Mr. McKelvy quotes:
A New Laboratory for Evaluating Multichannel Audio Components and Systems
By Sean E. Olive, Brian Castro, and Floyd E. Toole
Harman International Industries, Inc.


And comments:
Ludo doesn't really want this sort of information, he's been posturing
for
years. If he is actually exposed to what he already knows exists,
he's not
going to admit it.

Wrong again. I do love this information. I quoted it with the full
results from JAES in the opening letter of this thread. Using this
wonderful listening room Sean Olive ( Mr. Toole's cowoorker) had 300
listeners listen double blind to 4 loudspeakers two of which had
ragged frequency range.
And you know what (rerepeat just for you!) majority failed
abysmally to distinguish between speakers in a formal double blind
test, Another NEGATIVE DBT,
And you know what else? The same majority that failed *testing*
preferred full range speakers. As long as no one bothered them with
the "test". Don't believe me? Read the article and/or ask Sean Olive.
I did.
Ludovic Mirabel
L

"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
om...
Mr. McKelvy quotes:
A New Laboratory for Evaluating Multichannel Audio Components and Systems
By Sean E. Olive, Brian Castro, and Floyd E. Toole
Harman International Industries, Inc.


And comments:
Ludo doesn't really want this sort of information, he's been posturing
for
years. If he is actually exposed to what he already knows exists,
he's not
going to admit it.

Wrong again. I do love this information. I quoted it with the full
results from JAES in the opening letter of this thread. Using this
wonderful listening room Sean Olive ( Mr. Toole's cowoorker) had 300
listeners listen double blind to 4 loudspeakers two of which had
ragged frequency range.
And you know what (rerepeat just for you!) majority failed
abysmally to distinguish between speakers in a formal double blind
test, Another NEGATIVE DBT,
And you know what else? The same majority that failed *testing*
preferred full range speakers. As long as no one bothered them with
the "test". Don't believe me? Read the article and/or ask Sean Olive.
I did.
Ludovic Mirabel
L

What is it you think this is supposed to mean?

"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message

Wrong again. I do love this information. I quoted it with the full
results from JAES in the opening letter of this thread. Using this
wonderful listening room Sean Olive ( Mr. Toole's cowoorker) had 300
listeners listen double blind to 4 loudspeakers two of which had
ragged frequency range.
And you know what (rerepeat just for you!) majority failed
abysmally to distinguish between speakers in a formal double blind
test, Another NEGATIVE DBT,
And you know what else? The same majority that failed *testing*
preferred full range speakers. As long as no one bothered them with
the "test". Don't believe me? Read the article and/or ask Sean Olive.
I did.

I suppose a good, objective DBT would be on equipment that Stereophile
reviewers, by their own admission, have claimed made an instant difference.

Apparently, in the May 1990 issue of Stereophile, JA did some tests on tweak
items like the green marking pen and even though his instruments showed no
difference before and after the tweaks, his ears were "flabbergasted" by the
pen.

Even though he wrote of his measurements that: "most of these tweaks would
appear to border on voodoo, with no basis in fact...", he goes on to write
that with the green pen "soundstage depth increased, mids and highs were
smoother with less grain, and the presentation became more musically
involving."

I haven't got a copy of the May 1990 issue, but I picked up this information
at http://www.technobeat.com/OLDIES/GREEN.html.

It's quite possible that these tweaks did make an audible difference, after
all CDs in the late 80s and early 90s were quite shoddy analog transfers
that actually carried ratings like AAD, ADD and DDD.

However, it would be interesting to see a DBT/ABX test of the green pen
phenomenon.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I think what would really interesting is if the illusion of improved
sound
returns after a DBT shows absolutely no difference to the point that the
testee
is quite convinced the difference lies completely in one's head.

Funny. I always thought you're part of the anti-DBT brigade.

Anuj

Stereophile to a DBT contest.
From: "Schizoid Man"
Date: 12/15/2004 10:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I think what would really interesting is if the illusion of improved
sound
returns after a DBT shows absolutely no difference to the point that the
testee
is quite convinced the difference lies completely in one's head.

Funny. I always thought you're part of the anti-DBT brigade.

Anuj


Anti-Double blind tests? Not at all. I'm quite glad that the medical field uses
them. I am quite anti psuedo-science though. I see the Nousianes, Kruegers and
Ferstlers as practicioners of such psuedo-science. I have no doubt that real
audible differences can be measured and revealed by well thought out well
administered DBT listening tests. I don't trust the above named folks to do
such tests. They have invested their souls in a particular outcome. But what do
you think? Do you think imagined differences return even after being exposed as
imaginary?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

Anti-Double blind tests? Not at all. I'm quite glad that the medical field
uses
them. I am quite anti psuedo-science though. I see the Nousianes, Kruegers
and
Ferstlers as practicioners of such psuedo-science. I have no doubt that
real
audible differences can be measured and revealed by well thought out well
administered DBT listening tests. I don't trust the above named folks to
do
such tests. They have invested their souls in a particular outcome. But
what do
you think? Do you think imagined differences return even after being
exposed as
imaginary?

I think it's a little ambiguous to tell the listener that the differences he
or she claims to be hearing are imaginary.

That being said, I am definitely anti- pseudo-science. I am highly skeptical
of concepts like interconnect break-in, unidirectional speaker cable or
audio walkers to reduce CD jitter. As you can imagine, the Stereophile
Recommended Component cable cooker is not on my Christmas shopping list.

I just picked up the Randi controvery on this forum, so I don't know first
hand whether JA or anyone else at Stereophile actually reviewed the Shakti
Soundfield Optimizer or the Bybee Quantum Purifiers. However, it would be
disappointing that a magazine for serious audiophiles would review products
like these without some discussion of the science behind them.

Audio may be an art, but when an audio product claims to operate on the
quantum mechanical level to regulate the flow of electrons, I think it's
time to break out the oscilloscope and multimeter. Don't you?

S888Wheel wrote:

Anti-Double blind tests? Not at all. I'm quite glad that the medical field uses
them. I am quite anti psuedo-science though. I see the Nousianes, Kruegers and
Ferstlers as practicioners of such psuedo-science. I have no doubt that real
audible differences can be measured and revealed by well thought out well
administered DBT listening tests. I don't trust the above named folks to do
such tests. They have invested their souls in a particular outcome. But what do
you think? Do you think imagined differences return even after being exposed as
imaginary?

Sloppy or not, if a level-matched DBT shows two components
(amps or wires) sound the same, the test has at least shown
the participant that to his standards the tweako mantra is
bunk. Any DBT of that kind has to be better than the weird
techniques most tweakos use to evaluate gear.

The important thing would be for YOU to do a level-matched
DBT yourself. Yeah, I know you think that such procedures
border on being as arcane as rocket science. (God knows just
how much rigor you think is required, given your own
tendency to pick out hardware by traditional methods.)
However, if you level match and do the comparing blind you
ought to at least get into the ball park when it comes to
debunking some of your own myths.

To make even a sloppy level-matched DBT more successful,
compare some expensive, super-duper stuff to some cheap
stuff. (Compare a Krell amp and preamp to the
preamp/power-amp section of a Pioneer receiver, for example;
or compare lamp cord to some top-grade Monster wire.) That
ought to better dramatize just how much bunk there is out
there in tweako land.

Howard Ferstler

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


I think what would really interesting is if the illusion of improved
sound returns after a DBT shows absolutely no difference to the point
that the testee is quite convinced the difference lies completely in
one's head.

It can. Been there, done that.

Sighted listening can be quite compelling.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


I see the
Nousianes, Kruegers and Ferstlers as practicioners of such
psuedo-science.

Well Scott, that fits with your inability to grasp the basic laws of science
and the law itself.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else do so. I am speaking of
instances
when the listener is convinced via a DBT that there is no real difference.
Do
you think the previously percieved difference comes back with sighted
comparisons or stays away?

I think the difference would stay away. I really subscribe to school of
thought that sighted listening is more a more engaging experience, therefore
rendering DBTs invalid and useless.

I just picked up the Randi controvery on this forum, so I don't know
first
hand whether JA or anyone else at Stereophile actually reviewed the
Shakti
Soundfield Optimizer or the Bybee Quantum Purifiers. However, it would be
disappointing that a magazine for serious audiophiles would review
products
like these without some discussion of the science behind them.

Audio may be an art, but when an audio product claims to operate on the
quantum mechanical level to regulate the flow of electrons, I think it's
time to break out the oscilloscope and multimeter. Don't you?

Yeah. But Mr. Bybee seems to have some pretty serious credentials.

No one's disputing Jack Bybee's credentials. But then, ever Amar Bose has a
PhD in Electrical Engineering from MIT, no less.

So do people really go
back to hearing "imagined" differnces when the go back to sighted
listening? If
not, why did those "skeptics" think they were hearing differences during
informal listening and if so, isn't that something to pay attention to?

I don't have a dedicated listening room at home and my listening habits
usually involve the music playing and me multi-tasking - web surfing,
working, etc. So I am not sure whether that constitutes a DBT but I can
definitely tell the sonic differences among the various speakers that I have
owned over the years on the CDs that I know well.

So again, I don't really know whether sighted listening is all that
different from unsighted, particularly since, I would assume, all the
Stereophile reviewers have golden ears.

Schizoid Man" wrote in message

I think the difference would stay away. I really subscribe to school of
thought that sighted listening is more a more engaging experience,
therefore
rendering DBTs invalid and useless.

I think the difference would stay away. I don't really subscribe to school
of thought that sighted listening is a more engaging experience, therefore
rendering DBTs invalid and useless.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Sighted listening can be quite compelling.


Try harder. You must get rid of that nuisance.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" emitted :

"Howard Ferstler"......

Flesh Rot Reward?

Lord Farts Where?

Far worlds... there!

Who do you think is Rank Gruyere? That's so descriptively plausible,
cannot be a coincidence.


S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
-----------------------------------
It's Grim up north..

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" emitted :

"Howard Ferstler"......

Flesh Rot Reward?

Lord Farts Where?

Far worlds... there!

Who do you think is Rank Gruyere? That's so descriptively plausible,
cannot be a coincidence.


Une larger dork?

Schizoid Man wrote:
I just picked up the Randi controvery on this forum, so I don't
know first hand whether JA or anyone else at Stereophile actually
reviewed the Shakti Soundfield Optimizer or the Bybee Quantum
Purifiers. However, it would be disappointing that a magazine for
serious audiophiles would review products like these without some
discussion of the science behind them.

Contrary to what is implied on James Randi's website, neither of these
products has been reviewed in Stereophile. But what's a little factual
honesty between skeptics, eh? I am continually bemused by the license
so-called "objectivists" allow themselves when it comes to being
factually correct while they demand that "subjectivists" jump through
hoops for them. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message

Schizoid Man wrote:
I just picked up the Randi controvery on this forum, so I don't
know first hand whether JA or anyone else at Stereophile actually
reviewed the Shakti Soundfield Optimizer or the Bybee Quantum
Purifiers. However, it would be disappointing that a magazine for
serious audiophiles would review products like these without some
discussion of the science behind them.

Contrary to what is implied on James Randi's website, neither of these
products has been reviewed in Stereophile.

That is a revelation. Thank you.

But what's a little factual honesty between skeptics, eh? I am continually
bemused by the
license
so-called "objectivists" allow themselves when it comes to being
factually correct while they demand that "subjectivists" jump through
hoops for them. :-)

I do believe that high-end audio does at some point become more art than
science. However, any device that claims to use quantum mechanics to improve
the quality of the playback needs to go through a rigorous scientific
examination.

Personally, I belong to the school that is skeptical of concepts like
break-in and unidirectional speaker cable, but to each his own.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 12/15/2004 12:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


I think what would really interesting is if the illusion of improved
sound returns after a DBT shows absolutely no difference to the point
that the testee is quite convinced the difference lies completely in
one's head.

It can. Been there, done that.

Don't you think this is kind of significant? Seems to go beyond the typical
placebo eefect for one thing. Seems to me the implications are pretty
important.


Sighted listening can be quite compelling.


Then why deny it? It is after all the way just about everyone actually listens
for pleasure. Think about that and how it relates to the fact that the effect
of the sighted bias can return to one even if they are convinced that it isn't
a real sonic difference.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message

Schizoid Man wrote:
I just picked up the Randi controvery on this forum, so I don't
know first hand whether JA or anyone else at Stereophile actually
reviewed the Shakti Soundfield Optimizer or the Bybee Quantum
Purifiers. However, it would be disappointing that a magazine for
serious audiophiles would review products like these without some
discussion of the science behind them.

Contrary to what is implied on James Randi's website, neither of these
products has been reviewed in Stereophile.

That is a revelation. Thank you.

But what's a little factual honesty between skeptics, eh? I am
continually
bemused by the
license
so-called "objectivists" allow themselves when it comes to being
factually correct while they demand that "subjectivists" jump through
hoops for them. :-)

I do believe that high-end audio does at some point become more art than
science.

Shakti Stones are neither, they are snake oil. So naturally SP endorsed
them in a review.

However, any device that claims to use quantum mechanics to improve
the quality of the playback needs to go through a rigorous scientific
examination.

Personally, I belong to the school that is skeptical of concepts like
break-in and unidirectional speaker cable, but to each his own.


There's no reason to be skeptical, they are bull**** concepts pure and
simple.

Good question deserves courteous answer. It means to ME that as long as most
people are not bothered trying to remember what they heard before to compare
with what they are hearing now they can concentrate properly on what their
auditory nerves are conveying to their brains. The result is "I like this
one" and "No, I don't like this one"

That is what it means to me. If you want to know what it means to Sean Olive
you'll have to ask him. I'm only reporting.

Of course as I said before I would love to see one of your "many" references
to positive DBT/ABX tests by most of a panel of say 10 audiophiles. If, as
you say, you have no time to find all of them just quote two to begin with.
After all there must be SOME comparable audio components out there that will
sound different to a small panel.

Even when they are ABXing.

Ludovic Mirabel


"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net...

"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
om...
Mr. McKelvy quotes:
A New Laboratory for Evaluating Multichannel Audio Components and
Systems
By Sean E. Olive, Brian Castro, and Floyd E. Toole
Harman International Industries, Inc.


And comments:
Ludo doesn't really want this sort of information, he's been posturing
for
years. If he is actually exposed to what he already knows exists,
he's not
going to admit it.

Wrong again. I do love this information. I quoted it with the full
results from JAES in the opening letter of this thread. Using this
wonderful listening room Sean Olive ( Mr. Toole's cowoorker) had 300
listeners listen double blind to 4 loudspeakers two of which had
ragged frequency range.
And you know what (rerepeat just for you!) majority failed
abysmally to distinguish between speakers in a formal double blind
test, Another NEGATIVE DBT,
And you know what else? The same majority that failed *testing*
preferred full range speakers. As long as no one bothered them with
the "test". Don't believe me? Read the article and/or ask Sean Olive.
I did.
Ludovic Mirabel
L

What is it you think this is supposed to mean?

"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...
Good question deserves courteous answer. It means to ME that as long as
most people are not bothered trying to remember what they heard before to
compare with what they are hearing now they can concentrate properly on
what their auditory nerves are conveying to their brains. The result is "I
like this one" and "No, I don't like this one"

That is what it means to me. If you want to know what it means to Sean
Olive you'll have to ask him. I'm only reporting.

Of course as I said before I would love to see one of your "many"
references to positive DBT/ABX tests by most of a panel of say 10
audiophiles. If, as you say, you have no time to find all of them just
quote two to begin with.
After all there must be SOME comparable audio components out there that
will sound different to a small panel.

Even when they are ABXing.


The only ones I've heard about dealt with Tube amps.

Were the FR's of the speakers that Mr. Olive used similar?

"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message


Of course as I said before I would love to see one of your "many"
references to positive DBT/ABX tests by most of a panel of say 10
audiophiles. If, as you say, you have no time to find all of them
just quote two to begin with. After all there must be SOME comparable
audio components out there that will sound different to a small panel.

Even when they are ABXing.

Hey Ludo, you've got your homework cut out for you. Let us know when you
have some results to share.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else do so. I am speaking of
instances when the listener is convinced via a DBT that there is no
real difference. Do you think the previously perceived difference
comes back with sighted comparisons or stays away?

I think the difference would stay away. I really subscribe to school
of thought that sighted listening is more a more engaging experience,
therefore rendering DBTs invalid and useless.

I subscribe to the school of thought that some audiophiles are so obsessive
about hearing differences, that they will sit around for years making up
futile excuses for the fact that their perceptions in sighted listening
tests are authoritative.

Besides, many ABX tests have been sighted - the listeners could look at the
equipment that was playing as long and hard and close as they wanted to.
It's just that there was some other equipment in the room that coulda-maybe
been playing instead.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com

Contrary to what is implied on James Randi's website, neither of these
products has been reviewed in Stereophile. But what's a little factual
honesty between skeptics, eh? I am continually bemused by the license
so-called "objectivists" allow themselves when it comes to being
factually correct while they demand that "subjectivists" jump through
hoops for them. :-)

To read the previous paragraph correctly you have to understand that
Atkinson has been caught making false claims about posts on Randi's web
site. So now, Atkinson no longer makes clear statements about them, but
instead uses the hedge word "implied" in his highly creative speculations
about what Randi said.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com
Contrary to what is implied on James Randi's website, neither of
these products has been reviewed in Stereophile.

Atkinson...uses the hedge word "implied"

Yes, because in this specific instance, The Amazing Randi follows
his discussion of Stereophile with comments on reviews of the
Shakti and Bybee devices without attributing those reviews with
the publication in which those reviews appeared. The reader is thus
left with the impression that those reviews were published in
Stereophile. And to judge by the e-mails I get since James Randi
published my address on his site, people _do_ get that impression.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com

Contrary to what is implied on James Randi's website, neither of
these products has been reviewed in Stereophile.

Atkinson...uses the hedge word "implied"

Yes, because in this specific instance, The Amazing Randi follows
his discussion of Stereophile with comments on reviews of the
Shakti and Bybee devices without attributing those reviews with
the publication in which those reviews appeared.

So what? Atkinson, I imply from what you say that you are being
hyper-sensitive to having Randi mention Stereophile's favorable reviews of
snake oil products like the "Audiodharma Cable Cooker" too close to Randi's
mention of other snake oil products that Stereophile somehow missed
publishing a favorable review of.

The reader is thus
left with the impression that those reviews were published in
Stereophile.

I imply from http://www.randi.org/jr/120304youve.html that the subsequent
mention of the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield Optimizer" is attributed to
Wayne Donnelly, not Stereophile. Or, did I miss Wayne Donnelly's implied
recent affiliation with Stereophile?

And to judge by the e-mails I get since James Randi
published my address on his site, people _do_ get that impression.

I imply that you handled those emails with your usual congeniality
Atkinson - you told the writers that they can't read? ;-)

Stereophile to a DBT contest.
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 12/16/2004 3:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else do so. I am speaking of
instances when the listener is convinced via a DBT that there is no
real difference. Do you think the previously perceived difference
comes back with sighted comparisons or stays away?

I think the difference would stay away. I really subscribe to school
of thought that sighted listening is more a more engaging experience,
therefore rendering DBTs invalid and useless.

I subscribe to the school of thought that some audiophiles are so obsessive
about hearing differences, that they will sit around for years making up
futile excuses for the fact that their perceptions in sighted listening
tests are authoritative.

This isn't about your prejudices about audiophiles.



Besides, many ABX tests have been sighted - the listeners could look at the
equipment that was playing as long and hard and close as they wanted to.

One would think even you know what is meant by blind in a DBT.


It's just that there was some other equipment in the room that coulda-maybe
been playing instead.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

Stereophile to a DBT contest.
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 12/16/2004 3:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else do so. I am speaking of
instances when the listener is convinced via a DBT that there is no
real difference. Do you think the previously perceived difference
comes back with sighted comparisons or stays away?

I think the difference would stay away. I really subscribe to school
of thought that sighted listening is more a more engaging
experience, therefore rendering DBTs invalid and useless.

I subscribe to the school of thought that some audiophiles are so
obsessive about hearing differences, that they will sit around for
years making up futile excuses for the fact that their perceptions
in sighted listening tests are authoritative.

This isn't about your prejudices about audiophiles.

Scott, can you prove that my comment is anything but a correct critical
insight to the minds of some audiophiles that I have had experience with
over the years?

Besides, many ABX tests have been sighted - the listeners could look
at the equipment that was playing as long and hard and close as they
wanted to. It's just that there was some other equipment in the room that
coulda-maybe been playing instead.

One would think even you know what is meant by blind in a DBT.

Why? Scott, do you have a problem with the idea that the essence of a DBT is
concealing the identity of the unit under test that is playing at the
instant?

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:08:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

To read the previous paragraph correctly you have to understand that
Atkinson has been caught making false claims about posts on Randi's web
site.

And you have been caught making claims about published reports of
"dbts" that don't actually exist.

So where's *your* mea culpa?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Schizoid Man said:

I do believe that high-end audio does at some point become more art than
science. However, any device that claims to use quantum mechanics to
improve
the quality of the playback needs to go through a rigorous scientific
examination.

Oh really? I thought only the 'borgs were so stupid as to take marketing
hype at face value.

My point exactly. We should rid the menace before we are all assimilated.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Schizoid Man said:

I do believe that high-end audio does at some point become more art
than science. However, any device that claims to use quantum
mechanics to improve the quality of the playback needs to go
through a rigorous scientific examination.

Oh really? I thought only the 'borgs were so stupid as to take
marketing hype at face value.

My point exactly. We should rid the menace before we are all
assimilated.

You're both exactly wrong, of course. Just consider all the times that
Stereophile writers have been suckered by marketing hype. The DiAural affair
comes to mind.

normanstrong" wrote in message
S888Wheel" wrote in message
Schizoid Man




I think it's a little ambiguous to tell the listener that the
differences he or she claims to be hearing are imaginary.

I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else do so. I am speaking of
instances when the listener is convinced via a DBT that there is no
real difference. Do you think the previously percieved difference comes
back with sighted comparisons or stays away?



I've only run into this situation once, and in that instance the
difference went away--never to return.

Norm Strong


Could you explain how you were able to determine that the differences
went away ?

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com
Contrary to what is implied on James Randi's website, neither of
these products has been reviewed in Stereophile.

Atkinson...uses the hedge word "implied"

Yes, because in this specific instance, The Amazing Randi follows
his discussion of Stereophile with comments on reviews of the
Shakti and Bybee devices without attributing those reviews with
the publication in which those reviews appeared. The reader is thus
left with the impression that those reviews were published in
Stereophile.

Just like when you claimed rsults from your ABX tests that didn't really
mean what you were trying to imply.

And to judge by the e-mails I get since James Randi
published my address on his site, people _do_ get that impression.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

What sort of impression do SP readers get if they read a positive review of
Shakti Stones?

Would it be A: These things work, the reviewer said so, and SP has all
those charts and graphs and stuff.

Or would it be B: Holy ****, this must be snake oil, they don't have any
sort of measurements to justify the reviewer's impressions.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com
Contrary to what is implied on James Randi's website, neither of
these products has been reviewed in Stereophile.

Atkinson...uses the hedge word "implied"

Yes, because in this specific instance, The Amazing Randi follows
his discussion of Stereophile with comments on reviews of the
Shakti and Bybee devices without attributing those reviews with
the publication in which those reviews appeared. The reader is thus
left with the impression that those reviews were published in
Stereophile.

Just like when you claimed rsults from your ABX tests that didn't really
mean what you were trying to imply.

And to judge by the e-mails I get since James Randi
published my address on his site, people _do_ get that impression.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

What sort of impression do SP readers get if they read a positive review
of Shakti Stones?

Would it be A: These things work, the reviewer said so, and SP has all
those charts and graphs and stuff.

Or would it be B: Holy ****, this must be snake oil, they don't have any
sort of measurements to justify the reviewer's impressions.

maybe it would be C: I would like to audition them and
make up my own mind.

maybe it would be D: Maybe they might work, and mmaybe not,
but they are very expensive, and my time and money might be
better spent on other resources that are likely to provide
more otential improvements for less money.

Mikey, your big mistake is in assuming
everyone else is as stupid as you are.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in
message
k.net...

"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net
wrote in message
...
Good question deserves courteous answer. It
means to ME that as long as most people are not
bothered trying to remember what they heard
before to compare with what they are hearing
now they can concentrate properly on what their
auditory nerves are conveying to their brains.
The result is "I like this one" and "No, I
don't like this one"

That is what it means to me. If you want to
know what it means to Sean Olive you'll have to
ask him. I'm only reporting.

Of course as I said before I would love to see
one of your "many" references to positive
DBT/ABX tests by most of a panel of say 10
audiophiles. If, as you say, you have no time
to find all of them just quote two to begin
with.
After all there must be SOME comparable audio
components out there that will sound different
to a small panel.

Even when they are ABXing.


The only ones I've heard about dealt with Tube
amps.

Tubes are just fine. Any audiocomponents at all-
but give references at last
Next you ask for the third time.

Were the FR's of the speakers that Mr. Olive
used similar?

The question was answered by me 2 days ago in this
thread
"Sean Olive ( Mr. Toole's cowoorker) had 300
listeners listen double blind to 4 loudspeakers
two of which had * ragged* frequency range"Mr.
McKelvy I am not your librarian and I am not Sean
Olive's spokesman. .I advised you before to read
his article and/or contact him if you have a
problem following a simple enough text.This is
getting very tedious. No more correspondence till
you produce some of your "many" references to
POSITIVE ABX test. RegardsLudovic Mirabel
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________M cKelvy
Dec 16+

"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net...

"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...
Good question deserves courteous answer. It means to ME that as long as
most people are not bothered trying to remember what they heard before
to compare with what they are hearing now they can concentrate properly
on what their auditory nerves are conveying to their brains. The result
is "I like this one" and "No, I don't like this one"

That is what it means to me. If you want to know what it means to Sean
Olive you'll have to ask him. I'm only reporting.

Of course as I said before I would love to see one of your "many"
references to positive DBT/ABX tests by most of a panel of say 10
audiophiles. If, as you say, you have no time to find all of them just
quote two to begin with.
After all there must be SOME comparable audio components out there that
will sound different to a small panel.

Even when they are ABXing.


The only ones I've heard about dealt with Tube amps.

Tubes are just fine. Any audiocomponents at all- but give references at
last
Next you ask for the third time.

Sorry but since I'm not interested in tube amps and already know what I need
to about ABX and DBT's relating to audio, I don't save such things.
It was several years ago that I read about the instance I was referring to.
I don't believe they would have met your criteria for a panel of listeners.




Were the FR's of the speakers that Mr. Olive used similar?

The question was answered by me 2 days ago in this thread
"Sean Olive ( Mr. Toole's cowoorker) had 300 listeners listen double blind
to 4 loudspeakers two of which had * ragged* frequency range"Mr. McKelvy I
am not your librarian and I am not Sean Olive's spokesman.

Sorry, I do recall reading that bit.

..I advised you before to read
his article and/or contact him if you have a problem following a simple
enough text.

If you have it post it. I don't see any need to pay for a JAES paper on a
subject that is pretty much dead for me.

This is
getting very tedious. No more correspondence till you produce some of your
"many" references to POSITIVE ABX test. RegardsLudovic Mirabel

Promise?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com
Contrary to what is implied on James Randi's website, neither of
these products has been reviewed in Stereophile.

Atkinson...uses the hedge word "implied"

Yes, because in this specific instance, The Amazing Randi follows
his discussion of Stereophile with comments on reviews of the
Shakti and Bybee devices without attributing those reviews with
the publication in which those reviews appeared. The reader is thus
left with the impression that those reviews were published in
Stereophile.

Just like when you claimed rsults from your ABX tests that didn't really
mean what you were trying to imply.

And to judge by the e-mails I get since James Randi
published my address on his site, people _do_ get that impression.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

What sort of impression do SP readers get if they read a positive review
of Shakti Stones?

Would it be A: These things work, the reviewer said so, and SP has all
those charts and graphs and stuff.

Or would it be B: Holy ****, this must be snake oil, they don't have any
sort of measurements to justify the reviewer's impressions.

maybe it would be C: I would like to audition them and
make up my own mind.


Why bother if they can't possibly work? It's your time, feel free to use it
as you wish.

maybe it would be D: Maybe they might work, and mmaybe not,
but they are very expensive, and my time and money might be
better spent on other resources that are likely to provide
more otential improvements for less money.

Mikey, your big mistake is in assuming
everyone else is as stupid as you are.
I assume people are smart enough to not be deluded into thinking things like
Shakti Stones and Cable cookers have any effect, but it seems somebody buys
this ****.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 12/16/2004 6:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

Stereophile to a DBT contest.
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 12/16/2004 3:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else do so. I am speaking of
instances when the listener is convinced via a DBT that there is no
real difference. Do you think the previously perceived difference
comes back with sighted comparisons or stays away?

I think the difference would stay away. I really subscribe to school
of thought that sighted listening is more a more engaging
experience, therefore rendering DBTs invalid and useless.

I subscribe to the school of thought that some audiophiles are so
obsessive about hearing differences, that they will sit around for
years making up futile excuses for the fact that their perceptions
in sighted listening tests are authoritative.

This isn't about your prejudices about audiophiles.

Scott, can you prove that my comment is anything but a correct critical
insight to the minds of some audiophiles that I have had experience with
over the years?

Your assertion your burden of proof. Go ahead, prove it.



Besides, many ABX tests have been sighted - the listeners could look
at the equipment that was playing as long and hard and close as they
wanted to. It's just that there was some other equipment in the room that
coulda-maybe been playing instead.

One would think even you know what is meant by blind in a DBT.

Why?

Because your life revolves around it?

Scott, do you have a problem with the idea that the essence of a DBT is
concealing the identity of the unit under test that is playing at the
instant?

No. But why ask? What does it have to do with your goofy claim that "many ABX
tests have been sighted?"

"S888Wheel" wrote in message



What does it have to do with your goofy claim that
"many ABX tests have been sighted - the listeners could look at the
equipment that was playing as long and hard and close as they wanted to.
It's just that there was some other equipment in the room that
coulda-maybe
been playing instead."?

Seems self-evident enough. What's unclear?

"JBorg" wrote in message
. com...
normanstrong" wrote in message
S888Wheel" wrote in message
Schizoid Man




I think it's a little ambiguous to tell the listener that the
differences he or she claims to be hearing are imaginary.

I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else do so. I am speaking
of
instances when the listener is convinced via a DBT that there is
no
real difference. Do you think the previously percieved difference
comes
back with sighted comparisons or stays away?



I've only run into this situation once, and in that instance the
difference went away--never to return.

Norm Strong


Could you explain how you were able to determine that the
differences
went away ?

I heard distortion near the climax of a piece on the CDR that was not
present on the original CD. Since that was contrary to what I would
have expected, I ran a single blind test (using my wife as the
testor.) I flunked the test big time, so I ran it once again. Not
so surprisingly, I was unable to hear this distortion the second time
through. I still have the CDR, so I can run the test again any time.
(Maybe I'll do that that.)

Norm Strong

"S888Wheel" wrote in message



What does it have to do with your goofy claim that
"many ABX tests have been sighted - the listeners could look at
the
equipment that was playing as long and hard and close as they
wanted to.
It's just that there was some other equipment in the room that
coulda-maybe
been playing instead."?

This sounds like the subwoofer scam I was present for. Fella had a
subwoofer set up in the right front corner of his living room. The
speakers were bookshelves, but the bass was impressive. While
everyone present was remarking at the superb bass response, one clever
guy said, "Aha! It's coming from a subwoofer right over there, not
from the little speakers." The trap was sprung. The owner told him
to check. Sure enough the subwoofer wasn't even plugged in. But
there was a subwoofer--in the left rear corner of the room!

Norm Strong