"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:aZM%b.69604$Xp.325274@attbi_s54...
*snip*


How about if the DBT panel was made up of *average audiophiles* like
those
used in the comparisons between audio components to prove there are no
differences - where the results are always null?
Regards,
Mike

It has long been my working assumption that the function of audiophilia was
to serve one's love for music. One begins with a love for music and the
desire to be surrounded by it, and then begins the search for the
reproduction equipment that can best serve that desire. Perhaps I'm
mistaken in attributing my own audiofile motives to the majority of "average
audiophiles", but I think not. Thus, I think you greatly underestimate the
ability of those same "average audiophiles" to distinguish between musical
performances under blind conditions. Any audiophile who can't perform such
a test would be well advised to spend their next several hundred
audio-earmarked dollars on music and not on equipment.

"Mkuller" wrote:
How about if the DBT panel was made up of *average audiophiles* like
those
used in the comparisons between audio components to prove there are no
differences - where the results are always null?


Bruce Abrams wrote:
It has long been my working assumption that the function of audiophilia was
to serve one's love for music. One begins with a love for music and the
desire to be surrounded by it, and then begins the search for the
reproduction equipment that can best serve that desire. Perhaps I'm
mistaken in attributing my own audiofile motives to the majority of "average
audiophiles", but I think not. Thus, I think you greatly underestimate the
ability of those same "average audiophiles" to distinguish between musical
performances under blind conditions. Any audiophile who can't perform such
a test would be well advised to spend their next several hundred
audio-earmarked dollars on music and not on equipment.


I am not *underestimating* the average audiophile's ability to recognize
artistic differences in performances. I beleive you are *overestimating* the
ability of your DBT to differentiate anything musical - perfomances or audio
component differences. After all, the test doesn't seem to be able to
differentiate amplifiers whose measurements are very different...
Regards,
Mike

"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:aZM%b.69604$Xp.325274@attbi_s54...
"Mkuller" wrote
To take this a step further - if the orchestral audition judges
were
to tape a
couple of the performances and put them to a panel DBT - I
suspect
the result
would be null - *no differences* between the two performances
(even
though we
know there are differences - like amplifiers that measure
differently.).


"normanstrong" wrote:
Whoa there. I'd hate to have to back that statement up. I'm quite
sure that orchestral audition judges can tell the difference
between 2
different performances of the same material with the greatest of
ease--at least if the material is familiar. They may not agree on
which performance is the best, but you can bet they can tell one
from
the other.


How about if the DBT panel was made up of *average audiophiles*
like those
used in the comparisons between audio components to prove there are
no
differences - where the results are always null?
Regards,
Mike

If you're presented with 2 different performances of the same piece of
music, almost anyone will be able to tell the difference blind. Yes,
even you.

Norm

wrote in message news:e4P_b.6984$AL.139593@attbi_s03...
Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system.

Prove it! There is NO evidence to prove that the senses are influenced
by 'knowledge'.

(Mkuller) wrote in message news:Qk60c.425940$xy6.2498641@attbi_s02...

I am not *underestimating* the average audiophile's ability to recognize
artistic differences in performances. I beleive you are *overestimating* the
ability of your DBT to differentiate anything musical - perfomances or audio
component differences. After all, the test doesn't seem to be able to
differentiate amplifiers whose measurements are very different...

If you severely reduce the resolution and sensitivity of the
test instruments to more closely approximate the basic resolution
and sensitivity of the auditory peripheral system, you'll find
that amplifiers measure remarkably alike.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
wrote in message news:e4P_b.6984$AL.139593@attbi_s03...
Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system.

Prove it! There is NO evidence to prove that the senses are influenced
by 'knowledge'.


I wonder what the authors of this reference book would make of that claim:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0849...23#reader-link

You can view the Table of Contents at Amazon.
Notice particularly the section headings of Chapter 4,
"Factors Influencing Sensory Verdicts'.
For somre reason, Mssrs. Meilgaard et al., who are on their third edition
of this book, PERSIST in including discussion
of such fictions as 'expectation bias' and 'mutual suggestion'.

And why do you suppose the esteemed authors of *this* well-regarded tome
on psychoacoustics, Drs. Zwicker and Fastl, discuss 'bias'
in the in the 'Methods and Procedures' section, so early on in the book?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

And why, pray tell, does this dictionary of psychological testing
contain an entry for the term 'blind study'?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books


Please, someone write to these authors and let them know it's all a
mistake. Michael Scarpitti says so.



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:42:20 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

wrote in message news:e4P_b.6984$AL.139593@attbi_s03...
Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system.

Prove it! There is NO evidence to prove that the senses are influenced
by 'knowledge'.

This is arrant nonsense. There is a *vast* slew of such evidence,
starting with the classic 'false sighted' test where nothing is
actually changed, but enthusiastic audiophiles duly report 'night and
day' differences when they *think* that a tube amp or magical cable
has been introduced.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:01:06 +0000, Michael Scarpitti wrote:

wrote in message news:IqsZb.23804$Xp.103599@attbi_s54...
To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

I can hear differences between cables.

I can hear differences between amps.

Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access. Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias. The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

When I conduct comparative tests, I always use extended in-the-dark
listening.
__________________________________________________ _____

Michael..

I hear differences between some cables..others sound
identical..some are "acceptable"..but, not so good. Some
sound better.

I hear differences between some amps...some sound about
the same...some sound "not so good". Some are better.

Now, having said that, I am aware that some participants
of this forum...long since committing themselves to a
basic "...all sound the same..there is no difference..."
mindset..will pile into this somewhat humorous fray.

They will be very adamant in knowing what "you" can
and can't hear! The humor of that stance comes to
play when one can easily follow the logic that you
or I, nor anyone knows what another individual's
mental processes are doing to the interpretive
processes. This is unique to each individual.

Perhaps, we have a group that missed their calling...
..neuro-research..or some study of the myriad of
variables in the mental processes on the analysis of
input from external sources.

The Universe is so much "neater" when one knows
what others are experiencing..and can tell them so
with an adamancy all rolled up in an agenda that
was committed to long ago! We are learning more
as the years go by. Our knowledge of the mental
processes is still in its infancy.

So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance
here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears
cable or amplifier differences..so be it!

If one prefers to see the logo on an amplifier..maybe,
shine a spotlite on it..and feels a comfort from that..
.... again "so be it". If less light makes thing better
for you..all is well with that! But, do be aware of these
agenda laden, strangely humorous types that know what you
need and how you intrepret things..Not so..this is
a strange mindset. Read these meanderings, with a
sense of humor and go about with your own decisions.

Only you will be listening to your system, day in and day out.
Not someone on a newsgroup with an arrogant agenda!
Trust your own sentiments and decisions.

Be happy, enjoy the music.

Leonard..

P.S. For those that disagree with these sentiments..

Go to Home Depot and check out the latest cheap
wire that might have come in. Also, Circuit City
has a great receiver (digital amp) sounds fine
with the volume level a 9 o'clock..missing
something on the low end..but, it is the epitomy
of the low end. A lot of receiver for $229.00.
It just seems to be missing something to my ears.

Purchase of these articles will help one confirm,
in their mind, that all sound the same. Be happy
living the "..all is the same agenda". I commend
you for this ability. You're happy...we're happy.
No one attacks you for having this wonderful
ability.

lcw999 wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:01:06 +0000, Michael Scarpitti wrote:

wrote in message news:IqsZb.23804$Xp.103599@attbi_s54...
To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

I can hear differences between cables.

I can hear differences between amps.

Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access. Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias. The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

When I conduct comparative tests, I always use extended in-the-dark
listening.
__________________________________________________ _____

Michael..

I hear differences between some cables..others sound
identical..some are "acceptable"..but, not so good. Some
sound better.

I hear differences between some amps...some sound about
the same...some sound "not so good". Some are better.

Now, having said that, I am aware that some participants
of this forum...long since committing themselves to a
basic "...all sound the same..there is no difference..."
mindset..will pile into this somewhat humorous fray.

They will be very adamant in knowing what "you" can
and can't hear! The humor of that stance comes to
play when one can easily follow the logic that you
or I, nor anyone knows what another individual's
mental processes are doing to the interpretive
processes. This is unique to each individual.

Perhaps, we have a group that missed their calling...
..neuro-research..or some study of the myriad of
variables in the mental processes on the analysis of
input from external sources.

The Universe is so much "neater" when one knows
what others are experiencing..and can tell them so
with an adamancy all rolled up in an agenda that
was committed to long ago! We are learning more
as the years go by. Our knowledge of the mental
processes is still in its infancy.

So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance
here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears
cable or amplifier differences..so be it!

If one prefers to see the logo on an amplifier..maybe,
shine a spotlite on it..and feels a comfort from that..
.... again "so be it". If less light makes thing better
for you..all is well with that! But, do be aware of these
agenda laden, strangely humorous types that know what you
need and how you intrepret things..Not so..this is
a strange mindset. Read these meanderings, with a
sense of humor and go about with your own decisions.

Only you will be listening to your system, day in and day out.
Not someone on a newsgroup with an arrogant agenda!
Trust your own sentiments and decisions.

Be happy, enjoy the music.

Leonard..

P.S. For those that disagree with these sentiments..

Go to Home Depot and check out the latest cheap
wire that might have come in. Also, Circuit City
has a great receiver (digital amp) sounds fine
with the volume level a 9 o'clock..missing
something on the low end..but, it is the epitomy
of the low end. A lot of receiver for $229.00.
It just seems to be missing something to my ears.

Purchase of these articles will help one confirm,
in their mind, that all sound the same. Be happy
living the "..all is the same agenda". I commend
you for this ability. You're happy...we're happy.
No one attacks you for having this wonderful
ability.


You seem to have totally missed the point here. No one is arguing that
Michael can hear those differences sighted. The argument is whether
those differences are still there, if he does not know what is being
played. Michael believes that there is no way that expectation bias can
lead to differences, despite the body of research that indicates that
indeed such biases exist and overwhelm subtle differences. Michael's
viewpoint is being challenged here, not his ability to hear or not hear
differences sighted.

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:18:11 +0000, chung wrote:

You seem to have totally missed the point here. No one is arguing that
Michael can hear those differences sighted. The argument is whether
those differences are still there, if he does not know what is being
played. Michael believes that there is no way that expectation bias can
lead to differences, despite the body of research that indicates that
indeed such biases exist and overwhelm subtle differences. Michael's
viewpoint is being challenged here, not his ability to hear or not hear
differences sighted.

The ability of knowledge and/or belief to influence how a person perceives
something is well established. For example, that is the reason that
placebos are used in the trials of new pharmaceuticals. Depending on what
is being tested, up to 40% of the people taking the placebo report
improvement in their medical condition (and also side effects.) This is
completely based on the =expectation= that the drug will make them better.
As such, the "real" drug under test must do significantly statistically
better than the fake one.

The same thing applies to auditioning audio equipment, whether amps,
speakers, cables or whatever. If you know which piece of equipment you are
listening to at any given moment, your knowledge and beliefs about that
item are going to influence your perception no matter how many times you
tell yourself otherwise.

That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing your beliefs to
enhance your enjoyment of music when using a particular item. Just don't
confuse that enjoyment with the results of a double-blind test under
carefully controlled conditions. They are two different animals.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Wheels wrote:

I am listening for the joy of listening to music. Part of that joy lies in
parts of the sound that is often lost in bad recordings and playback. none
of
it is ever completely captured even in the best recordings and playback.
You
may hear the inflections and other important aspects of a vocal performance
but
it is affected by the poor recording. It changes the affect of the
performance.
It changes the affect of the music as a whole. That is why the art of the
music
and the sound of the playback are inseperable.

This is only true for the tiny minority of music lovers in the world who are
audiophiles. The vast majority of music lovers do not find mediocre sound
reproduction to bother them in any way, or to detract from their
appreciation and enjoyment of music. For them, art and sound ARE quite
separable, and they care far more about the former. Perhaps they are the
lucky ones.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963

"normanstrong" wrote:


"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:aZM%b.69604$Xp.325274@attbi_s54...
"Mkuller" wrote
To take this a step further - if the orchestral audition judges
were
to tape a
couple of the performances and put them to a panel DBT - I
suspect
the result
would be null - *no differences* between the two performances
(even
though we
know there are differences - like amplifiers that measure
differently.).


"normanstrong" wrote:
Whoa there. I'd hate to have to back that statement up. I'm quite
sure that orchestral audition judges can tell the difference
between 2
different performances of the same material with the greatest of
ease--at least if the material is familiar. They may not agree on
which performance is the best, but you can bet they can tell one
from
the other.


How about if the DBT panel was made up of *average audiophiles*
like those
used in the comparisons between audio components to prove there are
no
differences - where the results are always null?
Regards,
Mike

If you're presented with 2 different performances of the same piece of
music, almost anyone will be able to tell the difference blind. Yes,
even you.

Norm

Straight up, Norm. I've three versions of Tom Waits "Old 55" in house right now
and they all sound different and they all sound great. Likewise with Leon
Russell's "Song For You." Often, like in these cases, the covers are better
interpretations of the orginals. Ray Charles "Song for You" beats out Leon and
especially Willie. Sara Maclachlan (sp?) is better that the Eagles which is
better than Waits. But I think that all of them are great.

"W. Oland" wrote in message ...


The ability of knowledge and/or belief to influence how a person perceives
something is well established. For example, that is the reason that
placebos are used in the trials of new pharmaceuticals. Depending on what
is being tested, up to 40% of the people taking the placebo report
improvement in their medical condition (and also side effects.) This is
completely based on the =expectation= that the drug will make them better.
As such, the "real" drug under test must do significantly statistically
better than the fake one.

It cannot make a Harmon-Kardon amp sound consistently(!) different
from a Hafler amp, especially when I have no idea how each is supposed
to sound. It cannot make five different amps sound different from each
other, and consistently so.


The same thing applies to auditioning audio equipment, whether amps,
speakers, cables or whatever. If you know which piece of equipment you are
listening to at any given moment, your knowledge and beliefs about that
item are going to influence your perception no matter how many times you
tell yourself otherwise.

I have said this before, and I am going to say it again, for the LAST
time:

I had NO beliefs about how these amps were supposed to sound. It was a
'blind' trial, in the sense that I had not listened to any of the amps
before bringing them home for listening tests.

Hafler
PS Audio
Harmon-Kardon
Bryston
Sony

They all sounded different.

How can my 'beliefs' affect my judgement, when I had no 'beliefs' to
start with?!

I listened with Stax electrostatic earspeakers connected directly to
the power amps. Perhaps your system is not as critical.

But DON'T tell me I cannot hear differences between amps this way.
Hellen Keller could hear them!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:Vzy0c.444501$na.1075235@attbi_s04...
*snip*
How can my 'beliefs' affect my judgement, when I had no 'beliefs' to
start with?!

Why do you continue to profess no beliefs when it is clear that you have an
extremely strong belief that amps sound different? It's not about which you
think you'll prefer, simply that you believe you will have a preference.

I listened with Stax electrostatic earspeakers connected directly to
the power amps. Perhaps your system is not as critical.

But DON'T tell me I cannot hear differences between amps this way.
Hellen Keller could hear them!

No one would presuppose to tell you what you did and didn't hear if you
simply allowed for the possibility that what you thought you heard might
have been influenced by what you thought, namely that you expected the amps
to sound different. In fact, if you were able to tell the difference
between any two of the amps in question without knowing which was playing,
you'd be quite a hero.

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:Vzy0c.444501$na.1075235@attbi_s04...
"W. Oland" wrote in message
...


The ability of knowledge and/or belief to influence how a person
perceives
something is well established. For example, that is the reason that
placebos are used in the trials of new pharmaceuticals. Depending on
what
is being tested, up to 40% of the people taking the placebo report
improvement in their medical condition (and also side effects.) This is
completely based on the =expectation= that the drug will make them
better.
As such, the "real" drug under test must do significantly statistically
better than the fake one.

It cannot make a Harmon-Kardon amp sound consistently(!) different
from a Hafler amp, especially when I have no idea how each is supposed
to sound. It cannot make five different amps sound different from each
other, and consistently so.


The same thing applies to auditioning audio equipment, whether amps,
speakers, cables or whatever. If you know which piece of equipment you
are
listening to at any given moment, your knowledge and beliefs about that
item are going to influence your perception no matter how many times you
tell yourself otherwise.

I have said this before, and I am going to say it again, for the LAST
time:

I had NO beliefs about how these amps were supposed to sound. It was a
'blind' trial, in the sense that I had not listened to any of the amps
before bringing them home for listening tests.

Hafler
PS Audio
Harmon-Kardon
Bryston
Sony

They all sounded different.

How can my 'beliefs' affect my judgement, when I had no 'beliefs' to
start with?!

I listened with Stax electrostatic earspeakers connected directly to
the power amps. Perhaps your system is not as critical.

But DON'T tell me I cannot hear differences between amps this way.
Hellen Keller could hear them!


Michael, I and others have described similar tests here under similar
conditions, and have always been told we are just imagining the differences
based on "expectation bias". Expectant of what they can't say.

Unfortunately, some of the members of this forum, while intellectually
understanding it, have a difficult time differentiating between "sight *may*
provide a bias that overrides true differences" with "sight *always*
overrides true differences and makes your comparison invalid". They should
know better, but they don't seem to be able to allow even the possibility
that there are real differences and that you might have heard them. So
don't get upset...it's a world view of theirs that you are not going to
change.

But you can ignore them and instead focus on other topics of interest here
on the forum.

(Mkuller) wrote:

.....snip to point.......


How about if the DBT panel was made up of *average audiophiles* like those
used in the comparisons between audio components to prove there are no
differences - where the results are always null?
Regards,
Mike


It's not true that results are geared to prove no differences and are "always"
null. Results become null when there are no acoustical differences to hear.

Indeed I've conducted experiments that were designed to maximize the
hypothesized 'differences' (SunShine/ Simpky Strereo Trials; "To Tweak ...or
Not?) and yet subjects were unable to validate an ability to hear 'pretty
amazing' differences when nothing more than the input terminals on speakers and
amplifiers were covered with an opague cloth.

"Bob Marcus" wrote:




Wheels wrote:

I am listening for the joy of listening to music. Part of that joy lies in
parts of the sound that is often lost in bad recordings and playback. none
of
it is ever completely captured even in the best recordings and playback.
You
may hear the inflections and other important aspects of a vocal performance
but
it is affected by the poor recording. It changes the affect of the
performance.
It changes the affect of the music as a whole. That is why the art of the
music
and the sound of the playback are inseperable.

This is only true for the tiny minority of music lovers in the world who are
audiophiles. The vast majority of music lovers do not find mediocre sound
reproduction to bother them in any way, or to detract from their
appreciation and enjoyment of music. For them, art and sound ARE quite
separable, and they care far more about the former. Perhaps they are the
lucky ones.

bob

In my case this is certainly true. I still have the 1941 AM Zenith table radio
I grew up with in the mid-50s listeing to R&B and Blues on WLAC radio from
Nashville, TN. While listening to reissue CDs I still don't get exactly the
same 'feeling' I had listening to "Earth Angel" or "In the Still of the Night"
or "I Only have Eyes for You" or "Since I Met You Baby" that had listening to
those performance on AM radio late at night trying to keep the volume down low
enough so my Mom would wake up and catch me.

That radio is still functioning but with music is practically unlistenable for
music "unless" those special tunes are being played.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
"W. Oland" wrote in message ...


The ability of knowledge and/or belief to influence how a person perceives
something is well established. For example, that is the reason that
placebos are used in the trials of new pharmaceuticals. Depending on what
is being tested, up to 40% of the people taking the placebo report
improvement in their medical condition (and also side effects.) This is
completely based on the =expectation= that the drug will make them better.
As such, the "real" drug under test must do significantly statistically
better than the fake one.

It cannot make a Harmon-Kardon amp sound consistently(!) different
from a Hafler amp, especially when I have no idea how each is supposed
to sound. It cannot make five different amps sound different from each
other, and consistently so.


The same thing applies to auditioning audio equipment, whether amps,
speakers, cables or whatever. If you know which piece of equipment you are
listening to at any given moment, your knowledge and beliefs about that
item are going to influence your perception no matter how many times you
tell yourself otherwise.

I have said this before, and I am going to say it again, for the LAST
time:

I had NO beliefs about how these amps were supposed to sound. It was a
'blind' trial, in the sense that I had not listened to any of the amps
before bringing them home for listening tests.

Hafler
PS Audio
Harmon-Kardon
Bryston
Sony

They all sounded different.

How can my 'beliefs' affect my judgement, when I had no 'beliefs' to
start with?!

I listened with Stax electrostatic earspeakers connected directly to
the power amps. Perhaps your system is not as critical.

But DON'T tell me I cannot hear differences between amps this way.
Hellen Keller could hear them!


Several questions:

1. Did you level-match during your listening tests?
2. Do you think you can tell them apart in a DBT?
3. Can you tell differences between cables?

BTW, whether Hellen Keller could hear them is irrelevant. Blind means
not knowing what's being played. In fact, I would expect Keller to have
had a better hearing acuity than most of us.

I am listening for the joy of listening to music. Part of that joy lies in
parts of the sound that is often lost in bad recordings and playback. none
of
it is ever completely captured even in the best recordings and playback.
You
may hear the inflections and other important aspects of a vocal performance
but
it is affected by the poor recording. It changes the affect of the
performance.
It changes the affect of the music as a whole. That is why the art of the
music
and the sound of the playback are inseperable.

This is only true for the tiny minority of music lovers in the world who are
audiophiles.

I think you are quite wrong. It is easily testsed. Every time people come
listen to their favorite recordings on my system they thank me for the uniquely
wonderful experience. They often say it is like hearing the music for the first
time. I haven't run into anyone whose response to music isn't affected by the
medium.

The vast majority of music lovers do not find mediocre sound
reproduction to bother them in any way, or to detract from their
appreciation and enjoyment of music.

I think this is totally false. But if you have any evidence to support this
assertion feel free to cite it.

For them, art and sound ARE quite
separable, and they care far more about the former.

If you feel it is acceptable to speak for unnamed masses of music lovers I will
do the same. For them the two are inseperable and they care about the whole
created by the two.


Perhaps they are the
lucky ones.

Perhaps such people are actually very rare.

Harry Lavo wrote:
snip

Michael, I and others have described similar tests here under similar
conditions, and have always been told we are just imagining the differences
based on "expectation bias". Expectant of what they can't say.

Expectant that there is a difference to be heard...as "they"
always say.

Unfortunately, some of the members of this forum, while intellectually
understanding it, have a difficult time differentiating between "sight *may*
provide a bias that overrides true differences" with "sight *always*
overrides true differences and makes your comparison invalid".

No Harry, it's "sight *always* confers a bias that may, or may
not, affect the results". It is the understanding that your
results *may*, in each case, be affected through simple
foreknowledge, and that the affects of that bias in sighted tests
*cannot* be adjusted/corrected/ameliorated/ignored that
invalidates the method.

Why do you continue to misconstrue "our" position?

Keith Hughes

"Unfortunately, some of the members of this forum, while intellectually
understanding it, have a difficult time differentiating between "sight
*may*
provide a bias that overrides true differences" with "sight *always*
overrides true differences and makes your comparison invalid". They
should
know better, but they don't seem to be able to allow even the possibility
that there are real differences and that you might have heard them."

We don't prove a hypothesis, we fail to unprove it,ie. after time and
enough effort has been put into a hypothesis and it continues to be
unsupported, we turn to more fruitfull lines of questions. The above
hypothesis is one such. After decades of tests in humans the idea of
there being no expectation bias has failed to be supported. The
continuing hope that one more test will suddenly confirm there is no such
bias is very slim and we can't really put any faith into it. But if one
insists, it would be an easy test to do it once again with amps in a
structured blind test in the hopes that finally results will tend away
from random.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:Vzy0c.444501$na.1075235@attbi_s04...
"W. Oland" wrote in message
...


The ability of knowledge and/or belief to influence how a person
perceives
something is well established. For example, that is the reason that
placebos are used in the trials of new pharmaceuticals. Depending on
what
is being tested, up to 40% of the people taking the placebo report
improvement in their medical condition (and also side effects.) This is
completely based on the =expectation= that the drug will make them
better.
As such, the "real" drug under test must do significantly statistically
better than the fake one.

It cannot make a Harmon-Kardon amp sound consistently(!) different
from a Hafler amp, especially when I have no idea how each is supposed
to sound. It cannot make five different amps sound different from each
other, and consistently so.


The same thing applies to auditioning audio equipment, whether amps,
speakers, cables or whatever. If you know which piece of equipment you
are
listening to at any given moment, your knowledge and beliefs about that
item are going to influence your perception no matter how many times you
tell yourself otherwise.

I have said this before, and I am going to say it again, for the LAST
time:

I had NO beliefs about how these amps were supposed to sound. It was a
'blind' trial, in the sense that I had not listened to any of the amps
before bringing them home for listening tests.

Hafler
PS Audio
Harmon-Kardon
Bryston
Sony

They all sounded different.

How can my 'beliefs' affect my judgement, when I had no 'beliefs' to
start with?!

I listened with Stax electrostatic earspeakers connected directly to
the power amps. Perhaps your system is not as critical.

But DON'T tell me I cannot hear differences between amps this way.
Hellen Keller could hear them!


Michael, I and others have described similar tests here under similar
conditions, and have always been told we are just imagining the differences
based on "expectation bias". Expectant of what they can't say.

Unfortunately, some of the members of this forum, while intellectually
understanding it, have a difficult time differentiating between "sight *may*
provide a bias that overrides true differences" with "sight *always*
overrides true differences and makes your comparison invalid".

This is a misrepresentation of those members' position. What some of us
are saying is that you have to be cognizant of the effects of
expectation bias, and take proper steps to control it , if you really
want to find out if there are *audible only* differences. We always have
said that if the differences are big enough, like those between
speakers, then you don't really need DBT's to differentiate them. We
don't say that "sight always overrides true differences" (in fact we
argue if the audible difference exists in the first place), we are
saying that expectation bias is very likely to override subtle
differences, and that DBT is the best way to control for expectation
bias. In the case of competent amps and speakers, we know that those
differences should be subtle at best, from measurements like frequency
response, distortion and signal-to-noise ratio tests.

They should
know better, but they don't seem to be able to allow even the possibility
that there are real differences and that you might have heard them.

No, they do, that's why they recommend the Harry Lavo's and Michael
Scarpitti's of this newsgroup to do controlled tests to see if those
differences are real. Heck, they even throw in real money to motivate
them, in the case of cables.

So
don't get upset...it's a world view of theirs that you are not going to
change.

All you need to change their world view is to pass the cable DBT test!
. Simple, isn't it?


But you can ignore them and instead focus on other topics of interest here
on the forum.


I think the subjectivists actually find this topic of great interest,
based on how frequently they post in these threads...

Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:wUz0c.91281$4o.116016@attbi_s52...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:Vzy0c.444501$na.1075235@attbi_s04...
*snip*
How can my 'beliefs' affect my judgement, when I had no 'beliefs' to
start with?!

Why do you continue to profess no beliefs when it is clear that you have an
extremely strong belief that amps sound different? It's not about which you
think you'll prefer, simply that you believe you will have a preference.

I listened with Stax electrostatic earspeakers connected directly to
the power amps. Perhaps your system is not as critical.

But DON'T tell me I cannot hear differences between amps this way.
Hellen Keller could hear them!

No one would presuppose to tell you what you did and didn't hear if you
simply allowed for the possibility that what you thought you heard might
have been influenced by what you thought, namely that you expected the amps
to sound different. In fact, if you were able to tell the difference
between any two of the amps in question without knowing which was playing,
you'd be quite a hero.

I did not 'expect' the amps to sound different. I did not 'expect'
that any given amp would have any particular sound. That amps sound
different was the conclusion I drew from this experience.

The fact that only two of the amps were even remotely similar-sounding
was telling against your protestations.

How could my 'expectation' have given wildly different, CONSISTENT
sound to each amp? Why did the Bryston sound rolled-off at the top? I
had no 'expectation' that it would! Why did the Harmon-Kardon sound
lacking in dynamics? I had no expectation that it would. Why did the
Hafler sound flabby? I had no expectation that it would. Why did the
Sony TA-N88B sound unbelievably clear? I had no expectation that it
would! Why did the PS Audio sound irritatingly bright? I had no
expectation that it would!

I had NO preconceived opinion, or knowledge, of the sound of any of
these amps: that is why I auditioned them. If I already had known how
they sounded, I would not have bothered with empirical testing!

By the way, I asked a friend to listen along with me. His opinions
were exactly the same.

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:32:27 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

Now, having said that, I am aware that some participants
of this forum...long since committing themselves to a
basic "...all sound the same..there is no difference..."
mindset..will pile into this somewhat humorous fray.

They will be very adamant in knowing what "you" can
and can't hear! The humor of that stance comes to
play when one can easily follow the logic that you
or I, nor anyone knows what another individual's
mental processes are doing to the interpretive
processes. This is unique to each individual.

The humour is however somewhat dissipated when you consider that what
is being said is analagous to my stating as an absolute fact that
*you* cannot run a mile in three minutes.

The point of course is that no human can do this, in the same way that
there is *no* evidence that *any* human can tell apart two nominally
competent cables (i.e. not comparing 8AWG to 28AWG or other such
silliness).

Perhaps, we have a group that missed their calling...
..neuro-research..or some study of the myriad of
variables in the mental processes on the analysis of
input from external sources.

Indeed so - and there has been a raft of research over the last
century into human hearing thresholds and acuity, all of which
supports the notion that 'wire is wire'.

So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance
here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears
cable or amplifier differences..so be it!

However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know*
what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:KvA0c.152472$jk2.593654@attbi_s53...
*snip*

Michael, I and others have described similar tests here under similar
conditions, and have always been told we are just imagining the
differences
based on "expectation bias". Expectant of what they can't say.

Harry, you know the answer to this question, as it's been repeated ad
nauseum. Expectant that the amps in question sound different.

Unfortunately, some of the members of this forum, while intellectually
understanding it, have a difficult time differentiating between "sight
*may*
provide a bias that overrides true differences" with "sight *always*
overrides true differences and makes your comparison invalid".

If you allow for the fact that sight *may* provide a bias that overrides
true differences than you must control for it, always. Failure to do so
leaves open the possibility that you may have been influenced by sighted
bias. There would simply be no way to know whether the listening results
were valid or bias influenced, and no amount of arm waving shouting "DON'T
TELL ME WHAT I HEARD" will change that fact. Bias controls are necessary
not because the biases always exist, but exactly because they may exist.

chung wrote:
They should
know better, but they don't seem to be able to allow even the possibility
that there are real differences and that you might have heard them.

No, they do, that's why they recommend the Harry Lavo's and Michael
Scarpitti's of this newsgroup to do controlled tests to see if those
differences are real. Heck, they even throw in real money to motivate
them, in the case of cables.

I wouldn't even recommend that, though it would be interesting to
see the results. I merely recommend that the Harrys and Michaels
of the audiophlie world simply acknowledge that they *could* be
mistaken about the reality of those 'audible' differences, for the
usual (and scientifically speaking , utterly unremarkable) reasons.

Even Harry has come out in favor of *some sort* of blind testing
for validating audible difference -- albeit in his preferred flavor.
To do so, but then to champion 'sighted' reports uncritically,
seems inconsistent at best. To then misrepresent the 'objectivist'
line, as ruling out the *possibility* of real audible difference,
seems to be wilfilly ignoring all the helpful posts we 'objectivists'
have made for *years* now here.

;

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:ebL0c.156130$jk2.596671@attbi_s53...
Bruce Abrams wrote in message
news:wUz0c.91281$4o.116016@attbi_s52...

*snip* quoted text
How could my 'expectation' have given wildly different, CONSISTENT
sound to each amp?

Because you made your judgement the first time you heard it and then
confirmed it to yourself each time you listened to each amp. When you
engage in the type of uncontrolled, sighted listening that you did with the
amps, you need ways of charecterizing the sound from each amp. Those very
characterizations presuppose that the amps will sound different, otherwise
you'd have exactly the same listening notes from each amp, and nobody really
wants to admit to themselves that they heard no differences.

Why did the Bryston sound rolled-off at the top?

Irrelevant why it did to you at the time. When you sat down to listen to
the Bryston you needed words to characterize the sound, as I mentioned
previously. The point is that once you thought it sound rolled-off, you
confirmed it to yourself each time by saying, "yup, there's that high
frequency roll-off again," hence the consistency of the result. If you
wouldn't have known which amp was playing the second time, you would have
been listening to characterize it again and not to confirm what you thought
you heard the first time, and chances are no better than random that you
would have characterized the Bryston the same the second time.

I had exactly the same experience with cables and amps several years ago
right up until I "confirmed" to myself the high frequency roll-off of the
Cardas speaker cables, only to find the previously "brighter" sounding
Kimber was still in the system.

Michael, why are you opposed to confirming you listening results when you
don't know in advance what you're listening to?

*snip* for brevity

I had NO preconceived opinion, or knowledge, of the sound of any of
these amps: that is why I auditioned them. If I already had known how
they sounded, I would not have bothered with empirical testing!

You didn't engage in empirical testing. You engaged in subjective,
uncontrolled listening. No control = no test.

By the way, I asked a friend to listen along with me. His opinions
were exactly the same.

And he knew what he was listening to as well, correct?

"I did not 'expect' the amps to sound different. I did not 'expect'
that any given amp would have any particular sound. That amps sound
different was the conclusion I drew from this experience.
"

Were you of the view before starting that all amps sound alike, or was it
that you assumed some amps do sound different? If you had been reading
the hi fi rags where amps sounding different is standard fare, usually
based on a single anecdotal testimony of an article writer, then you need
not make any decision on purpose beforehand. The very fact you have and
use a vocabulary of amp "sounds" suggests you have had this hi fi rag
experience, even if you had decided to have no opinion beforehand. Doing
a dbt excludes this or any other possible expectation bias, if ithere is
no such bias, doing a test should get the same results as you report.

"By the way, I asked a friend to listen along with me. His opinions were
exactly the same."

You are aware no doubt, that if the friend didn't listen from the kitchen
the results are not valid, grin? This even makes the case more
problematical, mutual reinforcement in such task situations only serve to
multiply bias effects.

"not knowing what's being played. In fact, I would expect Keller to have
had a better hearing acuity than most of us."

Ms. Keller was deaf blind. Blind folk have the same hearing as everyone
else, they only use it differently and pay more attention to sounds in a
way sighted folk don't. In the case of testing audio gear, blind folk do
no better then do sighted folk. Blind folk do pay more close attention to
spacial clues based on sound reflection, which might mean they more easily
detect it in recorded music or know it is false if reverb etc. are used to
produce spatial information. They might be able to better comprehend the
space a recording was made in, or know if it is a multi layered pan pot
product.

"chung" wrote in message
news:AaL0c.95414$4o.117307@attbi_s52...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:Vzy0c.444501$na.1075235@attbi_s04...
"W. Oland" wrote in message
...


The ability of knowledge and/or belief to influence how a person
perceives
something is well established. For example, that is the reason that
placebos are used in the trials of new pharmaceuticals. Depending on
what
is being tested, up to 40% of the people taking the placebo report
improvement in their medical condition (and also side effects.) This
is
completely based on the =expectation= that the drug will make them
better.
As such, the "real" drug under test must do significantly
statistically
better than the fake one.

It cannot make a Harmon-Kardon amp sound consistently(!) different
from a Hafler amp, especially when I have no idea how each is supposed
to sound. It cannot make five different amps sound different from each
other, and consistently so.


The same thing applies to auditioning audio equipment, whether amps,
speakers, cables or whatever. If you know which piece of equipment
you
are
listening to at any given moment, your knowledge and beliefs about
that
item are going to influence your perception no matter how many times
you
tell yourself otherwise.

I have said this before, and I am going to say it again, for the LAST
time:

I had NO beliefs about how these amps were supposed to sound. It was a
'blind' trial, in the sense that I had not listened to any of the amps
before bringing them home for listening tests.

Hafler
PS Audio
Harmon-Kardon
Bryston
Sony

They all sounded different.

How can my 'beliefs' affect my judgement, when I had no 'beliefs' to
start with?!

I listened with Stax electrostatic earspeakers connected directly to
the power amps. Perhaps your system is not as critical.

But DON'T tell me I cannot hear differences between amps this way.
Hellen Keller could hear them!


Michael, I and others have described similar tests here under similar
conditions, and have always been told we are just imagining the
differences
based on "expectation bias". Expectant of what they can't say.

Unfortunately, some of the members of this forum, while intellectually
understanding it, have a difficult time differentiating between "sight
*may*
provide a bias that overrides true differences" with "sight *always*
overrides true differences and makes your comparison invalid".

This is a misrepresentation of those members' position. What some of us
are saying is that you have to be cognizant of the effects of
expectation bias, and take proper steps to control it , if you really
want to find out if there are *audible only* differences. We always have
said that if the differences are big enough, like those between
speakers, then you don't really need DBT's to differentiate them. We
don't say that "sight always overrides true differences" (in fact we
argue if the audible difference exists in the first place), we are
saying that expectation bias is very likely to override subtle
differences, and that DBT is the best way to control for expectation
bias. In the case of competent amps and speakers, we know that those
differences should be subtle at best, from measurements like frequency
response, distortion and signal-to-noise ratio tests.


What you are saying above is a very reasonable position. Unfortunately, it
seems to believed only in the abstract here. When somebody such as Michael
comes on saying he can hear differences in amps...there is no questioning
him on his listening conditions, no consideration of the age or circuitry of
the amps in question (despite one being a digital amp...the one chosen at
that). .no discussion of his stated purpose or state of mind. All that
happens is that he is told because he listened sighted, he is surely
imagining things. Then the turmoil ensues.

They should
know better, but they don't seem to be able to allow even the
possibility
that there are real differences and that you might have heard them.

No, they do, that's why they recommend the Harry Lavo's and Michael
Scarpitti's of this newsgroup to do controlled tests to see if those
differences are real. Heck, they even throw in real money to motivate
them, in the case of cables.


Insisting on a test that the "testees" don' t believe is valid. Nice
'gotcha.

So
don't get upset...it's a world view of theirs that you are not going to
change.

All you need to change their world view is to pass the cable DBT test!
. Simple, isn't it?


Sure, would greatly simplify the objectivist world-view here if we would
just go away and stop challenging the test.


But you can ignore them and instead focus on other topics of interest
here
on the forum.


I think the subjectivists actually find this topic of great interest,
based on how frequently they post in these threads...


You think the objectivists ever let an assertion of heard differences pass
without comment or challenge?

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:vcL0c.95418$4o.117983@attbi_s52...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:32:27 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

Now, having said that, I am aware that some participants
of this forum...long since committing themselves to a
basic "...all sound the same..there is no difference..."
mindset..will pile into this somewhat humorous fray.

They will be very adamant in knowing what "you" can
and can't hear! The humor of that stance comes to
play when one can easily follow the logic that you
or I, nor anyone knows what another individual's
mental processes are doing to the interpretive
processes. This is unique to each individual.

The humour is however somewhat dissipated when you consider that what
is being said is analagous to my stating as an absolute fact that
*you* cannot run a mile in three minutes.

The point of course is that no human can do this, in the same way that
there is *no* evidence that *any* human can tell apart two nominally
competent cables (i.e. not comparing 8AWG to 28AWG or other such
silliness).


Gosh, Stewart, how long did it take you to test every human and every piece
of wire ever used by them, and then verifying "competency" tests on those
that might have sounded different, to prove you point. Or might this be,
just might it be, and assertion, a judgement, your considered opinon?

Naw, it surely is a "fact".

Perhaps, we have a group that missed their calling...
..neuro-research..or some study of the myriad of
variables in the mental processes on the analysis of
input from external sources.

Indeed so - and there has been a raft of research over the last
century into human hearing thresholds and acuity, all of which
supports the notion that 'wire is wire'.


Last I looked, this thread was about amplifiers and what Michael feels he
heard in comparing five of them.

So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance
here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears
cable or amplifier differences..so be it!

However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know*
what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced.

Gosh, Stewart, what happened to the *properly designed* and *nominally
competent* disclaimers?
A few more opinions slipping into fact?

On 1 Mar 2004 16:54:01 GMT, chung wrote:

BTW, whether Hellen Keller could hear them is irrelevant. Blind means
not knowing what's being played. In fact, I would expect Keller to have
had a better hearing acuity than most of us.

I wouldn't - she was blind *and* deaf.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:6BM0c.95764$4o.117204@attbi_s52...
chung wrote:
They should
know better, but they don't seem to be able to allow even the possibility
that there are real differences and that you might have heard them.

No, they do, that's why they recommend the Harry Lavo's and Michael
Scarpitti's of this newsgroup to do controlled tests to see if those
differences are real. Heck, they even throw in real money to motivate
them, in the case of cables.

I wouldn't even recommend that, though it would be interesting to
see the results. I merely recommend that the Harrys and Michaels
of the audiophlie world simply acknowledge that they *could* be
mistaken about the reality of those 'audible' differences, for the
usual (and scientifically speaking , utterly unremarkable) reasons.

Even Harry has come out in favor of *some sort* of blind testing
for validating audible difference -- albeit in his preferred flavor.
To do so, but then to champion 'sighted' reports uncritically,
seems inconsistent at best. To then misrepresent the 'objectivist'
line, as ruling out the *possibility* of real audible difference,
seems to be wilfilly ignoring all the helpful posts we 'objectivists'
have made for *years* now here.

If anyone says 'the fact that you knew which product you were
listening to invalidates any audible evaluation you may have made' is
ludicrous.

If I gave you those 7 different amps to listen to -- the ones I
listened to 17 years ago -- and if you could not tell any of them them
apart, then your hearing is impaired. I cannot make it plainer.

That is because no two sounded alike, and most sounded vastly
different. This conclusion was confirmed by a friend who also listened
to them, and heard the same things.

After going through these amps several times, I began to note which
ones had a particular sound, and that sound was consistent from one
trial to the next.

The point is, it is simply not worth my time to converse with those
who deny that such differences can be heard at all.

If you would like, go to an audio shop that carries used products of
this kind, and ask to take them home. Hook them up to a set of Stax
Lambdas through a transformer such as the SRD-7.

Then you will hear the differences.

wrote:
"not knowing what's being played. In fact, I would expect Keller to have
had a better hearing acuity than most of us."

Ms. Keller was deaf blind.

Oops, didn't know that. So why would Mr. Scarpitti say that even she
could tell the difference? Hmmm...

Blind folk have the same hearing as everyone
else, they only use it differently and pay more attention to sounds in a
way sighted folk don't. In the case of testing audio gear, blind folk do
no better then do sighted folk. Blind folk do pay more close attention to
spacial clues based on sound reflection, which might mean they more easily
detect it in recorded music or know it is false if reverb etc. are used to
produce spatial information. They might be able to better comprehend the
space a recording was made in, or know if it is a multi layered pan pot
product.

Harry Lavo wrote:

This is a misrepresentation of those members' position. What some of us
are saying is that you have to be cognizant of the effects of
expectation bias, and take proper steps to control it , if you really
want to find out if there are *audible only* differences. We always have
said that if the differences are big enough, like those between
speakers, then you don't really need DBT's to differentiate them. We
don't say that "sight always overrides true differences" (in fact we
argue if the audible difference exists in the first place), we are
saying that expectation bias is very likely to override subtle
differences, and that DBT is the best way to control for expectation
bias. In the case of competent amps and speakers, we know that those
differences should be subtle at best, from measurements like frequency
response, distortion and signal-to-noise ratio tests.


What you are saying above is a very reasonable position. Unfortunately, it
seems to believed only in the abstract here. When somebody such as Michael
comes on saying he can hear differences in amps...there is no questioning
him on his listening conditions

Actually I asked him whether he level-matched...

, no consideration of the age or circuitry of
the amps in question (despite one being a digital amp...the one chosen at
that). .no discussion of his stated purpose or state of mind. All that
happens is that he is told because he listened sighted, he is surely
imagining things.

He did describe his listening conditions. Maybe you have missed that?

Then the turmoil ensues.

The turmoil ensues because he refused to believe that expectation bias
could lead to false positives when trying to detect differences. Now
please answer this: do you agree with Michael on this key point? Do you
believe that expectation bias should be controlled for?


They should
know better, but they don't seem to be able to allow even the
possibility
that there are real differences and that you might have heard them.

No, they do, that's why they recommend the Harry Lavo's and Michael
Scarpitti's of this newsgroup to do controlled tests to see if those
differences are real. Heck, they even throw in real money to motivate
them, in the case of cables.


Insisting on a test that the "testees" don' t believe is valid. Nice
'gotcha.

Now Harry, how does the word "recommend" become "insist"?

As far as I am concerned, you don't have to do any controlled testing.
You can pick amps/cables based on whatever criteria. However, when you
want to convince others that there is real, audible, difference between
them, you should use controlled testing like DBT to make sure that
expectation bias (and other stuff like mismatched levels) does not
invalidate your listening tests. DBT is the standard methodology on
difference detection for such a long time, that I don't see any reason
why Michael would have problem with it.


So
don't get upset...it's a world view of theirs that you are not going to
change.

All you need to change their world view is to pass the cable DBT test!
. Simple, isn't it?


Sure, would greatly simplify the objectivist world-view here if we would
just go away and stop challenging the test.

The funny thing is no one asked you to go away and stop challenging the
test. (In fact we even put up money hoping you would take the test.) And
you were the one who said that Michael should go away and find some
other topics to discuss...

BTW, how would you know that Michael would fail a DBT on amps?



But you can ignore them and instead focus on other topics of interest
here
on the forum.


I think the subjectivists actually find this topic of great interest,
based on how frequently they post in these threads...


You think the objectivists ever let an assertion of heard differences pass
without comment or challenge?


You realize how many of these threads were started by subjectivists?

Bruce Abrams wrote:

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message

....snip to content .........

By the way, I asked a friend to listen along with me. His opinions
were exactly the same.

And he knew what he was listening to as well, correct?

Here's another take on the "we all heard it" consensus. In the group open
listening sessions I've witnessed the routine is interesting:

First the Owner/Host/Presenter (they are nearly universally comparative) does a
direct comparison or often a "comparison" with other products that aren't
present, and asks "What did you think?" or, more common "Which Did You Prefer?"
In direct comparisons there are often apparent level differences; but never is
there a controlled attempt to level match. Further the O/H/P often primes the
well with comments prior such as "we'll most people hear x,y and z).

Next one ot two listeners express a comment and IF it's not the answer the
O/H/P wants he says "Let's Try It Again with BETTER Program Material" and then
repeats the process. If the "group" hasn't delivered the expected results this
gets repeated UNTIL the 'right" or at least acceptable answers are obtained and
then the presentation is finished.

Listeners seldom say "they sounded the same to me" and there are often
negotiations about what the real sound was "Well maybe you didn't hear the
do-dah midrange but surely you heard the increased transparency...?"

And eventually those who 'are' willing to speak will come to 'agreement' on
what they heard; and then the experiment will go into anecdotal history that
"everybody heard this."

Let me give you an interesting anecdote about this process. Clarke Johnson, an
avid high-end audio retailer, and long time promoter of "absolute polarity"
gave a paper at an AES Convention where he said that he'd done Triple Blind
Experiments (3X-Blind, according to his interpretation meant that subjects
didn't "know" that they were in an experiment) where 22 of 22 subjects reliably
"heard" absolute polarity.

At a subsequent CES show I was in a exhibit room and I saw Clarke expressing
his beliefs about AP to a Conventioneer. I said that nothing he was saying had
ever been verified under bias controlled conditions.

So he then announced to the room; "hold on everybody we're going to do a test"
and he then played a 2-minute segment of an LP; walked behind the tower
speakers and made a 'do' about doing something back there.

Then he repeated the same music segment; and then asked "Did anybody hear a
difference?" The guy next to me looked quizzical, shrugging his shoulders and
then finally raised his hand when he saw a few others doing so.

Then Clarke counted the raised hands and loudly proclaimed "See 6 out of 6
heard a difference." I then pointed out that I hadn't raised my hand (they did
not sound different to me) and he conceded "OK 6 out of 7" totally ignoring
that there were at least a DOZEN listeners present.

Open social listening sessions often have the same interpretative error
mechanisms; no data is compiled; negotiation between subjects is allowed,
subjects who do not speak out vocally are ignored and only acceptable answers
are accepted or acknowledged.

Don't think this happens? Think about it. Try it yourself.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:6BM0c.95764$4o.117204@attbi_s52...
chung wrote:
They should
know better, but they don't seem to be able to allow even the possibility
that there are real differences and that you might have heard them.

No, they do, that's why they recommend the Harry Lavo's and Michael
Scarpitti's of this newsgroup to do controlled tests to see if those
differences are real. Heck, they even throw in real money to motivate
them, in the case of cables.

I wouldn't even recommend that, though it would be interesting to
see the results. I merely recommend that the Harrys and Michaels
of the audiophlie world simply acknowledge that they *could* be
mistaken about the reality of those 'audible' differences, for the
usual (and scientifically speaking , utterly unremarkable) reasons.

Even Harry has come out in favor of *some sort* of blind testing
for validating audible difference -- albeit in his preferred flavor.
To do so, but then to champion 'sighted' reports uncritically,
seems inconsistent at best. To then misrepresent the 'objectivist'
line, as ruling out the *possibility* of real audible difference,
seems to be wilfilly ignoring all the helpful posts we 'objectivists'
have made for *years* now here.

If anyone says 'the fact that you knew which product you were
listening to invalidates any audible evaluation you may have made' is
ludicrous.

I *think* I can parse that sentence, and the standard reply is,
*you* believing it ludicrous doesn't invalidate decades of
psychological research.


If I gave you those 7 different amps to listen to -- the ones I
listened to 17 years ago -- and if you could not tell any of them them
apart, then your hearing is impaired. I cannot make it plainer.

I understand you perfectly. Do you understand the how you might
be fundamentally mistaken?

That is because no two sounded alike, and most sounded vastly
different. This conclusion was confirmed by a friend who also listened
to them, and heard the same things.

And the flaws in such reasoning have been pointed out to you
numerous times now. You have assumed what you should be *proving*.

After going through these amps several times, I began to note which
ones had a particular sound, and that sound was consistent from one
trial to the next.

Well, yes, of course it was. But alas that doesn't mean that 'sound' was
real. A false positive effect of that nature is by no means
improbable.

The point is, it is simply not worth my time to converse with those
who deny that such differences can be heard at all.

Then by all means, feel free to cease doing so. That's what killfiles
are for. I don't btw imagine my replies to you will penetrate your
resistance to scientific fact, which you've established firmly;
I post them for the putative reader who might be following along, perhaps
wanting to see the arguments on both sides.



If you would like, go to an audio shop that carries used products of
this kind, and ask to take them home. Hook them up to a set of Stax
Lambdas through a transformer such as the SRD-7.

By themselves, these instructions do no describe a good comparative
listening trial of amplifiers.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:YDR0c.160642$uV3.708646@attbi_s51...
*snip*

If anyone says 'the fact that you knew which product you were
listening to invalidates any audible evaluation you may have made' is
ludicrous.

No one would make that statement. The statement that would be made would be
something along the lines of, "Interesting anecdotal data. Let's see if it
maintains its validity if we add some controls by removing sighted bias via
a blind test." You have yet to answer the question as to why you would be
opposed to such a control.


If I gave you those 7 different amps to listen to -- the ones I
listened to 17 years ago -- and if you could not tell any of them them
apart, then your hearing is impaired. I cannot make it plainer.

That is because no two sounded alike, and most sounded vastly
different. This conclusion was confirmed by a friend who also listened
to them, and heard the same things.

After going through these amps several times, I began to note which
ones had a particular sound, and that sound was consistent from one
trial to the next.

And each time you listened to 'A' which you thought you found bright, you
reinforced that it did, in fact, sound bright.

The point is, it is simply not worth my time to converse with those
who deny that such differences can be heard at all.

If you would like, go to an audio shop that carries used products of
this kind, and ask to take them home. Hook them up to a set of Stax
Lambdas through a transformer such as the SRD-7.

Then you will hear the differences.

I've already heard exactly such differences between cables, right up until I
realized I was hearing the attributes I'd ascribed to cable 'A', only I was
really listening to cable 'B'. Until you allow for the existence of sighted
bias, a phenomenon that is universally acknowledged to exist, you are
correct in that further conversation on the subject is meaningless.

"this kind, and ask to take them home. Hook them up to a set of Stax
Lambdas through a transformer such as the SRD-7."

Why is the above required? If one were to pursue this line, the possible
interaction of the transformer with the output of the amps would have to
be ruled out as the cause for any difference in a dbt.

"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:KvA0c.152472$jk2.593654@attbi_s53...
*snip*

Michael, I and others have described similar tests here under similar
conditions, and have always been told we are just imagining the
differences
based on "expectation bias". Expectant of what they can't say.

Harry, you know the answer to this question, as it's been repeated ad
nauseum. Expectant that the amps in question sound different.

Unfortunately, some of the members of this forum, while intellectually
understanding it, have a difficult time differentiating between "sight
*may*
provide a bias that overrides true differences" with "sight *always*
overrides true differences and makes your comparison invalid".

If you allow for the fact that sight *may* provide a bias that overrides
true differences than you must control for it, always. Failure to do so
leaves open the possibility that you may have been influenced by sighted
bias. There would simply be no way to know whether the listening results
were valid or bias influenced, and no amount of arm waving shouting "DON'T
TELL ME WHAT I HEARD" will change that fact. Bias controls are necessary
not because the biases always exist, but exactly because they may exist.

The are not *NEEDED* for home audio purchases and comparisons as long as the
person doing the comparison is willing to accept some risk. And
expectation bias as postulated has to be stretched to the extreme to cover
five amps with four different "sounds".

This part of this thread started rather interestingly with Michael asserting
that Occam's Razor suggested that the simplest explanation for people
claiming to hear amp and cable differences was that the differences exist.
Stewart and Steven both jumped in to claim that, no, Occam's Razor suggested
expectation bias as the likely culprit. However, neither explained to
Michael what expectation bias was. They just flat out asserted that he was
wrong. Later when Michael asserted that he had heard differences in his amp
test, he was gently told by Steven that his results might not be real. But
by then the "negativity" had set in and a battle was on.

Michael's type of comparative test is one many audiophiles have done for
themselves at times..a shootout comparison. Not the most scientific. But
there is nothing in such a shootout to assign sound character to the amps,
as Michael points out. The worst expectation bias can do is to make one
assume differences exist. He has already said that for one pairing the
differences where very small. Perhaps expectation bias might have clouded
an otherwise identical verdict. But it is hard to explain his other
descriptions as being based on expectation bias. As he has tried to point
out.

And as I have tried to point out elsewhere, this "sighted bias" stuff is
often used in a negative way and without any real consideration given to its
applicability. In my opinion, it is often overused here a s a "club" and to
show off. Educating people is fine. Picking fights or debates with them
without even explaining your terms is not so terrific.

For what it is worth, I am probably familiar with two of the amps he tested
(by knowing the brand) and would agree with his characterization of the
sound if they were the amps I heard. Not that that is definitive in any
way, but it may mean these brands do have a characteristic sound and that he
heard
them. Or perhaps we are just two small parts of a mass delusion.