What I am referring to are the reviews where different units
are compared and perceptions of differences in sonic
performances are claimed which can't
be validated through differences in measured performance.
Accuracy or lack thereof is irrelevant. I would like to see
these subjective perceptions of difference validated through
DBTs. I don't think that is too much to ask of the
professionals performing these reviews.

Actually I think it might be too much to ask. I don't know that I would call
all the reviewers for Stereophile professionals in that most of them are not
making a living reviewing equipment and it really is a hobby for them. Asking
such people to do worth while DBTs is asking a lot IMO.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

What I am referring to are the reviews where different units
are compared and perceptions of differences in sonic
performances are claimed which can't
be validated through differences in measured performance.
Accuracy or lack thereof is irrelevant. I would like to see
these subjective perceptions of difference validated through
DBTs. I don't think that is too much to ask of the
professionals performing these reviews.

Actually I think it might be too much to ask. I don't know that I would
call
all the reviewers for Stereophile professionals in that most of them are
not
making a living reviewing equipment and it really is a hobby for them.
Asking
such people to do worth while DBTs is asking a lot IMO.

I don't see the big deal. Lets have Arny create a PC controlled
switch box which stores results over the net in a secure server.
All the reviewer has to do is hook it up and make his
selections. Results tallied and bingo.

Performing the DBTs would be a snap if Atkinson set 'em up
with the tools to do it. The fact that they don't even create
the tools to do it is telling to me.

ScottW

I don't see the big deal. Lets have Arny create a PC controlled
switch box which stores results over the net in a secure server.
All the reviewer has to do is hook it up and make his
selections. Results tallied and bingo.


I don't see Arny working with Stereophile.



Performing the DBTs would be a snap if Atkinson set 'em up
with the tools to do it.


I am not so convinced it is a snap to do them well. I think if Stereophile were
to do something like this it would be wise for them to consult someone like JJ
who conducted such tests for a living. Would you suggest that such DBTs be
limmited to comparisons of cables amps and preamps? I think DBT with speakers
and source components are quite a bit more difficult. Would you limmit such
tests to varification of actual audible differences? Personally, I like blind
comparisons for preferences. They are more difficult than sighted comparisons
for obvious reasons.


The fact that they don't even create
the tools to do it is telling to me.



How so?

S888Wheel said to The Idiot:

The fact that they don't even create
the tools to do it is telling to me.

How so?

Did you notice the title of this thread?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


I am not so convinced it is a snap to do them well. I think if
Stereophile were to do something like this it would be wise for them
to consult someone like JJ who conducted such tests for a living.

JJ was a free agent for a while after Lucent fired him, and before Microsoft
hired him. However, JJ seems to be too much of a closet golden ear to be as
aggressive and pragmatic as scientific objectivity demands. This allows him
to curry favor with the golden ear press which he actively did for a while.
Yet he talks the talk, maintaining a veneer of scientific respectability.
Hey, its what he seems to need to be comfortable.

Would you suggest that such DBTs be limited to comparisons of cables
amps and preamps?

It's not that tough to DBT just about any audio component if you are
pragmatic enough. JJ's incessant public mindless and evidenceless criticism
of PCABX convinced me that he's simply not pragmatic enough to be worth much
trouble.

I think DBT with speakers and source components are
quite a bit more difficult.

Shows how little you know, sockpuppet wheel.

Would you limit such tests to
verification of actual audible differences? Personally, I like blind
comparisons for preferences. They are more difficult than sighted
comparisons for obvious reasons.

Preference comparisons make no sense if there are no audible differences.
There are two major DBT protocols:

ABX for sensitive detection of differences.

ABC/hr for determining degree of impairment or degradation, which roughly
equates to preferences if you presume that audiophiles naturally prefer
undegraded sound or sound that is less degraded or less impaired. Since
there are so-called audiophiles who prefer the sound of tubes and vinyl
which can be rife with audible degradations, its not clear that one can
blithely presume that all audiophile prefer sound that has less impairment.

The fact that they don't even create the tools to do it is telling to
me.

The tools for doing DBTs of just about *everything* are readily available,
presuming that the investigator is sufficiently pragmatic. Since we're
talking religious beliefs, we can't presume pragmatic investigators in every
case.

In the case of Stereophile, the use of DBTs would no doubt embarrass the
management and many of the advertisers. Therefore, Stereophile has maximal
incentive to be as non-pragmatic as possible. They simply behave
predictably.

I said


I am not so convinced it is a snap to do them well. I think if
Stereophile were to do something like this it would be wise for them
to consult someone like JJ who conducted such tests for a living.



Arny said


JJ was a free agent for a while after Lucent fired him, and before Microsoft
hired him. However, JJ seems to be too much of a closet golden ear to be as
aggressive and pragmatic as scientific objectivity demands.


That's a load of crap. Unlike you, he made his living at it.

Arny said

This allows him
to curry favor with the golden ear press which he actively did for a while.


Nonsense. It is his professional pedagree that gives him credibility.

Arny said

Yet he talks the talk, maintaining a veneer of scientific respectability.


No, he simply is respectable scientifically.

Arny said

Hey, its what he seems to need to be comfortable.


No, it was what he needed to do his job all those years.

Arny said


It's not that tough to DBT just about any audio component if you are
pragmatic enough. JJ's incessant public mindless and evidenceless criticism
of PCABX convinced me that he's simply not pragmatic enough to be worth much
trouble.


So said the novice about the pro.

I said


I think DBT with speakers and source components are
quite a bit more difficult.



Arny said


Shows how little you know, sockpuppet wheel.



Nonsense.


I said


Would you limit such tests to
verification of actual audible differences? Personally, I like blind
comparisons for preferences. They are more difficult than sighted
comparisons for obvious reasons.


Arny said



Preference comparisons make no sense if there are no audible differences.
There are two major DBT protocols:


No **** Sherlock. No one said otherwise.

Arny said


ABC/hr for determining degree of impairment or degradation, which roughly
equates to preferences if you presume that audiophiles naturally prefer
undegraded sound or sound that is less degraded or less impaired. Since
there are so-called audiophiles who prefer the sound of tubes and vinyl
which can be rife with audible degradations, its not clear that one can
blithely presume that all audiophile prefer sound that has less impairment.



One can do preference tests blind the same way they do them sighted by
comparing A to B and forming a preference only without knowing what is A and
what is B. One can from a preference regardless of your hangups and do it
without the effects of sighted bias.

Arny said



The tools for doing DBTs of just about *everything* are readily available,
presuming that the investigator is sufficiently pragmatic. Since we're
talking religious beliefs, we can't presume pragmatic investigators in every
case.


We are not talking about religious beliefs here unless you insist on inserting
your religious beliefs. We were talking about the practice of subjective review
by a particular publication


Arny said





In the case of Stereophile, the use of DBTs would no doubt embarrass the
management and many of the advertisers. Therefore, Stereophile has maximal
incentive to be as non-pragmatic as possible. They simply behave
predictably.


So says the novice who thinks he is objective. You wear your prejudices like a
badge.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Arny said


JJ was a free agent for a while after Lucent fired him, and before
Microsoft hired him. However, JJ seems to be too much of a closet
golden ear to be as aggressive and pragmatic as scientific
objectivity demands.

That's a load of crap.

Prove it.

Unlike you, he made his living at it.

Not proof. The basic fallacy is that anybody who does something for a money
is perfect.

Arny said

This allows him
to curry favor with the golden ear press which he actively did for a
while.

Nonsense. It is his professional pedagree that gives him credibility.

I'm quite sure that JJ has no "pedagree". Sockpuppet Wheel, why don't you
learn to spell at the 6 th grade level and work up to the adult level from
there?

Arny said

Yet he talks the talk, maintaining a veneer of scientific
respectability.

No, he simply is respectable scientifically.

In your mind all kinds of charlatans seem to be credible, and people who do
work to extend scientific objectivity are fools.

Arny said

Hey, its what he seems to need to be comfortable.


No, it was what he needed to do his job all those years.

Didn't work in the long run, did it?

Arny said


It's not that tough to DBT just about any audio component if you are
pragmatic enough. JJ's incessant public mindless and evidenceless
criticism of PCABX convinced me that he's simply not pragmatic enough
to be worth much trouble.

So said the novice about the pro.

Not proof. The basic fallacy is that anybody who does something for a money
is perfect.

I said


I think DBT with speakers and source components are
quite a bit more difficult.



Arny said


Shows how little you know, sockpuppet wheel.



Nonsense.


I said


Would you limit such tests to
verification of actual audible differences? Personally, I like blind
comparisons for preferences. They are more difficult than sighted
comparisons for obvious reasons.


Arny said



Preference comparisons make no sense if there are no audible
differences. There are two major DBT protocols:

No **** Sherlock. No one said otherwise.

Defensive little turd, aren't you?

Arny said


ABC/hr for determining degree of impairment or degradation, which
roughly equates to preferences if you presume that audiophiles
naturally prefer undegraded sound or sound that is less degraded or
less impaired. Since there are so-called audiophiles who prefer the
sound of tubes and vinyl which can be rife with audible degradations,
its not clear that one can blithely presume that all audiophile
prefer sound that has less impairment.

One can do preference tests blind the same way they do them sighted by
comparing A to B and forming a preference only without knowing what
is A and what is B. One can from a preference regardless of your
hangups and do it without the effects of sighted bias.

I never said otherwise, did I? ABC/hr just happens to be a recognized,
standardized means for doing that.

Arny said



The tools for doing DBTs of just about *everything* are readily
available, presuming that the investigator is sufficiently pragmatic.
Since we're talking religious beliefs, we can't presume pragmatic
investigators in every case.

We are not talking about religious beliefs here unless you insist on
inserting your religious beliefs.

You may be too naive to recognize religious beliefs about audio when you see
them, sockpupppet Yustabe.

We were talking about the practice
of subjective review by a particular publication

That publication seems to have a lengthy track record for forming unfounded
and therefore irrational beliefs in its readers minds. These kinds of
beliefs are often called "religious". Since you can't spell worth a hill of
beans, and are too arrogant to use a proper spell-checker, I thought I'd try
to bring you up-to-date, sockpuppet wheel.

Arny said


In the case of Stereophile, the use of DBTs would no doubt embarrass
the management and many of the advertisers. Therefore, Stereophile
has maximal incentive to be as non-pragmatic as possible. They simply
behave predictably.

So says the novice who thinks he is objective.

Shows how little you understand. I favor bias controls BECAUSE I believe
that I am biased. If I thought that any listener including myself could be
perfectly objective I wouldn't favor the use of bas controls, now would I.

You wear your prejudices like a badge.

I simply know a little something about myself and everybody else in the
world. We have a hard time behaving in perfectly objective ways. Every human
has biases. Therefore listening tests that are at all difficult or
controversial, need bias controls.

Arny said


JJ was a free agent for a while after Lucent fired him, and before
Microsoft hired him. However, JJ seems to be too much of a closet
golden ear to be as aggressive and pragmatic as scientific
objectivity demands.



I said


That's a load of crap.



Arny said


Prove it.



His career is proof. You are the one challenging his objectivity despite the
fact that his objectivity was an important factor in his ability to do his job
correctly. You made the attack on JJ it is up to you to prove it is true.

I said


Unlike you, he made his living at it.



Arny said


Not proof. The basic fallacy is that anybody who does something for a money
is perfect.



Yes it is proof. I made no such premise that pros are inherently perfect. My
premise is that pros are more likely to do their job better than hobbyists
would do the same job.


Arny said

This allows him
to curry favor with the golden ear press which he actively did for a
while.



I said



Nonsense. It is his professional pedagree that gives him credibility.



Arny said


I'm quite sure that JJ has no "pedagree". Sockpuppet Wheel,


"Why note?"

Arny said

why don't you
learn to spell at the 6 th grade level and work up to the adult level from
there?


Of coure this is typical of you Arny. Attack the spelling once youv'e been
beaten by the logic of a post. You are quite the "characture" and hypocrite.



Arny said

Yet he talks the talk, maintaining a veneer of scientific
respectability.



I said



No, he simply is respectable scientifically.

Arny said


In your mind all kinds of charlatans seem to be credible, and people who do
work to extend scientific objectivity are fools.



So Arny considers legitimate scientists and accomplished industry pros to be
charlatans. That figures. The creationists consider the body of scientists who
believe life evolved to be charlatans. You fit in quite well with the
creationists with your audio religion and facade of science. No wonder you
would attack a real scientist like this.


Arny said

Hey, its what he seems to need to be comfortable.




I said


No, it was what he needed to do his job all those years.



Arny said


Didn't work in the long run, did it?



Compared to you? LOL


Arny said


It's not that tough to DBT just about any audio component if you are
pragmatic enough. JJ's incessant public mindless and evidenceless
criticism of PCABX convinced me that he's simply not pragmatic enough
to be worth much trouble.



I said


So said the novice about the pro.



Arny said


Not proof. The basic fallacy is that anybody who does something for a money
is perfect.


It's a matter of credibility. JJ has it and you don't.



I said


I think DBT with speakers and source components are
quite a bit more difficult.






Arny said


Shows how little you know, sockpuppet wheel.



I said


Nonsense


No response? Did you figure out how stupid your comment was?


I said


Would you limit such tests to
verification of actual audible differences? Personally, I like blind
comparisons for preferences. They are more difficult than sighted
comparisons for obvious reasons.




Arny said



Preference comparisons make no sense if there are no audible
differences. There are two major DBT protocols:



I said


No **** Sherlock. No one said otherwise.



Arny said


Defensive little turd, aren't you?



One must be defensive when dealing with one who is so offensive.


Arny said


ABC/hr for determining degree of impairment or degradation, which
roughly equates to preferences if you presume that audiophiles
naturally prefer undegraded sound or sound that is less degraded or
less impaired. Since there are so-called audiophiles who prefer the
sound of tubes and vinyl which can be rife with audible degradations,
its not clear that one can blithely presume that all audiophile
prefer sound that has less impairment.



I said


One can do preference tests blind the same way they do them sighted by
comparing A to B and forming a preference only without knowing what
is A and what is B. One can from a preference regardless of your
hangups and do it without the effects of sighted bias.



Arny said


I never said otherwise, did I?


Who is being defensive now?

Arny said

ABC/hr just happens to be a recognized,
standardized means for doing that.



It is different though which is why I pointed this out. A/B comparisons do not
need a reference. ABC/hr presumes the reference is the ideal. One does not
always have access to the ideal when judging audio.


Arny said



The tools for doing DBTs of just about *everything* are readily
available, presuming that the investigator is sufficiently pragmatic.
Since we're talking religious beliefs, we can't presume pragmatic
investigators in every case.


I said



We are not talking about religious beliefs here unless you insist on
inserting your religious beliefs.


Arny said



You may be too naive to recognize religious beliefs about audio when you see
them, sockpupppet Yustabe.



And you may be to stupid to keep track of who you are talking to in a single
post. I recognize your religious beliefs about audio Arny. I'm one up on you
there. You clearly don't recognize your religious beliefs on audio for what
they are.

I said


We were talking about the practice
of subjective review by a particular publication



Arny said


That publication seems to have a lengthy track record for forming unfounded
and therefore irrational beliefs in its readers minds. These kinds of
beliefs are often called "religious". Since you can't spell worth a hill of
beans, and are too arrogant to use a proper spell-checker, I thought I'd try
to bring you up-to-date, sockpuppet wheel.


"Religious" is the correct spelling fool. You remain quite the hypocrite for
making poor spelling an issue. You remain quite the "characture." You also
managed to fall on your face in your feeble attempt to actually get back onto
the thread subject. Good job.


Arny said


In the case of Stereophile, the use of DBTs would no doubt embarrass
the management and many of the advertisers. Therefore, Stereophile
has maximal incentive to be as non-pragmatic as possible. They simply
behave predictably.



I said


So says the novice who thinks he is objective.



Arny said


Shows how little you understand. I favor bias controls BECAUSE I believe
that I am biased. If I thought that any listener including myself could be
perfectly objective I wouldn't favor the use of bas controls, now would I.



Shows how lacking you are in self-awareness. You were the one attacking
legitimate researchers like JJ who not only believe in bias control but
actually made a living using it.

I said


You wear your prejudices like a badge.



Arny said


I simply know a little something about myself and everybody else in the
world.


If that were really true you would never stop vomiting.

Arny said

We have a hard time behaving in perfectly objective ways. Every human
has biases. Therefore listening tests that are at all difficult or
controversial, need bias controls.





Yep. And it gets worse when people with an agenda hide behind a facade of
science to try to give their biases more credibility. I'll take honest biases
over your agenda any day.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

I don't see the big deal. Lets have Arny create a PC controlled
switch box which stores results over the net in a secure server.
All the reviewer has to do is hook it up and make his
selections. Results tallied and bingo.


I don't see Arny working with Stereophile.

The point is the creation of a tool that would
minimize the labor involved in a DBT is
no great endeavour.



Performing the DBTs would be a snap if Atkinson set 'em up
with the tools to do it.


I am not so convinced it is a snap to do them well.

I guess I need your definition of well.
No more difficult than listening to gear,
subjectively characterizing the sound and putting
that to paper.

I think if Stereophile were
to do something like this it would be wise for them to consult someone
like JJ
who conducted such tests for a living. Would you suggest that such DBTs
be
limmited to comparisons of cables amps and preamps?

Those are certainly the easiest components.

Digital sources being next with a challenge to sync them
such that the subject isn't tipped off.

I think DBT with speakers
and source components are quite a bit more difficult.

Speakers are definitely out. It could be done but not without
significant difficulty.

Would you limmit such
tests to varification of actual audible differences?

Yes, if that fails then the preference test is really
kind of pointless.

Personally, I like blind
comparisons for preferences. They are more difficult than sighted
comparisons
for obvious reasons.


The fact that they don't even create
the tools to do it is telling to me.



How so?

I think they are afraid of the possible (or even probable)
outcome.

ScottW

Scott said


Performing the DBTs would be a snap if Atkinson set 'em up
with the tools to do it.



I said


I am not so convinced it is a snap to do them well.


Scott said



I guess I need your definition of well.
No more difficult than listening to gear,
subjectively characterizing the sound and putting
that to paper.


Well would be within the bounds of rigor that would be scientifically
acceptable. I see no point in half-assing an attempt to bring greater
reliability to the process of subjective review. Let's just say Howard fell way
short in his endevours and the results spoke to that fact.

I said



I think if Stereophile were
to do something like this it would be wise for them to consult someone
like JJ
who conducted such tests for a living. Would you suggest that such DBTs
be
limmited to comparisons of cables amps and preamps?


Scott said


Those are certainly the easiest components.

Digital sources being next with a challenge to sync them
such that the subject isn't tipped off.


I said



I think DBT with speakers
and source components are quite a bit more difficult.


Scott said



Speakers are definitely out. It could be done but not without
significant difficulty.


I did do some single blind comparisons. The dealer was very nice about it.

I said


Would you limmit such
tests to varification of actual audible differences?


Scott said



Yes, if that fails then the preference test is really
kind of pointless.



I don't think so. It has been shown that with components that are agreed to
sound different sighted bias can still have an affect on preference.

Scott said



The fact that they don't even create
the tools to do it is telling to me.



I said



How so?



Scott said


I think they are afraid of the possible (or even probable)
outcome.


Maybe but I am skeptical of this. It didn't seem to hurt Stereo Review to take
the position that all amps, preamps and cables sounded the same. Stereophile
did take the Carver challenge. They weren't afraid of the outcome of that.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Scott said


I think they are afraid of the possible (or even probable)
outcome.


Maybe but I am skeptical of this. It didn't seem to hurt Stereo
Review to take the position that all amps, preamps and cables sounded
the same.

Stereo Review works in a different, more pragmatic market than the high end
ragazines.

Stereophile did take the Carver challenge.

Really? What Stereophile issue describes that?

They weren't afraid of the outcome of that.

Awaiting details of this test.

Stereo Review works in a different, more pragmatic market than the high end
ragazines.


They reviewed some very expensive equipment including highend tubed
electronics. Stereophile OTOH has reviewed some very inexpensive equipment.


I said


Stereophile did take the Carver challenge.



Arny said


Really? What Stereophile issue describes that?


I don't remember. you could always check their archives.

I said



They weren't afraid of the outcome of that.


Arny said



Awaiting details of this test.




Look 'em up yourself.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Scott said


Performing the DBTs would be a snap if Atkinson set 'em up
with the tools to do it.



I said


I am not so convinced it is a snap to do them well.


Scott said



I guess I need your definition of well.
No more difficult than listening to gear,
subjectively characterizing the sound and putting
that to paper.


Well would be within the bounds of rigor that would be scientifically
acceptable. I see no point in half-assing an attempt to bring greater
reliability to the process of subjective review. Let's just say Howard
fell way
short in his endevours and the results spoke to that fact.

I am talking about reviews in a magazine. Who said it
had to be "scientifically acceptable"? That would require
independent witnesses which would make it way beyond the
scope of what I am talking about.
A tool to allow a single person toconduct and report
statistically valid results (if not independently witnessed)
would be required. After that, conducting the tests would
be relatively easy.


I said



I think if Stereophile were
to do something like this it would be wise for them to consult someone
like JJ
who conducted such tests for a living. Would you suggest that such DBTs
be
limmited to comparisons of cables amps and preamps?


Scott said


Those are certainly the easiest components.

Digital sources being next with a challenge to sync them
such that the subject isn't tipped off.


I said



I think DBT with speakers
and source components are quite a bit more difficult.


Scott said



Speakers are definitely out. It could be done but not without
significant difficulty.


I did do some single blind comparisons. The dealer was very nice about
it.

Problem is speaker location. What if both speakers optimal location is
within the
same space? Even if it is not, the spacing should be relatively easy to
differentiate.
It is quite difficult to conduct such a test truly blind.

I said


Would you limmit such
tests to varification of actual audible differences?


Scott said



Yes, if that fails then the preference test is really
kind of pointless.



I don't think so. It has been shown that with components that are agreed
to
sound different sighted bias can still have an affect on preference.

I did say if the difference test fails. Obviously if the difference test
is passed
then a preference test could be undertaken. I'm not that concerned about
people being influenced on preference. Preference can be learned.

Scott said



The fact that they don't even create
the tools to do it is telling to me.



I said



How so?



Scott said


I think they are afraid of the possible (or even probable)
outcome.


Maybe but I am skeptical of this. It didn't seem to hurt Stereo Review to
take
the position that all amps, preamps and cables sounded the same.
Stereophile
did take the Carver challenge. They weren't afraid of the outcome of
that.

Then why not? A chance to cater to both objectivists and subjectivists.
Sounds like a win-win.

ScottW

Terriers are bothered by fleas. The RAO Terrierborg appears seriously
bothered. Does it follow that he must, perforce, have fleas?

Performing the DBTs would be a snap if Atkinson set 'em up
with the tools to do it.

I am not so convinced it is a snap to do them well.

I guess I need your definition of well.

Well would be within the bounds of rigor that would be scientifically
acceptable.

I am talking about reviews in a magazine. Who said it
had to be "scientifically acceptable"?

Are you always this stupid? Wait, I know that one......

Scott said



I guess I need your definition of well.
No more difficult than listening to gear,
subjectively characterizing the sound and putting
that to paper.


I said


Well would be within the bounds of rigor that would be scientifically
acceptable. I see no point in half-assing an attempt to bring greater
reliability to the process of subjective review. Let's just say Howard
fell way
short in his endevours and the results spoke to that fact.

Scott said



I am talking about reviews in a magazine. Who said it
had to be "scientifically acceptable"?

You asked for my definition of well done DBTs.

Scott said

That would require
independent witnesses which would make it way beyond the
scope of what I am talking about.

I don't think it would require independent witnesses but it would require
Stereophile to establish their own formal peer review group. But we are talking
about Stereophile dealing with the current level of uncertainty that now exists
with the current protocols.I think to do standard DBTs right would be a major
pain in the ass for them. Even the magazines which make a big issue out of such
tests don't often actually do such tests and when they do they often do a crap
job of it.

Scott said

A tool to allow a single person toconduct and report
statistically valid results (if not independently witnessed)
would be required. After that, conducting the tests would
be relatively easy.


Is it ever easy? Look what Howard did with such a tool.

I said


I did do some single blind comparisons. The dealer was very nice about
it.

Scott said


Problem is speaker location. What if both speakers optimal location is
within the
same space? Even if it is not, the spacing should be relatively easy to
differentiate.
It is quite difficult to conduct such a test truly blind.


It was difficult. The speakers had to be moved between each listening
session.It was blind because I had my eyes closed. It all felt a bit ridiculous
but it worked. I didn't know which speaker was which on the first samples. It
didn't take long for me to figure which was which just by listening though. At
that point I didn't bother with the closing of eyes.

Scott said


I did say if the difference test fails. Obviously if the difference test
is passed
then a preference test could be undertaken. I'm not that concerned about
people being influenced on preference. Preference can be learned.

Yes you did. My mistake. But sighted bias does affect preference. That has been
proven. I wanted to compare the Martin Logans to the Apogees blind for that
very reason. I knew I liked the looks of the Martin Logans.

I said


Maybe but I am skeptical of this. It didn't seem to hurt Stereo Review to
take
the position that all amps, preamps and cables sounded the same.
Stereophile
did take the Carver challenge. They weren't afraid of the outcome of
that.

Scott said


Then why not? A chance to cater to both objectivists and subjectivists.
Sounds like a win-win.


I cannot speak for Stereophile and I cannot rule out your hunch. But you cannot
rule out the possibility that cost and inconvenience of propper implimentation
of such protocols on a staff comprised largely of hobbyists is a factor.

"ScottW" wrote in message
newskOGb.41378$m83.22809@fed1read01
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

I don't see the big deal. Lets have Arny create a PC controlled
switch box which stores results over the net in a secure server.
All the reviewer has to do is hook it up and make his
selections. Results tallied and bingo.


I don't see Arny working with Stereophile.

The point is the creation of a tool that would
minimize the labor involved in a DBT is
no great endeavour.

It's been done.


Performing the DBTs would be a snap if Atkinson set 'em up
with the tools to do it.

I am not so convinced it is a snap to do them well.

I guess I need your definition of well.
No more difficult than listening to gear,
subjectively characterizing the sound and putting
that to paper.

Having done dozens of DBTs, probably 100's by now, I think that doing DBTs
takes more work than the schlock procedures that the Stereophile reviewers
use.

I think if Stereophile were
to do something like this it would be wise for them to consult
someone like JJ who conducted such tests for a living. Would you
suggest that such DBTs be limited to comparisons of cables amps and
preamps?

Those are certainly the easiest components.

Digital players are just as easy.

Digital sources being next with a challenge to sync them
such that the subject isn't tipped off.

The same requirements for synchronization apply to analog sources as well.

I think DBT with speakers
and source components are quite a bit more difficult.

Speakers are definitely out. It could be done but not without
significant difficulty.

The biggest problem is not with DBTs, but a factor that affects sighted
evaluations as well. Speakers are profoundly affected by their location in
the room, and two speakers can't occupy the same location at the same time.

Would you limit such
tests to verification of actual audible differences?

Yes, if that fails then the preference test is really
kind of pointless.

Personally, I like blind
comparisons for preferences. They are more difficult than sighted
comparisons for obvious reasons.

The fact that they don't even create
the tools to do it is telling to me.



How so?

I think they are afraid of the possible (or even probable)
outcome.

I'm quite sure of it. Atkinson has tried to slip hidden sources of bias into
his alleged DBTs. He seems to have this need to control the outcome of the
listening tests that are done for his ragazine.