be a *reference*- like in your profession's journal
JAES at the end of every article. Not proclamations of faith by your
clown-prince- you know who- but *evidence* that your test WORKS..
Four decades have gone by and we're still waiting.
Sorry to be repetitive but what I'm asking for is elementary science. I
rub my eyes to see that this argument meanders perennially in circles
instead of staying with the simple, basic essentials. I think that
quite a few of your "subjectivist" opponents enjoy playing your games
and would not end give them up just for the boring, prosaic scientific
facts.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Powell" wrote in message
...

"124" wrote

My question: What do you hope to
gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

How is reality validated when the end result is
null testing?

Null results validate theories that predict null results and invalidate
theories that predict positive results. A well-known example from the
history of science would be the scientific tests that were used to look
for
the "Ether Wind".

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html

Dear Arny never mind "history".

What, and be like you Mirabel and continue to make the same stupid mistakes
again and again?

No!

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Powell" wrote in message
...

"124" wrote

My question: What do you hope to
gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

How is reality validated when the end result is
null testing?

Null results validate theories that predict null results and invalidate
theories that predict positive results. A well-known example from the
history of science would be the scientific tests that were used to look
for
the "Ether Wind".

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html

Dear Arny never mind "history". Just give a reference (Title,
author(s), journal, year, volume, Nr,, page(s)) .to one single
moderated , statistically valid, comparison of comparable audio
components by a sizable representative panel.

Why do you insist on a panel? Do you not think that no difference or
differnce is not going to be pretty much the same for everybody? And even
if it's not, it's still a personal decision on what one chooses to buy, so a
DBT would only apply to that person.

Elsewhere you pleaded inability to buy, borrow, rent an SET amp for
comparison.

When did he say that? I've only seen him say he didn't want to be
responsible for coming up with one.

That was just my attempt to make it easy for you to show
that your test does ever, ever show up differences (not just the null-
"it all sounds the same" results).

Yo just can't stop lying, can you?

Please pick the comparisons YOU
like: loudspeakers, cartridges, whatever. Something must sound
different from something else in audio yes, no?

And there are examples of such at the ABX web site

Sorry it has to be a *reference*- like in your profession's journal
JAES at the end of every article. Not proclamations of faith by your
clown-prince- you know who- but *evidence* that your test WORKS..

If it didn't work nobody would use it, but we know that they do, otherwise
there wouldn't be anyone manufacturing them.

Four decades have gone by and we're still waiting.

For decades, you've been ignoring the reality.

Sorry to be repetitive but what I'm asking for is elementary science.

Then why not do your own tests and show everybody.

I
rub my eyes to see that this argument meanders perennially in circles
instead of staying with the simple, basic essentials.

Only because you refuse to accept reality.

I think that
quite a few of your "subjectivist" opponents enjoy playing your games
and would not end give them up just for the boring, prosaic scientific
facts.

You seem to choose to ignore the scientific facts, in favor of endless
jabbering.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

How is reality validated when the end result is
null testing?

Null results validate theories that predict null results
and invalidate theories that predict positive results.
A well-known example from the history of science
would be the scientific tests that were used to look for
the "Ether Wind".

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html

Null does not appear anywhere in this document.

Physics theory is usually ahead of empirical findings.
Another way of saying imagination and art are more
insightful for explanations rather than just relying on
observations alone.

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote

A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

How is reality validated when the end result is
null testing?

Null results validate theories that predict null results
and invalidate theories that predict positive results.
A well-known example from the history of science
would be the scientific tests that were used to look for
the "Ether Wind".

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html

Null does not appear anywhere in this document.

But the following does:

"To the researchers surprise, any interference effects were not seen through
the telescope."

Now Powell, I suspect that any person of normal intelligence can see the
connection between the sbove sentence and the phrase "null results". With
all your superior intelligence, why can't you?