[Arny Krueger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Ascertaining high fidelity: double-blind tests
Double-blind testing has been required in the approval of new medicines
since about 1960. Although single-blind testing of loudspeakers had been
used for a number of years by Floyd E. Toole at the National Research
Council of Canada, the double-blind audio listening test of amplifiers was
first described in the United States by Daniel J. Shanefield in November of
1974 in the newsletter of the Boston Audio Society. This was later reported
to the general public in High Fidelity magazine, March 1980. The
double-blind listening comparison is now a standard procedure with almost
all audio professionals respected in their field. For marketing purposes, a
few manufacturers of very expensive audio equipment dispute the need for
this test. A commonly-used improvement of this test is the ABX-listening
comparison. This involves comparing two known audio sources (A and B) with
either one of these when it has been randomly selected (X). The test and its
associated equipment was developed by the Southeastern Michigan Woofer and
Tweeter Marching Society (SMWTMS)--a semi-professional organization in
Detroit that is very active in the double-blind testing of new audio
components. An alternative view is that such testing is stressful, and
perhaps because of this, is unable to distinguish the fine subtleties of top
equipment; that only long-term listening will allow one to get to grips with
its true sound -- furthermore that proponents of double-blind testing have
an agenda to discredit that such subtle differences exist, that they are
purely self-delusionary and victims of advertising hype. However, there is
still another level of argument that maintains that all serious listening
comparisons can be stressful. Also, listeners who paid an unusually large
price for playback equipment might have a subconscious tendency to favor it.
Therefore most professional audio testing uses double-blind comparisons.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Ascertaining high fidelity: double-blind tests
Double-blind testing has been required in the approval of new medicines
since about 1960. Although single-blind testing of loudspeakers had been
used for a number of years by Floyd E. Toole at the National Research
Council of Canada, the double-blind audio listening test of amplifiers was
first described in the United States by Daniel J. Shanefield in November
of 1974 in the newsletter of the Boston Audio Society. This was later
reported to the general public in High Fidelity magazine, March 1980. The
double-blind listening comparison is now a standard procedure with almost
all audio professionals respected in their field. For marketing purposes,
a few manufacturers of very expensive audio equipment dispute the need for
this test. A commonly-used improvement of this test is the ABX-listening
comparison. This involves comparing two known audio sources (A and B) with
either one of these when it has been randomly selected (X). The test and
its associated equipment was developed by the Southeastern Michigan Woofer
and Tweeter Marching Society (SMWTMS)--a semi-professional organization in
Detroit that is very active in the double-blind testing of new audio
components. An alternative view is that such testing is stressful, and
perhaps because of this, is unable to distinguish the fine subtleties of
top equipment; that only long-term listening will allow one to get to
grips with its true sound -- furthermore that proponents of double-blind
testing have an agenda to discredit that such subtle differences exist,
that they are purely self-delusionary and victims of advertising hype.
However, there is still another level of argument that maintains that all
serious listening comparisons can be stressful. Also, listeners who paid
an unusually large price for playback equipment might have a subconscious
tendency to favor it. Therefore most professional audio testing uses
double-blind comparisons.





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

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity



Wikepedia entries are provided by readers.
So what? One of your SWMWTMS members wrote that.




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

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Ascertaining high fidelity: double-blind tests
Double-blind testing has been required in the approval of new medicines
since about 1960. Although single-blind testing of loudspeakers had been
used for a number of years by Floyd E. Toole at the National Research
Council of Canada, the double-blind audio listening test of amplifiers was
first described in the United States by Daniel J. Shanefield in November of
1974 in the newsletter of the Boston Audio Society. This was later reported
to the general public in High Fidelity magazine, March 1980. The
double-blind listening comparison is now a standard procedure with almost
all audio professionals respected in their field. For marketing purposes, a
few manufacturers of very expensive audio equipment dispute the need for
this test. A commonly-used improvement of this test is the ABX-listening
comparison. This involves comparing two known audio sources (A and B) with
either one of these when it has been randomly selected (X). The test and its
associated equipment was developed by the Southeastern Michigan Woofer and
Tweeter Marching Society (SMWTMS)--a semi-professional organization in
Detroit that is very active in the double-blind testing of new audio
components. An alternative view is that such testing is stressful, and
perhaps because of this, is unable to distinguish the fine subtleties of top
equipment; that only long-term listening will allow one to get to grips with
its true sound -- furthermore that proponents of double-blind testing have
an agenda to discredit that such subtle differences exist, that they are
purely self-delusionary and victims of advertising hype. However, there is
still another level of argument that maintains that all serious listening
comparisons can be stressful. Also, listeners who paid an unusually large
price for playback equipment might have a subconscious tendency to favor it.
Therefore most professional audio testing uses double-blind comparisons.

Question 1:
Did you write this Wikipedia entry?
Would you like me to write a supplementary?
Question2:
Just to keep your mind focused
" When will we see that one reference to
a professional journal (Name, year,
authors, title, page) that accepted and published the
result of a listening audio component comparison with a
positive result: ie statistically significant conclusion:
"Yes, using the ABX (...and /or any other DBT method...)
most of the panel heard a difference"
Ludovic Mirabel

[paul packer]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:07:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

-- furthermore that proponents of double-blind testing have
an agenda to discredit that such subtle differences exist, that they are
purely self-delusionary and victims of advertising hype.

Can someone explain this sentence for me? It begins with "prononents
of double-blind testing" as the subject then adds "that they are
purely self-delusionary and victims of advertising hype." Surely this
latter refers to opponents (not proponents) of double-blind testing.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Ascertaining high fidelity: double-blind tests
Double-blind testing has been required in the approval
of new medicines since about 1960. Although single-blind
testing of loudspeakers had been used for a number of
years by Floyd E. Toole at the National Research Council
of Canada, the double-blind audio listening test of
amplifiers was first described in the United States by
Daniel J. Shanefield in November of 1974 in the
newsletter of the Boston Audio Society. This was later
reported to the general public in High Fidelity
magazine, March 1980. The double-blind listening
comparison is now a standard procedure with almost all
audio professionals respected in their field. For
marketing purposes, a few manufacturers of very
expensive audio equipment dispute the need for this
test. A commonly-used improvement of this test is the
ABX-listening comparison. This involves comparing two
known audio sources (A and B) with either one of these
when it has been randomly selected (X). The test and its
associated equipment was developed by the Southeastern
Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society (SMWTMS)--a
semi-professional organization in Detroit that is very
active in the double-blind testing of new audio
components. An alternative view is that such testing is
stressful, and perhaps because of this, is unable to
distinguish the fine subtleties of top equipment; that
only long-term listening will allow one to get to grips
with its true sound -- furthermore that proponents of
double-blind testing have an agenda to discredit that
such subtle differences exist, that they are purely
self-delusionary and victims of advertising hype.
However, there is still another level of argument that
maintains that all serious listening comparisons can be
stressful. Also, listeners who paid an unusually large
price for playback equipment might have a subconscious
tendency to favor it. Therefore most professional audio
testing uses double-blind comparisons.

Question 1:

Did you write this Wikipedia entry?

No, it took me completely by surprise. I found it while searching with
google.

Would you like me to write a supplementary?

If you think the Wikipedia article needs "correction", there's an open
process for "correcting" it.

I think you'll find the experience of trying to *correct* it *educational*.
;-)

Then there's the other approximately 196,000 items that google found when I
searched on "abx audio". They were almost all postive. Have fun
*correcting* them, if you will! ;-)

Question2:
Just to keep your mind focused

Ahh, its the self-righteous and self-centered obsessive-compulsive mind of
Mirabel in action:

" When will we see that one reference to
a professional journal (Name, year,
authors, title, page) that accepted and published the
result of a listening audio component comparison with a
positive result: ie statistically significant
conclusion: "Yes, using the ABX (...and /or any other
DBT method...) most of the panel heard a difference"

Asked and answered so many times, its presence at this time shows that
Mirabel is completely beyond any hope of rationality.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:07:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

-- furthermore that proponents of double-blind testing
have
an agenda to discredit that such subtle differences
exist, that they are purely self-delusionary and victims
of advertising hype.

Can someone explain this sentence for me?

Yeah, its an out-of-context quote, butchered by a person who the entire
quote fits to a tee:

"An alternative view is that such testing is stressful, and perhaps because
of this, is unable to distinguish the fine subtleties of top equipment; that
only long-term listening will allow one to get to grips with its true
sound -- furthermore that proponents of double-blind testing have an agenda
to discredit that such subtle differences exist, that they are purely
self-delusionary and victims of advertising hype."

It begins with
"prononents of double-blind testing"

Not in context, but of course Paul Packer can't see that. Paul first
carelessly butchers what he reads, and then he is mystified when the results
of his careless butchering don't make sense.

as the subject then
adds "that they are purely self-delusionary and victims
of advertising hype." Surely this latter refers to
opponents (not proponents) of double-blind testing.

No, the statement is reasonable in its way, when it's not butchered by Paul
Packer. See, above.

It refers to the amusing claim that DBT proponents are victims of hype by
mid-fi and mainstream audio manufactuers. The falsification of this claim
comes when expensive specialty equipment that just doesn't happen to be some
high end audiophile's flavor of the week, also passes DBTs. The
falsification is that DBTs benefit any competent manufacturer, mainstream,
specialty, large or small. So, hype is an independent and uncorrelated
variable. It's irrelevant.

[Sander deWaal]

" asked of Arny:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

snip

Question 1:
Did you write this Wikipedia entry?


Of course not!
Did you see words like "knowlege", "origionated", "LoT;'S!", or
emoticons like ";-) " somewhere in there?
Not to mention a barrage of apostrophes, and omitted commas.

--
"All amps sound alike, but some sound more alike than others".

[paul packer]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 06:50:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:07:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

-- furthermore that proponents of double-blind testing
have
an agenda to discredit that such subtle differences
exist, that they are purely self-delusionary and victims
of advertising hype.

Can someone explain this sentence for me?

Yeah, its an out-of-context quote, butchered by a person who the entire
quote fits to a tee:

"An alternative view is that such testing is stressful, and perhaps because
of this, is unable to distinguish the fine subtleties of top equipment; that
only long-term listening will allow one to get to grips with its true
sound -- furthermore that proponents of double-blind testing have an agenda
to discredit that such subtle differences exist, that they are purely
self-delusionary and victims of advertising hype."

It begins with
"prononents of double-blind testing"

Not in context, but of course Paul Packer can't see that. Paul first
carelessly butchers what he reads, and then he is mystified when the results
of his careless butchering don't make sense.

as the subject then
adds "that they are purely self-delusionary and victims
of advertising hype." Surely this latter refers to
opponents (not proponents) of double-blind testing.

No, the statement is reasonable in its way, when it's not butchered by Paul
Packer. See, above.

It refers to the amusing claim that DBT proponents are victims of hype by
mid-fi and mainstream audio manufactuers.

Never heard of such a claim. And what form would such advertising hype
take anyway? That all mid-fi sounds the same? More likely they'd be
saying that their mid-fi sounds better than everyone else's. No, I
suggest the whole thing is badly written and you're attempting to
excuse it because you happen to support the writer's ideological
position.


Incidentally, shouldn't this sentence be: " furthermore that
proponents of double-blind testing have an agenda
to discredit (the idea) that such subtle differences exist"?

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 06:50:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:07:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

-- furthermore that proponents of double-blind testing
have
an agenda to discredit that such subtle differences
exist, that they are purely self-delusionary and
victims of advertising hype.

Can someone explain this sentence for me?

Yeah, its an out-of-context quote, butchered by a person
who the entire quote fits to a tee:

"An alternative view is that such testing is stressful,
and perhaps because of this, is unable to distinguish
the fine subtleties of top equipment; that only
long-term listening will allow one to get to grips with
its true
sound -- furthermore that proponents of double-blind
testing have an agenda to discredit that such subtle
differences exist, that they are purely self-delusionary
and victims of advertising hype."

It begins with
"prononents of double-blind testing"

Not in context, but of course Paul Packer can't see
that. Paul first carelessly butchers what he reads, and
then he is mystified when the results of his careless
butchering don't make sense.

as the subject then
adds "that they are purely self-delusionary and victims
of advertising hype." Surely this latter refers to
opponents (not proponents) of double-blind testing.

No, the statement is reasonable in its way, when it's
not butchered by Paul Packer. See, above.

It refers to the amusing claim that DBT proponents are
victims of hype by mid-fi and mainstream audio
manufactuers.

Never heard of such a claim.

Listen up Paul, since the claims were posted on RAO you'd read them, not
hear them.

And what form would such
advertising hype take anyway? That all mid-fi sounds the
same? More likely they'd be saying that their mid-fi
sounds better than everyone else's.

There's at least one other possibility Paul. Let's see if you can get it on
your second chance.

No, I suggest the
whole thing is badly written and you're attempting to
excuse it because you happen to support the writer's
ideological position.

Likely as not, it was written by someone of the golden eared persuasion.


Incidentally, shouldn't this sentence be: " furthermore that
proponents of double-blind testing have an agenda
to discredit (the idea) that such subtle differences exist"?

We don't need an agenda Paul, since the relevant facts already support that
viewpoint.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Ascertaining high fidelity: double-blind tests
Double-blind testing has been required in the approval
of new medicines since about 1960. Although single-blind
testing of loudspeakers had been used for a number of
years by Floyd E. Toole at the National Research Council
of Canada, the double-blind audio listening test of
amplifiers was first described in the United States by
Daniel J. Shanefield in November of 1974 in the
newsletter of the Boston Audio Society. This was later
reported to the general public in High Fidelity
magazine, March 1980. The double-blind listening
comparison is now a standard procedure with almost all
audio professionals respected in their field. For
marketing purposes, a few manufacturers of very
expensive audio equipment dispute the need for this
test. A commonly-used improvement of this test is the
ABX-listening comparison. This involves comparing two
known audio sources (A and B) with either one of these
when it has been randomly selected (X). The test and its
associated equipment was developed by the Southeastern
Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society (SMWTMS)--a
semi-professional organization in Detroit that is very
active in the double-blind testing of new audio
components. An alternative view is that such testing is
stressful, and perhaps because of this, is unable to
distinguish the fine subtleties of top equipment; that
only long-term listening will allow one to get to grips
with its true sound -- furthermore that proponents of
double-blind testing have an agenda to discredit that
such subtle differences exist, that they are purely
self-delusionary and victims of advertising hype.
However, there is still another level of argument that
maintains that all serious listening comparisons can be
stressful. Also, listeners who paid an unusually large
price for playback equipment might have a subconscious
tendency to favor it. Therefore most professional audio
testing uses double-blind comparisons.

Question 1:

Did you write this Wikipedia entry?

No, it took me completely by surprise. I found it while searching with
google.

Would you like me to write a supplementary?

If you think the Wikipedia article needs "correction", there's an open
process for "correcting" it.

I think you'll find the experience of trying to *correct* it *educational*.
;-)

Then there's the other approximately 196,000 items that google found when I
searched on "abx audio". They were almost all postive. Have fun
*correcting* them, if you will! ;-)

Question2:
Just to keep your mind focused

Ahh, its the self-righteous and self-centered obsessive-compulsive mind of
Mirabel in action:

" When will we see that one reference to
a professional journal (Name, year,
authors, title, page) that accepted and published the
result of a listening audio component comparison with a
positive result: ie statistically significant
conclusion: "Yes, using the ABX (...and /or any other
DBT method...) most of the panel heard a difference"

Asked and answered so many times, its presence at this time shows that
Mirabel is completely beyond any hope of rationality.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

First question:
When will we see that one reference to
a professional journal (NAME,YEAR,AUTHOR(S),TITLE. PAGE)
that accepted and published the
result of a listening audio component comparison with a
positive result: ie statistically significant
conclusion: "Yes, using the ABX (...and /or any other
DBT method...) most of the panel heard a difference"

The not- so- artful dodger "responds":
Asked and answered so many times, its presence at this time shows that
Mirabel is completely beyond any hope of rationality

Next question:
Answered where and when: NAME,YEAR,AUTHOR(S),TITLE. PAGE.
One single reference will suffice. Don't bother with "so many times..."

Waiting for act three. It is fun watching you.
Ludovic Mirabel