Blind Cable Test at CES
John Atkinson
Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."
So that's that, then. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Arny Krueger
message
news:087a7cc8-b8cd-4183...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_to
>
> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
> people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
> Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
> expensive cable."
This was a single blind test.
> So that's that, then. :-)
More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than defective double
blind tests.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
John Atkinson said:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_to
> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
> show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
> Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."
Mr. Gomes apparently had an audiophile angel on one shoulder and a 'borg
angel on the other. He also said this:
"Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden,
pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."
If he's going to prattle like that, he should rename his column
"Stereotypes R Us".
> So that's that, then. :-)
Thnak's John for, admitting Jhon that you have suborned the WSJ and/or R.
Murdoch with your elitist audiophile propaganda Jonn.
ScottW
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>
> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
> show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
> Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."
>
> So that's that, then. :-)
Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels are matched?
BTW...who makes this crap up?
"Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any
burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."
I've never met an audiophile....not one.
ScottW
Arny Krueger
news:444d7ecc-1eca-40b6...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com
> On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
> <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>>
>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
>> people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
>> Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
>> expensive cable."
It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who is ignorant of the
well-known failings of single blind tests.
>> So that's that, then. :-)
> Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels
> are matched?
Level match is usually not an issue with cables.
> BTW...who makes this crap up?
> "Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will
> bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny
> improvement in sound."
> I've never met an audiophile....not one.
Price always seems to be an issue at some level. So does WAF.
vinyl...@aol.com
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>
> show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
> Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."
>
> So that's that, then. :-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?
Boon
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>
> > Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
> > show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
> > Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."
>
> > So that's that, then. :-)
>
> Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels are matched?
Do you level-match when you perform your blind testing, 2pid?
I'm just curious. What procedures do you use?
lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!
Harry Lavo
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:_eOdnTvnVOv--RPa...@comcast.com...
> "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:444d7ecc-1eca-40b6...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>> On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
>> <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>>>
>>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
>>> people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
>>> Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
>>> expensive cable."
>
> It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who is ignorant of the
> well-known failings of single blind tests.
>
Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level of *assurance* that
the test is fully blind. That hardily makes every single blind test
invalid...in fact most are not. It's just that if it is single blind and
shows a difference, it gives you a chance to
"diss and dance". Man, you are single-minded.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Shhhh! said:
> > > So that's that, then. :-)
> > Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels are matched?
> Do you level-match when you perform your blind testing, 2pid?
> I'm just curious. What procedures do you use?
Scottie piddles on the setup he "prefers".
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Harry Lavo said:
> > It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who is ignorant of the
> > well-known failings of single blind tests.
> Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level of *assurance* that
> the test is fully blind. That hardily makes every single blind test
> invalid...in fact most are not. It's just that if it is single blind and
> shows a difference, it gives you a chance to
> "diss and dance".
I can see where you're going with this, Harry. You want to engage the
Krooborg in a rational, human-style "debate" on the merits of blind
testing in general and SBT vs. DBT in particular. You're hoping that for
the first time in nearly 60 years, Mr. Shit will find the ability to
respond rationally to ideas in conflict with his own dogma. You anticipate
a mutually enlightening exchange of thoughts that will benefit everybody
because of the informed viewpoints you and Turdborg bring to the subject.
Is that right? If so, please hold off until I can lay a bet on the
outcome. :-)
> Man, you are single-minded.
Is that the right term? Hmmm.... At any rate, whatever it is Krooger has
in his "mind", let's hope it offsets the encrustation of feces on his
body.
Arny Krueger
news:8JKdnUeEvrFt6xPa...@comcast.com
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:_eOdnTvnVOv--RPa...@comcast.com...
>> "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:444d7ecc-1eca-40b6...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>>> On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
>>> <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>>>>
>>>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
>>>> people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
>>>> Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
>>>> expensive cable."
>>
>> It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who is
>> ignorant of the well-known failings of single blind
>> tests.
>
> Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level
> of *assurance* that the test is fully blind.
No, DBT it removes a relevant significant variable that is well-known to
exist.
> That
> hardily makes every single blind test invalid...
It leaves them at best highly questionable.
> in fact most are not.
I guess you never read about Clever Hans, Harry.
However Harry, its not your fault that your knowlege about experimental
design was based on OJT at what, a cereal company?
Clyde Slick
>
> BTW...who makes this crap up?
> "Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any
> burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."
Winston Churchill, but he was talking about cigars.
ScottW
net> wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > So that's that, then. :-)
> > > Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels are matched?
> > Do you level-match when you perform your blind testing, 2pid?
Am I the one making a test claim? You are...once again...confused.
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
The confusion appears to be on your end, 2pid. This has nothing to do
with any claims. "Most people" could understand a very straightforward
question like this one was. lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!
This is why things tend to get very, very repititous when 'discussing'
things with you. This is why you must be asked the same question, over
and over and over, until you either "get it" or the asker gives up in
frustration. This is exactly why rational discussion with you is not
possible. This is exactly why you are considered RAO's resident
imbecile.
You stated, "Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels
are matched?" I merely asked if you level-match when you do your blind
testing. Face it, 2pid: you are incapable of understanding or
answering direct questions. Most here strongly suspect it's because
you do not understand them. Here, I'll try again.
2pid, when you do your audio blind testing, do you insure that the
levels are matched?
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Shhhh! said:
> > > > Do you level-match when you perform your blind testing, 2pid?
Note to Witlessmongrel: I didn't say that; Shushie said it. Do you
understand? I know you're a Usenet newbie, so I thought I'd spell out what
is obvious to experienced users.
> You stated, "Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels
> are matched?" I merely asked if you level-match when you do your blind
> testing. Face it, 2pid: you are incapable of understanding or
> answering direct questions. Most here strongly suspect it's because
> you do not understand them. Here, I'll try again.
Look out, Scottie!
> 2pid, when you do your audio blind testing, do you insure that the
> levels are matched?
It's a trick question, Scottie. Don't answer! Bad dog!
Harry Lavo
> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:8JKdnUeEvrFt6xPa...@comcast.com
>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:_eOdnTvnVOv--RPa...@comcast.com...
>>> "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:444d7ecc-1eca-40b6...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>>>> On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
>>>> <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>>>>>
>>>>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
>>>>> people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
>>>>> Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
>>>>> expensive cable."
>>>
>>> It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who is
>>> ignorant of the well-known failings of single blind
>>> tests.
>>
>> Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level
>> of *assurance* that the test is fully blind.
>
> No, DBT it removes a relevant significant variable that is well-known to
> exist.
No, Arny. That *could* or *may* exist. Somewhere in your college
education, you skipped the class in logic, I guess.
>snip<
> However Harry, its not your fault that your knowlege about experimental
> design was based on OJT at what, a cereal company?
Just about one of the most sophisticated companies in the world when it came
to consumer testing....yeah, over ten years of test planning, design, and
interpretation. Beats ashtrays.
JBorg, Jr.
>> John Atkinson wrote
>>
>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
>> people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
>> Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
>> expensive cable."
>
> This was a single blind test.
>
>> So that's that, then. :-)
>
> More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than defective double
> blind tests.
From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive cables
sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by definition, an
audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price,
to get even a tiny improvement in sound."
Only 5% ?
Could it be that due to poor component mismatches, the system
would have sounded better and higher than just 5% ? The cables,
regardless of price, does not produced sound of their own by
themselves.
I remember back in the mid-90s that I swap and tried at least
more than 7 different pairs of cables in order to gain more than
just 5% in sonic improvement. I recall some cables costing more
made my system sounding less natural.
Been there, done that.
Soundhaspriority
Did the cables you chose by preference have a common signature of sound?
Or just one element thereof?
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
John Atkinson
> Did the cables you chose by preference have a common
> signature of sound? Or just one element thereof?
The cables were mid-priced Monster Cables and the
same length of zip cord from a hardware store, the
kind repeatedly recommended on r.a.o by Howard
Ferstler. During the test, the 2 conditions were
identified as A and B, with no lcue as to their identity.
In fact, the listeners didn't even know they were listening
to different cables.
Tonally, there was virtually no difference, but what
was later revealed to be the more expensive cable
sounded less congested at signal peaks. The
hardware-store cable consistently sounded more hashy
at orchestral climaxes, but as I said, it was not a large
difference.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Arny Krueger
news:TNDjj.277$hI1...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> John Atkinson wrote
>>>
>>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
>>> people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
>>> Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
>>> expensive cable."
>>
>> This was a single blind test.
>>
>>> So that's that, then. :-)
>>
>> More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than
>> defective double blind tests.
>
>
> From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive
> cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by
> definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any
> burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."
>
> Only 5% ?
Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.
> Could it be that due to poor component mismatches, the
> system would have sounded better and higher than just 5%
> ?
0% seems about right.
> The cables, regardless of price, does not produced
> sound of their own by themselves.
Agreed.
> I remember back in the mid-90s that I swap and tried at
> least more than 7 different pairs of cables in order to
> gain more than just 5% in sonic improvement.
I guess you haven't smartened up since then. :-(
> I recall
> some cables costing more made my system sounding less
> natural.
Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:qJudnRtmGp2BFRPa...@comcast.com...
>> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:8JKdnUeEvrFt6xPa...@comcast.com
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:_eOdnTvnVOv--RPa...@comcast.com...
>>>> "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:444d7ecc-1eca-40b6...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>>>>> On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
>>>>> <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
>>>>>> people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
>>>>>> Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
>>>>>> expensive cable."
>>>>
>>>> It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who
>>>> is ignorant of the well-known failings of single blind
>>>> tests.
>>>
>>> Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level
>>> of *assurance* that the test is fully blind.
>> No, DBT it removes a relevant significant variable that
>> is well-known to exist.
> No, Arny. That *could* or *may* exist.
Saying that takes a ton of suspended disbelief. But from reading your posts
over the years Harry, I'm sure you have it in you.
> Somewhere in
> your college education, you skipped the class in logic, I
> guess.
Harry, it doesn't take a degree in philosophy to understand proper
experiemental design.
>> However Harry, its not your fault that your knowlege
>> about experimental design was based on OJT at what, a
>> cereal company?
> Just about one of the most sophisticated companies in the
> world when it came to consumer testing....yeah, over ten
> years of test planning, design, and interpretation.
That's strange considering all of your rants against their objectivity.
> Beats ashtrays.
I have no idea how that relates to the current discussion. Since I've never
smoked, my interest in ashtrays could be less, but I don't know how.
Arny Krueger
> Tonally, there was virtually no difference, but what
> was later revealed to be the more expensive cable
> sounded less congested at signal peaks. The
> hardware-store cable consistently sounded more hashy
> at orchestral climaxes, but as I said, it was not a large
> difference.
Hmm, audible nonlinear distortion in 99.99% pure copper. Proving that could
easily get someone a Nobel prize. Or at least a million dollars from some
stage magician somewhere.
So which is it going to be John, are you going for the million bucks or the
Nobel prize?
ScottW
> news:444d7ecc-1eca-40b6...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>> On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
>> <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>>>
>>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
>>> people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
>>> Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
>>> expensive cable."
>
> It was a single blind test - appeals to everybody who is ignorant of the
> well-known failings of single blind tests.
>
>>> So that's that, then. :-)
>
>> Did you even mention that he needs to assure the levels
>> are matched?
>
> Level match is usually not an issue with cables.
There was that one 24 guage phone wire vs 16 guage
std vs some unknown guage monster...in which there were
some measured level differences...
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> So which is it going to be John, are you going for the million bucks or the
> Nobel prize?
Do you always have to resort to strawmen when someone rattles one of
your pet beliefs, GOIA?
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > Level match is usually not an issue with cables.
>
> There was that one 24 guage phone wire vs 16 guage
> std vs some unknown guage monster...in which there were
> some measured level differences...
I was comparing plumbing pipe once. I was trying to save some money
when building my house. I compared waterline hose, that thin plastic
tubing you'd use to hook up a refrigerator's icemaker, to standard
1/2" and 3/4" copper tubing. As a control, I rolled up some towels, as
they will also obviously conduct water when saturated.
Once you matched the levels of the 1/2" and 3/4" tubing to the
waterline hose and the rolled-up towels, the *exact* amount of water
was carried by all four. So I chose to use waterline hose for the
water suppy tubing in my entire house. The towels would have been
cheaper yet, as they are readily available at thrift shops for almost
nothing, but the expense of the additional fasteners (sag was a big
issue) made the waterline hoses a better value, even after considering
the bribe to the code official.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Shhhh! said:
> > So which is it going to be John, are you going for the million bucks or the
> > Nobel prize?
>
> Do you always have to resort to strawmen when someone rattles one of
> your pet beliefs, GOIA?
Yes, of course he does. It's part of the Krooborg's firmware.
John Atkinson
Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
quoted in the Wall Street Journal?
At least he has stopped claiming that his neglected,
rarely updated, almost-never-promoted websites
get as much traffic as Stereophile's or that his
recordings are as commercially available as my
own. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Walt
> On Jan 16, 10:52�am, John Atkinson <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>>
>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
>> show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
>> Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."
>
Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test,
61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50
chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math.
(HINT: it ain't.)
And of course this doesn't even address the single-blind nature of the
test. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
//Walt
Walt
> Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
> quoted in the Wall Street Journal?
Ok. So you've been quoted in the WSJ. So have Uri Geller and Ken Lay.
What's your point?
//Walt
Clyde Slick
To each his own.
Arny dreams of voltmeters. That is the extent of Arny's imagination.
My imagination centers upon a certain city bus
Clyde Slick
>
> Harry, it doesn't take a degree in philosophy to understand proper
> experiemental design.
>
Thanks for admitting that Clerkie wasted six years of his life,
and is still clueless.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Walt sassed:
> > Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
> > quoted in the Wall Street Journal?
> Ok. So you've been quoted in the WSJ. So have Uri Geller and Ken Lay.
> What's your point?
Having trouble reading plain English, Walt?
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Clyde Slick said:
> Arny dreams of voltmeters. That is the extent of Arny's imagination.
> My imagination centers upon a certain city bus
I think the repetitions have conditioned Turdy to flinch when he detects a
bus rolling in his vicinity. I switched my bet to "getting electrocuted by
lightning". The odds on this bet are considerably better.
John Atkinson
> of course this doesn't even address the single-blind nature of the
> test. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
The test was immune to the Clever Hans Effect as the moderator
sat behind and to the side and was not in the listener's view. The
listener didn't know what he was listening to or comparing. All he
had was a remote with 2 buttons, labeled A and B. All he could
see were the loudspeakers and the amplifier volume display.
Levels were matched. The listener listened on his own and could
switch between A and B for as long as he wished. He didn't know
what was being compared until after he had handed in his results.
Of its type, it was quite a well-designed test.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
net> wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
> > 2pid, when you do your audio blind testing, do you insure that the
> > levels are matched?
>
> It's a trick question, Scottie. Don't answer! Bad dog!
2pid answer a direct question someone asks of him?
LOL!
Walt
So why were there two CD players if you were comparing speaker cables?
Were you swicthing out more than just the speaker cables?
I'm confused...
From TFA:
"Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot
pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are
as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker
cable."
//Walt
Arny Krueger
news:13ov8fm...@corp.supernews.com
That people more credible than Atkinson have been quoted in the WSJ?
Arny Krueger
Wrong, but I bet that Atkinson can't figure out why.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> "Walt" <walt_ask...@SHOESyahoo.com> wrote in message
Or that less-credible people haven't been? ;-)
Oliver Costich
<stereo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_to
>
>Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
>show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
>Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."
>
>So that's that, then. :-)
>
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile
From the article: Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000,
eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which
are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker
cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally good. I couldn't hear a
difference and was a wee bit suspicious that anyone else could. But of
the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the
expensive cable.
Back to reality: 61% correct in one experiment fails to reject that
they can't tell the difference. If the claim is that listeners can
tell the better cable more the half the time, then to support that you
have to be able to reject that the in the population of all audio
interested listeners, the correct guesses occur half the time or less.
61% of 39 doesn't do it. (Null hypothesis is p=.5, alternative
hypothesis is p>.5. The null hypthesis cannot be rejected with the
sample data given.)
In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result
isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of listeners
more than half can pick the better cable.
So, I'd say "that's hardly that".
Oliver Costich
wrote:
In my several years of graduate school in mathemeatics, I skipped
neither the logic nor the statistics classes. Logic is on the side of
not making decisions about human behavior without sufficient testing
using good design of experiment method and statistical analysis.
Very little of the claims about people being able to discern
differences in cables is supported by such testing.
Oliver Costich
wrote:
>vinyl...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 10:52?am, John Atkinson <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>>>
>>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
>>> show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
>>> Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."
>>
>> So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?
>
>Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test,
>61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50
>chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math.
>(HINT: it ain't.)
Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) >.5. Null
hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the
claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level.
Oliver Costich
Argument about the design is moot when the results aren't sufficient
to tatistically support the claim that people can can identify the
more expensive cables more than half the time.
Oliver Costich
wrote:
>"John Atkinson" <stereo...@earthlink.net> wrote in
I think that the Nobel Prize also pays a million bucks. I'd go for the
double play:-)
Oliver Costich
Now there'sa measurement of validity of argument that's really
convincing. Mine is bigger than yours.
Forget that there are statistical methods to answer these questions.
Really on the word of the guy selling them.
Oliver Costich
wrote:
So has Osama Bin Laden. The point is that he's devoid of a sound
argument.
>
>//Walt
MiNe 109
Oliver Costich <ocos...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:56:23 -0500, Walt <walt_...@SHOESyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >vinyl...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Jan 16, 10:52?am, John Atkinson <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
> >>>
> >>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
> >>> show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
> >>> Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."
> >>
> >> So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?
> >
> >Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test,
> >61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50
> >chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math.
> >(HINT: it ain't.)
>
> Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) >.5. Null
> hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the
> claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level.
Welcome to the group! Out of curiosity, what significance level does 61%
support?
Stephen
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result
> isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of listeners
> more than half can pick the better cable.
>
> So, I'd say "that's hardly that".
I'm curious what percent of the "best informed" got. I mean, you could
mix in hot dog vendors, the deaf, people who might try to fail just to
be contrary, you, and so on, and get different results. Apparently JA
and MF did better than random chance.
The real issue to me is "who cares". People who want expensive cables,
wires, cars, clothes, or whatever, will buy them. People who want to
tell other people what they should or shouldn't buy will come out of
the woodwork to bitch about it. ;-)
This seems to have really gotten your dander up. Why?
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> >Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test,
> >61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50
> >chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math.
Why is this important to you, so much so that you have blasted so many
posts in this thread?
Is this really, really important?
> >(HINT: it ain't.)
OK then. ;-)
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Shhhh! said to McInturd:
> The real issue to me is "who cares". People who want expensive cables,
> wires, cars, clothes, or whatever, will buy them. People who want to
> tell other people what they should or shouldn't buy will come out of
> the woodwork to bitch about it. ;-)
>
> This seems to have really gotten your dander up. Why?
Because John Atkinson is the Devil. (The real one, not that poseur who
called himself Roy Briggs.)
Eeyore
Oliver Costich wrote:
> Back to reality: 61% correct in one experiment fails to reject that
> they can't tell the difference.
61% is statistically close enough as doesn't matter to pure 50-50% random choice.
Try flicking coins and see if you get a perfect 50-50 distribution for any given
sample size. You WON'T. In fact pure 50-50 would be the exception by a mile.
No, 61% is as good as proof that there's NO difference. Which there ISN'T of
course. Copper is copper is copper. High pricing, alleged magic and phoney
marketing doesn't make if any different.
Graham
Eeyore
John Atkinson wrote:
> but what was later revealed to be the more expensive cable
> sounded less congested at signal peaks.
CHARLATAN ! What the *FUCK* is 'congested*.
Another stupid means-nothing word like speed, pace, delivery, darkness,
depth et al.
Of course if you used a technical word it would be disprovable so you
LIE to promote this idiocy using made-up phoney concepts that you use to
bamboozle and confuse the public with.
Graham
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Poopie brayed hysterically:
Poopie, in all seriousness, are you tanked? If not, maybe you should get a
rabies booster shot. You're raving like a loonyborg.
John Atkinson
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > The listener didn't know what he was listening to or comparing. All
> > he had was a remote with 2 buttons, labeled A and B. All he could
> > see were the loudspeakers and the amplifier volume display.
> > Levels were matched. The listener listened on his own and could
> > switch between A and B for as long as he wished. He didn't know
> > what was being compared until after he had handed in his results.
> > Of its type, it was quite a well-designed test.
>
> So why were there two CD players if you were comparing speaker
> cables?
I have no idea. I didn't design the test, not did I look at the
playback system. I was a listening subject. If you read the
article in the WSJ, you will see that Lee Gomes did other
comparisons, not just cables. But the only test I took
part in involved cables..
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Soundhaspriority
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f5123589-32a0-4c53...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> >(HINT: it ain't.)
OK then. ;-)
Oy! This millions of dollars causes so much kvetching, and it has made you
all like a farkemte panim, that I will offer to go pick it up for you from
the Randi.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Eeyore
"George M. Middius" wrote:
PISS OFF
JBorg, Jr.
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> More proof that single blind tests are nothing more than
>>> defective double blind tests.
>>
>>
>> From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive
>> cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by
>> definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any
>> burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."
>>
>> Only 5% ?
>
> Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.
How can that be so? From the article, it said, "... 39 people who
took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable."
At what percentage do you consider it imagination, and when it
is not. Somehow, this showdown at the CES looked like a DBT
sans blackbox.
>> Could it be that due to poor component mismatches, the
>> system would have sounded better and higher than just 5% ?
>
> 0% seems about right.
That would be about right for someone like Howard ferstler
who has a known, and by his own admission, hearing deficiency.
When it comes to discerning differences, Ferstler gets 0.
You put two and two together and you'll see why he's fuming
all the time.
>> snip
>
>> I recall some cables costing more made my system sounding less natural.
>
> Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.
I don't follow your thought because you are abviously keep on
guessing as you go.
If you're not guessing, can you form realistic idea exposing that
the percieved differences I heard while swapping cables did not
physically exist ?
JBorg, Jr.
>
>
>
>
>
> Very little of the claims about people being able to discern
> differences in cables is supported by such testing.
I take it you don't recommend testing for such purposes.
Ok then...
JBorg, Jr.
>> Walt wrote:
>>> vinylanach wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?
>>
>> Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this
>> test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39
>> trials. 50-50 chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do
>> the math. (HINT: it ain't.)
>
> Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) >.5. Null
> hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the
> claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level.
Well yes, Mr. Costich, the test results aren't scientifically valid but it
didn't disproved that the sound differences heard by participants did
not physically exist.
JBorg, Jr.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now there'sa measurement of validity of argument that's really
> convincing. Mine is bigger than yours.
Mr. Costich, there is no such valid *measurement* that will
*validly* measure a response against strawman arguments.
> Forget that there are statistical methods to answer these questions.
> Rely on the word of the guy selling them.
JBorg, Jr.
>> Walt wrote:
>>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
>>> quoted in the Wall Street Journal?
>>
>> Ok. So you've been quoted in the WSJ. So have Uri Geller and Ken
>> Lay.
>>
>> What's your point?
>
> So has Osama Bin Laden. The point is that he's devoid of a sound
> argument.
Mr. Costich, there is no sound argument to improve upon a strawman
arguments. It just doesn't exist.
>>
>> //Walt
Incidentally Mr. Costich, how well do you know Arny Krueger if you
don't mind me asking so.
JBorg, Jr.
>
>
>
>
> I think that the Nobel Prize also pays a million bucks. I'd go for the
> double play:-)
What sort of test should one have in mind for this type of opportunity
to ensure success, Mr. Costich ?
JBorg, Jr.
>> Oliver Costich wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result
>> isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of listeners
>> more than half can pick the better cable.
>>
>> So, I'd say "that's hardly that".
>
> I'm curious what percent of the "best informed" got. I mean, you could
> mix in hot dog vendors, the deaf, people who might try to fail just to
> be contrary, you, and so on, and get different results.
Well asked.
Arny Krueger
message news:7eovo350khiqqsqqk...@4ax.com
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:32:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:KL6dneykw4oFJhPa...@comcast.com
>>> Somewhere in
>>> your college education, you skipped the class in logic,
>>> I guess.
> In my several years of graduate school in mathemeatics, I
> skipped neither the logic nor the statistics classes.
Nor did I. I did extensive undergraduate and postgraduate work in math and
statistics. One of the inspirations for the development of double blind
testing was my wife who has a degree in experimental psychology. Another was
a friend with a degree in mathematics.
> Logic is on the side of not making decisions about human
> behavior without sufficient testing using good design of
> experiment method and statistical analysis.
4 of the 6 ABX partners had technical degrees ranging from BS to PhD.
> Very little of the claims about people being able to
> discern differences in cables is supported by such
> testing.
When it comes to audible differences between cables that is not supported by
science and math, which is what this thread is about, none of it is
supported by well-designed experiments.
Arny Krueger
news:smcelroy2-F55CB...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu
You haven't formed the question properly. 61% is statisically signifcant or
not, depending on the total number of trials.
Arny Krueger
> On Jan 17, 12:14 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @
> comcast . net> wrote:
>> Shhhh! said:
>>>> So which is it going to be John, are you going for the
>>>> million bucks or the Nobel prize?
>>>
>>> Do you always have to resort to strawmen when someone
>>> rattles one of your pet beliefs, GOIA?
>> Yes, of course he does. It's part of the Krooborg's
>> firmware.
> Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
> quoted in the Wall Street Journal?
This is not logical discussion or even just rhetoric, this is abuse.
Arny Krueger
news:GsZjj.506$nK5...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More proof that single blind tests are nothing more
>>>> than defective double blind tests.
>>>
>>>
>>> From this article, the author wrote, "... the expensive
>>> cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by
>>> definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any
>>> burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement
>>> in sound." Only 5% ?
>>
>> Even so, it was proabably 100% imagination.
> How can that be so? From the article, it said, "... 39
> people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the
> expensive cable."
> At what percentage do you consider it imagination, and
> when it is not.
Well Borg, this post is more evidence that ignorance of basic statistics is
a common problem among golden ears. It's not a well-formed question. It's
not the percentage of correct answers that defines statistical signicance,
its both the percentage of correct answers and the total number of trials.
And, that's all based on the idea that basic experiment was well-designed.
The most fundamental question is whether the experiment was well-designed.
> Somehow, this showdown at the CES looked like a
> DBT sans blackbox.
Nope. This comment is even more evidence that ignorance of basic
experimental design is a common problem among golden ears. The basic rule
of double blind testing is that no clue other than the independent variable
is available to the listener. In this alleged test, the person who
controlled the cables interacted with the listeners. In a proper DBT, nobody
or anything that could possibly reveal the indentity of the object chosen
for comparison is acessible in any way to the listener.
Arny Krueger
> Well yes, Mr. Costich, the test results aren't
> scientifically valid but it didn't disproved that the
> sound differences heard by participants did not physically exist.
That was another potential flaw in the tests. I see no controls that ensured
that the listeners heard the indentically same selections of music.
Therefore, the listeners may have heard differences that did physically
exist - unfortunately they were due to random choices by the experimenter,
not audible differences that were inherent in the cables.
MiNe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Okay, in 39 trials, what level of significance does 61% indicate?
Stephen
Harry Lavo
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:MsednQH7lfQSOg3a...@comcast.com...
Well, then rather than "braying and flaying" why don't you communicate the
statistics.
As reported 61% of 39 people chose the correct cable. That according to my
calculator was 24 people.
According to my Binomial Distribution Table, that provides less than a 5%
chance of error...in other words the percentage is statistically
significant. In fact, it is significant at the 98% level....a 2% chance of
error.
Had one more chosen correctly, the error probability would have been less
than 1%, or "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
So presumably John and Michael did at least this well to be singled out by
the reporter.
Is this why you are desparately flaying at the test, Arny...inventing
"possibibilites" without a single shred of evidence to support your
conjectures? Because you know (if you truly do know math and statistics)
that the test statistics hold up (but don't have the integrity to say so)?
Arny Krueger
In this case nothing, because the basic experiment seems to be so flawed.
Arny Krueger
> Incidentally Mr. Costich, how well do you know Arny
> Krueger if you don't mind me asking so.
I seriously doubt that we've ever seen each other or corresponded, other
than what you see here on Usenet.
Paranoid much?
Arny Krueger
> As reported 61% of 39 people chose the correct cable. That according to my
> calculator was 24 people.
As reported, the experiment was invalid. No further analysis is necesary.
MiNe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
In a perfectly designed test with 39 trials, what level of significance
does 61% indicate?
Stephen
Arny Krueger
It is on the web - do your own research.
Walt
> On Jan 17, 5:25 pm, Oliver Costich <ocost...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50
>>> chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math.
>
> posts in this thread?
I've blasted "so many posts"? WTF?
I count three. This will make four. You must have me confused with
somebody else.
//Walt
Arny Krueger
news:13p1h9o...@corp.supernews.com
I think I counted 7 posts to this thread from SHITR. The interesting
question about the Middiot Clique is which of them is less self-aware.
Right now Stephen, Jenn, SHITR and the Middiot himself are duking it out for
the dishonor. ;-)
Clyde Slick
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > Arny dreams of voltmeters. That is the extent of Arny's imagination.
> > My imagination centers upon a certain city bus
>
> I think the repetitions have conditioned Turdy to flinch when he detects a
> bus rolling in his vicinity. I switched my bet to "getting electrocuted by
> lightning". The odds on this bet are considerably better.
Personally, I like choking on a ham sandwich.
Clyde Slick
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:52:40 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
>
> <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>
> >Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
> >show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
> >Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."
>
>
> >John Atkinson
> >Editor, Stereophile
>
> From the article: Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000,
> eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which
> are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker
> cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally good. I couldn't hear a
> difference and was a wee bit suspicious that anyone else could. But of
> the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the
> expensive cable.
>
> they can't tell the difference. If the claim is that listeners can
> tell the better cable more the half the time, then to support that you
> have to be able to reject that the in the population of all audio
> interested listeners, the correct guesses occur half the time or less.
> 61% of 39 doesn't do it. (Null hypothesis is p=.5, alternative
> hypothesis is p>.5. The null hypthesis cannot be rejected with the
> sample data given.)
>
> In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct result
> isn't sufficient evidence that in the general population of listeners
> more than half can pick the better cable.
>
> So, I'd say "that's hardly that".
you seem to be mixing difference with preference, you reference both,
for the same test. And just what is the general population of
listeners.
Are you testing the 99% who don't give a rat's
ass anyway? If so, so what. Or are you testing people who actually
care.
Clyde Slick
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:32:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:444d7ecc-1eca-40b6...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com
> >>>>>> On Jan 16, 10:52 am, John Atkinson
> >>>>>> <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>
> >>>>>>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed
> >>>>>>> people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael
> >>>>>>> Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the
> >>>>>>> expensive cable."
>
> >>>>> is ignorant of the well-known failings of single blind
> >>>>> tests.
>
> >>>> Arny, double-blind vs. single-blind adds an extra level
> >>>> of *assurance* that the test is fully blind.
>
> >>> No, DBT it removes a relevant significant variable that
> >>> is well-known to exist.
>
> >> No, Arny. That *could* or *may* exist.
>
> >Saying that takes a ton of suspended disbelief. But from reading your posts
> >over the years Harry, I'm sure you have it in you.
>
> >> Somewhere in
> >> your college education, you skipped the class in logic, I
> >> guess.
>
> In my several years of graduate school in mathemeatics, I skipped
> not making decisions about human behavior without sufficient testing
> using good design of experiment method and statistical analysis.
>
> differences in cables is supported by such testing.
>
>
>
>
>
> >experiemental design.
>
> >>> However Harry, its not your fault that your knowlege
> >>> about experimental design was based on OJT at what, a
> >>> cereal company?
>
> >> Just about one of the most sophisticated companies in the
> >> world when it came to consumer testing....yeah, over ten
> >> years of test planning, design, and interpretation.
>
> >That's strange considering all of your rants against their objectivity.
>
> >> Beats ashtrays.
>
> >I have no idea how that relates to the current discussion. Since I've never
> >smoked, my interest in ashtrays could be less, but I don't know how.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afişare text în citat -- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afişare text în citat -
you missed the session on common sense, too bad.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Clyde Slick said:
> > > Arny dreams of voltmeters. That is the extent of Arny's imagination.
> > > My imagination centers upon a certain city bus
> >
> > I think the repetitions have conditioned Turdy to flinch when he detects a
> > bus rolling in his vicinity. I switched my bet to "getting electrocuted by
> > lightning". The odds on this bet are considerably better.
>
> Personally, I like choking on a ham sandwich.
It's your money to risk as you choose. The bookie I use doesn't offer odds
on that possibility, but he does offer a line on the Krooborg drowning in
a municipal sewage tank.
Clyde Slick
>
> One of the inspirations for the development of double blind
> testing was my wife
I am touched that you find your wife to be such an inspiriational
experience.
BTW. just what other woman did you double blind test her against?
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Clyde Slick said to McInturd:
> Are you testing the 99% who don't give a rat's
> ass anyway? If so, so what. Or are you testing people who actually
> care.
Good point to bring out on, LOt"S. The 'borg viewpoint is that nobody
should be allowed to care about things that 'borgs can't afford to own.
Clyde Slick
> "John Atkinson" <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
> > quoted in the Wall Street Journal?
>
> This is not logical discussion or even just rhetoric, this is abuse.
HUH?????
MiNe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Thanks! You've been a big help in formulating the correct question.
Stephen
Oliver Costich
<Edd...@yahooandhotmail.com> wrote:
>> Oliver Costich wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Very little of the claims about people being able to discern
>> differences in cables is supported by such testing.
>
>
>
>I take it you don't recommend testing for such purposes.
>Ok then...
>
>
>
I don't recommend badly designed tests and I don't recommend making
statistically invalid claims based on any kind of test.
But the only way to statistically support (or reject) claims about
human behavior is through well designed experiments and real
statistical analysis.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Oliver Costich
wrote:
I did in other posts but here's a summary. Hypothesis test of claim
that p>.5 (p is the probability that more the half of listeners can do
better than guessing). Null hypothesis is p=.5. The P-value is .0748
but would need to be below .05 to support the claim at the 95%
Confidence Level.
You rounded off .054 to .05. You would need to get a probability of
less than .05 to assert the claim, and NO, .054 isn't "close enough"
for statistical validity. I don't know where you got the 98% from.
>
>Had one more chosen correctly, the error probability would have been less
>than 1%, or "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
If it had been 25 instead of 24 it would have supported the claim at
the 95% level but not at 97% or higher. But that's the point. You
don't get to wiggle around the numbers so you get what you want. If it
had been one less, you you still make the claim? What about if 39 more
people did the experiment and only 20 got it right. You can only draw
so much support for a claim from a single sample.
And nothing that can only be tested statistically is "beyond a shadow
of a doubt" unless you mean "supported at a very high level of
confidence" which isn't the case here, even with another correct
"guess". Statistics can only be used to support a claim up to the
probability (1-confidence level) of falsely supporting an invalid
conclusion.
The underlying model for determining whether binary selection is
random is tossing a coin. Tossing a coin 39 times and getting 24 heads
doesn't mean the coin is baised towards heads.
>
>So presumably John and Michael did at least this well to be singled out by
>the reporter.
Who obviously was deeply knowledgable about statistics.
Oliver Costich
wrote:
>"Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Bertrand Russell once pointed out that one of Augustine's seven
arguments for God's existence was valid. That doesn't mena God exists.
Similarly, even if this experiment were valid, the data doesn't
support the claim.
Clyde Slick
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:10:59 -0500, "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> >news:MsednQH7lfQSOg3a...@comcast.com...
> >> messagenews:7eovo350khiqqsqqk...@4ax.com
As a practical matter as a "CONSUMER", I don't really care
whether or not a statistically relevant number of people,
from a sample of people I care nothing about, heard differences,
or had a preference. What matters too me, as a "CONSUMER",
is what my particular preference is.
Oliver Costich
<smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <9qovo3lfpnpg9k5mc...@4ax.com>,
> Oliver Costich <ocos...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:56:23 -0500, Walt <walt_...@SHOESyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >vinyl...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Jan 16, 10:52?am, John Atkinson <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_in...
>> >>>
>> >>> Money quote: "I was struck by how the best-informed people at the
>> >>> show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile
>> >>> Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable."
>> >>
>> >> So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?
>> >
>> >Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test,
>> >61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50
>> >chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math.
>> >(HINT: it ain't.)
>>
>> Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) >.5. Null
>> hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the
>> claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level.
>
>Welcome to the group! Out of curiosity, what significance level does 61%
>support?
>
>Stephen
First you have to find out where the 61% came from. In this case, I
presume it is 24 out of 39. From the sample data and the claim about
the population proportion, you can compute a number called the
P-Value, not to be confused with the population probability in the
claim, usually denoted "p". To be able to support a claim that more
than half of the population can do better then guessing, you need the
P-Value for p=.5, which in this case is .07477. To support the claim
that p>.5 at the 95% confidence level, you need the P-Value to be less
than (1-significance level). So for 95%, you need a P-Value of less
than .05, for 93% you need a P-Value less than .07. Looks like 24 out
of 39 supports the claim at the 92% level.
However, that's not how you does statistics. You don't compute the
P-Value and then fish around for a significance level that supports
your claim (or rejects it depending what side of the argument you are
on.
>
>> >And of course this doesn't even address the single-blind nature of the
>> >test. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
>> >
The data from badly designed experiments is useless for analysis. I
would have thought that was obvious.
John Atkinson
> "John Atkinson" <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
> > quoted in the Wall Street Journal?
>
> This is not logical discussion or even just rhetoric, this is abuse.
Er, no. It is a straightforward question, Mr. Krueger. How many times
have you been quoted in the WSJ?
>>At least he has stopped claiming that his neglected, rarely updated,
>>almost-never-promoted websites get as much traffic as Stereophile's...
No argument from Mr. Krueger about this, at least. :-)
>> or that his recordings are as commercially available as my own. :-)
Nor this, though I do note that he continues to argue with
professional
recording engineer Iain Churches that his own work is somehow
comparable. BTW, Mr. Krueger, my most-recent choral recording --
see http://www.stereophile.com/news/121007cantus/ -- was No.9
in NPR's Top Next-Generation Classical CDs of 2007. Even if I
am unaware of truncated reverb tails, as you mistakenly claim in
another thread. How are your own choral recordings doing?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"Well Informed" - The Wall Street Journal
Oliver Costich
wrote:
>"MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:smcelroy2-F55CB...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu
>You haven't formed the question properly. 61% is statisically signifcant or
>not, depending on the total number of trials.
>
Yes. 61% of 39 is not, but 61% of 50 is.
Oliver Costich
About 92%
Oliver Costich
Still about 92% and Generalisimo Franco is still dead.
Oliver Costich
Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 17, 5:25 pm, Oliver Costich <ocost...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this test,
>> >61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39 trials. 50-50
>> >chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do the math.
>
>Why is this important to you, so much so that you have blasted so many
>posts in this thread?
>
>Is this really, really important?
Only is you want to understand what the test tells you and lots of got
it wrong.
>
>> >(HINT: it ain't.)
To you, and I don't care much either. I do care about such bad logic.
>
>OK then. ;-)
Clyde Slick
> On Jan 18, 8:23 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
How are your own choral recordings doing?
>
Singing the blues.
Bill Riel
949a41...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Mr.cly...@yahoo.com
says...
LOL! Very good.
--
Bill
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Clyde Slick said:
> > > Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
> > > quoted in the Wall Street Journal?
> > This is not logical discussion or even just rhetoric, this is abuse.
> HUH?????
Krooger is practicing his martyr shtick for church. Only two days till the
next roast.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
MiNe 109 said:
> > > In a perfectly designed test with 39 trials, what level
> > > of significance does 61% indicate?
> >
> > It is on the web - do your own research.
>
> Thanks! You've been a big help in formulating the correct question.
Stephen, please stop abusing the Krooborg.
Oliver Costich
<Edd...@yahooandhotmail.com> wrote:
>> Oliver Costich wrote:
>>> Walt wrote:
>>>> vinylanach wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So will you be receiving your $1 million from Randi anytime soon?
>>>
>>> Don't count on it. From TFA: "But of the 39 people who took this
>>> test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable." Hmmme. 39
>>> trials. 50-50 chance. How statistically significant is 61%? You do
>>> the math. (HINT: it ain't.)
>>
>> Here's the math: Claim is p (proportion of correct answers) >.5. Null
>> hypothesis is p=.5. The null hypothsis cannot be rejected (and the
>> claim cannot be supported) at the 95% significance level.
>
>
>Well yes, Mr. Costich, the test results aren't scientifically valid but it
>didn't disproved that the sound differences heard by participants did
>not physically exist.
>
Of course not. Certainty is not in the realm of statistical analysis.
Let's say you want to claim the a certain coin is biased to produce
heads when flipped. That you flip it 39 times and get 24 heads is not
sufficient to support the claim at a 95% confidence level. If you
lower your standard or do a lot more flips and still get 61%, the
conclusion will change
I'm sure there are audible differences. The issue is whether they are
enough to make consisten determinations. A bigger issue for those of
use who just listen to music is whether the diffeneces are detectable
when you are emotionally involved in the music and not just playing
"golden ears".