I just read Sanders' latest salvo at you in which he claimed that at a
social dinner, you launched into a rant about Stereophile not doing
blind testing of equipment.

If that's true -- and I accept it at face value based on the little I
know of you -- I am absolutely certain that any time I spent in your
company would be wasted and a total bore.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


I just read Sanders' latest salvo at you in which he claimed that at a
social dinner, you launched into a rant about Stereophile not doing
blind testing of equipment.

If that's true -- and I accept it at face value based on the little I
know of you -- I am absolutely certain that any time I spent in your
company would be wasted and a total bore.

If you accept anything Sanders says at face value you're much stupider
than I thought.

But explain this contradiction in Stereophile.

They provide eloquent subjective appraisals of equipment including
lots of words on the "sound" of the equipment.

They also provide detailed test measurements.

Sometimes the two don't fully concur with one another. Why?

ScottW

Yappity-yappity-yap.

I just read Sanders' latest salvo at you in which he claimed that at a
social dinner, you launched into a rant about Stereophile not doing
blind testing of equipment.

If that's true -- and I accept it at face value based on the little I
know of you -- I am absolutely certain that any time I spent in your
company would be wasted and a total bore.

If you accept anything Sanders says at face value you're much stupider
than I thought.

You don't really "think", anyway, so that's not much of an insult.

But explain this contradiction in Stereophile.

The weight of evidence tilts the scale toward Sanders' version.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Yappity-yappity-yap.

I just read Sanders' latest salvo at you in which he claimed that at
a
social dinner, you launched into a rant about Stereophile not doing
blind testing of equipment.

If that's true -- and I accept it at face value based on the little I
know of you -- I am absolutely certain that any time I spent in your
company would be wasted and a total bore.

If you accept anything Sanders says at face value you're much stupider
than I thought.

You don't really "think", anyway, so that's not much of an insult.

But explain this contradiction in Stereophile.

The weight of evidence tilts the scale toward Sanders' version.

He spent at least 10x the time on his "joke" than I did on
stating my view on Stereophile reviews.
You can let him spin that into a rant if it suits your
purpose. Truth does not often suit your purpose.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news0pGb.37791$m83.36994@fed1read01...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


I just read Sanders' latest salvo at you in which he claimed that at a
social dinner, you launched into a rant about Stereophile not doing
blind testing of equipment.

If that's true -- and I accept it at face value based on the little I
know of you -- I am absolutely certain that any time I spent in your
company would be wasted and a total bore.

If you accept anything Sanders says at face value you're much stupider
than I thought.

But explain this contradiction in Stereophile.

They provide eloquent subjective appraisals of equipment including
lots of words on the "sound" of the equipment.

They also provide detailed test measurements.

Sometimes the two don't fully concur with one another. Why?

ScottW



The measurements do not adequately describe the perceptions of the sound of
the music




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:p0pGb.37791$m83.36994@fed1read01...
explain this contradiction in Stereophile.

They provide eloquent subjective appraisals of equipment including
lots of words on the "sound" of the equipment.

They also provide detailed test measurements.

Sometimes the two don't fully concur with one another. Why?

Hi Scott, I have written at length in the magazine about this occasional
lack of correlation in the magazine, most recently in the current
(January) issue. I don't see it as an indictment of my policy, merely a
byproduct of my trying to be open about the subject with my readers and
of giving them as much information about a product as I can.

Happy holidays.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news0pGb.37791$m83.36994@fed1read01...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


I just read Sanders' latest salvo at you in which he claimed that at
a
social dinner, you launched into a rant about Stereophile not doing
blind testing of equipment.

If that's true -- and I accept it at face value based on the little I
know of you -- I am absolutely certain that any time I spent in your
company would be wasted and a total bore.

If you accept anything Sanders says at face value you're much stupider
than I thought.

But explain this contradiction in Stereophile.

They provide eloquent subjective appraisals of equipment including
lots of words on the "sound" of the equipment.

They also provide detailed test measurements.

Sometimes the two don't fully concur with one another. Why?

ScottW



The measurements do not adequately describe the perceptions of the sound
of
the music

Possibly, and occasionally the preceptions only exist in the ear of the
beholder.

ScottW

The moribund M&M "life"style gets an infusion of doggie breath.

The measurements do not adequately describe the perceptions of the sound of
the music

Possibly, and occasionally the preceptions only exist in the ear of the
beholder.

Nobody's buying your antihuman propaganda, little 'borg. Go suck a
bone.





This post reformatted by the Resistance,
laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:hGsGb.37833$m83.16466@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news0pGb.37791$m83.36994@fed1read01...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


I just read Sanders' latest salvo at you in which he claimed that at
a
social dinner, you launched into a rant about Stereophile not doing
blind testing of equipment.

If that's true -- and I accept it at face value based on the little
I
know of you -- I am absolutely certain that any time I spent in your
company would be wasted and a total bore.

If you accept anything Sanders says at face value you're much stupider
than I thought.

But explain this contradiction in Stereophile.

They provide eloquent subjective appraisals of equipment including
lots of words on the "sound" of the equipment.

They also provide detailed test measurements.

Sometimes the two don't fully concur with one another. Why?

ScottW



The measurements do not adequately describe the perceptions of the sound
of
the music

Possibly, and occasionally the preceptions only exist in the ear of the
beholder.


Then you must worship at the feet of the Gods of Accuracy
and listen to music that 'tests' perfectly, no matter whether
it is perceived to sound good, or not.

I will listen to what I perceive as sounding good.

The interesting point is whether or not one would
change one's perception of the sound of the music,
after learning how accurate or not the equipment tests.
A reverse expectation effect.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

The interesting point is whether or not one would
change one's perception of the sound of the music,
after learning how accurate or not the equipment tests.


If you ask the Krooborg, it will tell you that music is "irrelevant"
for evaluating audio equipment.

But explain this contradiction in Stereophile.

They provide eloquent subjective appraisals of equipment including
lots of words on the "sound" of the equipment.

They also provide detailed test measurements.

Sometimes the two don't fully concur with one another. Why?

ScottW







Interesting question. Could it be that in some cases the measured performance
doesn't really say much about the subjective peformance? Maybe in some cases
there were other influences including component synergy. Maybe in some cases
the reviewer was just off the mark.

S888Wheel said:

Sometimes the two don't fully concur[sic] with one another. Why?

Interesting question. Could it be that in some cases the measured performance
doesn't really say much about the subjective peformance? Maybe in some cases
there were other influences including component synergy. Maybe in some cases
the reviewer was just off the mark.


Maybe measurements are meaningless for consumers.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

The measurements do not adequately describe the perceptions of the
sound
of
the music

Possibly, and occasionally the preceptions only exist in the ear of
the
beholder.


Then you must worship at the feet of the Gods of Accuracy
and listen to music that 'tests' perfectly, no matter whether
it is perceived to sound good, or not.

Don't go and stick words in my mouth. You didn't hear
me profess the need for absolute accuracy or even realism.

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


I will listen to what I perceive as sounding good.

As do I. I am not talking about listening. I am talking
about reading, actually paying for a professionals opinion
on the sonic characteristics of equipment.

The interesting point is whether or not one would
change one's perception of the sound of the music,
after learning how accurate or not the equipment tests.
A reverse expectation effect.

I have heard systems which are supposedly far more accurate
than mine which weren't as pleasing to me. I do realize that
we get accustomed to things. I still enjoy my old Large Advents.
Everytime I play Selling England I long for those speakers just
because of the unique way they'd nearly explode on that low
organ note on Firth of Fifth. Nothing accurate about it, but I still like
it.

BTW, Merry Christmas. I hope you're recovering from your flood.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:


...

If you accept anything Sanders says at face value you're much stupider
than I thought.

But explain this contradiction in Stereophile.

They provide eloquent subjective appraisals of equipment including
lots of words on the "sound" of the equipment.

They also provide detailed test measurements.




Sometimes the two don't fully concur with one another. Why?



Why? It's because you're attempting to compare and then collate
the results from two incongruent sources.


Merry Christmas!


ScottW

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

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

Maybe measurements are meaningless for consumers.


I think some are and some are not.

S888Wheel said:

Maybe measurements are meaningless for consumers.

I think some are and some are not.

You can have the ones allocated for me. My Xmas present to you.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

But explain this contradiction in Stereophile.

They provide eloquent subjective appraisals of equipment including
lots of words on the "sound" of the equipment.

They also provide detailed test measurements.

Sometimes the two don't fully concur with one another. Why?

ScottW







Interesting question. Could it be that in some cases the measured
performance
doesn't really say much about the subjective peformance?

There is almost infinite depth of detail one can explore
measurements. Occasionally my work is to conduct a
detailed performance evaluation of a cellular data modem
in harsh environments.
I can almost guarantee you I can find a deficiency if you let
me test long enough. Last one dropped 10 db in receive
sensitivity only after a channel handoff at cold temps.
Dumb luck we found it.

Maybe in some cases
there were other influences including component synergy.

Still, that should be measurable.

Maybe in some cases
the reviewer was just off the mark.

I think the easiest way to know is the DBT.
If the reviewer is not off the mark, then I'd like
to see Anderson embark on figuring out which
measurement needs to be added to his repertoire
to show the delta.

ScottW

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news0pGb.37791$m83.36994@fed1read01

But explain this contradiction in Stereophile.

They provide eloquent subjective appraisals of equipment including
lots of words on the "sound" of the equipment.

They also provide detailed test measurements.

Sometimes the two don't fully concur with one another. Why?

First off, Stereophile doesn't always do appropriate kinds of listening
tests. Their dogmatic adherence to sighted, level-matched, single
presentation method listening techniques, minimizes real listener
sensitivity and maximizes the possibility of imaginary results. The only
thing they do right is the level-matching and I suspect that their reviewers
don't always adhere to that.

Stereophile goes out of its way to avoid time-synchronization and formal
bias controls, despite all the evidence that these are critical if
sensitive, reliable results are desired. I've concluded that Stereophile
does not want to do listening tests that are sensitive and reliable, because
they are afraid of the results. Science can be very unpredictable and the
results could easily go against years of a grotesquely-flawed editorial
policies such as the RCL, and embarrass many advertisers.

So, any Stereophile comparison of ear versus gear can easily be garbage-in,
garbage out; on the ear side of the equation.

Secondly, Stereophile does some really weird measurements, such as their
undithered tests of digital gear. The AES says don't do it, but John
Atkinson appears to be above all authority but the voices that only he
hears. He does other tests, relating to jitter, for which there is no
independent confirmation of reliable relevance to audibility. I hear that
this is not because nobody has tried to find correlation. It's just that the
measurement methodology is flawed, or at best has no practical advantages
over simpler methodologies that correlate better with actual use.

Thirdly, there are whole classes of equipment, mostly relating to snake oil
toys and vinyl, for which Stereophile doesn't perform any relevant technical
tests of at all. No test gear is used, so therefore no possibility of a
valid ear versus gear comparison.

Finally, Stereophile seems to bend over backward to avoid mentioning an
increasingly-common situation where the equipment is so accurate that it has
no sonic character at all, or very little sonic character. In these cases
Stereophile's measurements are effectively meaningless when it comes to
describing sonic character, because there is precious little or no sonic
character to describe.

"JBorg" wrote in message
om


Why? It's because you're attempting to compare and then collate
the results from two incongruent sources.

Here's another idiot who obvious doesn't know the difference between collate
and correlate. Probably due to a lifetime of dead-end clerical jobs.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:2JuGb.38272$m83.24241@fed1read01...



I have heard systems which are supposedly far more accurate
than mine which weren't as pleasing to me. I do realize that
we get accustomed to things. I still enjoy my old Large Advents.
Everytime I play Selling England I long for those speakers just
because of the unique way they'd nearly explode on that low
organ note on Firth of Fifth. Nothing accurate about it, but I still like
it.


If you are ever in Maryland, you will be able to hear that on
stacked Advents




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg wrote in message




Why? It's because you're attempting to compare and then collate
the results from two incongruent sources.



Here's another idiot who obvious doesn't know the difference between
collate and correlate. Probably due to a lifetime of dead-end clerical
jobs.


Shooooooo... not you. Go awayyy.


To correlate is to bring into causal, complementary, parallel, or
reciprocal relation. That is by way of saying-- to bring the
reviewer's perception into causal relation with the detailed test
measurements.

To collate is to examine and compare carefully in order to note
points of disagreement. That is, to establish and to verify the
point of differences between the reviewer's perception against the
results of the detailed test measurements. Here lies the original
poster's curiosity.

To wit: The eloquent subjective appraisals of the reviewers do
not concur with test measurements.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 07:49:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
snip
Finally, Stereophile seems to bend over backward to avoid mentioning an
increasingly-common situation where the equipment is so accurate that it has
no sonic character at all, or very little sonic character. In these cases
Stereophile's measurements are effectively meaningless when it comes to
describing sonic character, because there is precious little or no sonic
character to describe.


Along these lines, who was it back in the sixties that first said "All
sonically-accurate equipment must, by definition, sound alike"? (I'm
paraphrasing, but that's the gist of the statement.

Scott Gardner

George M. Middius a écrit :


S888Wheel said:


Maybe measurements are meaningless for consumers.



I think some are and some are not.


You can have the ones allocated for me. My Xmas present to you.


Asslicker !

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 07:49:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
snip
Finally, Stereophile seems to bend over backward to avoid mentioning
an increasingly-common situation where the equipment is so accurate
that it has no sonic character at all, or very little sonic
character. In these cases Stereophile's measurements are effectively
meaningless when it comes to describing sonic character, because
there is precious little or no sonic character to describe.


Along these lines, who was it back in the sixties that first said "All
sonically-accurate equipment must, by definition, sound alike"? (I'm
paraphrasing, but that's the gist of the statement.

Sounds like the sort of thing that the late Julian Hirsch would say. I
don't know if he said this in the 60s or 70s but it was about then that at
least a modest amount of sonically-accurate or nearly-sonically-accurate
started showing up on the market.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:58:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 07:49:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
snip
Finally, Stereophile seems to bend over backward to avoid mentioning
an increasingly-common situation where the equipment is so accurate
that it has no sonic character at all, or very little sonic
character. In these cases Stereophile's measurements are effectively
meaningless when it comes to describing sonic character, because
there is precious little or no sonic character to describe.


Along these lines, who was it back in the sixties that first said "All
sonically-accurate equipment must, by definition, sound alike"? (I'm
paraphrasing, but that's the gist of the statement.

Sounds like the sort of thing that the late Julian Hirsch would say. I
don't know if he said this in the 60s or 70s but it was about then that at
least a modest amount of sonically-accurate or nearly-sonically-accurate
started showing up on the market.

I came across the quote when I was reading about Richard
Clark's "Amplifier Challenge". The statement seems pretty obvous to
me, but the author of the article I was reading implied that it was a
pretty ground-breaking assertion at the time it was originally made.
The idea that audible differences between two high-end pieces
of equipment is proof that one (or both) of them is noticeably
inaccurate is a powerful statement, and one that doesn't seem to get
much mention in the literature these days.

Scott Gardner

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:58:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 07:49:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
snip
Finally, Stereophile seems to bend over backward to avoid
mentioning an increasingly-common situation where the equipment is
so accurate that it has no sonic character at all, or very little
sonic character. In these cases Stereophile's measurements are
effectively meaningless when it comes to describing sonic
character, because there is precious little or no sonic character
to describe.


Along these lines, who was it back in the sixties that first said
"All sonically-accurate equipment must, by definition, sound
alike"? (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of the statement.

Sounds like the sort of thing that the late Julian Hirsch would say.
I don't know if he said this in the 60s or 70s but it was about then
that at least a modest amount of sonically-accurate or
nearly-sonically-accurate started showing up on the market.

I came across the quote when I was reading about Richard
Clark's "Amplifier Challenge". The statement seems pretty obvous to
me, but the author of the article I was reading implied that it was a
pretty ground-breaking assertion at the time it was originally made.

Having been a reader of Stereo Review when Hirsch first started saying
things like this, I would be prone to agree with Richard Clark. BTW, I have
quite a bit of respect for Richard Clark.

The idea that audible differences between two high-end pieces
of equipment is proof that one (or both) of them is noticeably
inaccurate is a powerful statement, and one that doesn't seem to get
much mention in the literature these days.

As you are no doubt aware, I touched on that possibility that with the
following sentence from my earlier post:

"Science can be very unpredictable and the results could easily go against
years of a grotesquely-flawed editorial
policies such as the RCL, and embarrass many advertisers."

Stereophile's basic editorial policy is clearly that everything sounds
different, with heavy emphasis on the word everything. In fact, some things
sound different, and some things don't.

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


I don't see Arny working with Stereophile.



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


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


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



How so?

S888Wheel said to The Idiot:

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

How so?

Did you notice the title of this thread?

I said



There is almost infinite depth of detail one can explore
measurements. Occasionally my work is to conduct a
detailed performance evaluation of a cellular data modem
in harsh environments.
I can almost guarantee you I can find a deficiency if you let
me test long enough. Last one dropped 10 db in receive
sensitivity only after a channel handoff at cold temps.
Dumb luck we found it.


Maybe we are simply being to general in this discussion. You seem to think
there have been specific measurements that would suggest audible performance
that is in conflict with the subjective report of specific gear. If that is an
accurate assesment then it might be better to discuss such specific reports.


I said



Maybe in some cases
there were other influences including component synergy.


Scott said



Still, that should be measurable.



But they have to be measured. Are you suggesting that maybe Stereophile is not
making measurements they should be making?

I said


Maybe in some cases
the reviewer was just off the mark.



Scott said



I think the easiest way to know is the DBT.
If the reviewer is not off the mark, then I'd like
to see Anderson embark on figuring out which
measurement needs to be added to his repertoire
to show the delta.


I am not against it but I think you are suggesting that Stereophile should
conduct some very challenging research to corolate subjective impressions with
measured performance.

S888Wheel said to The Idiot:

I think the easiest way to know is the DBT.
If the reviewer is not off the mark, then I'd like
to see Anderson embark on figuring out which
measurement needs to be added to his repertoire
to show the delta.

I am not against it but I think you are suggesting that Stereophile should
conduct some very challenging research to corolate subjective impressions with
measured performance.

From the 'borg viewpoint, no expense is too great, no undertaking too
complex, if there's the tiniest chance that the E.H.E.E. will be
"exposed" as the "scam operation" the 'borgs know it to be.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Stereophile's basic editorial policy is clearly that everything sounds
different, with heavy emphasis on the word everything. In fact, some things
sound different, and some things don't.


As soon as a manufacturer is an
"interesting-potential-advertisement-customer" his products start to
sound different... ;-)

IMO as soon as you have eliminated the poor constructed electronics you
can focus at 99.999% on speakers, their placement and the listening room
acoustic.
The expensive accessories are only 0.001 % of the final result... But
good customers for magazines advertisers.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


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

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

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

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

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

Shows how little you know, sockpuppet wheel.

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

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

ABX for sensitive detection of differences.

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

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

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

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

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


S888Wheel said to The Idiot:

I think the easiest way to know is the DBT.
If the reviewer is not off the mark, then I'd like
to see Anderson embark on figuring out which
measurement needs to be added to his repertoire
to show the delta.


I am not against it but I think you are suggesting that Stereophile
should conduct some very challenging research to correlate subjective
impressions with measured performance.

Tain't gonna happen. Properly-run DBTs would and have exposed Stereophile
for the scam we've long thought it was.

From the 'borg viewpoint, no expense is too great, no undertaking too
complex, if there's the tiniest chance that the E.H.E.E. will be
"exposed" as the "scam operation" the 'borgs know it to be.

The exposure was a done deal a decade or more ago. It has taken a long time
for it to sink in on a few die-hards, but anybody who wants to know what's
really happening has the tools at their disposal for doing so.

"Lionel" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Stereophile's basic editorial policy is clearly that everything
sounds different, with heavy emphasis on the word everything. In
fact, some things sound different, and some things don't.

As soon as a manufacturer is an
"interesting-potential-advertisement-customer" his products start to
sound different... ;-)

Stereophile seems to be a little more farsighted than that.

IMO as soon as you have eliminated the poor constructed electronics
you can focus at 99.999% on speakers, their placement and the
listening room acoustic.

Agreed.

The expensive accessories are only 0.001 % of the final result... But
good customers for magazines advertisers.

Agreed.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

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


I don't see Arny working with Stereophile.

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



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


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

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

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

Those are certainly the easiest components.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



How so?

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

ScottW

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

I said



There is almost infinite depth of detail one can explore
measurements. Occasionally my work is to conduct a
detailed performance evaluation of a cellular data modem
in harsh environments.
I can almost guarantee you I can find a deficiency if you let
me test long enough. Last one dropped 10 db in receive
sensitivity only after a channel handoff at cold temps.
Dumb luck we found it.


Maybe we are simply being to general in this discussion. You seem to
think
there have been specific measurements that would suggest audible
performance
that is in conflict with the subjective report of specific gear. If that
is an
accurate assesment then it might be better to discuss such specific
reports.

I'll have to browse the archives. I'm sure a good example shouldn't be
hard to find. I'm also sure avid Stereophile readers could point out a few
examples with ease. I've been a casual reader at best.


I said



Maybe in some cases
there were other influences including component synergy.


Scott said



Still, that should be measurable.



But they have to be measured. Are you suggesting that maybe Stereophile
is not
making measurements they should be making?

No, not until the measurements say there isn't an audible
difference yet a DBT confirms there is.


I said


Maybe in some cases
the reviewer was just off the mark.



Scott said



I think the easiest way to know is the DBT.
If the reviewer is not off the mark, then I'd like
to see Anderson embark on figuring out which
measurement needs to be added to his repertoire
to show the delta.


I am not against it but I think you are suggesting that Stereophile
should
conduct some very challenging research to corolate subjective impressions
with
measured performance.

Well, let's first remove the subjectivity and simply
confirm audible differences.

ScottW

I said


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



Arny said


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


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

Arny said

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


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

Arny said

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


No, he simply is respectable scientifically.

Arny said

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


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

Arny said


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


So said the novice about the pro.

I said


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



Arny said


Shows how little you know, sockpuppet wheel.



Nonsense.


I said


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


Arny said



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


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

Arny said


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



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

Arny said



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


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


Arny said





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


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

Scott said


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



I said


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


Scott said



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


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

I said



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


Scott said


Those are certainly the easiest components.

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


I said



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


Scott said



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


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

I said


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


Scott said



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



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

Scott said



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



I said



How so?



Scott said


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


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