At HE2005 -- see http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate --
Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening changes the
listener's state of mind. This, of course, is correct, but so does
blind
listening, though in a different manner. I offer some further thoughts
on
this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:

At HE2005 -- see http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate --
Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening changes the
listener's state of mind. This, of course, is correct, but so does
blind
listening, though in a different manner. I offer some further thoughts
on
this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .


Holy taking things completely out of context, Batman!

Atkinson:
But Mr. Goldacre appears to be making the naïve assumption that
the mere fact that a test is blind inherently — his word was
intrinsically — confers legitimacy on the test and its results.

Goldac
But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the
hi-fi community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners to
identify a cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive -
are somehow intrinsically flawed.


So, John, where exactly does Goldacre claim that just because a test is
blind that it is intrinsically legitimate? I don't see any such claim
there. You're accusing him of saying something he didn't.

I think we all agree that one can design a very bad blind test. And
that there are some bad one's out there. *Nobody* is claiming that
every blind test is good science, or that simply the fact of it being a
blind test means that it is legit.

While it is probably true that Goldacre (like anyone else with formal
training in science) holds the opinion that blindedness is a *necessary*
condition for a valid scientific conclusion, he never says that it is
*sufficient*.

Now, I haven't read everything that Mr Goldacre has ever written, so
maybe I'm missing the place where he says what you claim he says. If
so, spill.

//Walt

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Atkinson"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: Blind Testing - Some Further Thoughts


At HE2005 -- see http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate --
Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening changes the
listener's state of mind. This, of course, is correct, but so does
blind
listening, though in a different manner. I offer some further thoughts
on
this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


That article is poorly written.

I recommend the writer go back to college to take English 101. I suspect
Philosophy of Science 101 is required also.

Thanks,


Someguy

John Atkinson wrote:
At HE2005 -- see http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate --
Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening changes the
listener's state of mind. This, of course, is correct, but so does
blind
listening, though in a different manner. I offer some further thoughts
on
this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


The article I read appears to posit a similar argument to an excellent
post that was made on this group a few years ago by Ernst Raedecker. In
the light of the above, it bears repeating:

----------------------------------------
Ernst Raedecker
Date: Sun, Jan 4 2004 8:01 pm

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:12:07 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Interesting stuff. You have supported very well one of my original comments that there is near infinite depth of detail to measurements which can be explored.

I think it is far easier to first confirm audible differences and then pursue validating those differences through measurement.

The real problem is that it is not at all easy "to confirm audible
differences" in a hearing test. The reason for that is that hearing
consists basically of two rather different operations:

(1) collecting of audio data in the ear (2) processing of audio data in
the brain.

When you do a hearing test, you predominantly measure (if you measure
anything sensible at all) the workings of the data processing in the
brain, and NOT so much what gets into the ear.

It is not at all difficult to set up a test that DEMONSTRATES that two
persons "hear" a **different** thing, when both receive, collect at
their ears, totally the **same** audio data, for example by playing the
same tape to both persons. In that case the test will confirm a
difference, where "objectively" no difference exists.

So the point is NOT that the hearing test may fail to confirm a
possibly "minute" difference between two sources. The point is that two
persons will actually hear a difference when there is none.

Is any of the two persons, or both, biased? No. Why then do they hear
different things?

Because they process the data differently. They have a different
ability to retrieve information from the data.

So your hearing test tells you how people process audio data, NOT what
data they collect at their ears, whether the same or not.

Hard Line Objectivists have the tendency to attribute such differences
in hearing results to "bias", possibly "sighted bias". That's wrong.
There are all kinds of biases, including sighted biases, okay. But the
real point is that the hearing system ITSELF is different in both
persons.

How on earth are you going to test whether there are real audible
differences between two sources, when people already hear differences
when there is only one source?

My pet example is one tape with a person speeking Greek, and two
listeners to this one tape, one native speaker of English and one
native speaker of Greek.

Both listeners receive EXACTLY THE SAME DATA. Both listeners hear
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Generally the English speaker will not understand a word. Indeed, he
will not even be able to **separate** the words in the flow of sounds,
or hear the vowels correctly, or hear the consonants correctly, let
alone make out what is being said.

For the native speaker of Greek, on the other hand, everything is
"immediately obvious". The words, the vowels, the consonants, the
meaning of the words, everything.

It may take the English speaker SOME FIVE YEARS OR MORE to learn to
understand the spoken Greek text. Just to hear the words, the
consonants, the vowels correctly.

It shows that hearing ONLY PARTLY DEPENDS on receiving audio data. The
processing part is much more important.

Hearing depends also on: * knowledge of the world * knowledge of
current situation * knowledge of context * memory of a huge amount of
well known sounds * memory of a huge amount of well known sound
emanating objects * knowledge and memory of well known distortions &
mutations to sound, e.g. distortions brought about by the pinna and the
head, which allow us some idea of directionality. * visual clues as to
the current situation.

Contrary to what Hard Line Objectivists want us to believe, for normal
seeing persons vision is ESSENTIAL to hearing. Which means that "blind
tests" DEPRIVE the hearing system of essential information.

We all depend on lip reading when we follow a conversation. A person
with hearing disabilities can tell you that he depends even MORE on lip
reading. It is not that the lip reading adds "extra information", next
to the info received from "the hearing process". That is a completely
wrong idea.

It is the SEEING ITSELF that sharpens the hearing acuity. By seeing,
the deaf person "hears" the consonants, the vowels, and the words
better. If he looks in another direction, what he hears changes to
"wlawlawla". Also the CONTEXT OF MEANING of a discussion is very
important to the deaf person. Because of the context he knows what
words to expect, so he will hear them. If he loses track, then again
the words become muddle.

This all is NOT a matter of "bias". It is an essential part of the
hearing system itself. We hear, partly, with our eyes.

Recently, with the help of MRI scans, it has become clear that in due
course the visual cortex itself DIRECTLY INFLUENCES the auditory
cortex. That is, the information from the eyes DIRECTLY GUIDES the
auditory cortex into the creating of the audio image that we finally
"hear". It's the eyes that make us hear, partly.

Hard Line Objectivists do not like this way the auditory system of the
brain works. They prefer an auditory system that discards visual
information. They want us to hear in a different way than we do.

They want nature to be different than it is. I advise them, and
especially Krueger and Nousaine, to register a complaint with the Lord
Almighty, that He should have created Man differently.

The auditory system will use ALL INFORMATION it can lay its hands on.
Of course it will, it tries to work as efficiently as it can.

Hard Line Objectivists don't like that. They want to have us hear
INEFFICIENTLY. Therefore they design tests that ONLY ALLOW LIMITED
HEARING. They call that "objective" and all the rest "bias".

They have no idea of, and no interest in, how hearing goes.

If it takes you five years or more to know enough of Greek to hear that
what is "immediately obvious" to the native speaker, how many years
will it take you to learn to hear the "immediately obvious" problems in
transistor amplification? Could well be five years or more of intensive
study.

That's the problem with hearing tests.

Without the listening tests, there is still no demonstration that measurement differences are in fact audible or not.

I repeat:

So your hearing test tells you how people process audio data, NOT what
data they collect at their ears, whether the same or not.

I cannot understand why clowns like Nousaine prefer to do silly hearing
tests for years and years on end, WITHOUT showing any knowledge or
appreciation of HOW HEARING ACTUALLY GOES.

Please don't repeat Krueger in saying that we have a body of knowledge
of 100 years and more on the subject of psychoacoustics, because we
have NOT. We have had THEORIES for well over hundred years, but we have
only started accumulating KNOWLEDGE on how hearing goes in the last 20
years.

Even on the subject of the mechanics of the ear, we have only started
some 50 years ago, not 100 years ago, with very humble beginnings.

For example, for a long time scientists believed that the vibrations of
the basilar membrane in the cochlea was brought about by a STANDING
wave (say Helmholtz's theory), a very plausible theory. After all, an
organ pipe or a blown trumpet or clarinet etc also produce standing
waves.

Only in the 1940s it became clear that what went into the cochlea was a
TRAVELING wave, not a standing wave. In 1960 Von Bekesy got the Nobel
prize for this discovery. So much for "a body of knowledge of a hundred
years".

It then became clear that the basilar membrane, due to heavy damping,
did not allow for detailed pitch discrimination. As we can, in reality,
quite well hear pitch differences (also measurable via the tuning
curve), the new theory was that there was some sharpening up process
going on, probably due to pitch sensitivity of hearing cells and
neurons. Not a bad idea, as this happens in quite a few animals.

Only in the1980s it became clear that the basilar membrane allowed for
much sharper pitch dicrimination than as thought before. It turned out
that the membrane deteriorated rapidly outside the living body. So they
started testing with heavily sedated animals. It turned out that the
heavy sedation also brought about a serious deterioration of the
functioning of the membrane, and that the less the sedation is, the
sharper the membrane allows pitch discrimination.

So the new idea of the 1990s is that we do NOT need so much this
sharpening up theory. So much for a "hundred years of established
knowledge" in hearing theory. It's only TEN years of knowledge, NOT
hundred years.

When Gold came with the idea of otoacoustic emissions in the late
1940s, nobody believed him. When dr. Kemp ACTUALLY MEASURED them in the
mid 1970s, he couldn't get his article published in the "audio
magazines", these being the very serious scientific papers. His article
was FINALLY published in 1978:

Kemp DT (1978) Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human
auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 64: 1386-1391

Nobody believed him.

Nowadays otoacoustic emissions tests are used ON A DAILY BASIS with
newborn infants to test whether they have hearing problems. Nobody
doubts their existence.

So much for "hundred years of well established knowledge".

But what does Nousaine know of hearing? Nothing. What does he care?
Nothing. The same with the rest of them. Incompetent clowns, all of
them.

Ernesto.

"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel like it. So you can
forget the whole business if it is too much mental strain, which it
usually is."

Richard Feynman

wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
At HE2005 -- see http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate --
Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening changes the
listener's state of mind. This, of course, is correct, but so does
blind
listening, though in a different manner. I offer some further thoughts
on
this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


The article I read appears to posit a similar argument to an excellent
post that was made on this group a few years ago by Ernst Raedecker. In
the light of the above, it bears repeating:

----------------------------------------
Ernst Raedecker
Date: Sun, Jan 4 2004 8:01 pm

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:12:07 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Recently, with the help of MRI scans, it has become clear that in due
course the visual cortex itself DIRECTLY INFLUENCES the auditory
cortex. That is, the information from the eyes DIRECTLY GUIDES the
auditory cortex into the creating of the audio image that we finally
"hear". It's the eyes that make us hear, partly.

I think what is known for sure, is that they influence what we think we
hear, nobody is questioning that they play a role in how we hear.
Obvioulsy, we don't need to see in order to hear.

Hard Line Objectivists do not like this way the auditory system of the
brain works. They prefer an auditory system that discards visual
information. They want us to hear in a different way than we do.


They prefer a system that relies only on what the ear can detect.
Seeing what one listens to is known to give false results.

They want nature to be different than it is.

It's not the audio objectivists that want that.

I advise them, and
especially Krueger and Nousaine, to register a complaint with the Lord
Almighty, that He should have created Man differently.


Less easily fooled by vision?

The auditory system will use ALL INFORMATION it can lay its hands on.
Of course it will, it tries to work as efficiently as it can.

Hard Line Objectivists don't like that. They want to have us hear
INEFFICIENTLY. Therefore they design tests that ONLY ALLOW LIMITED
HEARING. They call that "objective" and all the rest "bias".


No, it's called reliable hearing and it correlates very nicely with
measurements.
Anything different enough that can be heard is also easily measured.

They have no idea of, and no interest in, how hearing goes.


Right, how could they? :-(

If it takes you five years or more to know enough of Greek to hear that
what is "immediately obvious" to the native speaker, how many years
will it take you to learn to hear the "immediately obvious" problems in
transistor amplification? Could well be five years or more of intensive
study.

That's the problem with hearing tests.


That they're not in Greek?


Without the listening tests, there is still no demonstration that measurement differences are in fact audible or not.

I repeat:

So your hearing test tells you how people process audio data, NOT what
data they collect at their ears, whether the same or not.


Now all you need to do is prove that.


I cannot understand why clowns like Nousaine prefer to do silly hearing
tests for years and years on end, WITHOUT showing any knowledge or
appreciation of HOW HEARING ACTUALLY GOES.


It's like you guys that have not understood what the hearing tests have
revealed
and even if you do, youjust reject them.


Please don't repeat Krueger in saying that we have a body of knowledge
of 100 years and more on the subject of psychoacoustics, because we
have NOT.

It's clear yo don't.

We have had THEORIES for well over hundred years, but we have
only started accumulating KNOWLEDGE on how hearing goes in the last 20
years.

Ignorance of what a theory is, noted.


Even on the subject of the mechanics of the ear, we have only started
some 50 years ago, not 100 years ago, with very humble beginnings.

For example, for a long time scientists believed that the vibrations of
the basilar membrane in the cochlea was brought about by a STANDING
wave (say Helmholtz's theory), a very plausible theory. After all, an
organ pipe or a blown trumpet or clarinet etc also produce standing
waves.

Only in the 1940s it became clear that what went into the cochlea was a
TRAVELING wave, not a standing wave. In 1960 Von Bekesy got the Nobel
prize for this discovery. So much for "a body of knowledge of a hundred
years".

It then became clear that the basilar membrane, due to heavy damping,
did not allow for detailed pitch discrimination. As we can, in reality,
quite well hear pitch differences (also measurable via the tuning
curve), the new theory was that there was some sharpening up process
going on, probably due to pitch sensitivity of hearing cells and
neurons. Not a bad idea, as this happens in quite a few animals.

Only in the1980s it became clear that the basilar membrane allowed for
much sharper pitch dicrimination than as thought before. It turned out
that the membrane deteriorated rapidly outside the living body. So they
started testing with heavily sedated animals. It turned out that the
heavy sedation also brought about a serious deterioration of the
functioning of the membrane, and that the less the sedation is, the
sharper the membrane allows pitch discrimination.



What a lovely collection of straw men.


So the new idea of the 1990s is that we do NOT need so much this
sharpening up theory. So much for a "hundred years of established
knowledge" in hearing theory. It's only TEN years of knowledge, NOT
hundred years.

When Gold came with the idea of otoacoustic emissions in the late
1940s, nobody believed him. When dr. Kemp ACTUALLY MEASURED them in the
mid 1970s, he couldn't get his article published in the "audio
magazines", these being the very serious scientific papers. His article
was FINALLY published in 1978:

Kemp DT (1978) Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human
auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 64: 1386-1391

Nobody believed him.

Nowadays otoacoustic emissions tests are used ON A DAILY BASIS with
newborn infants to test whether they have hearing problems. Nobody
doubts their existence.
I don't think anybody has ever doubted the connection between vision
and hearing, if only they really got the notion on bias due to sight.


So much for "hundred years of well established knowledge".

But what does Nousaine know of hearing?

More than you.

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
At HE2005 -- see
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate --

Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening
changes the listener's state of mind.

Someone doesn't get the purpose of a sound quality-based evaluation, which
is to change the state of the listener's mind from not knowing enough about
sound quality, to knowing quite about more useful information about sound
quality.

Someone missed yet another obvious point. Knowing the identity of the
product being listened to during the evaluation can change the listener's
state of mind, even before the first sound falls on his ears.

At the end of the sighted evaluation we don't know why the listener's mind
is in its new state, because in a sighted evaluation so much extraneous
information has been gratuitously provided to the listener.

I guess I need to introduce John to some new concepts like "prejudice",
"bias", and "irrelevant influences".

This, of course, is correct, but so does blind
listening, though in a different manner.

Someone again missed an obvious point. If there is no knowlege of the
product being listened to during the audition other than its sound quality,
there is nothing but sound quality that will change the listener's state of
mind.

I offer some further thoughts on
this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .

Further thoughts or a tired old recitation of the same old song and dance?

Note Atkinson's mastery of that which is totally obvious and trivial:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi/

"The reality is that all the playback system is doing is producing two
continually varying sound-pressure waves from two loudspeakers. Everything
else is the result of massive signal processing taking place between the
ears. Nothing is real, nothing to get hung about. It's all an illusion
constructed on a foundation of illusions."

Note Atkinson's twisting of words and introcution of false distinctions,
evidence of self-serving propaganda masquerading as words of wisdom:
"In normal listening, this happens unconsciously."

Prejudicial twisting of words - if sighted listening is "normal", then blind
testing must be "abnormal", right?

"When we listen to a stereo Chopin recording on our systems, we perceive an
image of a piano on which a work of Chopin's is being played."

In fact this happens in both blind and sighted listening. But not according
to Atkinson:

But in the blind test, we have to do consciously what would otherwise be
automatic. We have to start examining the character, the quality of
individual auditory objects.

The difference is not that we are listening blind, the difference is that we
are listening critically for differences in sound quality. In fact this
happens during both blind and sighted listening.

"We have to start consciously determining whether the sum of those objects
has crossed the line between noise and music."

This would be an excluded-middle argument. In fact most interesting
listening tests do not compare junk that produces noise, and good gear that
sounds like music. Most interesting listening tests involve comparisons
between really good gear and really good gear. The differences are therefore
far more subtle than Atkinson's posture-matic straw man comparison of noise
and music.

"In other words, we are no longer listening as we normally do."

Of course not. Whether the comparison is sighted or blind, we listen however
we choose and are able to listen. In fact some people cannot achieve a
relaxed state of listening in any comparison sighted or blind, while others
can.

Is the average consumer as relaxed when he does a sighted, non-level-matched
comparison in a high end audio store listening salon as he is at home? I
think not. All the sighted listening and non-level matched comparison does
is introduce other influences than sound quality.

"And if we are not listening normally, then the test itself becomes an
interfering variable."

What Atkinson cannot seemingly bring himself to say is that this is true
whether the evaluation is sighted or bias-controlled. It appears that once
again for Atkinson, the most important thing is to demonize bias controls
and the people who believe that they can be helpful.

postures dogmatically in message
ups.com

Hard Line Objectivists do not like this way the auditory
system of the brain works. They prefer an auditory system
that discards visual information. They want us to hear in
a different way than we do.

Not at all. In fact listeners in a blind test can receive the identical same
visual information that they would receive in a sighted evaluation. For
example during the Stereo Review CD player tests some years ago, everybody
in the room saw both CD players attractively displayed between the speakers,
just as they might see them in an Audio store, a hi fi show (e.g. HE2005) or
at someone's house.

The auditory system will use ALL INFORMATION it can lay
its hands on. Of course it will, it tries to work as
efficiently as it can.

No problem. In fact this paragraph points out why bias-controlled tests need
to be designed very carefully.

Hard Line Objectivists don't like that. They want to have
us hear INEFFICIENTLY. Therefore they design tests that
ONLY ALLOW LIMITED HEARING. They call that "objective"
and all the rest "bias".

Completely incorrect. Obviously we have yet another *RAO Eggspurt" on DBTs
that has shown he has no idea how DBTs are actually run.

wrote in message
ups.com
For example, for a long time scientists believed that the
vibrations of the basilar membrane in the cochlea was
brought about by a STANDING wave (say Helmholtz's
theory), a very plausible theory. After all, an organ
pipe or a blown trumpet or clarinet etc also produce
standing waves.

Only in the 1940s it became clear that what went into the
cochlea was a TRAVELING wave, not a standing wave. In
1960 Von Bekesy got the Nobel prize for this discovery.
So much for "a body of knowledge of a hundred years".

It then became clear that the basilar membrane, due to
heavy damping, did not allow for detailed pitch
discrimination. As we can, in reality, quite well hear
pitch differences (also measurable via the tuning curve),
the new theory was that there was some sharpening up
process going on, probably due to pitch sensitivity of
hearing cells and neurons. Not a bad idea, as this
happens in quite a few animals.

Only in the1980s it became clear that the basilar
membrane allowed for much sharper pitch dicrimination
than as thought before. It turned out that the membrane
deteriorated rapidly outside the living body. So they
started testing with heavily sedated animals. It turned
out that the heavy sedation also brought about a serious
deterioration of the functioning of the membrane, and
that the less the sedation is, the sharper the membrane
allows pitch discrimination.

So the new idea of the 1990s is that we do NOT need so
much this sharpening up theory. So much for a "hundred
years of established knowledge" in hearing theory. It's
only TEN years of knowledge, NOT hundred years.

When Gold came with the idea of otoacoustic emissions in
the late 1940s, nobody believed him. When dr. Kemp
ACTUALLY MEASURED them in the mid 1970s, he couldn't get
his article published in the "audio magazines", these
being the very serious scientific papers. His article was
FINALLY published in 1978:

Kemp DT (1978) Stimulated acoustic emissions from within
the human auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 64: 1386-1391

Nobody believed him.

False claim.

Nowadays otoacoustic emissions tests are used ON A DAILY
BASIS with newborn infants to test whether they have
hearing problems. Nobody doubts their existence.

True statement. I was introduced to a practical demonstration of otoacoustic
emissions at a SMWTMS meeting at my house in the mid-1980s.

So much for "hundred years of well established knowledge".

Repeat after me: "All scientific findings are provisional, and only stand
until improved knowlege falsifies them or modifies their meanings".


But what does Nousaine know of hearing?

AFAIK Tom was at that SMWTMS hi fi club meeting in the mid-80s and saw the
demonstration of otoacoustic emissions just as surely as I did.

Nothing.

Delusions of omniscience and mind-reading noted.

What does he care? Nothing.

Note that SHP has resorted to putting words in Tom's mouth.

The same with the rest of them.

Where were you in the mid-1980s, SHP?

Incompetent clowns, all of them.

Ernesto.

Hmm, a signature? What does this mean?

note the similarity of the above to the the following:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...091a2718c054c3

Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:01:23 GMT

From: (Ernst Raedecker)


Is this an example of plagiarism, or has SHP slipped up and revealed his
identity?

Arny Krueger wrote:
Hmm, a signature? What does this mean?

note the similarity of the above to the the following:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...091a2718c054c3

Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:01:23 GMT

From: (Ernst Raedecker)


Is this an example of plagiarism, or has SHP slipped up and revealed his
identity?

LOL. If Shippy is Raedecker, *that* would certainly explain a lot.



___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

Sillybot and the Krooborg demonstrate their primacy in the Mass
Stupidity Cult.

The article I read appears to posit a similar argument to an excellent
post that was made on this group a few years ago by Ernst Raedecker.

Sane people can see the direct attribution.

note the similarity of the above to the the following:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...091a2718c054c3

Is this an example of plagiarism, or has SHP slipped up and revealed his
identity?

You've just referenced the exact same post that Shovels referenced. Well
done, Arnii. ;-)

LOL. If Shippy is Raedecker, *that* would certainly explain a lot.

People who aren't stupid see many stylistic differences between
Raedeker's post and the typical frothing Shovels dumps on Usenet.





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
Hmm, a signature? What does this mean?

note the similarity of the above to the the following:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...091a2718c054c3

Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:01:23 GMT

From: (Ernst Raedecker)


Is this an example of plagiarism, or has SHP slipped up
and revealed his identity?

LOL. If Shippy is Raedecker, *that* would certainly
explain a lot.

Agreed.

BTW do you think that Raedecker is really that confused, or is he just
trying to score debating trade points based on misdirection. IOW he seems
to have a lot of relevant facts right, but he's got the big picture all
wrong.

"Arny Krueger" said:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
Hmm, a signature? What does this mean?

note the similarity of the above to the the following:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...091a2718c054c3

Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:01:23 GMT

From: (Ernst Raedecker)


Is this an example of plagiarism, or has SHP slipped up
and revealed his identity?

LOL. If Shippy is Raedecker, *that* would certainly
explain a lot.

Agreed.

BTW do you think that Raedecker is really that confused, or is he just
trying to score debating trade points based on misdirection. IOW he seems
to have a lot of relevant facts right, but he's got the big picture all
wrong.


And here, boys and girls, we see the actual mechanism of how another
"established RAO fact" is born:

AK and SS agree:
"Mr. SHP is actually Ernst Raedecker".


Really, I couldn't make this up if my life depended on it!

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message


And here, boys and girls, we see the actual mechanism of
how another "established RAO fact" is born:

AK and SS agree:
"Mr. SHP is actually Ernst Raedecker".

Really, I couldn't make this up if my life depended on it!

Except you did make it up, Sander.

Thanks for showing your dark side, again.

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" said:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
Hmm, a signature? What does this mean?

note the similarity of the above to the the following:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...091a2718c054c3

Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:01:23 GMT

From: (Ernst Raedecker)


Is this an example of plagiarism, or has SHP slipped up
and revealed his identity?

LOL. If Shippy is Raedecker, *that* would certainly
explain a lot.

Agreed.

BTW do you think that Raedecker is really that confused, or is he just
trying to score debating trade points based on misdirection. IOW he seems
to have a lot of relevant facts right, but he's got the big picture all
wrong.


And here, boys and girls, we see the actual mechanism of how another
"established RAO fact" is born:

AK and SS agree:
"Mr. SHP is actually Ernst Raedecker".


Really, I couldn't make this up if my life depended on it!


Well, you had no problem making that claim up...and I hope your life
didn't depend on it. My Ouija board would be ever so sad if so.


So let's see, Shippy quotes Raedecker. It doesn't mean Shippy *is*
Raedecker, nor did I say it did. But if you were familiar with
the Raedecker oeuvre, as I am from his whack-a-mole appearances on
rec.audio.high-end, you'd understand both the source of
my amusement at the prospect, and the point of my post.


But since you didn't understand what I wrote, I suggest for further
you apply a drawing of some four-legged animal to your monitor,
and see if don't at least start enjoying it a lot more.



___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

Steven Sullivan said:


Well, you had no problem making that claim up...and I hope your life
didn't depend on it. My Ouija board would be ever so sad if so.


Speaking of Ouija boards, I have sent you what must be a hundred
messages, and still no reply.

Do you want me to slaughter a sheep and read its intestants?


But since you didn't understand what I wrote, I suggest for further
you apply a drawing of some four-legged animal to your monitor,
and see if don't at least start enjoying it a lot more.


Well, I must ask SHP about that, applying L-shapes to my monitor did
nothing for me to make your posts any more humorous.

Maybe I'm now ready for The Cream.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal wrote:
Steven Sullivan said:


Well, you had no problem making that claim up...and I hope your life
didn't depend on it. My Ouija board would be ever so sad if so.


Speaking of Ouija boards, I have sent you what must be a hundred
messages, and still no reply.


Your Ouija board must be insufficiently resolving, then. My
messages are all hi-rez.


Do you want me to slaughter a sheep and read its intestants?


Are sheep *that* violent towards each other?


But since you didn't understand what I wrote, I suggest for further
you apply a drawing of some four-legged animal to your monitor,
and see if don't at least start enjoying it a lot more.

Well, I must ask SHP about that, applying L-shapes to my monitor did
nothing for me to make your posts any more humorous.

Maybe I'm now ready for The Cream.


More than ready.


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

Steven Sullivan said:


Speaking of Ouija boards, I have sent you what must be a hundred
messages, and still no reply.


Your Ouija board must be insufficiently resolving, then. My
messages are all hi-rez.


Ah, you should have said so before!
I used FSK............

My Ouija-board is a DIY model with only 44.1/20, do you have a sample
rate converter on board?


Do you want me to slaughter a sheep and read its intestants?


Are sheep *that* violent towards each other?


I first thought of using a chicken, but apparently, that's not
"hi-rez" enough.


Maybe I'm now ready for The Cream.


More than ready.


Good, because I don't want to throw that 200 liter barrel I ordered
out on E-bay.

Do you think I should order some square meters of The Foil as well?

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal wrote:
Steven Sullivan said:


Speaking of Ouija boards, I have sent you what must be a hundred
messages, and still no reply.


Your Ouija board must be insufficiently resolving, then. My
messages are all hi-rez.


Ah, you should have said so before!
I used FSK............

My Ouija-board is a DIY model with only 44.1/20, do you have a sample
rate converter on board?

All of my Ouija board conversions take place in the highest-quality aether,
using only the finest ectoplasmic converters. And I pin a drawing of
a unicorn to them because...well, just *because*.


Do you want me to slaughter a sheep and read its intestants?


Are sheep *that* violent towards each other?

I first thought of using a chicken, but apparently, that's not
"hi-rez" enough.


I guess it's a question of whether you prefer to be fleeced or
plucked.


Maybe I'm now ready for The Cream.


More than ready.


Good, because I don't want to throw that 200 liter barrel I ordered
out on E-bay.

Do you think I should order some square meters of The Foil as well?


No, but aren't you running low on The Kool-Aid by now?


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

Steven Sullivan said:


All of my Ouija board conversions take place in the highest-quality aether,
using only the finest ectoplasmic converters. And I pin a drawing of
a unicorn to them because...well, just *because*.


That's just * silly* .
Everyone knows that Unicorns don't exist.

Hence, they don't have any benefit whatsoever.


Do you think I should order some square meters of The Foil as well?


No, but aren't you running low on The Kool-Aid by now?


checks gauge

Yep, you're right.
I'll e-mail the Belt Imperium immediately to ship some together with
The Foil.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

John Atkinson wrote:
At HE2005 -- see http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate --
Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening changes the
listener's state of mind. This, of course, is correct, but so does
blind
listening, though in a different manner. I offer some further thoughts
on
this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


I read both articles carefully. I must say that John Atkinson simply
cannot reason logically. It is either the guy cannot think logically,
or he is intentionally clouding the issue.

Let's look into the first article. He claims that given two amps -
SS and tube he failed to distinguish them on the base of sound alone
(in DBT). So far so good.

Then in a second phase he acquired SS amp and started listening to it
in sighted conditions. What it means that his judgment was influenced
by other factors, not only the sound. Subjectivists here and on RAHE
spent tons of space claiming that the brain is a powerful machine that
can be influenced by anything. I think nobody in objectivist camp did
argue with that. So in the light of the fact that John's brain had
additional information - SS, brand, etc. it (brain) came to the
conclusion that it does not like it.

John explained it by "listening fatigue". In reality it could be
anything. Simply put, if John would say that he did not like the sound
because he did not like design of the front panel, everybody would
laugh at him. But "listening fatigue" sounds respectable, is not
it?

I would guess that if John had any bias against SS gear, this piece of
information would influence him.

But John did not stop there but immediately he makes a conclusion that
DBT was defective because later in sighted condition he (John) did not
like the sound of SS amplifier. The purpose of DBT was to establish if
the sound alone can be a discriminating factor between two amps. Turned
out that for John it was not the case. End of story.

But John changed conditions, threw more information in listening test
that helped him to make a distinction between two amps and used this to
complain about DBT.

I always suspected that Stereophile is a fraud, ("infinite resolution
of LP" from Michael Fremer comes to mind) but now I am even more
convinced.

vova

Sander deWaal wrote:
Steven Sullivan said:


All of my Ouija board conversions take place in the highest-quality aether,
using only the finest ectoplasmic converters. And I pin a drawing of
a unicorn to them because...well, just *because*.


That's just * silly* .
Everyone knows that Unicorns don't exist.

Hence, they don't have any benefit whatsoever.


Now you've done it. My Ouija board has gone into a *sulk*.


Do you think I should order some square meters of The Foil as well?


No, but aren't you running low on The Kool-Aid by now?


checks gauge

Yep, you're right.
I'll e-mail the Belt Imperium immediately to ship some together with
The Foil.


Follow your bliss.


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

vlad wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:
At HE2005 -- see http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate --
Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening changes the
listener's state of mind. This, of course, is correct, but so does
blind
listening, though in a different manner. I offer some further thoughts
on
this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


I read both articles carefully. I must say that John Atkinson simply
cannot reason logically. It is either the guy cannot think logically,
or he is intentionally clouding the issue.

Let's look into the first article. He claims that given two amps -
SS and tube he failed to distinguish them on the base of sound alone
(in DBT). So far so good.

Then in a second phase he acquired SS amp and started listening to it
in sighted conditions. What it means that his judgment was influenced
by other factors, not only the sound. Subjectivists here and on RAHE
spent tons of space claiming that the brain is a powerful machine that
can be influenced by anything. I think nobody in objectivist camp did
argue with that. So in the light of the fact that John's brain had
additional information - SS, brand, etc. it (brain) came to the
conclusion that it does not like it.

John explained it by "listening fatigue". In reality it could be
anything. Simply put, if John would say that he did not like the sound
because he did not like design of the front panel, everybody would
laugh at him. But "listening fatigue" sounds respectable, is not
it?

I would guess that if John had any bias against SS gear, this piece of
information would influence him.

But John did not stop there but immediately he makes a conclusion that
DBT was defective because later in sighted condition he (John) did not
like the sound of SS amplifier. The purpose of DBT was to establish if
the sound alone can be a discriminating factor between two amps. Turned
out that for John it was not the case. End of story.

But John changed conditions, threw more information in listening test
that helped him to make a distinction between two amps and used this to
complain about DBT.

I always suspected that Stereophile is a fraud, ("infinite resolution
of LP" from Michael Fremer comes to mind) but now I am even more
convinced.

vova


As I think I mentioned to JA at the show, the obvious thing to do
once he'd decided after a long audition period, that the SS
amp actually *didn't* sound as good as -- much less the same as --
the tube amp, was to do another DBT *at that point*. Surely if
the difference had revelaed itself as palpably as he claimed,
he'd now pass a DBT, and one could move on to the more interesting
question of what it was about *the two amps* that caused the
difference.






___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message



As I think I mentioned to JA at the show, the obvious
thing to do once he'd decided after a long audition period, that the
SS amp actually *didn't* sound as good as -- much less the
same as -- the tube amp, was to do another DBT *at that point*.

Among other things. There's also a chance that the "bad sounding" SS amp had
partially failed in a way that technical tests would have confirmed.

Surely if the difference had revelaed itself as palpably as he
claimed, he'd now pass a DBT, and one could move on to the more
interesting question of what it was about *the two amps* that caused
the difference.

This is such a strong and obvious point that it makes Atkinson's opening
anecdote at HE2005 an embarassment and humiliation for him, first and
foremost.

"MD" wrote in message



Usually I support your opinions and actually don't
disagree with all of the points you and others use
against A/B sightless comparisons.

"Sightless comparisons"? Are you for real? Do you really believe that the
bias controls we use involve sightless comparsions?

LOL!

However - I have done
a small amount of A/B (mostly with the capability for
fast switching) and I found it very useful.

Given your misapprehensions, this is going to be good.

While I
understand that equipment near the same price point or
quality might be hard to tell apart sighted or not

Wrong - its always easy to tell equipment apart sighted.

one should expect an immediate A/B difference when the price
points jump especially when the piece you compare to
costs twice as much or more.

Yet another naive one who thinks that there is always a generally increasing
relationship between price and sound quality. As Barnum said, there's at
least one born every minute.

If I couldn't A/B my
Triangle Celius 202's with speakers $5k or more in price
difference and hear an immediate difference (one I assume
I should like) then it would make no sense to me to spend
that much more money. (Maybe the $5k difference example
is not disparate enough - however my point should still
stand).

Yup, very naive. Speakers sound different unless you have some way for them
to occupy the same space when you are listening to them.

Having said this I agree that there comes a
point where the cost trade off becomes steeper. At some
point one has to pay a lot more to get a little
difference - at this point I could see sighted tests not
being helpful.

Why?

Have you guys ever tried blind tests to see if you can
pick out the "better" units? Maybe a Vandersteen 3 and
something that covers the same freq range but costs much
more?

Read my lips - speakers always sound different.

Maybe a Rotel amp and the Halcro?

Oh, Amplifiers. Now things can be more interesting.

Maybe a good Music Hall TT set up against a top of the line player?

A/B ing cartrdiges is more to the point.

Or an NAD Player against. . .well you get the point.

What I get is that you have no idea about the degree of audible differences
between different kinds of components.

Heck - you guys should even try a whole system A/B to see
if you can tell. (I'd imagine the speakers would have to
use the same technology and have the same bandwidth and
amps would have to have roughly the same power capability
- under normal loads)

If different speakers are involved, the systems can be counted on to sound
different in every case.

Seems to me you guys should be able to differentiate
things like this 10 out of 10 times - especially if the
price differences are a factor or so more.

I dunno. Say "blind test" and most high end ragazine writers start
screaming, hollaring and swooning. Look at what happened at the HE2005
debate.

NYOB123 wrote
soundhaspriority wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:




At HE2005 -- see http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate
Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening changes the
listener's state of mind. This, of course, is correct, but so does
blind listening, though in a different manner. I offer some further
thoughts on this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


The article I read appears to posit a similar argument to an excellent
post that was made on this group a few years ago by Ernst Raedecker.
In the light of the above, it bears repeating:

----------------------------------------

Ernst Raedecker:


So much for "hundred years of well established knowledge".

But what does Nousaine know of hearing?


More than you.



It is curious not a mention of DBT in your reply.

Arny Krueger wrote
soundhaspriority postures dogmatically in message





Hard Line Objectivists do not like this way the auditory
system of the brain works. They prefer an auditory system
that discards visual information. They want us to hear in
a different way than we do.

Not at all. In fact listeners in a blind test can receive the identical same
visual information that they would receive in a sighted evaluation. For
example during the Stereo Review CD player tests some years ago, everybody
in the room saw both CD players attractively displayed between the speakers,
just as they might see them in an Audio store, a hi fi show (e.g. HE2005) or
at someone's house.

The auditory system will use ALL INFORMATION it can lay
its hands on. Of course it will, it tries to work as
efficiently as it can.

No problem. In fact this paragraph points out why bias-controlled tests need
to be designed very carefully.

Hard Line Objectivists don't like that. They want to have
us hear INEFFICIENTLY. Therefore they design tests that
ONLY ALLOW LIMITED HEARING. They call that "objective"
and all the rest "bias".


Completely incorrect. Obviously we have yet another *RAO Eggspurt" on DBTs
that has shown he has no idea how DBTs are actually run.


Based upon a recent discussion with Nyob McKelvy, he appears to
admit that DBT is not a reliable audio test because it cognitively and
visually alter our perception to music and sound.


Any comments on the matter?

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
NYOB123 wrote
soundhaspriority wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:




At HE2005 -- see http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate
Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening changes the
listener's state of mind. This, of course, is correct, but so does
blind listening, though in a different manner. I offer some further
thoughts on this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


The article I read appears to posit a similar argument to an excellent
post that was made on this group a few years ago by Ernst Raedecker.
In the light of the above, it bears repeating:

----------------------------------------

Ernst Raedecker:


So much for "hundred years of well established knowledge".

But what does Nousaine know of hearing?


More than you.



It is curious not a mention of DBT in your reply.

Where was the need?

Shovels wrote:

Sillybot and the Krooborg demonstrate their primacy in the Mass
Stupidity Cult.

The article I read appears to posit a similar argument to an excellent
post that was made on this group a few years ago by Ernst Raedecker.

Sane people can see the direct attribution.

True, that Sullivan and Arny are truly a pair of imbeciles for not
realizing that I didn't write the post, and clearly stated I was simply
reposting it. However, you've proven to us to be a hypocrite yet again,
in your condemnation of Arny and his pseudo-scientific allies. Sane
people can see that "shills" do not insult and battle with their entire
target market, if their goal is to sell products. Yet you ranted and
raved, along with your even crazier friend Robert Morein, that this was
so in my case.

Try spending some time out of your fantasy bubble for a change,
Shovels. It might do you a world of good to see how "sane" people
behave.

People who aren't stupid see many stylistic differences between
Raedeker's post and the typical frothing Shovels dumps on Usenet.

Thanks again for another fine example of your hypocrisy. Those same
people "who aren't stupid" can see the many stylistic differences
between Richard Graham's messages and mine. As they can see the MANY
similarities between mine, and Benchimol's. And yet... you ranted and
raved, along with your even crazier friend Robert Morein, that I was
Richard Graham (among a slew of other people...). Whom you still think
I am.

Try spending some time out of your fantasy bubble for a change,
Shovels. It might do you a world of good to see how "smart" people
behave.

---------------------------------

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message


And here, boys and girls, we see the actual mechanism of
how another "established RAO fact" is born:

AK and SS agree:
"Mr. SHP is actually Ernst Raedecker".

Really, I couldn't make this up if my life depended on it!

Except you did make it up, Sander.

No, he's right. This is yet another example of how "lies become
established fact" on RAO. Do you know how we can tell? You'd have
proved he was wrong, instead of just making a vigorous assertion, then
trying to heave your fat body out of here as fast as your wheezing
lungs can take you, Arny. In the hopes that I don't come along and slap
the holy heck out of you. With the truth.... Too late! I'm here!

Thanks for showing your dark side, again.

Is THAT so? Well, thanks for showing your evil, lying side again, Arny.
Do you REALLY think you have any credibility on this group any longer,
after all the lies you've been caught in? Here's incontrovertible proof
that you thought I was Ernst Raedecker:

Here, Arny responds to Earnst's post, but argues with me as though I
wrote it (ie. telling me I put words in Tom Noussaine's mouth). As if
that wasn't stupid enough on Arny's part, he then references the very
SAME post that I wrote, saying "note the similarities between the
two"!! Then Arny wonders aloud: "Is this an example of plagiarism, or
has SHP slipped up and revealed his identity? "

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arny Krueger - view profile
Date: Tues, Apr 18 2006 8:32 am

wrote in message

ups.com

Nothing.

Delusions of omniscience and mind-reading noted.

What does he care? Nothing.

Note that SHP has resorted to putting words in Tom's mouth.

The same with the rest of them.

Where were you in the mid-1980s, SHP?

Incompetent clowns, all of them. Ernesto.

Hmm, a signature? What does this mean?

note the similarity of the above to the the following:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...091a2718c054c3

Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:01:23 GMT

From: (Ernst Raedecker)

Is this an example of plagiarism, or has SHP slipped up and revealed
his identity?

-------------------------------------------------------------


Here's another example of Arny believing I'm Earnst, in the same
thread:

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arny Krueger - view profile
Date: Tues, Apr 18 2006 8:20 am

postures dogmatically in message
ups.com


snip What followed is the Ernst's post that Arny responded to, in
which he claimed above I was 'posturing dogmatically'. Apparently, 10
years of trolling audio newsgroups isn't enough for Arny to learn how
to read a disclaimer in a post.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, a few more recent lies from Arny:


I said (about the $20k Sennheiser Orpheus):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yet you don't find a problem telling people they're a rip off, no better than the 580 model.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Arny said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, where did I say that? Hint: I didn't. You made this up all by yourself SHP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is what Arny originally said about the Sennheiser 580 mode., which
he claims I made up:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Begs the question, what do you do to a pair of $200 headphones to make
people want to pay $15,000 (quickly dropped to $5,000) a pair for them?


In the wacky world of high end audio the answer seems obvious:

(1) change some plastic external parts to wood.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Arny defends his ABX paradigm:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arny Said two words:

Two words: Sighted Evaluation.

I said:

Pray tell, how do you blind test a pair of headphones,
say the Sennheiser 580 vs. the Orpheus? The Orpheus will
be a heavier pair and clearly, you'll be able to feel the
difference on your head?

Arny Said:

Add helium baloons?

Well, so much for the usefulness of ABX, folks!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Arny: I think you finally elucidated for us exactly why we should not
take you or your stupid ABX tests seriously, and that ALL audio should
be purchased on purely sighted, subjective listening. You just admitted
that your ABX TEST IS A JOKE!! Thank you for that, Arny.

Sander deWaal wrote:
Steven Sullivan said:


But since you didn't understand what I wrote, I suggest for further
you apply a drawing of some four-legged animal to your monitor,
and see if don't at least start enjoying it a lot more.


Well, I must ask SHP about that, applying L-shapes to my monitor did
nothing for me to make your posts any more humorous.

Sorry, can't help with that. Steven's sense of humour is about as
developed as his scientific curiousity. I've never tried L-shapes on my
monitor because... well my L-shape printout will obscur a quarter of
the screen... any improvements are kind of offset by that. But I do
happen to have a teeny tiny 2mm x 15mm piece of siliver rainbow foil on
a corner of my monitor. I found that it did seem to improve clarity and
readability of text on my monitor, although not a night and day
difference, or anything. And anyhow, more clarity only means that
reading Sullivan's posts will make you vomit faster.

On 19 Apr 2006 01:39:12 -0700,
wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:
Steven Sullivan said:


But since you didn't understand what I wrote, I suggest for further
you apply a drawing of some four-legged animal to your monitor,
and see if don't at least start enjoying it a lot more.


Well, I must ask SHP about that, applying L-shapes to my monitor did
nothing for me to make your posts any more humorous.

Sorry, can't help with that. Steven's sense of humour is about as
developed as his scientific curiousity. I've never tried L-shapes on my
monitor because... well my L-shape printout will obscur a quarter of
the screen.

One seems to be obscuring an "e" right now.

vlad says:

John Atkinson wrote:
At HE2005 -- see http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate --
Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening changes the
listener's state of mind. This, of course, is correct, but so does
blind
listening, though in a different manner. I offer some further thoughts
on
this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


I read both articles carefully. I must say that John Atkinson simply
cannot reason logically. It is either the guy cannot think logically,
or he is intentionally clouding the issue.

Let's look into the first article. He claims that given two amps -
SS and tube he failed to distinguish them on the base of sound alone
(in DBT). So far so good.

Then in a second phase he acquired SS amp and started listening to it
in sighted conditions.

This is where John clearly is in ERR. Very much so indeed. He should
not have changed the original conditions he was under the influence of
to make his initial decision, ever. What this means is that if he
should have gone on listening to the amp under blinded conditions. He
should have hidden the SS amp from sight and somehow *forgotten* that
he chose it as compared to some tube amp, etc. Then all would have been
fine and dandy.

Yes.

Having done all this then vlad here would'nt call him a fraud no
longer.

Yes.


But John did not stop there but immediately he makes a conclusion that
DBT was defective because later in sighted condition he (John) did not
like the sound of SS amplifier. The purpose of DBT was to establish if
the sound alone can be a discriminating factor between two amps. Turned
out that for John it was not the case. End of story.

And thus spake vlad. Now everyone can go home.

wrote in message
oups.com

It's only being discussed as a possibiltiy. It has not
been agree upon as the answer.

Sander is just playing like he finally grew up and turned out to be Middius.

It's fun watching our radical subjectivists parodying themselves. ;-)

John Atkinson wrote:

At HE2005 -- see http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate --
Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening changes the
listener's state of mind. This, of course, is correct, but so does
blind
listening, though in a different manner. I offer some further thoughts
on
this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John

Usually I support your opinions and actually don't disagree with all of
the points you and others use against A/B sightless comparisons.
However - I have done a small amount of A/B (mostly with the capability
for fast switching) and I found it very useful. While I understand that
equipment near the same price point or quality might be hard to tell
apart sighted or not one should expect an immediate A/B difference when
the price points jump especially when the piece you compare to costs
twice as much or more. If I couldn't A/B my Triangle Celius 202's with
speakers $5k or more in price difference and hear an immediate
difference (one I assume I should like) then it would make no sense to
me to spend that much more money. (Maybe the $5k difference example is
not disparate enough - however my point should still stand). Having
said this I agree that there comes a point where the cost trade off
becomes steeper. At some point one has to pay a lot more to get a
little difference - at this point I could see sighted tests not being
helpful.

Have you guys ever tried blind tests to see if you can pick out the
"better" units? Maybe a Vandersteen 3 and something that covers the
same freq range but costs much more? Maybe a Rotel amp and the Halcro?
Maybe a good Music Hall TT set up against a top of the line player?
Or an NAD Player against. . .well you get the point. Heck - you guys
should even try a whole system A/B to see if you can tell. (I'd imagine
the speakers would have to use the same technology and have the same
bandwidth and amps would have to have roughly the same power capability
- under normal loads)

Seems to me you guys should be able to differentiate things like this 10
out of 10 times - especially if the price differences are a factor or so
more.

Arny Krueger wrote
NYOB wrote





It's only being discussed as a possibiltiy. It has not
been agree upon as the answer.

Sander is just playing like he finally grew up and turned out to be Middius.

It's fun watching our radical subjectivists parodying themselves. ;-)



LoL! LoL! LoL!


In any case, I generally agree with Mr. Raedecker when
he said that:

"... "blind tests" DEPRIVE the hearing system of essential
information."


So anyway, based upon a recent discussion with Nyob
McKelvy, he appears to admit that DBT is not a reliable
audio test because it cognitively and visually alter our
perception to music and sound.


Any comments on the matter?

"Arny Krueger" said:


Sander is just playing like he finally grew up and turned out to be Middius.


I'm practicing my sockpuppet skills, as they seem to be a bit lacking
lately.


It's fun watching our radical subjectivists parodying themselves. ;-)


Always glad to be of service, Arny.
Shall I do Sackman next, or do you prefer Rudy? ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message



In any case, I generally agree with Mr. Raedecker when
he said that:

"... "blind tests" DEPRIVE the hearing system of essential
information."

You get to be as wrong as he is.


So anyway, based upon a recent discussion with Nyob
McKelvy, he appears to admit that DBT is not a reliable
audio test because it cognitively and visually alter our
perception to music and sound.

Show me a precise quote of what Mike said.

Arny Krueger wrote
JBorg, Jr. wrote





In any case, I generally agree with Mr. Raedecker when
he said that:

"... "blind tests" DEPRIVE the hearing system of essential
information."

You get to be as wrong as he is.


He is saying DBT alter our perception to music and sound.


So anyway, based upon a recent discussion with Nyob
McKelvy, he appears to admit that DBT is not a reliable
audio test because it cognitively and visually alter our
perception to music and sound.


Show me a precise quote of what Mike said.


Nyob McKelvy said that:


"... Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing
the listener to focus their unaltered perception on sound alone."



So, I asked him, what does "using only the ears" in the context of
ABX DBT [double blind test] cognitively requires if guessing is not
allowed, yet, ensure that perception remain unchanged.


I'm unable to supply a precise quote for the reason being that
he fearlessly "ran away" in order for me to provide some exact quote.

I don't know why he would "ran away", do you?

John Atkinson wrote:
At HE2005 -- see http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate --
Arny Krueger made the point that sighted listening changes the
listener's state of mind. This, of course, is correct, but so does
blind
listening, though in a different manner. I offer some further thoughts
on
this at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I always wonder when I read about blind tets how many sight impaired
people are audiophiles. Also, why could they not be used in a test.
Is it really necessary to actually see to listen. I would think Ray
Charles (when he was with us) and Stevie Wonder would disagree. Would
blind listening change thier "state of mind"?

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
et
Arny Krueger wrote
JBorg, Jr. wrote





In any case, I generally agree with Mr. Raedecker when
he said that:

"... "blind tests" DEPRIVE the hearing system of
essential information."

You get to be as wrong as he is.

He is saying DBT alter our perception to music and sound.

In Englsh?

So anyway, based upon a recent discussion with Nyob
McKelvy, he appears to admit that DBT is not a reliable
audio test because it cognitively and visually alter our
perception to music and sound.

Show me a precise quote of what Mike said.


Nyob McKelvy said that:


"... Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about,
allowing the listener to focus their unaltered
perception on sound alone."

OK.

So, I asked him, what does "using only the ears" in the
context of ABX DBT [double blind test] cognitively requires if
guessing is not allowed, yet, ensure that perception
remain unchanged.

In Englsh?

I'm unable to supply a precise quote for the reason being
that he fearlessly "ran away" in order for me to provide some
exact quote.

I don't know why he would "ran away", do you?

When you get a proper English translation of this post, please let me know.