Don Pearce wrote:

On 13 Jan 2006 11:29:49 -0800, "andy" wrote:



I repeat. Sighted tests are valueless.


How about this proposal then?

Let's assume that a given "brand A" cd player, amp, cable, whatever is
said to have a given type of a sound in a given system. In the same
system, a given piece of brand B alternate equipment is said to have
quite the opposite style of sound. This determination is done by us the
audiophools, the retail business sellers, ie, audio con men, or the
EEMHE (the evil equipment manufacturers of high end).

Now, we take 1000 people (this could be done in a university) and have
them listen to this same system for separate sessions in two different
days. One session for brand A, the other for brand B. These sessions
would be in a comfortable room well arranged, acoustically treated, etc.
The subjects would of course know what equipment is being played, they
would be comfortable, they would be able to listen together with a
girl/boy freind, examine the equipment, drink, even eat a snack or two
during these sessions. And they would of course get paid for their time.

At the end of each session they get a sheet of multiple choice questions
designed to help them to characterize the sound they've heard. The
characterization of consensus by the overall majority would either
validate or invalidate the manufacturers', audiophools, etc, claims that:

a) Their equipment, brand A, sounds in a given way
b) The rival equipment, brand B, has a totaly different, non-desirable
type of a sound ass compared to brand A



Note that this proposal does not involve gauging out the eyes, stripping
one of knowledge, transforming an act of pleasure seeking into a puzzle
solving, guns being pointed to the head (tom nousiannes suggestion to
bring out the honesty and sharpen the sense of a subject being tested!)
or some such revenge being taken or punishment inflicted to these
over-indulgent, rich hedonists of audiophoolery. So in this context it
should be totally irrelevant, useless, valueless, bad, foolish, you name it.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:04:11 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On 13 Jan 2006 11:29:49 -0800, "andy" wrote:



I repeat. Sighted tests are valueless.


How about this proposal then?

Let's assume that a given "brand A" cd player, amp, cable, whatever is
said to have a given type of a sound in a given system. In the same
system, a given piece of brand B alternate equipment is said to have
quite the opposite style of sound. This determination is done by us the
audiophools, the retail business sellers, ie, audio con men, or the
EEMHE (the evil equipment manufacturers of high end).

Now, we take 1000 people (this could be done in a university) and have
them listen to this same system for separate sessions in two different
days. One session for brand A, the other for brand B. These sessions
would be in a comfortable room well arranged, acoustically treated, etc.
The subjects would of course know what equipment is being played, they
would be comfortable, they would be able to listen together with a
girl/boy freind, examine the equipment, drink, even eat a snack or two
during these sessions. And they would of course get paid for their time.

At the end of each session they get a sheet of multiple choice questions
designed to help them to characterize the sound they've heard. The
characterization of consensus by the overall majority would either
validate or invalidate the manufacturers', audiophools, etc, claims that:

a) Their equipment, brand A, sounds in a given way
b) The rival equipment, brand B, has a totaly different, non-desirable
type of a sound ass compared to brand A



Note that this proposal does not involve gauging out the eyes, stripping
one of knowledge, transforming an act of pleasure seeking into a puzzle
solving, guns being pointed to the head (tom nousiannes suggestion to
bring out the honesty and sharpen the sense of a subject being tested!)
or some such revenge being taken or punishment inflicted to these
over-indulgent, rich hedonists of audiophoolery. So in this context it
should be totally irrelevant, useless, valueless, bad, foolish, you name it.

Fine as an experiment - but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address, which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it. I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:



Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
combinations, schemes imaginable.

There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
DBT/ABX ritual.

which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
tell you anything?

Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?


And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.

You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?


I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
arrangements" privately via email the last time around...


d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:



Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
combinations, schemes imaginable.

No they don't. Visual senses help us in assessing an overall
situation, but don't be fooled into thinking they aid in putting
together sound information. Visual/optical illusions are very common.

There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
DBT/ABX ritual.

which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
tell you anything?

If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
them who claimed to hear a difference between cables. *THEY* are the
ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.
It would be a waste of time testing them.

More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,
because they simply should not be there. That is why they are the ones
who should be tested. It is simply interesting.

Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?


And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.

You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?


Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart.

As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
then say whether they think it sounds nice or not. If they care to let
it stress them, that is of course their choice. Would you find such a
thing stressful?


I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
arrangements" privately via email the last time around...


Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.

As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
arrangements for this should be kept public. The whole thing started
in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.

I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
when I have.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:



Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!



- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
combinations, schemes imaginable.


No they don't.

Yes they do.

Visual/optical illusions are very common.

So?



There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
DBT/ABX ritual.


which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
tell you anything?


If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
them who claimed to hear a difference between cables.

How do you know that? "Perhaps"?

*THEY* are the
ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.

It is NOT the people that are in question here, it is the cables, and
whether or not they indeed to sound in a given way. You have this all
topsy turvy upside down.

It would be a waste of time testing them.

So says you.


More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,

here you go again with this "night and day claims" anger. Audiophools
will be audiophools, just get over it. No need to be so angry and vengefull.


because they simply should not be there.

You get to have a "scientific" view on these things, yes, but would you
trust your measuring equipment more then the claims of hearing this or
that coming from 1000, or even 10000 people?

What are measuring equipment measuring? What you and I hear? Or is our
ability hear measured separately? Is *everything*, including
consciousness, àble to be measured, fully?

That is why they are the ones
who should be tested.

Why not try adress the problem from a different angle? Why go at the
audiophools dagger and chain?

It is simply interesting.

Finally, we agree on something.



Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?


And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.

You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?



Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart.

BRAVO!! You completely by pass the coercion bit. You COMPLETELY by-pass
the ""converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving"
bit.. Your vengefull attitude of "put your money where your mouth is !
Prove it!" is a GIVEN, your GOD given RIGHT... The issue now is how much
of a fair, nice, senile old man is stewart pinkerton.


As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
then say whether they think it sounds nice or not.

You are doing nothing of the sort. You are asking "which is which",
nothing about "sounds nice"..

Hmmm.. Debating trade sneeking in here.

If they care to let
it stress them, that is of course their choice.

Oh my goodt two shoes, how nice.

Would you find such a
thing stressful?

Listening to music? No.



I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
arrangements" privately via email the last time around...



Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.

Those terms are not directed at you.


As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
arrangements for this should be kept public.

Sure, when, approximately where (as in CITY), etc, why not..

The whole thing started
in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.

The results of which? Sure, why not.


I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
when I have.

Ok, both here and to the mail address let me know. But any arrangements
as to where in particular we meet, and when in particular, and go on
from there, are strictly private.


d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:21:24 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:



Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!



- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
combinations, schemes imaginable.


No they don't.

Yes they do.

Visual/optical illusions are very common.

So?

Do you not see the connection here?



There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
DBT/ABX ritual.


which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
tell you anything?


If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
them who claimed to hear a difference between cables.

How do you know that? "Perhaps"?

It is my estimate, based on all sorts of things. Where did you get
your 850 out of a thousand figure? Mine would seem far more
reasonable.

*THEY* are the
ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.

It is NOT the people that are in question here, it is the cables, and
whether or not they indeed to sound in a given way. You have this all
topsy turvy upside down.

It would be a waste of time testing them.

So says you.


OK - I'll buy it. What do you think would be gained by taking a group
of people who could not hear a difference between two cables sighted,
and asking them to identify them unsighted?


More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,

here you go again with this "night and day claims" anger. Audiophools
will be audiophools, just get over it. No need to be so angry and vengefull.


I don't do anger - it is not in my personality. You, on the other
hand, are appearing moderately distressed here and elsewhere ion the
thread.


because they simply should not be there.

You get to have a "scientific" view on these things, yes, but would you
trust your measuring equipment more then the claims of hearing this or
that coming from 1000, or even 10000 people?

Absolutely - every time.

What are measuring equipment measuring? What you and I hear? Or is our
ability hear measured separately? Is *everything*, including
consciousness, àble to be measured, fully?


You are getting a little fanciful here. I believe, on the evidence to
date, that I can measure everything that has any bearing on the sound
from a cable. There are those who assert otherwise, but refuse to
supply proof. Addressing that issue is what this whole thread is
about.

That is why they are the ones
who should be tested.

Why not try adress the problem from a different angle? Why go at the
audiophools dagger and chain?

It is simply interesting.

Finally, we agree on something.



Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?


And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.

You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?



Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart.

BRAVO!! You completely by pass the coercion bit. You COMPLETELY by-pass
the ""converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving"
bit.. Your vengefull attitude of "put your money where your mouth is !
Prove it!" is a GIVEN, your GOD given RIGHT... The issue now is how much
of a fair, nice, senile old man is stewart pinkerton.


Please try and calm down. There is nothing to be gained by either of
us from this kind of post.


As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
then say whether they think it sounds nice or not.

You are doing nothing of the sort. You are asking "which is which",
nothing about "sounds nice"..

Hmmm.. Debating trade sneeking in here.

Look - this is how it is. Somebody says "This cable sounds nice, that
one doesn't". So in the test the question at each trial will be "does
it sound nice, or not". If it sounds nice, write "Cable A", if it does
not, write "Cable B". So you see, it really is a question of whether
it sounds nice or not.

That is another reason why you shouldn't test people who have not
expressed a preference - the question does not resolve to whether the
music sounds nice.

If they care to let
it stress them, that is of course their choice.

Oh my goodt two shoes, how nice.

Would you find such a
thing stressful?

Listening to music? No.

And writing down whether you thought it was nice or not - would that
stress you?



I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
arrangements" privately via email the last time around...



Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.

Those terms are not directed at you.

I don't care who they are directed at, I don't need to encounter them
in conversations I am participating in.


As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
arrangements for this should be kept public.

Sure, when, approximately where (as in CITY), etc, why not..

The whole thing started
in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.

The results of which? Sure, why not.


I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
when I have.

Ok, both here and to the mail address let me know. But any arrangements
as to where in particular we meet, and when in particular, and go on
from there, are strictly private.

Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
know that they should keep alert for the results.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:21:24 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:




Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!




- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
combinations, schemes imaginable.


No they don't.

Yes they do.


Visual/optical illusions are very common.

So?


Do you not see the connection here?

No, I do not, though I *am* tempted..




There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
DBT/ABX ritual.



which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
tell you anything?


If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
them who claimed to hear a difference between cables.

How do you know that? "Perhaps"?


It is my estimate, based on all sorts of things.

That's hardly any more scientific then the "night and day" gobbledygook
of the audiophool. Try and publish a scientific paper saying that your
conclusion is "based on all sorts of things" ..

Where did you get
your 850 out of a thousand figure?

Based on all sorts of things.

Mine would seem far more
reasonable.

Based on all sorts of things?



*THEY* are the
ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.

It is NOT the people that are in question here, it is the cables, and
whether or not they indeed to sound in a given way. You have this all
topsy turvy upside down.


It would be a waste of time testing them.

So says you.



OK - I'll buy it.

What did you buy? I fear you might isunderstood _my_ proposal above.

What do you think would be gained by taking a group
of people who could not hear a difference between two cables sighted,
and asking them to identify them unsighted?

I never proposed such a torture on people. To provide an answer:
Nothing, obviously.





More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,

here you go again with this "night and day claims" anger. Audiophools
will be audiophools, just get over it. No need to be so angry and vengefull.



I don't do anger

I am eager to meet you, you seem to be some sort of being superior.


You get to have a "scientific" view on these things, yes, but would you
trust your measuring equipment more then the claims of hearing this or
that coming from 1000, or even 10000 people?


Absolutely - every time.

Let me get this correct now: You are saying that visual cues such as
shiny black, thickness of some cable will be enough to distort peoples
perceptions but blinding them and going at them saying "which is which,
prove it!" would have no effect as to what they hear?

Oh, and yes, "Absolutely - every time."

Are you sure of your impartiality? Could you be a wee bit angry at these
audiophools after all? Think about it, really, sincerely.



What are measuring equipment measuring? What you and I hear? Or is our
ability hear measured separately? Is *everything*, including
consciousness, àble to be measured, fully?

You are getting a little fanciful here.

With your permission of course.

I believe, on the evidence to
date, that I can measure everything that has any bearing on the sound
from a cable.

There is still hope for you : "on the evidence to date" .. Well said.

There are those who assert otherwise, but refuse to
supply proof.


The "proof" as you put it, aint so +2=4 kind of a simple thing to prove,
unfortunately.

Addressing that issue is what this whole thread is
about.

AG-reed.


Look - this is how it is. Somebody says "This cable sounds nice, that
one doesn't".

No. Usually someone says this cable sounds endgy, this has more
presence, that one smears the transients, etc..

So in the test the question at each trial will be "does
it sound nice, or not".


No. Your question is this "now that you are blinded to the knowledge ans
sight of which is which, tell me, WHICH IS WHICH!?!"

If it sounds nice, write "Cable A", if it does
not, write "Cable B".

Actually, that is how *I* will approach the whole issue.

So you see, it really is a question of whether
it sounds nice or not.

No it isn't. See above.


That is another reason why you shouldn't test people who have not
expressed a preference

You shouldn't "test people" at all, period, on whether or not a cable is
able to introduce a given trait to the sound of a given system.

- the question does not resolve to whether the
music sounds nice.

Totally irrelevant. Music always sounds nice. Even sometimes coming
out of the small little transistor radio in grandma's living room.




And writing down whether you thought it was nice or not - would that
stress you?

My, you *can* be funny too.


I don't care who they are directed at, I don't need to encounter them
in conversations I am participating in.


If you can't stand the heat, sit down.


Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
know that they should keep alert for the results.

Of course, sure, and yes.. Do inform me well before hand, as before hand
as possible though.


d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On 2006-01-16, Forwarder wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!

- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference; while Don's determines
an individual ability to detect a difference. These are completely
different matters and not at all equivalent, so you can't substitute
one test for the other and expect the same answer.

If Don and Forwarder place different personal values on the two different
answers that's OK but they are certainly different. The issue of the
personal value of the answer to a test seems to be at the centre of
this "discussion" but it seems to be conducted through argument about
other issues.

--
John Phillips

Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:



Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
know that they should keep alert for the results.




You know, in the end, the final analysis, as it were, if my preference
for my cables turns out to be *proven* with absolute certainty as being
a placebo, I will, in the end, choose to go on with the placebo...

I don't how this is managed or explained in terms of electricity, but my
cables actually make the speakers kind of "irrelevant".. They become
just nice looking objects of furniture to look at when listening to
music since no sound at all whatsoever seems to come out of them
directly. With lamp cord sizzling sounds are smeared on those ghastly
sizzling tweeters, it seems. Night and day difference!

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:35:53 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Where did you get
your 850 out of a thousand figure?

Based on all sorts of things.

Mine would seem far more
reasonable.

Based on all sorts of things?



*THEY* are the
ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.

It is NOT the people that are in question here, it is the cables, and
whether or not they indeed to sound in a given way. You have this all
topsy turvy upside down.


It would be a waste of time testing them.

So says you.



OK - I'll buy it.

What did you buy? I fear you might isunderstood _my_ proposal above.

What do you think would be gained by taking a group
of people who could not hear a difference between two cables sighted,
and asking them to identify them unsighted?

I never proposed such a torture on people. To provide an answer:
Nothing, obviously.


Good, so we need hear no more about gathering 1000 people for a test.




More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,

here you go again with this "night and day claims" anger. Audiophools
will be audiophools, just get over it. No need to be so angry and vengefull.



I don't do anger

I am eager to meet you, you seem to be some sort of being superior.


Just human - but I've been around long enough to know what is and
isn't useful.


You get to have a "scientific" view on these things, yes, but would you
trust your measuring equipment more then the claims of hearing this or
that coming from 1000, or even 10000 people?


Absolutely - every time.

Let me get this correct now: You are saying that visual cues such as
shiny black, thickness of some cable will be enough to distort peoples
perceptions but blinding them and going at them saying "which is which,
prove it!" would have no effect as to what they hear?

You yourself say you have been subjected to just such a test, and
identified the right cable every time. I think you have answered your
own question about "which is which?". Now if you can do that again
publicly you will have answered the first part of your question as
well.

Oh, and yes, "Absolutely - every time."

Are you sure of your impartiality? Could you be a wee bit angry at these
audiophools after all? Think about it, really, sincerely.

Why would I be angry at audiophools? They don't impinge on me in any
way. As for impartiality, what is more impartial than a measurement?



What are measuring equipment measuring? What you and I hear? Or is our
ability hear measured separately? Is *everything*, including
consciousness, àble to be measured, fully?

You are getting a little fanciful here.

With your permission of course.

You don't need my or anybody's permission for anything you do.

I believe, on the evidence to
date, that I can measure everything that has any bearing on the sound
from a cable.

There is still hope for you : "on the evidence to date" .. Well said.

There are those who assert otherwise, but refuse to
supply proof.


The "proof" as you put it, aint so +2=4 kind of a simple thing to prove,
unfortunately.

In this case it is. Score the necessary number of correct hits, and
that is the proof. All I can supply to the contrary is evidence -
shame for me, heh?

Addressing that issue is what this whole thread is
about.

AG-reed.


Look - this is how it is. Somebody says "This cable sounds nice, that
one doesn't".

No. Usually someone says this cable sounds endgy, this has more
presence, that one smears the transients, etc..

OK, substitute edgy for nice, or whatever - the principle remains the
same. It comes down to identifying a quality.

So in the test the question at each trial will be "does
it sound nice, or not".


No. Your question is this "now that you are blinded to the knowledge ans
sight of which is which, tell me, WHICH IS WHICH!?!"

If it sounds nice, write "Cable A", if it does
not, write "Cable B".

Actually, that is how *I* will approach the whole issue.

So you see, it really is a question of whether
it sounds nice or not.

No it isn't. See above.

See above as well.


That is another reason why you shouldn't test people who have not
expressed a preference

You shouldn't "test people" at all, period, on whether or not a cable is
able to introduce a given trait to the sound of a given system.

Don't pick at the semantics - you know what I mean.

- the question does not resolve to whether the
music sounds nice.

Totally irrelevant. Music always sounds nice. Even sometimes coming
out of the small little transistor radio in grandma's living room.


Semantics again? Could you be running out of argument here?




And writing down whether you thought it was nice or not - would that
stress you?

My, you *can* be funny too.


What I am asking is whether you believe the DBT as proposed by me
would be stressful enough to impair your sensitivity to the perceived
difference.


I don't care who they are directed at, I don't need to encounter them
in conversations I am participating in.


If you can't stand the heat, sit down.

Thank you, I am.



Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
know that they should keep alert for the results.

Of course, sure, and yes.. Do inform me well before hand, as before hand
as possible though.


I generally know about a month in advance.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:45:24 +0200, Forwarder wrote:



Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:



Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
know that they should keep alert for the results.




You know, in the end, the final analysis, as it were, if my preference
for my cables turns out to be *proven* with absolute certainty as being
a placebo, I will, in the end, choose to go on with the placebo...


Absolutely the correct choice. Of course the placebo effect tends to
vanish once the trick is revealed.

I don't how this is managed or explained in terms of electricity, but my
cables actually make the speakers kind of "irrelevant".. They become
just nice looking objects of furniture to look at when listening to
music since no sound at all whatsoever seems to come out of them
directly. With lamp cord sizzling sounds are smeared on those ghastly
sizzling tweeters, it seems. Night and day difference!

OK, now you are scaring me :-)

Would you rather do the test with the speakers disconnected? I am
happy if it helps you.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

John Phillips wrote:

On 2006-01-16, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??


The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference;

You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
be drawn about the validity of ABX here.

while Don's determines
an individual ability to detect a difference.

Yes, thank you, Don's test puts the *testee*, the *subject* the *victim*
to the test, in the end. It is also a test for the subject to (not) see
(but hear) past the stressfull situation.

Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!

These are completely
different matters and not at all equivalent, so you can't substitute
one test for the other and expect the same answer.

My test tests the tests.. That is, it tries to answer the question
whether or not ABX/DBT is applicable to the phenomenon of
"audiophoolery" ...

Don Pearce wrote:


Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
know that they should keep alert for the results.

Of course, sure, and yes.. Do inform me well before hand, as before hand
as possible though.



I generally know about a month in advance.


Good enough, hopefully, generally, for me.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:02:43 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

John Phillips wrote:

On 2006-01-16, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??


The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference;

You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
be drawn about the validity of ABX here.


Why would you draw such a conclusion? There is no evidence in this
test to support it. Do you believe that spiders become deaf when their
legs are pulled off?

while Don's determines
an individual ability to detect a difference.

Yes, thank you, Don's test puts the *testee*, the *subject* the *victim*
to the test, in the end. It is also a test for the subject to (not) see
(but hear) past the stressfull situation.

How do you have a test where the testee is *not* put to the test? I
would be interested to see one.

Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!

Is this how you believe I might conduct such a test? Remember I would
not even be in the room - you listen relaxing in your comfy chair,
then write down your answer when you are good and ready. Nothing could
be further from "tell me, bitch!".

These are completely
different matters and not at all equivalent, so you can't substitute
one test for the other and expect the same answer.

My test tests the tests.. That is, it tries to answer the question
whether or not ABX/DBT is applicable to the phenomenon of
"audiophoolery" ...

No, your test fails to test the test, because your conclusion depends
on a begged question - namely that if the result shows no difference,
the test must be at fault. That would be thrown out in the first
minute of any peer review.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:11:55 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:45:24 +0200, Forwarder wrote:



Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:



Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
know that they should keep alert for the results.



You know, in the end, the final analysis, as it were, if my preference
for my cables turns out to be *proven* with absolute certainty as being
a placebo, I will, in the end, choose to go on with the placebo...



Absolutely the correct choice. Of course the placebo effect tends to
vanish once the trick is revealed.

Well I am only human, not a being superior such as Thou. So I have a
tendency to doubt myself. And I am happy to report that the "doubt" has
no effect on my state of placebo, those italian beauties still disappear.


No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.



Would you rather do the test with the speakers disconnected? I am
happy if it helps you.


Let's see what happens after I fail your test. I will report my personal
preference audiophoolery results.


Funny, I thought you were going to pass with ease - like you did last
time you blind tested yourself...

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:



Funny, I thought you were going to pass with ease - like you did last
time you blind tested yourself...



You know what they say, prepare for the worst ...

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:02:43 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


John Phillips wrote:


On 2006-01-16, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!



- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??


The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference;

You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
be drawn about the validity of ABX here.



Why would you draw such a conclusion?

Gee, one *does* wonder..

There is no evidence in this
test to support it.

"evidence" ? Maybe not.

Do you believe that spiders become deaf when their
legs are pulled off?

Absolutely. They also become constipated.



How do you have a test where the testee is *not* put to the test? I
would be interested to see one.

Me too. I dont purrport to have all the answers, you do, with some
oscilloscope in one had, and a crackling whip on the other.



Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!


Is this how you believe I might conduct such a test? Remember I would
not even be in the room

It was a "figure of speech" as it were.


- you listen relaxing in your comfy chair,

and busting my balls as to "is this my cable? Or... is it ... **** ... "

then write down your answer when you are good and ready. Nothing could
be further from "tell me, bitch!".

Yes yes, in theory, of course. I will take at least 15 minutes per
listen, though I *should* be ale to take at least TWO WEEKS per listen...



No, your test fails to test the test, because your conclusion depends
on a begged question - namely that if the result shows no difference,
the test must be at fault.

What else would be at fault then? After an ABX shows nill difference
between a pair of halcro dm58 monoblocks and a 250 yamaha receiver
(which it will do just that: WHAM: SAME DIFFERENCE!), would you be able
to substitute them with each other in the real world??? Come on!

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:33:46 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:02:43 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


John Phillips wrote:


On 2006-01-16, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!



- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??


The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference;

You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
be drawn about the validity of ABX here.



Why would you draw such a conclusion?

Gee, one *does* wonder..

There is no evidence in this
test to support it.

"evidence" ? Maybe not.

Do you believe that spiders become deaf when their
legs are pulled off?

Absolutely. They also become constipated.



How do you have a test where the testee is *not* put to the test? I
would be interested to see one.

Me too. I dont purrport to have all the answers, you do, with some
oscilloscope in one had, and a crackling whip on the other.


That would be your fantasy, perhaps ;-)



Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!


Is this how you believe I might conduct such a test? Remember I would
not even be in the room

It was a "figure of speech" as it were.


- you listen relaxing in your comfy chair,

and busting my balls as to "is this my cable? Or... is it ... **** ... "

then write down your answer when you are good and ready. Nothing could
be further from "tell me, bitch!".

Yes yes, in theory, of course. I will take at least 15 minutes per
listen, though I *should* be ale to take at least TWO WEEKS per listen...



No, your test fails to test the test, because your conclusion depends
on a begged question - namely that if the result shows no difference,
the test must be at fault.

What else would be at fault then? After an ABX shows nill difference
between a pair of halcro dm58 monoblocks and a 250 yamaha receiver
(which it will do just that: WHAM: SAME DIFFERENCE!), would you be able
to substitute them with each other in the real world??? Come on!

Why would you expect them to show a difference? Amplifier design has
reached a peak (we clearly are not talking SET, or any of that kind of
crap), at which it is impossible to tell one amplifier from another.
Of course if you turn the level up so that one of them starts
clipping, all bets are off.

Nil difference is precisely what I would expect between those two.

Of course they wouldn't substitute in the real world - different
features, appearance, all sorts of stuff really.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:04:11 +0200, Forwarder wrote:
whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it. I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.



I didn't know sheeps weighed that much.



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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:14:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:04:11 +0200, Forwarder wrote:
whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it. I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.



I didn't know sheeps weighed that much.

?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
seems to use extreme measures to store their content.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.

I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
seems to use extreme measures to store their content.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.

I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
different. :-)

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
seems to use extreme measures to store their content.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.

I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

Thats your setup Dave... not the networks or dishnet. Are you
running your input to the TV to the coax/antennae input? ( RF on
channel 2 or 3)

ScottW

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
seems to use extreme measures to store their content.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.

I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
different. :-)

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.


Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

BTW... over the air HD digital takes less bandwidth than existing
analogue transmission.


ScottW

It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...


and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.


I didn't know sheeps weighed that much.




?


LoL !




d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:58:25 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
seems to use extreme measures to store their content.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.

I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
different. :-)

Oh, I know. I was just ranting...

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

That's sad. Here's an example of digital messing everything up. Maybe
the vast majority of consumers will "put up with it" and I might too,
just to have the convenience of live pause and replay, but this is the
case of performance not meeting the potential. CD quality for MP3 at
the highest bitrates? Debatable, but at least it's debatable. The
current state of the video signal that I receive is mostly NOT
debatable when it comes to "DVD quality", or even VCR tape quality for
that matter (at least at the best settings). Not even close. Even a
dbt would settle that pretty quickly g.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...

Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

dave weil wrote:

Oh, I know. I was just ranting...

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

That's sad. Here's an example of digital messing everything up. Maybe
the vast majority of consumers will "put up with it" and I might too,
just to have the convenience of live pause and replay,

That has nothing to do with digital transmission... thats just your
DVR which can do that on analogue channels today.

but this is the
case of performance not meeting the potential.

You boons obviously are talking from ignorance. Come by my house and
watch the SB in hi-def. It makes regular fuzzo TV look like ****.

CD quality for MP3 at
the highest bitrates? Debatable, but at least it's debatable. The
current state of the video signal that I receive is mostly NOT
debatable when it comes to "DVD quality", or even VCR tape quality for
that matter (at least at the best settings). Not even close. Even a
dbt would settle that pretty quickly g.

Did you fork the big bucks for a decent receiver? Last I looked a
hi-def DirectTV receiver was still $300. Those POS they give you with
a free install and no cost system aren't hi-def capable.

ScottW

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...

Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

Hint: consider his idea of written English.

On 16 Jan 2006 12:08:51 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Thats your setup Dave... not the networks or dishnet. Are you
running your input to the TV to the coax/antennae input? ( RF on
channel 2 or 3)

No, my "input" goes to the converter box, the output of which goes to
my DVD burner via COAX then out to the TV via a video RCA jack. These
artifacts are DEFINITELY not cable or transmission dependent, but
content dependent, because, if they were, they'd be uniform regardless
of channel and they aren't. All I have to do is compare ESPN to The
Tonight Show, for example.

Scottie said:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:32:44 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...

Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

Hint: consider his idea of written English.


I have tried - and found it wanting.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 12:13:07 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
seems to use extreme measures to store their content.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.

I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
different. :-)

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.


Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

One channel - right now. But you know how these things evolve. You
don't get better - you get more. Be prepared for the downturn.

BTW... over the air HD digital takes less bandwidth than existing
analogue transmission.

No - it is *given* less bandwidth than analogue. That is a very
different thing.



Semantics.... I watch it every day and it looks a 100 times better
and requires less BW.


I've seen demos of Mediaflo (video for phones) and even that highly
compressed qVGA res at 30 fps looks pretty good on a little display.
They're gonna get 20 channels of streaming qVGA video on spectrum that
1 TV braadcast used to require.

ScottW

On 16 Jan 2006 12:41:32 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

I've seen demos of Mediaflo (video for phones) and even that highly
compressed qVGA res at 30 fps looks pretty good on a little display.
They're gonna get 20 channels of streaming qVGA video on spectrum that
1 TV braadcast used to require.

ScottW

If that is the broadcast world you want, you are welcome to it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 12:08:51 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Thats your setup Dave... not the networks or dishnet. Are you
running your input to the TV to the coax/antennae input? ( RF on
channel 2 or 3)

No, my "input" goes to the converter box, the output of which goes to
my DVD burner via COAX then out to the TV via a video RCA jack.

So your input to DVD burner is analogue RF channel 2 or 3. You
realize that is the lowest possible rez video? Then you send it out
via composite video which is the 2nd lowest rez possible. Then your
digitat TV tries to digitize and reconstruct from this crap.

With a still picture... most pixels not changing... it does ok. With
sports the whole damn thing breaks down as the TV can't digitally
reconstruct fast enough when all the pixels change. My son-in-laws
plasma looks like hell on sports before he upgraded his cable box and
got one that supports component video. The cable guys says DVI didn't
look any better to him.

Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

These
artifacts are DEFINITELY not cable or transmission dependent, but
content dependent, because, if they were, they'd be uniform regardless
of channel and they aren't. All I have to do is compare ESPN to The
Tonight Show, for example.

They are content dependent in the amount of picture area that changes
at once. Let me guess... basketball with half the screen being crowd
and tracking a length of the court pass goes all digital artifacty...
lots of little squares before the TV can smooth it all back
together..... if your "box" supported S-video or Component video out...
you wouldn't have these problems.

What kind of TV do you have?

ScottW

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:33:48 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Scottie said:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
abysmal quality of the previous one.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

George M. Middius wrote:
Scottie said:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

I'm overwhelmed... I don't know what to say.... two agreements in one
day...well almost.

ScottW

On 16 Jan 2006 12:52:08 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 12:08:51 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Thats your setup Dave... not the networks or dishnet. Are you
running your input to the TV to the coax/antennae input? ( RF on
channel 2 or 3)

No, my "input" goes to the converter box, the output of which goes to
my DVD burner via COAX then out to the TV via a video RCA jack.

So your input to DVD burner is analogue RF channel 2 or 3. You
realize that is the lowest possible rez video? Then you send it out
via composite video which is the 2nd lowest rez possible. Then your
digitat TV tries to digitize and reconstruct from this crap.

I get the same artifacts when going directly from the converter box to
the the TV (which isn't digital, BTW). I have two choices, COAX or
RCA, and I don't have the choice of component video.

With a still picture... most pixels not changing... it does ok. With
sports the whole damn thing breaks down as the TV can't digitally
reconstruct fast enough when all the pixels change. My son-in-laws
plasma looks like hell on sports before he upgraded his cable box and
got one that supports component video. The cable guys says DVI didn't
look any better to him.

Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?

Still, I'm saying that there are DEFINITE compression artifacts in
certain programming and not in others (or far less). This implies that
it's content driven, not delivery driven. Some of it COULD be hard
drive related though, since I don't seem to have ANY programming that
I could confuse with DVD.

And you said "cable guy". I'm talking about satellite service, NOT
cable. I can't do a direct comparison, but I don't remember such
artifacts when I had cable.

These
artifacts are DEFINITELY not cable or transmission dependent, but
content dependent, because, if they were, they'd be uniform regardless
of channel and they aren't. All I have to do is compare ESPN to The
Tonight Show, for example.

They are content dependent in the amount of picture area that changes
at once. Let me guess... basketball with half the screen being crowd
and tracking a length of the court pass goes all digital artifacty...
lots of little squares before the TV can smooth it all back
together..... if your "box" supported S-video or Component video out...
you wouldn't have these problems.

Well, it doesn't. Either capability.

What kind of TV do you have?

A simple current Toshiba 32 incher.