[Arny Krueger]

Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.....ap/index.html

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better,
preschoolers said in a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising
can trick the taste buds of young children.
Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the kids when they were
wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.

The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald's foods in name-brand and
unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost the taste test.

"You see a McDonald's label and kids start salivating," said Diane Levin, a
childhood development specialist who campaigns against advertising to kids.
She had no role in the research.

Levin said it was "the first study I know of that has shown so simply and
clearly what's going on with (marketing to) young children."

Study author Dr. Tom Robinson said the kids' perception of taste was
"physically altered by the branding." The Stanford University researcher
said it was remarkable how children so young were already so influenced by
advertising.

The study involved 63 low-income children ages 3 to 5 from Head Start
centers in San Mateo County, Calif. Robinson believes the results would be
similar for children from wealthier families.

The research, appearing in August's Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, was funded by Stanford and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The study is likely to stir more debate over the movement to restrict ads to
kids. It comes less than a month after 11 major food and drink companies,
including McDonald's, announced new curbs on marketing to children under 12.

McDonald's says the only Happy Meals it will promote to young children will
contain fruit and have fewer calories and less fat.

"This is an important subject and McDonald's has been actively addressing it
for quite some time," said company spokesman Walt Riker. "We've always
wanted to be part of the solution and we are providing solutions."

But Dr. Victor Strasburger, an author of an American Academy of Pediatrics
policy urging limits on marketing to children, said the study shows too
little is being done.

"It's an amazing study and it's very sad," Strasburger said.

"Advertisers have tried to do exactly what this study is talking about -- to
brand younger and younger children, to instill in them an almost obsessional
desire for a particular brand-name product," he said.

Just two of the 63 children studied said they'd never eaten at McDonald's,
and about one-third ate there at least weekly. Most recognized the
McDonald's logo but it was mentioned to those who didn't.

The study included three McDonald's menu items -- hamburgers, chicken
nuggets and french fries -- and store-bought milk or juice and carrots.
Children got two identical samples of each food on a tray, one in McDonald's
wrappers or cups and the other in plain, unmarked packaging. The kids were
asked whether they tasted the same or whether one was better. (Some children
didn't taste all the foods.)

McDonald's-labeled samples were the clear favorites. French fries were the
biggest winner; almost 77 percent said the labeled fries tasted best while
only 13 percent preferred the others.

Fifty-four percent preferred McDonald's-wrapped carrots versus 23 percent
who liked the plain-wrapped sample.

The only results not statistically clear-cut involved the hamburgers, with
29 kids choosing McDonald's-wrapped burgers and 22 choosing the unmarked
ones.

Fewer than one-fourth of the children said both samples of all foods tasted
the same.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....choolers.ap/in
dex.html

Or, alternatively, how powerful branding is to the consumer experience.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 7, 9:59 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The study involved 63 low-income children ages 3 to 5 from Head Start
centers in San Mateo County, Calif. Robinson believes the results would be
similar for children from wealthier families.

Well, the researcher "believes" the same as you do, Arns. I'm sure
this is some kind of "proof" to you.

The wealthy people I know feed their children well and educate them.
It's hilarious: my girlfriend's kids don't like candy. My eldest
daughter is a vegetarian. We eat fast food infrequently and as a
matter of convenience, not demand. But since they aren't enrolled in
Head Start in San Mateo County, CA, their views don't get accounted
for. As and you know, Arns, because you are a scientist, you have to
account for all potential variables.

Any good researcher would know that a very small sample of children
from the same class in the same program in the same geographical
location from parents that are likely from the same socio-economic
group just might not generalize to the entire population.

I know, Arns: why don't you add to the body of knowledge and continue
the experiment on children you know?

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.....ap/index.html

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better

Curiously I find exactly the reverse.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brayed:

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better

Curiously I find exactly the reverse.

What does McDogfood serve in the UK? It can't be as dreadful as their
"original" (American) menu.

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Aug, 19:27, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:


I know, Arns: why don't you add to the body of knowledge and continue
the experiment on children you know?


You are walking on dangerous waters.
Hasn't he done enough tests on the neighborhood boys?

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Aug, 20:55, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:
Poopie brayed:

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better
Curiously I find exactly the reverse.

What does McDogfood serve in the UK? It can't be as dreadful as their
"original" (American) menu.

in Bucharest it is a Royal Chees meniu (meal)
at least they don't use the sorry local beef,
so comparaitely, its not bad

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Aug, 17:59, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....alds.preschool...

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better,
preschoolers said in a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising
can trick the taste buds of young children.
Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the kids when they were
wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.

The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald's foods in name-brand and
unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost the taste test.

"You see a McDonald's label and kids start salivating," said Diane Levin, a
childhood development specialist who campaigns against advertising to kids.
She had no role in the research.

Levin said it was "the first study I know of that has shown so simply and
clearly what's going on with (marketing to) young children."

Study author Dr. Tom Robinson said the kids' perception of taste was
"physically altered by the branding." The Stanford University researcher
said it was remarkable how children so young were already so influenced by
advertising.

The study involved 63 low-income children ages 3 to 5 from Head Start
centers in San Mateo County, Calif. Robinson believes the results would be
similar for children from wealthier families.

The research, appearing in August's Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, was funded by Stanford and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The study is likely to stir more debate over the movement to restrict ads to
kids. It comes less than a month after 11 major food and drink companies,
including McDonald's, announced new curbs on marketing to children under 12.

McDonald's says the only Happy Meals it will promote to young children will
contain fruit and have fewer calories and less fat.

"This is an important subject and McDonald's has been actively addressing it
for quite some time," said company spokesman Walt Riker. "We've always
wanted to be part of the solution and we are providing solutions."

But Dr. Victor Strasburger, an author of an American Academy of Pediatrics
policy urging limits on marketing to children, said the study shows too
little is being done.

"It's an amazing study and it's very sad," Strasburger said.

"Advertisers have tried to do exactly what this study is talking about -- to
brand younger and younger children, to instill in them an almost obsessional
desire for a particular brand-name product," he said.

Just two of the 63 children studied said they'd never eaten at McDonald's,
and about one-third ate there at least weekly. Most recognized the
McDonald's logo but it was mentioned to those who didn't.

The study included three McDonald's menu items -- hamburgers, chicken
nuggets and french fries -- and store-bought milk or juice and carrots.
Children got two identical samples of each food on a tray, one in McDonald's
wrappers or cups and the other in plain, unmarked packaging. The kids were
asked whether they tasted the same or whether one was better. (Some children
didn't taste all the foods.)

McDonald's-labeled samples were the clear favorites. French fries were the
biggest winner; almost 77 percent said the labeled fries tasted best while
only 13 percent preferred the others.

Fifty-four percent preferred McDonald's-wrapped carrots versus 23 percent
who liked the plain-wrapped sample.

The only results not statistically clear-cut involved the hamburgers, with
29 kids choosing McDonald's-wrapped burgers and 22 choosing the unmarked
ones.

Fewer than one-fourth of the children said both samples of all foods tasted
the same.

Arny special orders his Big
Macs to be wrapped in the local Detroit newspaper.
They give him a penny discount.

[Harry Lavo]

This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what "branding"
is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything intrinsically
dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the brand" is valid.

I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned before
children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that is, of
course, forever.

As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people arguing
about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted bias.
That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off criticism of
the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as required even to discuss
sound.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.....ap/index.html

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better,
preschoolers said in a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising
can trick the taste buds of young children.
Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the kids when they
were wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.

The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald's foods in name-brand
and unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost the taste test.

"You see a McDonald's label and kids start salivating," said Diane Levin,
a childhood development specialist who campaigns against advertising to
kids. She had no role in the research.

Levin said it was "the first study I know of that has shown so simply and
clearly what's going on with (marketing to) young children."

Study author Dr. Tom Robinson said the kids' perception of taste was
"physically altered by the branding." The Stanford University researcher
said it was remarkable how children so young were already so influenced by
advertising.

The study involved 63 low-income children ages 3 to 5 from Head Start
centers in San Mateo County, Calif. Robinson believes the results would be
similar for children from wealthier families.

The research, appearing in August's Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, was funded by Stanford and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The study is likely to stir more debate over the movement to restrict ads
to kids. It comes less than a month after 11 major food and drink
companies, including McDonald's, announced new curbs on marketing to
children under 12.

McDonald's says the only Happy Meals it will promote to young children
will contain fruit and have fewer calories and less fat.

"This is an important subject and McDonald's has been actively addressing
it for quite some time," said company spokesman Walt Riker. "We've always
wanted to be part of the solution and we are providing solutions."

But Dr. Victor Strasburger, an author of an American Academy of Pediatrics
policy urging limits on marketing to children, said the study shows too
little is being done.

"It's an amazing study and it's very sad," Strasburger said.

"Advertisers have tried to do exactly what this study is talking about --
to brand younger and younger children, to instill in them an almost
obsessional desire for a particular brand-name product," he said.

Just two of the 63 children studied said they'd never eaten at McDonald's,
and about one-third ate there at least weekly. Most recognized the
McDonald's logo but it was mentioned to those who didn't.

The study included three McDonald's menu items -- hamburgers, chicken
nuggets and french fries -- and store-bought milk or juice and carrots.
Children got two identical samples of each food on a tray, one in
McDonald's wrappers or cups and the other in plain, unmarked packaging.
The kids were asked whether they tasted the same or whether one was
better. (Some children didn't taste all the foods.)

McDonald's-labeled samples were the clear favorites. French fries were the
biggest winner; almost 77 percent said the labeled fries tasted best while
only 13 percent preferred the others.

Fifty-four percent preferred McDonald's-wrapped carrots versus 23 percent
who liked the plain-wrapped sample.

The only results not statistically clear-cut involved the hamburgers, with
29 kids choosing McDonald's-wrapped burgers and 22 choosing the unmarked
ones.

Fewer than one-fourth of the children said both samples of all foods
tasted the same.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....choolers.ap/in
dex.html

Or, alternatively, how powerful branding is to the consumer experience.

Yes, branding is so powerful that it can make people perceive differences
that have zero basis in fact, in sighted evaluations.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.....ap/index.html


This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what "branding"
is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything intrinsically
dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the brand" is valid.

I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned before
children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that is, of
course, forever.

As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people arguing
about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted
bias. That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off
criticism of the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as required
even to discuss sound.

Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products, how do
you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.....ap/index.html


This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what "branding"
is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything
intrinsically dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the
brand" is valid.

I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned
before children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that
is, of course, forever.

As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people arguing
about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted
bias. That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off
criticism of the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as required
even to discuss sound.

Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products, how
do you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?

In the first place, being "identified" or "sighted" is not the same as being
branded. Being "branded" means enough money has been spent over the years
propagating a consistent image that is congruent with the product itself, so
for example Krell amplifiers are noted for power into difficult loads based
on early Krell technology that did impart that characteristic. Then it was
furthered along by sustained marketing, pr, etc. until now many people look
at a Krell, any Krell, and assume it will handle bass well. And BTW,
marketing people also know that if the the "branding " is not congruent with
the actual product, that fact eventually catches up and simply results in
wasted marketing effort.

So now, a skeptical audiophile will be aware of most of this and factor it
in as perhaps being true, perhaps not, when compared to Brand "O". A
gullible audiophile may buy a salesman's pitch and think that Krell is
automatically superior in bass to other amps. The skeptical audiophile can
probably do a test where the "sound" bias outweighs the "appearance" bias,
the "reputation" bias, etc. built into the brand. The gullible audiophile
may not. The serious audiophile may or may not think ABX is valid, but he
knows blind testing can tell him something if he really comes away from the
comparisons without a strong preference, or with a mixed preference. He
also knows it is a pain to set up a blind (non-ABX) test to allow him to
"do-it-his-way" if he is an ABX skeptic. Then he has to make a decision
about the amount of risk involved. The gullible audiophile will probably
not consider any comparative testing at all, blind or non-blind, because he
has already made his mind up (perhaps with the help of the salesman/dealer).

For myself, I usually find non-blind testing okay. There have been times I
have done blind testing. I will NOT use ABX testing because on the surface
it violates the first principle of test design...by radically changing the
listening challenge from evaluation to discrimination, and not just any
discrimination, but "identification". And when done using short snippets,
and via a computerized .wav recording, it makes a mockery out of true
audiophile listening habits. And when done using a junction box, it
destroys the oft-times very real interface interactions of the components
under test and therefore is pretty useless in system-matching up a really
fine real-world system.

You've asked the question; I've answered (as I have done before). You are
not going to change my thoughts or behavior so don't even try. If you do,
you will be ignored by me because I am in a very busy time crunch for the
next 10 days or so. Talk about it with others if you like.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....choolers.ap/in
dex.html

Or, alternatively, how powerful branding is to the consumer experience.

Yes, branding is so powerful that it can make people perceive differences
that have zero basis in fact, in sighted evaluations.

Marketers know better. "Branding" doesn't work if it is not congruent with
reality over a period of time. See my other response to your post.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....choolers.ap/in
dex.html

Or, alternatively, how powerful branding is to the consumer experience.

Yes, branding is so powerful that it can make people perceive differences
that have zero basis in fact, in sighted evaluations.

Marketers know better. "Branding" doesn't work if it is not congruent
with reality over a period of time.

I agree that McDonald's marketing wouldn't work if their product tasted
appreciably worse. Beyond that, its easy to believe that ads could convince
people that an acceptable product was at least a little better than some of
its competition.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....reschoolers.ap
/in
dex.html

Or, alternatively, how powerful branding is to the consumer experience.

Yes, branding is so powerful that it can make people perceive differences
that have zero basis in fact, in sighted evaluations.

Once again you demonstrate understanding of what is said to you, except
you slightly misuse the word 'fact'.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.....ap/index.html


This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what
"branding" is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything
intrinsically dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the
brand" is valid.

I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned
before children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that
is, of course, forever.

As for sighted vs. blind evaluations....there are very few people
arguing about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate
sighted bias. That tends to be a straw man used by you and others to
ward off criticism of the ABX test, and/or your proselytizing for it as
required even to discuss sound.

Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products, how
do you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?

In the first place, being "identified" or "sighted" is not the same as
being branded. Being "branded" means enough money has been spent over the
years propagating a consistent image that is congruent with the product
itself, so for example Krell amplifiers are noted for power into difficult
loads based on early Krell technology that did impart that characteristic.
Then it was furthered along by sustained marketing, pr, etc. until now
many people look at a Krell, any Krell, and assume it will handle bass
well. And BTW, marketing people also know that if the "branding " is not
congruent with the actual product, that fact eventually catches up and
simply results in wasted marketing effort.

Nice straw man argument Harry. I was hoping for better from you, but you
were cornered.

So now, a skeptical audiophile will be aware of most of this and factor it
in as perhaps being true, perhaps not, when compared to Brand "O". A
gullible audiophile may buy a salesman's pitch and think that Krell is
automatically superior in bass to other amps. The skeptical audiophile
can probably do a test where the "sound" bias outweighs the "appearance"
bias, the "reputation" bias, etc. built into the brand.

Obviously a truly skeptical audiophile will do a level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled listening test. Since you've questioned the
effectiveness of such tests by saying that it is only probable that such
tests are effective, you are again running true to form, Harry.

The gullible audiophile may not.

Since you don't do level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening
tests Harry, we know what category to put you into.

he serious audiophile may or may not think ABX is valid, but he knows
blind testing can tell him something if he really comes away from the
comparisons without a strong preference, or with a mixed preference. He
also knows it is a pain to set up a blind (non-ABX) test to allow him to
"do-it-his-way" if he is an ABX skeptic.

Typical Harry approach - pretend that ABX is the only alternative, and
hobble blind testing in general with your personally fears that you lack
what it takes to do a good listening test.

Then he has to make a decision about the amount of risk involved. The
gullible audiophile will probably not consider any comparative testing at
all, blind or non-blind, because he has already made his mind up (perhaps
with the help of the salesman/dealer).

That's clearly true of you Harry - thanks again for characterizing your
historical behavior as matching that of a gullible audiophile.

For myself, I usually find non-blind testing okay.

Right Harry, because you've got that "gullible audiophile" thing going on in
your life.

There have been times I have done blind testing.

I believe Harry you've admitted that your blind tests didn't involve audio
gear, that you did them to appear to be professional, and that you had to
have the resources of a very major corporation at your disposal to actually
do the deeds.

I will NOT use ABX testing because on the surface it violates the first
principle of test design...by radically changing the listening challenge
from evaluation to discrimination,

That's false, but Harry, keep up the good work.

and not just any discrimination, but "identification".

That's false too, but again thanks Harry for again running true to form.


And when done using short snippets, and via a computerized .wav
recording, it makes a mockery out of true audiophile listening habits.

Many audiophile listening habits are detrimental to sensitivity. For
example, long term listening tests can force delays of minutes or even hours
between the times when the listener hears the same passage of music. It is
well known, and easy to demonstrate that human memory for small differences
looses a great deal of its effectiveness in seconds. So, audiophile
listening tests can enforce delays measured in minutes or hours, while
delays of more than a very few seconds are well-known to ruin listener
sensitivity.

And when done using a junction box, it destroys the oft-times very real
interface interactions of the components under test

That's another false claim, but again Harry thanks for running true to form
and dredging up every urban legend about reliable listening test that you
can still remember.

The most common audible interface interactions are between loudspeakers and
amplifiers. It is very easy to build a switchbox that adds only a few
milliohms to the interface between the speaker and the amplifiers. The ABX
Company RM-2 switchbox delivered that kind of excellent performance. Even a
few feet of heavy-gauge speaker cables add far more resistance than a good
switchbox.

and therefore is pretty useless in system-matching up a really fine
real-world system.

What's useless in a really fine real-world system is sighted evaluations of
the kinds that are commonly done, such as comparisons between amplifiers, CD
players, and cables.

You've asked the question; I've answered (as I have done before). You are
not going to change my thoughts or behavior so don't even try.

Right Harry, you are truly incorrigible and have proven to be impossible to
educate.

If you do, you will be ignored by me because I am in a very busy time
crunch for the next 10 days or so. Talk about it with others if you like.

Fact is Harry, I didn't address you personally, and didn't encourage or
force you to reply. You could have just kept your pie-hole shut and revealed
far less of your hysteria, ignorance, and incorrigibility.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....s.preschoolers.
ap/index.html


This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what "branding"
is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything
intrinsically dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the
brand" is valid.

I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned
before children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that
is, of course, forever.

As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people arguing
about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted
bias. That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off
criticism of the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as required
even to discuss sound.

Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products, how
do you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?

In the first place, being "identified" or "sighted" is not the same as being
branded. Being "branded" means enough money has been spent over the years
propagating a consistent image that is congruent with the product itself, so
for example Krell amplifiers are noted for power into difficult loads based
on early Krell technology that did impart that characteristic. Then it was
furthered along by sustained marketing, pr, etc. until now many people look
at a Krell, any Krell, and assume it will handle bass well. And BTW,
marketing people also know that if the the "branding " is not congruent with
the actual product, that fact eventually catches up and simply results in
wasted marketing effort.

So now, a skeptical audiophile will be aware of most of this and factor it
in as perhaps being true, perhaps not, when compared to Brand "O". A
gullible audiophile may buy a salesman's pitch and think that Krell is
automatically superior in bass to other amps. The skeptical audiophile can
probably do a test where the "sound" bias outweighs the "appearance" bias,
the "reputation" bias, etc. built into the brand. The gullible audiophile
may not. The serious audiophile may or may not think ABX is valid, but he
knows blind testing can tell him something if he really comes away from the
comparisons without a strong preference, or with a mixed preference. He
also knows it is a pain to set up a blind (non-ABX) test to allow him to
"do-it-his-way" if he is an ABX skeptic. Then he has to make a decision
about the amount of risk involved. The gullible audiophile will probably
not consider any comparative testing at all, blind or non-blind, because he
has already made his mind up (perhaps with the help of the salesman/dealer).

For myself, I usually find non-blind testing okay. There have been times I
have done blind testing. I will NOT use ABX testing because on the surface
it violates the first principle of test design...by radically changing the
listening challenge from evaluation to discrimination, and not just any
discrimination, but "identification". And when done using short snippets,
and via a computerized .wav recording, it makes a mockery out of true
audiophile listening habits. And when done using a junction box, it
destroys the oft-times very real interface interactions of the components
under test and therefore is pretty useless in system-matching up a really
fine real-world system.

You've asked the question; I've answered (as I have done before). You are
not going to change my thoughts or behavior so don't even try. If you do,
you will be ignored by me because I am in a very busy time crunch for the
next 10 days or so. Talk about it with others if you like.

I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
invalid:
If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you to
demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice. For
example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer the
sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
A. Larger amps
B. More powerful amps
C. More expensive amps
D. Krell amps
However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion about
the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
speakers.
Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
actually hold such a bias?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
invalid:

If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you to
demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice.

A cursory study of experimental psychology (arts program) or experimental
design (science program) would teach you that the bias must be presumed to
exist.

For example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer
the
sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
A. Larger amps
B. More powerful amps
C. More expensive amps
D. Krell amps

No, all I have to say Jenn is that you're human. Humans are well known to
base their decisions on every piece of evidence that is available to them.
Would you have it any other way? ;-)

However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion about
the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
speakers.

The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that you
reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a little
about their biases, but they are stiff often surprised when their biases are
determined by scientific means.

Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
actually hold such a bias?

Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence as they can
gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.

If I don't want to take a chance that you are basing your decision on your
perceptions related to the identity of the product being listened to, the
proven approach is to simply keep you from knowing what you are listening to
at the moment.

[George M. Middius]

Arnii "**** for Dinner" Krooger blabbers about the heights of burger
cuisine he pretends to know.

its[sic] easy to believe that ads could convince
people that an acceptable product was at least a little better than some of
its competition.

Translated, this wishy-washy wobbler means Arnii is still waiting for
one of the big chains to market his dreamed-for meal, the "Dirty
Burger".

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...

I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
invalid:

If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you to
demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice.

A cursory study of experimental psychology (arts program) or experimental
design (science program) would teach you that the bias must be presumed to
exist.

I fully understand this. I've conducted graduate level research. But
I'm not arguing against the inevitability of bias.


For example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer
the
sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
A. Larger amps
B. More powerful amps
C. More expensive amps
D. Krell amps

No, all I have to say Jenn is that you're human. Humans are well known to
base their decisions on every piece of evidence that is available to them.
Would you have it any other way? ;-)

But what about when the sonic choice is working AGAINST one's bias?


However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion about
the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
speakers.

The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that you
reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a little
about their biases, but they are stiff often surprised when their biases are
determined by scientific means.

I state that I have a bias toward less expensive gear. How can you show
that this isn't true?


Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
actually hold such a bias?

Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence as they can
gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.

No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
decision?


If I don't want to take a chance that you are basing your decision on your
perceptions related to the identity of the product being listened to, the
proven approach is to simply keep you from knowing what you are listening to
at the moment.

I totally agree, but this isn't always possible, is it?

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

ScottW wrote:
On Aug 7, 10:23 am, Eeyore
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....alds.preschool...
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better
Curiously I find exactly the reverse.

Sausage and Egg McMuffins .
Their coffee also beat out Starbucks burnt acid
in a taste test.

**Hardly surprising. Starbucks does not do all that well here in
Australia. Apparently Starbucks coffee is crap (I'm not a coffee
drinker), compared to the local specialist coffee places. Last Winter I
travelled to my favourite chocolate shop (as I do every year on my
birthday). Whilst there, I wandered down to a very crowded coffee shop.
The shop has no doors, as such and it is just as cold inside, or
outside. The queue went well out of the shop and down the block. The 4
baristers were frantically making coffee as fast as humanly possible.
People were sitting on milk crates, or standing outside the shop (in the
cool, windy August Sydney weather) consuming their bevarages. Prices did
not appear to be especially cheap. Two doors down the street was a
Starbucks. All wood panelling, air condictioned and very inviting. There
were no customers to be seen.

For the record, this is where the finest chocolates in Sydney can be found:

http://www.bellefleur.com.au/



Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...

I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
invalid:

If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you
to
demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice.

A cursory study of experimental psychology (arts program) or experimental
design (science program) would teach you that the bias must be presumed
to
exist.

I fully understand this. I've conducted graduate level research. But
I'm not arguing against the inevitability of bias.

Really? You had me fooled!

For example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer
the
sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
A. Larger amps
B. More powerful amps
C. More expensive amps
D. Krell amps

No, all I have to say Jenn is that you're human. Humans are well known to
base their decisions on every piece of evidence that is available to
them.
Would you have it any other way? ;-)

But what about when the sonic choice is working AGAINST one's bias?

You've got a mess. Better to eliminate the possibility of bias as much as
possible.

However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion
about
the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
speakers.

The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that you
reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a little
about their biases, but they are still often surprised when their biases
are
determined by scientific means.

I state that I have a bias toward less expensive gear. How can you show
that this isn't true?

Set up a test where the piece of equipment under test remains the same, but
we tell you that it is changing between gear that is more expensive and less
expensive.

Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
actually hold such a bias?

Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence as they
can
gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.

No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
decision?

This is a hypothetical question, and not worth worrying about until the
situation actually manifests itself.

The root of the problem is the sighted evaluation that makes your biases
significant parts of the evaluation. Any competent experimentalist would
just cut to the chase and do bias-controlled tests.

If I don't want to take a chance that you are basing your decision on
your
perceptions related to the identity of the product being listened to, the
proven approach is to simply keep you from knowing what you are listening
to
at the moment.

I totally agree, but this isn't always possible, is it?

I haven't got time to worry about hypothetical, made-up situations. Reality
calls!

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....alds.preschool...

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better

Curiously I find exactly the reverse.

Sausage and Egg McMuffins .
Their coffee also beat out Starbucks burnt acid
in a taste test.

I've never been to a Starbuck's. What's the point ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie brayed:

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better

Curiously I find exactly the reverse.

What does McDogfood serve in the UK? It can't be as dreadful as their
"original" (American) menu.

I think that originally, the idea was indeed to offer the same menu worldwide.

They had to abandon that when setting up shop in India for one since Hindus
don't eat beef. Instead of a Big Mac, the Indian McDonalds offer an Maharajah
Mac which I gather is now made with chicken but I was told it was once made with
lamb.

However since I avoid McDonalds like the plague I'm hardly the right person to
ask.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:

ScottW wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....alds.preschool...
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Anything made by McDonald's tastes better
Curiously I find exactly the reverse.
Sausage and Egg McMuffins .
Their coffee also beat out Starbucks burnt acid
in a taste test.

I've never been to a Starbuck's. What's the point ?

**AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[John Atkinson]

On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence
as they can gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.

No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
decision?

This was the point of the parable with which I started my
presentation at the HE2005 debate, Jenn. The amplifier I
chose to buy based on blind tests proved unsatisfactory
despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 00:46, "Harry Lavo" wrote:



Marketers know better. "Branding" doesn't work if it is not congruent with
reality over a period of time. See my other response to your post.


Bose.
Got Ya!!!!!

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 02:10, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:





"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
m...
Study shows how sighted evaluations are biased:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....s.preschoolers.
ap/index.html

This is hardly news. Hell any student of marketing knows what "branding"
is, and why you try to accomplish it. Nor is their anything
intrinsically dishonest about it, so long as what is "built into the
brand" is valid.

I do think that it should be greatly reduced if not outright banned
before children reach the age of reason. We can argue about when that
is, of course, forever.

As for sighted vs blind evaluations....there are very few people arguing
about "blinded" evaluations if there is a *need* to eliminate sighted
bias. That tends to be a strawman used by you and others to ward off
criticism of the abx test, and/or your proselitizing for it as required
even to discuss sound.

Harry, since AFAIK every evaluation you do involves branded products, how
do you avoid having your perceptions affected by that fact?

In the first place, being "identified" or "sighted" is not the same as being
branded. Being "branded" means enough money has been spent over the years
propagating a consistent image that is congruent with the product itself, so
for example Krell amplifiers are noted for power into difficult loads based
on early Krell technology that did impart that characteristic. Then it was
furthered along by sustained marketing, pr, etc. until now many people look
at a Krell, any Krell, and assume it will handle bass well. And BTW,
marketing people also know that if the the "branding " is not congruent with
the actual product, that fact eventually catches up and simply results in
wasted marketing effort.

So now, a skeptical audiophile will be aware of most of this and factor it
in as perhaps being true, perhaps not, when compared to Brand "O". A
gullible audiophile may buy a salesman's pitch and think that Krell is
automatically superior in bass to other amps. The skeptical audiophile can
probably do a test where the "sound" bias outweighs the "appearance" bias,
the "reputation" bias, etc. built into the brand. The gullible audiophile
may not. The serious audiophile may or may not think ABX is valid, but he
knows blind testing can tell him something if he really comes away from the
comparisons without a strong preference, or with a mixed preference. He
also knows it is a pain to set up a blind (non-ABX) test to allow him to
"do-it-his-way" if he is an ABX skeptic. Then he has to make a decision
about the amount of risk involved. The gullible audiophile will probably
not consider any comparative testing at all, blind or non-blind, because he
has already made his mind up (perhaps with the help of the salesman/dealer).

For myself, I usually find non-blind testing okay. There have been times I
have done blind testing. I will NOT use ABX testing because on the surface
it violates the first principle of test design...by radically changing the
listening challenge from evaluation to discrimination, and not just any
discrimination, but "identification". And when done using short snippets,
and via a computerized .wav recording, it makes a mockery out of true
audiophile listening habits. And when done using a junction box, it
destroys the oft-times very real interface interactions of the components
under test and therefore is pretty useless in system-matching up a really
fine real-world system.

You've asked the question; I've answered (as I have done before). You are
not going to change my thoughts or behavior so don't even try. If you do,
you will be ignored by me because I am in a very busy time crunch for the
next 10 days or so. Talk about it with others if you like.

I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
invalid:
If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you to
demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice. For
example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer the
sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
A. Larger amps
B. More powerful amps
C. More expensive amps
D. Krell amps
However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion about
the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
speakers.
Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
actually hold such a bias?- Ascunde citatul -

- Afi are text în citat -

This is the big picture.
ABX fails to address the preconceived bias that things appear the
same.
It is useless.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 02:20, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that you
reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a little
about their biases, but they are stiff often surprised when their biases are
determined by scientific means.


Your buas is that things sound the same.
The tragedy is that you do not have a test that can eliminate your
bias.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 03:09, Trevor Wilson
wrote:


The 4
baristers were frantically making coffee as fast as humanly possible.

not enough jobs for lawyers there?

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 13:14, Trevor Wilson
wrote:



**AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.



I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the roasting of it
is hideous.
burnt.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence
as they can gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.

No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
decision?

This was the point of the parable with which I started my
presentation at the HE2005 debate, Jenn. The amplifier I
chose to buy based on blind tests proved unsatisfactory
despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.

The parable was highly flawed because John might have stopped liking the
Quad amp because someone made fun of it, and he became biased against it.
We everything is based on pure opinion, there are fixed points of reference.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Aug, 14:57, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

We everything is based on pure opinion, there are fixed points of reference.- Ascunde citatul -

- Afi are text în citat -


you are finally making some sense, in a Kruglish sort of way.

[John Stone]

On 8/8/07 6:53 AM, in article
, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

On 8 Aug, 13:14, Trevor Wilson
wrote:



**AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.



I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the roasting of it
is hideous.
burnt.

Such blanket statements are ludicrous-as is the comparison with McDonalds.
McDonalds has exactly 2 varieties; regular coffee and decaf. Starbucks has
many different varieties, some of which are very dark roasted, and others
that are very mild. Some are too "burnt" for my taste, but some are quite
well balanced. I guarantee you can make a good cup of coffee using
Starbucks beans, if you buy the right ones, grind them yourself, and brew
the coffee properly. I've done it many times. They aren't my favorite
coffees-those come from local roasters-but to say they are "hideous" is
ridiculous, especially since most of these comments come from people who
don't even drink coffee.
There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
be doing something right.

[George M. Middius]

John Stone said:

... the comparison with McDonalds [is ludicrous].
[snip]
There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
be doing something right.

You must have a unique definition of "ludicrous".

[Arny Krueger]

"John Stone" wrote in message

On 8/8/07 6:53 AM, in article
,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

On 8 Aug, 13:14, Trevor Wilson
wrote:



**AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know,
shun the place. Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in
large containers.



I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the
roasting of it is hideous.
burnt.

Such blanket statements are ludicrous-as is the
comparison with McDonalds. McDonalds has exactly 2
varieties; regular coffee and decaf. Starbucks has many
different varieties, some of which are very dark roasted,
and others that are very mild. Some are too "burnt" for
my taste, but some are quite well balanced. I guarantee
you can make a good cup of coffee using Starbucks beans,
if you buy the right ones, grind them yourself, and brew
the coffee properly. I've done it many times. They aren't
my favorite coffees-those come from local roasters-but to
say they are "hideous" is ridiculous, especially since
most of these comments come from people who don't even
drink coffee.

There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in
Australia) They must be doing something right.

Note that the McDonalds in the U.S. are now serving a wider variety of
coffee products.

If you look here under beverages, and skip past the three kinds of plain
coffee, you'll see the dozen or so permutations of iced coffee:

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_control...on.index1.html

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**AFAIK, none. All the serious coffee drinkers I know, shun the place.
Apparently, they sell crap coffee, in large containers.

I don't know about the actual coffee quality, but the roasting of it
is hideous. burnt.

Shameful.

As a kid, I recall walking past the 'Importers' shop next to the clock tower.
They roasted coffee every day and it was wonderful to smell it as you walked
past.


Graham

[Eeyore]

John Stone wrote:

There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
be doing something right.

So where does gullibility fit into that equation ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie said:

As a kid, I recall walking past the 'Importers' shop next to the clock tower.
They roasted coffee every day and it was wonderful to smell it as you walked
past.

Did any coffee bunnies hit on you?

[John Stone]

On 8/8/07 11:21 AM, in article , "Eeyore"
wrote:



John Stone wrote:

There's over 13,000 Starbucks outlets worldwide (89 in Australia) They must
be doing something right.

So where does gullibility fit into that equation ?

I have no idea. But I highly doubt that they've succeeded by fooling 100% of
their customers 100% of the time. They clearly sell a product, which isn't
just coffee, that a lot of people enjoy. Companies like McDonalds never paid
any attention to the swill they served until Starbucks came on the scene. At
least give them some credit for raising the quality bar to another level, if
not to the ultimate. It sure beats the pants off the canned **** from the
likes of Folgers or Maxwell House that many Americans wake up to every day.