October 25: Results
Nousaine
Singh completed a single stimulus single blind listening test of AudioQuest
F-88 and AudioQuest Crystal speaker wires.
The listening system included an Onkyo DX 7500 CD player, a Sunfire Classic
Tube preamplifier, a Sunfire Cinema Grand power amplfier and Audio Research AR
315 HO loudspeakers. The woofer section of the AR's was driven by F-88. Levels
were conirmed to match at the speaker terminals within less than 0.05 dB from
100 to 16 kHz with a SRD test disc and a Fluke 45 voltmeter.
I connected one set of wires or the other (after Mr Singh left the room)
determined by a coin flip. The rear of the amplifier and the speakers were
draped with black cloth to hide the identity of the wires driving the speakers.
I then left the room. Mr Singh then entered the room and had as long as he
wanted to determine which wires were connected to the speakers. After he
decided and recorded his answer on a scoresheet and spoke the same out loud
the cloth was removed and the connections verified. Doug Stabler and one of his
colleagues (Mark) were also present. Mark entered the room with Greg and
stayed for the completion of each trial. Mr Singh left the doors to the
listening room open as he listened. The test started at approximately 5 pm and
completed at approximately 8:30 pm. A short open session was held between
trials 9 and 10.
Results:
Trial 1: Wrong
Trail 2: Correct
Trial 3: Correct
Trial 4: Wrong
Trial 5: Correct
Trial 6: Wrong
Trial 7: Correct
Trial 8: Wrong
Trial 9: Wrong
Trial 10: Correct
Trial 11: Wrong
Trial 12: Wrong
Final 5 correct of 12 trials.
Howard Ferstler
Stewart Pinkerton
Including Chuck's 'audio fatigue' theory!
Now, since Greg has always been very upset when anyone has called him
a conman, I'm absolutely sure that he'll now be happy to admit that
fancy speaker cables don't actually make any real difference at all,
even though you might *think* they do under sighted conditions.
After all, he has the incontrovertible evidence of his own highly
sensitive and experienced ears as proof, no? With witnesses, yet.
Welcome to the fold of DBT converts, Greg. Nice to have you aboard.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Tom Albertz
>
> I'm absolutely sure that he'll now be happy to admit that fancy
> speaker cables don't actually make any real difference at all,
> even though you might *think* they do under sighted conditions.
>
> After all, he has the incontrovertible evidence of his own highly
> sensitive and experienced ears as proof, no? With witnesses, yet.
>
> Welcome to the fold of DBT converts, Greg. Nice to have you aboard.
We haven't heard from Greg yet. He's normally so prolific.
Perhaps he has called an emergency spin control strategy meeting of the
Resistance. Or - perhaps - he's gone for a spanking. Roy?
Arny Krüger
Tom Albertz wrote in message <3634D4D0...@notreally.com>...
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> I'm absolutely sure that he'll now be happy to admit that fancy
>> speaker cables don't actually make any real difference at all,
>> even though you might *think* they do under sighted conditions.
>>
>> After all, he has the incontrovertible evidence of his own highly
>> sensitive and experienced ears as proof, no? With witnesses, yet.
>>
>> Welcome to the fold of DBT converts, Greg. Nice to have you aboard.
Yeah, sure; and a similar experience made an ABX-er out of Zip. ;-)
Remember when Singh called Zip a "Borg"? ;-)
This is gonna be kinda trying for Greg, perchance he takes it to heart...
George M. Middius
>We haven't heard from Greg yet. He's normally so prolific.
>Perhaps he has called an emergency spin control strategy meeting of the
>Resistance. Or - perhaps - he's gone for a spanking. Roy?
Sorry, TomYutz, Greg is not in the Resistance. Just because
he says "borg" sometimes doesn't mean he's taken the oath.
BTW, I assert that you're a shithead. You're welcome. ;-)
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
Joe Duffy
>fancy speaker cables don't actually make any real difference at all,
>even though you might *think* they do under sighted conditions.
>
>After all, he has the incontrovertible evidence of his own highly
>sensitive and experienced ears as proof, no? With witnesses, yet.
>
i would love to have the opportunity to be involved
in dbts with amplifiers, hmmm, maybe i could convince
the puget sound audio society( or whatever it's called )
to host one. i'd certainly bring my amp as one demo.
i must hear to believe that my ears are not golden
as well :-)
joe
Tom Albertz
How's Kevin?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Tom Albertz <surf...@notreally.com> wrote:
>We haven't heard from Greg yet. He's normally so prolific.
There are a number of people all missing at once.
Is there a show somewhere?
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1998, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Ron
wrote:
>[cut]
>
>Results:
>
>Trial 1: Wrong
>Trail 2: Correct
>Trial 3: Correct
>Trial 4: Wrong
>Trial 5: Correct
>Trial 6: Wrong
>Trial 7: Correct
>Trial 8: Wrong
>Trial 9: Wrong
>Trial 10: Correct
>Trial 11: Wrong
>Trial 12: Wrong
>
>Final 5 correct of 12 trials.
Why am I so surprised? Ahh... It's becasue the results are 5
correct out of 12. I fully expected 6 out of 12.
-- Ron
George M. Middius
>How's Kevin?
Keep your pants on. Kevin, if you're reading this, I'd
advise not meeting alone with TomYutz.
Stewart Pinkerton
Well, you have to give him credit for giving up after only 12 trials.
I'm sure he's now seen the error of his ways, and is a happy DBT
camper. Even an extremely late convert is always welcome to the camp
of trVth and reason.
Gruvmyster
> Sorry, TomYutz, Greg is not in the Resistance. Just because
> he says "borg" sometimes doesn't mean he's taken the oath.
When I emailed you that I was bailing the resistance because of Singh, you
sure seemed to think he was... can I post the email?;-)
You two had a spat or something?
Doug
Marc Blank
> Stewart Pinkerton ...
>
> >Now, since Greg has always been very upset when anyone has called him
> >a conman, I'm absolutely sure that he'll now be happy to admit that
> >fancy speaker cables don't actually make any real difference at all,
> >even though you might *think* they do under sighted conditions.
> >
> >After all, he has the incontrovertible evidence of his own highly
> >sensitive and experienced ears as proof, no? With witnesses, yet.
> >
>
>
> I'm not writing this to encourage a flaming response. So, please bear with
> me on this.
>
> How do we know that Greg's hearing (the test instrument) was up to snuff on
> this particular day? As I understand it, scientific testing instruments are
> usually verified as to whether they meet specifications previous to testing.
> Why was not the same done for Greg? This could have been done by testing to
> see if he can blindly detect difference that are known to be there (because
> it is the difference is specifically added, unbeknownst to Greg, as part of
> the testing). Further, it would be possible to gauge Greg's testing
> threshold to ascertain what level of difference he would be expected to hear
> during such testing conditions.
>
This was not a scientific experiment (though the procedures seem sound
enough, no pun intended), it was a bet. Greg claimed to be able to hear
differences that were NOT subtle (at least, that was the claim until he
started lowering expectations a few days ago) - if he felt he was "off"
on the day of the test, he could have said so.
If Greg's claim was that there were subtle differences that he could
sometimes tell, based on his state of health, that would be another
matter.
> Just to play devil's advocate -- How do we know that Greg would have be able
> to detect differences that he *should* have been able to detect on this
> particular day? How significant/insignificant of a difference could Greg
> detect blindly on this particular day?
>
We don't. The test provides evidence, not proof.
> It seems that there is an assumption that his ability to detect differences
> is being accepted as a constant. My own particular experience has suggested
> otherwise. Even more so, it's been my experience that my ability to detect
> differences varies greatly day to day (because of congestion due to
> allergies).
>
What you say is entirely possible. Given that Greg had no complaint of
which I am aware, do you think it's likely? probable? certain?
> I'd encourage those familiar with blind testing not to flame me or to insult
> me for raising these questions, but to instead offer an explanation as to
> why verification of the testing instrument was not necessary for such a
> test. I believe that these would be fair questions to ask of any scientific
> test, would they not? For me, these additional pieces of information would
> better me to better accept the results. Without them, I'm left wondering as
> to whether the test instrument (Greg) was properly functioning on this day.
> And to be honest, in my opinion, that such a verification was not performed
> suggests somewhat sloppy science.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
>
Since the test was not intended for publication, it's not quite fair to
call it "sloppy". The procedures were agreed upon in advance and were
followed to the letter; unbiased observers were present. You (or I) may
well be left wondering about the instrument, but I believe the test
stands on its own as relevant, if not utterly conclusive, evidence that
Greg cannot hear the differences between these cables under blind
conditions. The fact that this result happens frequently must give even
the most diehard subjectivist pause. If not indigestion.
Regards,
Marc
Surfshop
>
> Tom "NAMBLA" Albertz said:
>
> >How's Kevin?
>
> Keep your pants on. Kevin, if you're reading this, I'd
> advise not meeting alone with TomYutz.
Which is it, George, NAMBLA or NUMBLA?
You guys must have a great time at your Resistance meetings
with all the obsessions you all have, eh?
Surfshop
>
> How so? I thought that what was being verified was whether or not Greg
> could detect differences between the cables under test given certain test
> conditions previously agreed upon. There are certainly other tests that
> could have been performed in order to verify his hearing (the test
> instrument).
Your point is taken. But read Mark Blanc's response to your first post.
If we were talking about subtle differences, your point would have more
bearing. Greg talked about these cables like there were night and day
obvious differences. I believe he absolutely believed he heard large
differences. That is the way the mind works. It has been shown. What
hasn't been shown, is any differences in wires {unless....). Why do
you think there were so many people willing to bet money the test would
result as it did? Because there haven't ever been positive results.
Were they all bad days? Were they all 2-coke nights? Where are the
positive results?
Surfshop
>
> Your points are taken as well. But come on now, no positive tests, ever?
> Doesn't that make you take a pause? There is some really funky stuff being
> sold by high-end cable manufacturers.
Take it easy, Ken. That's why I said "unless". Yes - there have been
positive
results. And there were obvious electrical reasons for the results.
Ken Bauernfreund
Stewart Pinkerton ...
>Now, since Greg has always been very upset when anyone has called him
>a conman, I'm absolutely sure that he'll now be happy to admit that
>fancy speaker cables don't actually make any real difference at all,
>even though you might *think* they do under sighted conditions.
>
>After all, he has the incontrovertible evidence of his own highly
>sensitive and experienced ears as proof, no? With witnesses, yet.
>
A thought comes to mind when reading the results and the response above.
I'm not writing this to encourage a flaming response. So, please bear with
me on this.
How do we know that Greg's hearing (the test instrument) was up to snuff on
this particular day? As I understand it, scientific testing instruments are
usually verified as to whether they meet specifications previous to testing.
Why was not the same done for Greg? This could have been done by testing to
see if he can blindly detect difference that are known to be there (because
it is the difference is specifically added, unbeknownst to Greg, as part of
the testing). Further, it would be possible to gauge Greg's testing
threshold to ascertain what level of difference he would be expected to hear
during such testing conditions.
Just to play devil's advocate -- How do we know that Greg would have be able
to detect differences that he *should* have been able to detect on this
particular day? How significant/insignificant of a difference could Greg
detect blindly on this particular day?
It seems that there is an assumption that his ability to detect differences
is being accepted as a constant. My own particular experience has suggested
otherwise. Even more so, it's been my experience that my ability to detect
differences varies greatly day to day (because of congestion due to
allergies).
I'd encourage those familiar with blind testing not to flame me or to insult
Dave
<ken...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
>Stewart Pinkerton ...
>
>>Now, since Greg has always been very upset when anyone has called him
>>a conman, I'm absolutely sure that he'll now be happy to admit that
>>fancy speaker cables don't actually make any real difference at all,
>>even though you might *think* they do under sighted conditions.
>>
>>After all, he has the incontrovertible evidence of his own highly
>>sensitive and experienced ears as proof, no? With witnesses, yet.
>>
>
>
>A thought comes to mind when reading the results and the response above.
>I'm not writing this to encourage a flaming response. So, please bear with
>me on this.
>
>How do we know that Greg's hearing (the test instrument) was up to snuff on
>this particular day? As I understand it, scientific testing instruments are
>usually verified as to whether they meet specifications previous to testing.
So if the scientific testing instrument can not be used as a measuring
device in a experiment we should consider if the instrument is having
a off day? I think you are confused, his hearing (the test
instrument) was being verified.
>Why was not the same done for Greg? This could have been done by testing to
>see if he can blindly detect difference that are known to be there (because
>it is the difference is specifically added, unbeknownst to Greg, as part of
>the testing). Further, it would be possible to gauge Greg's testing
>threshold to ascertain what level of difference he would be expected to hear
>during such testing conditions.
>
???????
>Just to play devil's advocate -- How do we know that Greg would have be able
>to detect differences that he *should* have been able to detect on this
>particular day? How significant/insignificant of a difference could Greg
>detect blindly on this particular day?
>
What the hell are you talking about??? hehe So we are like using the
analogy of the sports favorite who loses to the underdog because of an
off day? That on a normal day the favorite would have played better.
>It seems that there is an assumption that his ability to detect differences
>is being accepted as a constant. My own particular experience has suggested
>otherwise. Even more so, it's been my experience that my ability to detect
>differences varies greatly day to day (because of congestion due to
>allergies).
>
Usually varies the most when there are other witnesses around. Lots
of bad days then.
Ken Bauernfreund
Dave wrote in message
>>A thought comes to mind when reading the results and the response above.
>>I'm not writing this to encourage a flaming response. So, please bear
with
>>me on this.
>>
>>How do we know that Greg's hearing (the test instrument) was up to snuff
on
>>this particular day? As I understand it, scientific testing instruments
are
>>usually verified as to whether they meet specifications previous to
testing.
>
>So if the scientific testing instrument can not be used as a measuring
>device in a experiment we should consider if the instrument is having
>a off day? I think you are confused, his hearing (the test
>instrument) was being verified.
How so? I thought that what was being verified was whether or not Greg
could detect differences between the cables under test given certain test
conditions previously agreed upon. There are certainly other tests that
could have been performed in order to verify his hearing (the test
instrument).
>>Just to play devil's advocate -- How do we know that Greg would have be
able
>>to detect differences that he *should* have been able to detect on this
>>particular day? How significant/insignificant of a difference could Greg
>>detect blindly on this particular day?
>>
>What the hell are you talking about??? hehe So we are like using the
>analogy of the sports favorite who loses to the underdog because of an
>off day? That on a normal day the favorite would have played better.
>
What the hell aren't you getting? (sorry about the tone -- but figured that
I'd respond in kind)
Are you arguing that us humans don't have off days? That our senses are
always at their finest? That mentally, we're always at the top of our game?
(sorry about using your sports analogy).
I'm not trying to say that Greg wasn't at his finest from both a hearing and
mental perspective on that day. But how do we know if he was? He might
believe so, but maybe he doesn't realize that the extra two cans of Coke
that he had after dinner last night denied him REM sleep that night which
made him a little dull mentally.
Please don't take this as me looking for an excuse as to why the test didn't
come out a certain way. The only point that I'd like to make is that we
can't assume anything about the results of this test other than one thing:
that during this particular test, Greg couldn't detect differences between
two cables. That's all that one can conclude. It would be wrong to assume
that he would do the same no matter what the test conditions.
>>It seems that there is an assumption that his ability to detect
differences
>>is being accepted as a constant. My own particular experience has
suggested
>>otherwise. Even more so, it's been my experience that my ability to
detect
>>differences varies greatly day to day (because of congestion due to
>>allergies).
>>
>Usually varies the most when there are other witnesses around. Lots
>of bad days then.
>
Wow -- when I read your response, my first reaction to it is: DUH -- can't
this guy see that the stress of other folks being around could quite
possibly be tainting the test. To me, that spell out further need to
qualify the test. Adding to what I've initially argued, I'll further argue
for further testing on our test instrument (Greg). We'll also need to see
how our test instrument does on detecting KNOWN differences blindly with
different levels of external stresses. Once we understand that, we'll be
better able to understand how the test environment needs to set up to
minimize the chance of error from our test instrument.
Anonymous lo14
>
> I'd encourage those familiar with blind testing not to flame me or to insult
> me for raising these questions, but to instead offer an explanation as to
> why verification of the testing instrument was not necessary for such a
> test. I believe that these would be fair questions to ask of any scientific
> test, would they not? For me, these additional pieces of information would
> better me to better accept the results. Without them, I'm left wondering as
> to whether the test instrument (Greg) was properly functioning on this day.
> And to be honest, in my opinion, that such a verification was not performed
> suggests somewhat sloppy science.
why wouldnt you grace this forum with results of your
science with properly functionnig test instruments?
George M. Middius
>> Keep your pants on. Kevin, if you're reading this, I'd
>> advise not meeting alone with TomYutz.
>Which is it, George, NAMBLA or NUMBLA?
duh......
>You guys must have a great time at your Resistance meetings
>with all the obsessions you all have, eh?
Saltpeter for TomYutz. Who's on KP at the Hive today? ;-)
Ken Bauernfreund
Marc Blank wrote in message ...
>
>> It seems that there is an assumption that his ability to detect
differences
>> is being accepted as a constant. My own particular experience has
suggested
>> otherwise. Even more so, it's been my experience that my ability to
detect
>> differences varies greatly day to day (because of congestion due to
>> allergies).
>>
>
>which I am aware, do you think it's likely? probable? certain?
That depends. How much would you think that mental alertness plays a part
in the detection of such differences? I would think that the mental state
would dictate the level of hearing acuity. I don't know about you, but my
mental alterness varies quite a bit during the day. Both caffeine and the
amount of sleep seem to be big contributors to my mental alertness (or lack
thereof).
Over the last couple of weeks, I've written a lot of lines of software code.
Thinking back, I recall a few peak hours of being able to really jam out the
code. My fingers couldn't type as fast as my mind couldn't think out the
code. I also recall periods of just not being able to get focused -- of
having long moments of staring at the screen hoping for enlightenment. But,
for the most part, I was somewhere in between mentally.
I'd suspect that during long term relaxed subjective listening, that my
brain probably hovers in that middle ground. If I was to volunteer to do a
blind test, I'd really hope that my brain was in peak jamming mode at the
time of the test. With my luck though, the stress of wanting to kick that
test's butt, would probably send my brain into serious duh-mode. My
personal and unscientifically-based view is that this is what happens to
most normal human beings during tests such as the one Greg participated in.
I've been surprised at myself by how I even go into duh-mode someone watches
me code while standing behind me. It took me a long time to overcome that
one.
Woudn't it be great if I could just flick a switch and -- bang -- I'm at my
mental prowess peak (I bet my employer would also think this great).
The point that I tried to make in my original post is that we really have no
clue where Greg's head was during the test. For that reason, I think that
ALL that we can conclude from the test is that Greg lost the bet.
>Since the test was not intended for publication, it's not quite fair to
>call it "sloppy". The procedures were agreed upon in advance and were
>followed to the letter; unbiased observers were present. You (or I) may
>well be left wondering about the instrument, but I believe the test
>stands on its own as relevant, if not utterly conclusive, evidence that
>Greg cannot hear the differences between these cables under blind
>conditions. The fact that this result happens frequently must give even
>the most diehard subjectivist pause. If not indigestion.
The only evidence that this test provides is that Greg was unable to detect
differences between two cables given the agreed upon test condition. That
this result happens frequently suggests, to me, two possible conclusions:
1) that there really aren't any audible differences between those two cables
or 2) that there may be audible differences between the cables but the test
is incapable of revealing such differences.
I have chosen to explore the latter, because it so often seems to so often
get glossed over. One thing that I do remember from Engineering school was
that there are always error to contend with when performing tests. The key
is to understand those errors and to ensure that a testing methodology is
chosen such that the errors are a non factor. I came away learning that you
don't use a yardstick to measure the thickness of a stand of hair.
Just because the procedures were agreed on in advance doesn't mean that the
test was sound from a scientific perspective. I'm obviously arguing that it
wasn't.
There could be a billion tests such as the one performed on Greg and I
expect that the results will ALWAYS be the same. Just as I would expect
that I would ALWAYS get the thickness of a hair wrong when using a yardstick
as the measuring device.
Ken Bauernfreund
Anonymous lo14 wrote in message
<2d84bf0483b74891e5b483c467fb8cb6@anonymous>...
Now why the attitude? What's the point? Is it that you wanted to
demonstrate a really intelligent response? Well if that's the case, well
you certainly met your objective with flying colors. You should seriously
consider a career that would really make use of your remarkably high IQ.
Just be sure not to forget to ask your customers if they want french fries
with their burgers and you'll do really well. :-)
Anonymous lo14
>
> ra...@concentric.net (Ron) writes:
> >>Final 5 correct of 12 trials.
> >Why am I so surprised? Ahh... It's becasue the results are 5
> >correct out of 12. I fully expected 6 out of 12.
>
> Well, you have to give him credit for giving up after only 12 trials.
> I'm sure he's now seen the error of his ways, and is a happy DBT
> camper. Even an extremely late convert is always welcome to the camp
> of trVth and reason.
Briggs-Herbert is gonna shit over this one.......
Gary Eickmeier/Susan Andrus
> A thought comes to mind when reading the results and the response above.
> I'm not writing this to encourage a flaming response. So, please bear with
> me on this.
>
> How do we know that Greg's hearing (the test instrument) was up to snuff on
> this particular day?
You simply ask him.
The first step is to have him listen sighted, and tell us whether he can hear
differences that he described before as large and obvious. Then you impose
blind conditions and test his ability to hear those differences.
If people weren't subject to the placebo effect and would admit that they
hear little or no differences between cables, we wouldn't have to do blind
tests of such things. But if the only difference between being able to
identify and not being able to is the blind conditions, then we know what he
thought he was hearing is only imaginary.
And you're right - this only proves that he couldn't hear it on this day, in
this test. But after you've done this a few times, you get the general idea.
Greg was just one more puppy that needed to be ABX trained.
Gary Eickmeier
Ken Bauernfreund
Surfshop wrote in message <36355E...@notreally.com>...
>Ken Bauernfreund wrote:
>>
>> How so? I thought that what was being verified was whether or not Greg
>> could detect differences between the cables under test given certain test
>> conditions previously agreed upon. There are certainly other tests that
>> could have been performed in order to verify his hearing (the test
>> instrument).
>
>If we were talking about subtle differences, your point would have more
>bearing. Greg talked about these cables like there were night and day
>obvious differences. I believe he absolutely believed he heard large
>differences. That is the way the mind works. It has been shown. What
>hasn't been shown, is any differences in wires {unless....). Why do
>you think there were so many people willing to bet money the test would
>result as it did? Because there haven't ever been positive results.
>Were they all bad days? Were they all 2-coke nights? Where are the
>positive results?
Your points are taken as well. But come on now, no positive tests, ever?
Doesn't that make you take a pause? There is some really funky stuff being
sold by high-end cable manufacturers. Their playing all kinds of funky
games with real electrical parameters. Some cables are known to have really
high impedance and others really high inductance. Some cables even have
passive filter networks installed on them. And yet, there has never been a
positive result?
How can is it possible that all these cables can sound the same? I just
can't buy that. I could understand cables that all measure the same would
sound alike, but not when the electrical parameters are tweaked such that
the cable actually becomes a filter. And yet, no matter what, test after
test, no audible difference is found. It sounds to me like a problem with
the testing methodology.
I guess I'd be more apt to buy the results if, just once, the test revealed
differences on a cable for which differences were expected to be heard (as
confirmed by measurements). The likely candidates for such a test might be
cables from either MIT or Transparent that have the built-in filter
networks. If electrical testing of these cables were to reveal frequency
response differences (as compared to regular cable) that should be detected,
then I would expect that these differences would be detected in a blind
test.
Ken Bauernfreund
Gary Eickmeier/Susan Andrus wrote in message
<713ncu$5n1$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>Ken Bauernfreund wrote:
>
>> A thought comes to mind when reading the results and the response above.
>> I'm not writing this to encourage a flaming response. So, please bear
with
>> me on this.
>>
>> How do we know that Greg's hearing (the test instrument) was up to snuff
on
>> this particular day?
>
>You simply ask him.
I find it odd that this would be acceptable. Aren't our perceptions not to
be trusted?
>The first step is to have him listen sighted, and tell us whether he can
hear
>differences that he described before as large and obvious. Then you impose
>blind conditions and test his ability to hear those differences.
>
>If people weren't subject to the placebo effect and would admit that they
>hear little or no differences between cables, we wouldn't have to do blind
>tests of such things. But if the only difference between being able to
>identify and not being able to is the blind conditions, then we know what
he
>thought he was hearing is only imaginary.
>
If people weren't subject to test anxiety I would agree with you. And no --
I'm not trying to offer up test anxiety as an excuse!!! I just don't think
that it's valid to make sweeping generalizations unless we know, for sure,
how the test subject will respond in such a test. The simple way to confirm
that test anxiety would be a non-issue would have been to confirm that Greg
was able to blindly detect differences (of nearly the same magnitude) that
were known to exist. He does that and test anxiety can, with certainty, be
declared a non-issue.
>And you're right - this only proves that he couldn't hear it on this day,
in
>this test. But after you've done this a few times, you get the general
idea.
>Greg was just one more puppy that needed to be ABX trained.
>
Woof, woof. :-)
During any of the times that you are aware of this being done, do you know
if it was ever confirmed that the testee could detect known differences
blind?
Stewart Pinkerton
>Please don't take this as me looking for an excuse as to why the test didn't
>come out a certain way. The only point that I'd like to make is that we
>can't assume anything about the results of this test other than one thing:
>that during this particular test, Greg couldn't detect differences between
>two cables. That's all that one can conclude. It would be wrong to assume
>that he would do the same no matter what the test conditions.
Were we conducting a scientific experiment for publication in a
refereed journal, then this would certainly be a valid observation.
However, what actually occured was that a dealer claimed to hear
'obvious' differences between two types of speaker cable, and accepted
a challenge to prove that he really could hear these 'obvious'
differences under controlled conditions. Turns out he couldn't.
To broaden the evidential base, turns out nobody has *ever* had a
positive result in this quite simple test, and published the results
on this newsgroup (you may be sure that they would have posted!). This
doesn't stop wild claims about 'cable sound' being made every week.
How many experiments does it take before you accept that if a
housebrick falls on your head from fifty feet, it will almost
certainly make a deep impression on your mind?
Arny Krüger
Ken Bauernfreund wrote in message ...
>How do we know that Greg's hearing (the test instrument) was up to snuff on
>this particular day?
We don't. This was a test of Greg's claims, not a test of Greg's ears.
>As I understand it, scientific testing instruments are
>usually verified as to whether they meet specifications previous to testing.
Hardly. Any piece of test equipment that needed calibration before every use
would either have to be something really special, or junk. One hallmark of
good test equipment is that it is stable. In the real world, there is such a
thing as routine calibration of test equipment, but that happens like once a
year, or shorter increments, but never before every use.
>Why was not the same done for Greg?
Because, like just about every golden ear in the universe, he claimed he could
do his thing whenever he wanted to.
>This could have been done by testing to
>see if he can blindly detect difference that are known to be there (because
>it is the difference is specifically added, unbeknownst to Greg, as part of
>the testing).
I don't think you get it. Virtually every audible difference that we are
arguing about here would result in a failure, if that were done. It does not
matter whether the ears are up to snuff or not. In blind tests people just
can't hear the stuff that the High End Press claims is SO IMPORTANT. It's not
a matter of finding a good day. It's a matter of finding superhumans that just
don't seem to exist.
>Further, it would be possible to gauge Greg's testing
>threshold to ascertain what level of difference he would be expected to hear
>during such testing conditions.
Actually, the test was qualified by a technical test that virtually guaranteed
that no human being known could pass the test. Greg did not believe that the
technical test was relevant. Tom, myself, Stew and others believe that it was.
What Greg believes now is not really known.
>Just to play devil's advocate -- How do we know that Greg would have be able
>to detect differences that he *should* have been able to detect on this
>particular day?
I don't think you get it. There is no day when Greg could have been reasonably
expected to pass the test he naively set forth to accomplish.
>How significant/insignificant of a difference could Greg
>detect blindly on this particular day?
Well, how many days would we have to test Greg (or you) before you'd get it?
>It seems that there is an assumption that his ability to detect differences
>is being accepted as a constant.
Actually, it is pretty well scientifically known that Greg's abiility to pass
that test was and is constantly zero.
>My own particular experience has suggested
>otherwise. Even more so, it's been my experience that my ability to detect
>differences varies greatly day to day (because of congestion due to
>allergies).
Well, that hangs on what you are talking about in terms of potentially audible
differences. Yes, the thresholds move around depending on many factors. But
just about all controversial audible effects are being argued about when they
are at levels that NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO HEAR THEM AND IN SOME CASES IT
IS SCINTIFICALLY SHOWN THAT NOBODY EVER WILL.
>I'd encourage those familiar with blind testing not to flame me or to insult
>me for raising these questions, but to instead offer an explanation as to
>why verification of the testing instrument was not necessary for such a
>test.
It depends on the equipment and it depends on the test.
>I believe that these would be fair questions to ask of any scientific
>test, would they not?
I sincerily belive that in the case where people are claiming to "hear things"
that are several order of magnitudes smaller than the known thresholds, the
efforts you are demanding are a waste of time.
>For me, these additional pieces of information would
>better me to better accept the results.
If you want a test done a certain way, then do the test yourself. The world is
full of people who would like to fill the plate of scientific investigators
with junk food.
>Without them, I'm left wondering as
>to whether the test instrument (Greg) was properly functioning on this day.
If "properly functioning" means "had a chance of hearing the audible
difference in the test", there never was a day when he was properly
functioning, and never will be. Testing equipment in accordance with a
criteria only makes sense if there is some chance that the outcome of the test
can vary.
>And to be honest, in my opinion, that such a verification was not performed
>suggests somewhat sloppy science.
Hey, are your hands tied so that you can't do tests that satisfy you? If not,
get off you dead butt and do something and stopyer bitchin'.
Arny Krüger
Ken Bauernfreund wrote in message
Anonymous lo14 wrote in message
<2d84bf0483b74891e5b483c467fb8cb6@anonymous>...
>>
>>why wouldnt you grace this forum with results of your
>>science with properly functionnig test instruments?
>>
>
>
>Now why the attitude?
Indeed, now why the attitude with you?
>What's the point?
That you don't seem to think that you have any responsibility to support your
claims with a little work of your own.
>Is it that you wanted to demonstrate a really intelligent response?
Believe it or not, real scientists say things like this when others come up
with ideas of their own and its perfectly all right.
Arny Krüger
Ken Bauernfreund wrote in message
>>
>I find it odd that this would be acceptable. Aren't our perceptions not to
>be trusted?
At some point, our perceptions must be trusted. IMO, the whole "thing" with
ABX is that it is a way to make our perceptions more reliable.
krom...@my-dejanews.com
1)This is not like taking a Final Exam. The stress level is not likely to
be *that* high, especially considering Greg had no actual MONEY on the line...
2)If the differences between the two cables are so subtle that even the
slightest amount of stress makes them indistinguishable, then that for me
is also a very telling result, given that the differences were claimed to be
HUGE.
Andy K.
In article <4bcZ1.10028$yb5.6...@news.rdc1.sdca.home.com>,
"Ken Bauernfreund" <ken...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> Dave wrote in message
>
> >>A thought comes to mind when reading the results and the response above.
> >>I'm not writing this to encourage a flaming response. So, please bear
> with
> >>me on this.
> >>
> >>How do we know that Greg's hearing (the test instrument) was up to snuff
> on
> >>this particular day? As I understand it, scientific testing instruments
> are
> >>usually verified as to whether they meet specifications previous to
> testing.
> >
> >So if the scientific testing instrument can not be used as a measuring
> >device in a experiment we should consider if the instrument is having
> >a off day? I think you are confused, his hearing (the test
> >instrument) was being verified.
>
> How so? I thought that what was being verified was whether or not Greg
> could detect differences between the cables under test given certain test
> conditions previously agreed upon. There are certainly other tests that
> could have been performed in order to verify his hearing (the test
> instrument).
>
> >>Just to play devil's advocate -- How do we know that Greg would have be
> able
> >>to detect differences that he *should* have been able to detect on this
> >>particular day? How significant/insignificant of a difference could Greg
> >>detect blindly on this particular day?
> >>
> >What the hell are you talking about??? hehe So we are like using the
> >analogy of the sports favorite who loses to the underdog because of an
> >off day? That on a normal day the favorite would have played better.
> >
>
> What the hell aren't you getting? (sorry about the tone -- but figured that
> I'd respond in kind)
>
> Are you arguing that us humans don't have off days? That our senses are
> always at their finest? That mentally, we're always at the top of our game?
> (sorry about using your sports analogy).
>
> I'm not trying to say that Greg wasn't at his finest from both a hearing and
> mental perspective on that day. But how do we know if he was? He might
> believe so, but maybe he doesn't realize that the extra two cans of Coke
> that he had after dinner last night denied him REM sleep that night which
> made him a little dull mentally.
>
> Please don't take this as me looking for an excuse as to why the test didn't
> come out a certain way. The only point that I'd like to make is that we
> can't assume anything about the results of this test other than one thing:
> that during this particular test, Greg couldn't detect differences between
> two cables. That's all that one can conclude. It would be wrong to assume
> that he would do the same no matter what the test conditions.
>
> >>It seems that there is an assumption that his ability to detect
> differences
> >>is being accepted as a constant. My own particular experience has
> suggested
> >>otherwise. Even more so, it's been my experience that my ability to
> detect
> >>differences varies greatly day to day (because of congestion due to
> >>allergies).
> >>
> >Usually varies the most when there are other witnesses around. Lots
> >of bad days then.
> >
>
> Wow -- when I read your response, my first reaction to it is: DUH -- can't
> this guy see that the stress of other folks being around could quite
> possibly be tainting the test. To me, that spell out further need to
> qualify the test. Adding to what I've initially argued, I'll further argue
> for further testing on our test instrument (Greg). We'll also need to see
> how our test instrument does on detecting KNOWN differences blindly with
> different levels of external stresses. Once we understand that, we'll be
> better able to understand how the test environment needs to set up to
> minimize the chance of error from our test instrument.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Nousaine
<<<<<Over the last couple of weeks, I've written a lot of lines of software
code.
Thinking back, I recall a few peak hours of being able to really jam out the
code. My fingers couldn't type as fast as my mind couldn't think out the code.
I also recall periods of just not being able to get focused -- of having long
moments of staring at the screen hoping for enlightenment. But,
for the most part, I was somewhere in between mentally.>>>
And when I am in a 'peak-zone' my response to physical stimuli is zero. When I
am writing I hear nothing.
<<<I'd suspect that during long term relaxed subjective listening, that my
brain probably hovers in that middle ground. If I was to volunteer to do a
blind test, I'd really hope that my brain was in peak jamming mode at the
time of the test.>>>
Really? All your high-end buddies claim that long term relaxed listening is the
way to discover those subtle details you speak of.
<<< With my luck though, the stress of wanting to kick that test's butt, would
probably send my brain into serious duh-mode. My
personal and unscientifically-based view is that this is what happens to most
normal human beings during tests such as the one Greg participated in. I've
been surprised at myself by how I even go into duh-mode someone watches me code
while standing behind me. It took me a long time to overcome that one.>>>
Now why wouldn't the need to 'kick the test's butt' send you into peak form?
Don't we kick into high gear in search for the 'thrill of victory'?
Youu go into 'duh-mode' simply because someone doesn't think you can write that
code? Or the wrong person is in the room? Or that you are beign observed?
People perform their best under stress conditions. True some people choke under
test....but they weren't really prepared. It's easy to claim that you really
knew the answers after you failed the test and the answers are revealed.
Your difference-apology position is not supported by any known information
about human perception or human behavior.
Your complaints are simply
Greg Guarino
<ken...@mindless.com> wrote:
>The simple way to confirm
>that test anxiety would be a non-issue would have been to confirm that Greg
>was able to blindly detect differences (of nearly the same magnitude) that
>were known to exist.
This is what Tom Nousaine wrote:
_____________________________________________________
"Levels were conirmed to match at the speaker terminals within less
than 0.05 dB from 100 to 16 kHz with a SRD test disc and a Fluke 45
voltmeter. "
_____________________________________________________
Do differences that would fit into the description above qualify as
the "known differences" you mention? If so do you believe that anyone
can hear them? And if you do, how other than another blind test could
we find out?
George M. Middius
the English language.
>>How do we know that Greg's hearing (the test instrument) was up to snuff on
>>this particular day?
>We don't. This was a test of Greg's claims, not a test of Greg's ears.
As I'm fond of saying to Mikey, are you really that
stupid, or are you just one fucked-up cyborg?
Follow along now, Arnii. What is it Greg claimed? He
claimed he could *hear* differences between cables.
What do we use for hearing? We use our *ears* (and
brains of course).
Do you "get it" ;-) now?
Arny Krüger
Ken Bauernfreund wrote in message
>
>That depends. How much would you think that mental alertness plays a part
>in the detection of such differences?
Here is a good question for you. The last time someone was bragging about the
good sound of some cable or component, did they say:
(1) It sounds so much better, it's mind-blowing, buy it now!
(2) Enough of an improvement to be easily worth the substantial extra bucks.
(3) Something that only the more discriminating listener with the finer stereo
can appreciate.
(4) Something that you will only notice reliably if you are listening very
intently.
(5) Something that you will only notice reliably if you are listening very
intently, and your "ears" are in first-rate shape.
(6) Something that you will only notice reliably if you are listening very
intently and Mars is in a certain position with respect to Venus.
(7) Something that you will only notice reliably if you are listening very
intently and have 99.99th percent listening acuity at the moment.
(8) Something that you will only notice reliably if you can somehow can
reliably imagine that you are hearing a difference.
(9) You'll never hear a difference, but there are other desirable advantages.
(10) No logical reason to even look across the street to see what this new
component looks like.
AFAIK, most of the cables, CD players, and SS amps and preamps reviewed in SP,
TAS, and HFN&RR are claimed to be someplace among points (1-3). but are
actually more like among points (7-10).
Quite a gap, eh?
Arny Krüger
George M. Middius wrote in message <369ce561....@news.erols.com>...
What I get is that your AI routines can't distinguish between subsets and
supersets.
Arny Krüger
Ken Bauernfreund wrote in message
>What the hell aren't you getting? (sorry about the tone -- but figured that
>I'd respond in kind)
Why you are trying to split hairs, when Singh was so grossly wrong in this
matter that he repeatedly claimed that there was no application of the placebo
effect to hifi...
Do you believe that the placebo effect applies to HiFi listening?
Arny Krüger
krom...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <714qnr$n9g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Ken, I think you have to keep two things in mind:
>
>1)This is not like taking a Final Exam. The stress level is not likely to
>be *that* high, especially considering Greg had no actual MONEY on the
line...
>
>2)If the differences between the two cables are so subtle that even the
>slightest amount of stress makes them indistinguishable, then that for me
>is also a very telling result, given that the differences were claimed to be
>HUGE.
>
I think Singh claimed that himself, didn't he?
Singh also repeatedly claimed that the placebo effect does not apply to
audio...
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
George M. Middius <Glan...@jiffy.erols.com> wrote:
>The Krooborg finds new and disgusting ways to hash up
>the English language.
I have to edit my kill file.
Typical. Changed as of now.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1998, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Dave
<ken...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
>
>That depends. How much would you think that mental alertness plays a part
>in the detection of such differences? I would think that the mental state
>would dictate the level of hearing acuity. I don't know about you, but my
>mental alterness varies quite a bit during the day. Both caffeine and the
>amount of sleep seem to be big contributors to my mental alertness (or lack
>thereof).
>
I think if a lack of sleep and caffeine consumed by an individual
could mask differences, than these differences a minuscule. The
prices however are anything but minuscule for premium cables. The
amount of people who don't get enough sleep is far from minuscule.
>Over the last couple of weeks, I've written a lot of lines of software code.
>Thinking back, I recall a few peak hours of being able to really jam out the
>code. My fingers couldn't type as fast as my mind couldn't think out the
>code. I also recall periods of just not being able to get focused -- of
>having long moments of staring at the screen hoping for enlightenment. But,
>for the most part, I was somewhere in between mentally.
>
You sound like someone who is trying to buy something that just
doesn't fit. Sure if someone diets and exercises and sleep 10 hours a
day and sits in a sauna for hours a day they will be able to fit into
those jeans.
>I'd suspect that during long term relaxed subjective listening, that my
>brain probably hovers in that middle ground. If I was to volunteer to do a
>blind test, I'd really hope that my brain was in peak jamming mode at the
>time of the test.
You have hit on something here. Even if someone could hear something
in their peak, that's exactly what it is a peak. So getting premium
cables that can be heard 2% of the time at peak only due to a
concerted effort is worthwhile?
With my luck though, the stress of wanting to kick that
>test's butt, would probably send my brain into serious duh-mode. My
>personal and unscientifically-based view is that this is what happens to
>most normal human beings during tests such as the one Greg participated in.
>I've been surprised at myself by how I even go into duh-mode someone watches
>me code while standing behind me. It took me a long time to overcome that
>one.
>
I don't believe the tester was in the room standing over him or in the
room period. Besides we are talking about the supposed obvious
difference in cables are we not? Nerves and someone standing over me
are not going to effect my ability in reading an eye chart.
>Woudn't it be great if I could just flick a switch and -- bang -- I'm at my
>mental prowess peak (I bet my employer would also think this great).
>
I don't think high-end cable makers would think its great, I'm talking
about a mental prowess peak regarding intelligence.
>The point that I tried to make in my original post is that we really have no
>clue where Greg's head was during the test. For that reason, I think that
>ALL that we can conclude from the test is that Greg lost the bet.
>
Except that he failed to detect differences the question of why he
failed is probably the same as why everyone else fails.
>>Since the test was not intended for publication, it's not quite fair to
>>call it "sloppy". The procedures were agreed upon in advance and were
>>followed to the letter; unbiased observers were present. You (or I) may
>>well be left wondering about the instrument, but I believe the test
>>stands on its own as relevant, if not utterly conclusive, evidence that
>>Greg cannot hear the differences between these cables under blind
>>conditions. The fact that this result happens frequently must give even
>>the most diehard subjectivist pause. If not indigestion.
>
>
>The only evidence that this test provides is that Greg was unable to detect
>differences between two cables given the agreed upon test condition. That
>this result happens frequently suggests, to me, two possible conclusions:
>1) that there really aren't any audible differences between those two cables
>or 2) that there may be audible differences between the cables but the test
>is incapable of revealing such differences.
>
>I have chosen to explore the latter, because it so often seems to so often
>get glossed over. One thing that I do remember from Engineering school was
>that there are always error to contend with when performing tests. The key
>is to understand those errors and to ensure that a testing methodology is
>chosen such that the errors are a non factor. I came away learning that you
>don't use a yardstick to measure the thickness of a stand of hair.
>
Yes human hears are the yard stick and the differences in cables has
the thickness that is less than a human hair. I am glad to see that
you believe human ears have limitations and are not suitable measuring
devices for differences in cables.
>Just because the procedures were agreed on in advance doesn't mean that the
>test was sound from a scientific perspective. I'm obviously arguing that it
>wasn't.
If the test came away with the opposite result would you still be
trying to invalidate the results due to the testing procedures? My
guess is no, which says you believe the fairness of the test rests on
the outcome which you deem acceptable to your biases.
>There could be a billion tests such as the one performed on Greg and I
>expect that the results will ALWAYS be the same. Just as I would expect
>that I would ALWAYS get the thickness of a hair wrong when using a yardstick
>as the measuring device.
>
>
Well Greg will always have a yardstick for ears and cables will always
have differences that are less thick than a human hair.
>
>
>
>
Arny Krüger
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote in message ...
>In article <369ce561....@news.erols.com>,
>George M. Middius <Glan...@jiffy.erols.com> wrote:
>>The Krooborg finds new and disgusting ways to hash up
>>the English language.
>George the harrasser changes his posting address so that
>I have to edit my kill file.
>
>Typical. Changed as of now.
After last week's explosion of ghoulish posts by the Middbot and his
finger-puppets, think they might all be needing to pull a stunt like that to
put themselves back in "circulation"?
George M. Middius
look away. It's ugly.
>>George the harrasser changes his posting address so that
>>I have to edit my kill file.
Yes, that was my explicit intention. Curses! Foiled
again!
>>Typical. Changed as of now.
So sorry you were inconvenienced, you snotty little
pointy-headed freak. What does Sir Sausage have to say
about this new turn of events? Something relevant for a
change? Let's ask him.
>After last week's explosion of ghoulish posts by the Middbot and his
>finger-puppets, think they might all be needing to pull a stunt like that to
>put themselves back in "circulation"?
That makes sense to me. I'm sure we're all getting a
very clear picture of poor Arnii's "thought" ;-)
processes.
BTW, Your Vileness, I just examined my fingers and
found no evidence of puppets of any sort. Sorry. ;-)
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Stewart Pinkerton <a...@borealis.com > wrote:
>>On 26 Oct 1998 17:55:46 GMT, nous...@aol.com (Nousaine)
>>>Final 5 correct of 12 trials.
Follows the probabilies for 12 trials at 50%.
The columns are:
1)Number right of 12.
2)Chance of getting exactly that number right by sheer luck
3)<3rd is irrelevant to present discussion, it's 1 - column4>
4)Chance of getting up to and including that number right by sheer luck.
0, 0.000244141, 1, 0.000244141
1, 0.00292969, 0.999756, 0.00317383
2, 0.0161133, 0.996826, 0.0192871
3, 0.0537109, 0.980713, 0.072998
4, 0.12085, 0.927002, 0.193848
5, 0.193359, 0.806152, 0.387207
6, 0.225586, 0.612793, 0.612793
7, 0.193359, 0.387207, 0.806152
8, 0.12085, 0.193848, 0.927002
9, 0.0537109, 0.072998, 0.980713
10, 0.0161133, 0.0192871, 0.996826
11, 0.00292969, 0.00317383, 0.999756
12, 0.000244141, 0.000244141, 1
The 5% one-sided level is 10 of 12.
It is likely that about 19% of the time you'll get 5 of 12 right by
sheer accident.
So, the test is well within the "random chance" hypothesis.
It is also likely that his chance of success (type 2 hypothesis) is
under .7, at the 5% level, if he guesses randomly with some bias
toward success.
Arny Krüger
George M. Middius wrote in message <36a01604....@news.erols.com>...
>
>BTW, Your Vileness, I just examined my fingers and
>found no evidence of puppets of any sort. Sorry. ;-)
>
Darn, you must have a BAAD cold.
I can smell the feces of Tor, Roy, Kevin and Powell, on your fingers, from
here.
Next time you report for "work", bring latex gloves. Please dispose of them,
before stopping by over here. ;-)
krom...@my-dejanews.com
Subset? Superset? Mathematical Terminology? Set Theory?
Your *already* way over George's head. He's a simple man with a simple life,
free from the goofiness of Science and such....
Andy K.
In article <714sqa$55d$1...@excalibur.flash.net>,
"Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> George M. Middius wrote in message <369ce561....@news.erols.com>...
> >The Krooborg finds new and disgusting ways to hash up
> >the English language.
> >
> >>>How do we know that Greg's hearing (the test instrument) was up to snuff on
> >>>this particular day?
> >
> >>We don't. This was a test of Greg's claims, not a test of Greg's ears.
> >
> >As I'm fond of saying to Mikey, are you really that
> >stupid, or are you just one fucked-up cyborg?
> >
> >Follow along now, Arnii. What is it Greg claimed? He
> >claimed he could *hear* differences between cables.
> >What do we use for hearing? We use our *ears* (and
> >brains of course).
> >
> >Do you "get it" ;-) now?
> >
>
> What I get is that your AI routines can't distinguish between subsets and
> supersets.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Tom Albertz
> Kevin, if you're reading this, I'd
> advise not meeting alone with TomYutz.
"Kevin, if you're reading this..." That's funny.
How could the two of us meet alone, George?
Barry Rothman
Arny Krüger wrote:
>
> Ken Bauernfreund wrote in message
> <__cZ1.10052$yb5.6...@news.rdc1.sdca.home.com>...
> >
> >That depends. How much would you think that mental alertness plays a part
> >in the detection of such differences?
>
Sandman
Marc Blank <mbl...@eidetic.com> wrote in article
<MPG.109ed1aad...@enews.newsguy.com>...
> >
> > Stewart Pinkerton ...
> >
> > >Now, since Greg has always been very upset when anyone has called him
> > >a conman, I'm absolutely sure that he'll now be happy to admit that
> > >fancy speaker cables don't actually make any real difference at all,
> > >even though you might *think* they do under sighted conditions.
> > >
> > >After all, he has the incontrovertible evidence of his own highly
> > >sensitive and experienced ears as proof, no? With witnesses, yet.
> > >
> >
> >
> > A thought comes to mind when reading the results and the response
above.
> > I'm not writing this to encourage a flaming response. So, please bear
with
> > me on this.
> >
> > How do we know that Greg's hearing (the test instrument) was up to
snuff on
> > this particular day? As I understand it, scientific testing
instruments are
> > usually verified as to whether they meet specifications previous to
testing.
> > Why was not the same done for Greg? This could have been done by
testing to
> > see if he can blindly detect difference that are known to be there
(because
> > it is the difference is specifically added, unbeknownst to Greg, as
part of
> > the testing). Further, it would be possible to gauge Greg's testing
> > threshold to ascertain what level of difference he would be expected to
hear
> > during such testing conditions.
> >
>
> This was not a scientific experiment (though the procedures seem sound
> enough, no pun intended), it was a bet. Greg claimed to be able to hear
> differences that were NOT subtle (at least, that was the claim until he
> started lowering expectations a few days ago) - if he felt he was "off"
> on the day of the test, he could have said so.
>
> If Greg's claim was that there were subtle differences that he could
> sometimes tell, based on his state of health, that would be another
> matter.
>
> > Just to play devil's advocate -- How do we know that Greg would have be
able
> > to detect differences that he *should* have been able to detect on this
> > particular day? How significant/insignificant of a difference could
Greg
> > detect blindly on this particular day?
> >
>
> We don't. The test provides evidence, not proof.
>
> > It seems that there is an assumption that his ability to detect
differences
> > is being accepted as a constant. My own particular experience has
suggested
> > otherwise. Even more so, it's been my experience that my ability to
detect
> > differences varies greatly day to day (because of congestion due to
> > allergies).
> >
>
> What you say is entirely possible. Given that Greg had no complaint of
> which I am aware, do you think it's likely? probable? certain?
>
> > I'd encourage those familiar with blind testing not to flame me or to
insult
> > me for raising these questions, but to instead offer an explanation as
to
> > why verification of the testing instrument was not necessary for such a
> > test. I believe that these would be fair questions to ask of any
scientific
> > test, would they not? For me, these additional pieces of information
would
> > better me to better accept the results. Without them, I'm left
wondering as
> > to whether the test instrument (Greg) was properly functioning on this
day.
> > And to be honest, in my opinion, that such a verification was not
performed
> > suggests somewhat sloppy science.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ken
> >
>
> Since the test was not intended for publication, it's not quite fair to
> call it "sloppy". The procedures were agreed upon in advance and were
> followed to the letter; unbiased observers were present. You (or I) may
> well be left wondering about the instrument, but I believe the test
> stands on its own as relevant, if not utterly conclusive, evidence that
> Greg cannot hear the differences between these cables under blind
> conditions. The fact that this result happens frequently must give even
> the most diehard subjectivist pause. If not indigestion.
I think I'll take a pause from scanning this NG long enough to digest a
sandwich.
I'll try to assemble it "double-blind".
Sandman
KevinLng
>> advise not meeting alone with TomYutz.
>
>"Kevin, if you're reading this..." That's funny.
>How could the two of us meet alone, >George?
I think I know what George was saying even though you were trying to be funny
in your answer even though you were not very funny. At CES I will meet people
like Tom in public only. My dad said so. No going to hotel rooms because well
you know.
Listen everybody so far Tom has started being nice to me and he even sends me
instant messages on AOL which is cool! On AOL his name is SerfChop and I did
not get it the first time until he told me who he was. I talked to him right
before Roofus and I went to school today and now I am back.
Paragraph time. I remembered
I would have been back earlier except their was trouble after school with
Roofuses sister Roeetha. She is a Senior and her parents liked the name Aretha
from Aretha Franklan and made up Roeetha. Anyway Roeetha is fat! She could
play football with the guys. After school a boy came over to her and teased her
and asked Roeetha if she was a Diesel Dike. Roeetha carries this black red and
green African Flag big pocket book and she womped the guy in the face with it.
It is not so funny because Roeetha keeps a big red brick she found on the
street in the bag just in case she says. Well the boy was knocked down and was
bleeding from his nose when Roeetha asked Roofus what a Diesel Dike is. When
Roofus told her she went to hit the boy with the bag again even harder but
Roofus stopped her. Anyway I am home now. Some people laughed and thought if
was funny. The boy did not. This is not about audio but nobody evers answers my
audio questions so.
I will be back later
Kevin Laing
PS: Will somebody please please tell me if I should think about ditching my NAD
CD player or my Crown Macro for my next step or maybe it is a crawl up the
high end? Please?
Gruvmyster
> And so now the ABXers can Lord it over the rest of us again.
And all Singh would've had to do is pass the test. What a shame!;-)
> Have fun guys!
You mean we haven't been all along?
Doug (BTW, not an "ABXer")
SDuraybito
Have fun guys!
Siegfried
-- Opinion: a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive
knowledge --
Peter Corey
SDuraybito wrote:
> And so now the ABXers can Lord it over the rest of us again.
>
> Have fun guys!
>
> Siegfried
>
/////// ___
| | | |
| =) > > > > > |\_ |
[ _) |/ |
| \_-| |___|
| / // \\
/____ \
| A B X | ............................... ;-)
=========
Gary Eickmeier/Susan Andrus
>
> And so now the ABXers can Lord it over the rest of us again.
>
> Have fun guys!
What "rest of us"? Are you saying you still aren't convinced? You are
free to learn something and change your mind, you know.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier/Susan Andrus
> The only evidence that this test provides is that Greg was unable to detect
> differences between two cables given the agreed upon test condition. That
> this result happens frequently suggests, to me, two possible conclusions:
> 1) that there really aren't any audible differences between those two cables
> or 2) that there may be audible differences between the cables but the test
> is incapable of revealing such differences.
Let's reflect for a moment on the audacity of this statement. There really are
audible differences, but a listening test is not capable of revealing them. So
what kind of test IS able to reveal them? A poll of 100 hi fi salesmen?
But maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe all he means is that double blind testing is
not as revealing as sighted testing. Well, that may be so, but the only way to
prove it would be a double blind test.
Gary Eickmeier
Gruvmyster
> Why do you think there were so many people willing to bet money the test
> would
> result as it did? Because there haven't ever been positive results.
The real joke is this: I have never taken a DBT with cable. I most likely never
will. Yet when I bet Singh, I knew I would win.
How? Some reading, a basic electronics course in high school, and a strong
belief that electrons do not have brains.
I don't want to rub it in too bad, though... NOT!:-)
Doug
Greg Pavlov
Howard Ferstler (hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu) wrote:
:
: And that, everybody, is that.
:
... and with a little bit of grace by
everyone, that is how it would stay.
greg pavlov
[not affiliated with Canisius College]
Peter Corey
Point well taken Gary ;
Next time he should be given the option .
/////// ___
| | | |
| =) |\_ | ____
[ _) |/ | | |
| \_-| |___|~~~~~|_ __|
| / // \\
/____ \
| A B X |
=========
/////// ___
| | | |
| =) |\_ | ____
C _) |/ | | |
| \_-| |___|~~~~~|____|
| / // \\
/___\
|D B T|
========= .......... :-)
After which he can again run for the hills !
Arny Krüger
SDuraybito wrote in message <19981027213238...@ng114.aol.com>...
>And so now the ABXers can Lord it over the rest of us again.
>
>Have fun guys!
"Lording over" is not the goal. The goal is to disseminate knowlege that will
enhance your enjoyment of your audio hobby, like it has, ours.
Arny Krüger
Gruvmyster wrote in message <36369DA7...@idt.net>...
>SDuraybito wrote:
>
>> And so now the ABXers can Lord it over the rest of us again.
>
>
>> Have fun guys!
>
>You mean we haven't been all along?
>
>Doug (BTW, not an "ABXer")
Yeah, but like a democrat who wins by betting on republicans winning the
election... ;-)
Arny Krüger
Peter Corey wrote in message <3636D151...@worldnet.att.net>...
Problem being, plan "A" is a double blind test, and plan "B" is a double blind
test. So what is to choose?
No sighted evaluation can be counted on to be reliable enough to be
definitive.
Arny Krüger
Sandman wrote in message <7158th$j1p$5...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>
>I think I'll take a pause from scanning this NG long enough to digest a
>sandwich.
>I'll try to assemble it "double-blind".
If the phrase applied, even vaguely, this might even be a tad funny.
Showing, yet again, how abjectly clueless you are about what double blind
tests are for.
Go stand with the Midbot and his clique. ;-(
Surfshop
>
> Howard Ferstler (hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu) wrote:
> :
> : And that, everybody, is that.
> :
>
> ... and with a little bit of grace by
> everyone, that is how it would stay.
Hello? This is RAO. Are you into "grace" now?
Barry Rothman
say it was underwhelming.
TorResist
>Personally, I looked at the system used for the big test, and I must
>say it was underwhelming.
Yes Barry. Almost laughably so from my perspective as well. And that's a big
reason why, IMO, high end often gets a bad rap.
My own system is an edge of the art stretch. Super revealing. I've tried tweaks
and cable changes here that have a pretty blatant effect, and then, all agog,
ran the new gear over to a friends house with the expectation that they'll make
the same difference there. In my friends system--it's a sort of middlin' high
end system-- I couldn't hear a blessed difference at all!
Now, if it was just expectation or placebo in my system, you'd think that'd I'd
be even MORE apt to hear the imaginary difference in another system; I have a
bigger bet running, mentally speaking, that there IS a difference, since I shot
my mouth off and drove a dozen miles just to show the difference off.
A problem I see in high end is that people often try to make changes to
mediocre systems that will barely be audible there, if at all, and which are
quite audible in extreme systems, and then you have the high end nay-sayer
dopes who only listen on mid fi surround systems saying Nyah! Nyah! etc...
The moral, for me, is that a tire compound change that makes a big difference
on an Indy car will make no difference on your old VW bus. But lots of foolish
people still put those new tires on that bus and get laughed at by other VW
drivers.
Tor B
SJMARCY
>say it was underwhelming.
<Yes Barry. Almost laughably so from my perspective as well. And that's a big
reason why, IMO, high end often gets a bad rap.
>
Bear in mind that the components were of his choosing and that he claimed to
have heard the differences using that equipment so they used it in the test to
test his claim. What is wrong with that?
Stan
Sandman
Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in article
<716ulv$5ib$1...@excalibur.flash.net>...
I can't believe you took my silly words so seriously!
Sandman
George M. Middius
Krooborg-to-English Dictionary.
Sandman:
>>>I think I'll take a pause from scanning this NG long enough to digest a
>>>sandwich. I'll try to assemble it "double-blind".
Krooborg:
>> If the phrase applied, even vaguely, this might even be a tad funny.
>> Showing, yet again, how abjectly clueless you are about what double blind
>> tests are for.
>> Go stand with the Midbot and his clique. ;-(
Sandman:
>I can't believe you took my silly words so seriously!
Actually, Jim, that was poor Arnii's idea of a "joke." The
Beast's serious tone sounds more like a human joking around.
It's perverse but true.
TorResist
>have heard the differences using that equipment so they used it in the test
>to
>test his claim. What is wrong with that?
>Stan
You missed the point Stan. So let me back up and re-use the awkward VW bus
analogy (Pun not intended):
The guy who puts the racing tire compound on his VW bus may well believe it
makes a difference until you time him on a 1/4 mile track. That's analogous to
Greg and his very underwhelming VW bus, self-chosen test system. Who's arguing
with that? I have no idea if there are differences in those cables because I
never heard them in my system. Blind or otherwise.
Still, I do have a whole host of other problems with the test methodology, some
of which I've elaborated here before and don't want to get into again. Suffice
it to say that the test mind-set, the listening style one must use in an abx
identification, "right or wrong" experment is quite possibly self-defeating. As
my friends at Rockefeller U research lab tell me, one cannot scientifically
generalize from in vitro to a dissimilar in vivo setting without examining the
differences between the experimental and the real setting. All the experiment
does without that exploration is provide tautologous results, results that are
logically consistent in a given context but may not apply outside it. Now,
that's a can of worms I'd rather not open up again since it'll end up with a
"Your mother wears combat boots and mine is pretty!" kind of deal on this
ridiculous newsgroup. Last time I discussed it, several of the
Experimenter-Freaks admitted that, well, yes: "Since we cannot prove that the
ABX mindset does NOT confabulate the experiment, we can only state our
experimental conclusions as isolated experimental conclusions. Big deal. Fuck
you rich boy!" ;-)
With that aside, (far aside, hopefully) all I suggested in my last post was
that in many instances, differences that are audible on one level system are
inaudible on another. I've experienced that myself. More often than once. And
this, when the *Placebologists* would predict the opposite. I've said that
this is one of the reasons why high end gets a bad rap. So, like they say on
the docks at Newark: "Do youze got a problem wid dat now or what?" :-)
Tor B
SJMARCY
to test his claim. What is wrong with that?>
analogy (Pun not intended):>
So basically you are conceding that Greg thought he heard differences from the
speaker wire but there actually was no change to the sound?
I have already suggested that there be some followup tests..I hope that they
occur.
Stan
TorResist
>the
>speaker wire but there actually was no change to the sound?
Yes and no. It remains remotely possible (though IMO highly highly doubtful
given the mediocre system) that Greg could hear differences while listening at
leisure that were rendered inaudible by a style of listening that requires a
great deal of quick mental shuttling and multi-tasking, if you will. In this
case, as I said above, IMO, the probablity is he thought he heard what he
really didn't.
If the larger question you're asking me is whether I think people are capable
of both fooling themselves and being fooled? Of course I do. Only a fool who's
been utterly fooled would say otherwise. I've seen the placebo thing in
different grades of leather we use for a certain recliner. I have a few killer
salemen who, if they were dishonest, could sell ice cubes to Eskimos over the
home shopping network! I saw one, for fun, convince a person that the identical
Aniline dyed in two different colors had an entirely different feel to the
touch.
Tor B
Sandman
George M. Middius <Glan...@jiffy.erols.com> wrote in article
<36b945ff....@news.erols.com>...
Oh. I'll take your word for it, as you've had far more experience than I
in translating the Beast's obtuse language. (I still can't believe my
drivel about making a sandwich even attracted ANY response from ANYONE!)
By the way, I did try to make it double blind - turkey and provolone turned
out to be ham & swiss and the side of the bread with the mustard on it
ended up inverted and I got mustard all over my hands on the very first
bite! And the mayo dripped down my chin all the way to...
I think I'll stick to "sighted" sandwich-making from now on.
Sandman
Stewart Pinkerton
>Personally, I looked at the system used for the big test, and I must
>say it was underwhelming.
It was the system of Greg's choice, and the same system on which he
had claimed to hear those 'vast' differences, so don't even think
about it!
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
>Barry wrote:
>>Personally, I looked at the system used for the big test, and I must
>>say it was underwhelming.
>
>Yes Barry. Almost laughably so from my perspective as well. And that's a big
>reason why, IMO, high end often gets a bad rap.
>
>My own system is an edge of the art stretch. Super revealing. I've tried tweaks
>and cable changes here that have a pretty blatant effect, and then, all agog,
>ran the new gear over to a friends house with the expectation that they'll make
>the same difference there. In my friends system--it's a sort of middlin' high
>end system-- I couldn't hear a blessed difference at all!
>Now, if it was just expectation or placebo in my system, you'd think that'd I'd
>be even MORE apt to hear the imaginary difference in another system; I have a
>bigger bet running, mentally speaking, that there IS a difference, since I shot
>my mouth off and drove a dozen miles just to show the difference off.
So, is everyone going round to your house next weekend? :-)
Remember, this is the system of Greg's choice, and the self-same one
on which he already claimed to hear those 'vast' differences in cable
sound, so don't even start that game!
>A problem I see in high end is that people often try to make changes to
>mediocre systems that will barely be audible there, if at all, and which are
>quite audible in extreme systems, and then you have the high end nay-sayer
>dopes who only listen on mid fi surround systems saying Nyah! Nyah! etc...
And then you have the guys with the $130,000 systems who just *know*
that all those dollars must have bought better sound........
Arny Krüger
Sandman wrote in message <717ggp$p1d$2...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>
>
>Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in article
><716ulv$5ib$1...@excalibur.flash.net>...
>>
>> Sandman wrote in message <7158th$j1p$5...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>> >
>> >sandwich.
>> >I'll try to assemble it "double-blind".
>>
>>
>>
>> Showing, yet again, how abjectly clueless you are about what double blind
>> tests are for.
>>
>> Go stand with the Midbot and his clique. ;-(
>
I never see any difference in the sillyness content of your words. ;-)
Arny Krüger
TorResist wrote in message <19981028121723...@ng119.aol.com>...
>>So basically you are conceding that Greg thought he heard differences from
>>the
>>speaker wire but there actually was no change to the sound?
>
>Yes and no. It remains remotely possible (though IMO highly highly doubtful
>given the mediocre system) that Greg could hear differences while listening
at
>leisure that were rendered inaudible by a style of listening that requires a
>great deal of quick mental shuttling and multi-tasking, if you will.
For his next trick, Greg has signed up for a double blind test where time is
entirely at his discression. Want to bet he'll do better?
>In this case, as I said above, IMO, the probablity is he thought he heard
what he
>really didn't.
Exactly. You do a lot better at audio than you do at slandering the dead. You
really ought to stick to audio.
Arny Krüger
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message <36374da5...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>torr...@aol.com (TorResist) writes:
>
>And then you have the guys with the $130,000 systems who just *know*
>that all those dollars must have bought better sound........
>
Basically, Tor's admitting that if your system costs $129,999.99 or less,
Radio Shack interconnects are all you need. I agree with that. Don't you? ;-)
Arny Krüger
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message <36374d45...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>Barry Rothman <brot...@pop3.concentric.net> writes:
>
>>Personally, I looked at the system used for the big test, and I must
>>say it was underwhelming.
>
>had claimed to hear those 'vast' differences, so don't even think
>about it!
>
I think that Tor ought to raise a bet that would make it worth Tom's while to
visit his magic listening room.
Brian Leupp
>
> Ken Bauernfreund wrote in message
> <__cZ1.10052$yb5.6...@news.rdc1.sdca.home.com>...
> >
> >That depends. How much would you think that mental alertness plays a part
> >in the detection of such differences?
>
> Here is a good question for you. The last time someone was bragging about the
> good sound of some cable or component, did they say:
>
> (1) It sounds so much better, it's mind-blowing, buy it now!
> (2) Enough of an improvement to be easily worth the substantial extra bucks.
> (3) Something that only the more discriminating listener with the finer stereo
> can appreciate.
> (4) Something that you will only notice reliably if you are listening very
> intently.
> (5) Something that you will only notice reliably if you are listening very
> intently, and your "ears" are in first-rate shape.
> (6) Something that you will only notice reliably if you are listening very
> intently and Mars is in a certain position with respect to Venus.
> (7) Something that you will only notice reliably if you are listening very
> intently and have 99.99th percent listening acuity at the moment.
> (8) Something that you will only notice reliably if you can somehow can
> reliably imagine that you are hearing a difference.
> (9) You'll never hear a difference, but there are other desirable advantages.
> (10) No logical reason to even look across the street to see what this new
> component looks like.
>
> AFAIK, most of the cables, CD players, and SS amps and preamps reviewed in SP,
> TAS, and HFN&RR are claimed to be someplace among points (1-3). but are
> actually more like among points (7-10).
>
> Quite a gap, eh?
I've seen most of them, actually-- but you bring up a good point. If (1)
through (9) are true, then what would be wrong with someone making the
purchase? In other words, if there's a concrete benefit at all (and I
iclude (8), since a reliably imagined difference *is* a difference),
then why wouldn't the desire for improvement, however subtle or
infrequent the improvement, be a valid reason for preference?
Brian
Gary Eickmeier/Susan Andrus
> Point well taken Gary ;
> Next time he should be given the option .
What option?
Gary Eickmeier
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>How? Some reading, a basic electronics course in high school, and a strong
>belief that electrons do not have brains.
Agreed. Only spin. :-)
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1998, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>Yeah, but like a democrat who wins by betting on republicans winning the
>election... ;-)
to bet that way.
Doesn't change one's ideology, either.
TorResist
>Remember, this is the system of Greg's choice, and the self-same one
>on which he already claimed to hear those 'vast' differences in cable
>sound, so don't even start that game!
C'mon Stew. You don't wanna pick a fight with me do you? Could it be your
*expectation* of what you think I *would* say is coloring your response to what
I *did* say? I already answered that in a different post. I said, more or less,
that there is an extremely high probability that the differences Greg thought
he heard were illusory. I never claimed there was no such thing as belief and
expectation playing a big part in perception. Hell, there was an article in the
Science section of NY Times a few weeks ago about how a patients belief in a
medicine that was *proven* to be ineffective shrunk a tumor, and then the thing
grew back and the guy died when Kruger (or his twin) told him the medicine was
a placebo! So belief is pretty potent stuff, I think.
>So, is everyone going round to your house next weekend? :-)
>
Sure thing! I'll invite ALL the Borgs over at once. But not until I count up
all the silverware, install a metal detector at the door, and put a chastity
belt on the family dog. ;-)
tor b
Stewart Pinkerton
>In article <3636BEAA...@idt.net>, Gruvmyster <dhau...@idt.net> wrote:
>>How? Some reading, a basic electronics course in high school, and a strong
>>belief that electrons do not have brains.
>
>Agreed. Only spin. :-)
ROTFL! Nice one, and works on several levels! :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
>>Remember, this is the system of Greg's choice, and the self-same one
>>on which he already claimed to hear those 'vast' differences in cable
>>sound, so don't even start that game!
>
>C'mon Stew. You don't wanna pick a fight with me do you?
Certainly not, merely reprising the basic facts, before it all hits
the spin cycle..........................
>Could it be your
>*expectation* of what you think I *would* say is coloring your response to what
>I *did* say? I already answered that in a different post. I said, more or less,
>that there is an extremely high probability that the differences Greg thought
>he heard were illusory.
I thought that, too. That's why I offered to bet him $500 that he'd
fail a blind test, *any* blind test. I think any advantage you believe
expensive cables give *your* system is equally illusory........
> I never claimed there was no such thing as belief and
>expectation playing a big part in perception. Hell, there was an article in the
>Science section of NY Times a few weeks ago about how a patients belief in a
>medicine that was *proven* to be ineffective shrunk a tumor, and then the thing
>grew back and the guy died when Kruger (or his twin) told him the medicine was
>a placebo! So belief is pretty potent stuff, I think.
I am familier with JuJu, aka voodoo. Same difference as 'high-end'
audio.................
>>So, is everyone going round to your house next weekend? :-)
>>
>Sure thing! I'll invite ALL the Borgs over at once. But not until I count up
>all the silverware, install a metal detector at the door, and put a chastity
>belt on the family dog. ;-)
Oh, I think you'll find that basic honesty is not a problem on *this*
side of the fence! :-)
Seriously, I'd love to hear your system in a decent room, you have
some excellent gear there. Shame about the tube amp, but nobody's
perfect! :-)
p.s. If Alice Krieg is coming, I'll *definitely* be there!
Barry Rothman
>
> >Personally, I looked at the system used for the big test, and I must
> >say it was underwhelming.
>
> reason why, IMO, high end often gets a bad rap.
> >
>
> have heard the differences using that equipment so they used it in the test to
> test his claim. What is wrong with that?
>
Perhaps this is all the explanation needed to understand why Greg
failed so miserably. Is it possible he is not the high end expert
some might want us to believe he is? If that is the system he chose
(with AR speakers - ugghh) then he shouldn't expect me to look for him
for system buying advice.
Barry Rothman
>
> Barry Rothman <brot...@pop3.concentric.net> writes:
>
> >Personally, I looked at the system used for the big test, and I must
> >say it was underwhelming.
>
> had claimed to hear those 'vast' differences, so don't even think
> about it!
Like I said, Stew, this might go a long way in explaining his poor
performance. (And I don't mean just the system) His first problem
might lie in thinking that system sounds good to begin with, and that
even cables could affect it's performance. You think those AR
speakers are anywhere as revealing as a set of JM Utopias referred to
in another thread? Even you would be hard pressed to say that this
system is something you would use to audition components (or even
software) with. Maybe Greg would have a hard time distinguishing
between those AR's and a set of Utopias in a blind test.
Barry
Powell
>Arny Krüger wrote
>
>At some point, our perceptions must be trusted.
>
Oh Arny, I will remind you of that statement
in many future threads. Perhaps you might
elaborate and dissect that statement more
completely. Either that or tighten up your
helmet - I think some sunlight just peered
through.
Powell
>Ken Bauernfreund
>If people weren't subject to test anxiety I
>would agree with you. And no -- I'm not
>trying to offer up test anxiety as an
>excuse!!! I just don't think that it's valid to
>make sweeping generalizations unless we
>know, for sure, how the test subject will
>respond in such a test.
>
Yes, I agree with the anxiety notion. If this
had been an actual subject test, the
physiological/psychological factors would
have nulled the trial run. We know that ideal
mental alertness is compromised by unusual
physiological conditions occurring within the
subject. The ideal physiological state of the
subject must be considered. Two basic
physical conditions that push the subject out
of the envelope include things like blood
pressure levels and blood levels of adrenalin.
Skew just these two physical dynamics and
the subject is unreliable. Do you think with
all the build-up, unknown people, money,
tension and more tension that those biological
factors in any way affected his acuity
performance? ... get real.
A little fun at Greg's expense: I would have
liked to have had the opportunity to place a
few monitors on him the day of the test. That
would have proven more interesting/entertaining
to the NG than the stated results :-).
>The simple way to confirm that test anxiety
>would be a non-issue would have been to
>confirm that Greg was able to blindly detect
>differences (of nearly the same magnitude)
>that were known to exist. He does that and
>test anxiety can, with certainty, be declared
>a non-issue.
>
Your point about pre-calibration of the subject
regarding his hearing acuity, an excellent point
of real scientific study... base lining subjects.
In psychology and medicine no one will sign
off on a test in which subjects are unknown
variables. There is too much time and money
spent in R&D not to cover all your bases when
engaged in commerce. Then there is the
shotgun method... ie Jim Johnston/AT&T paid
hack and Tom Nousaine. Quality control is
sifted out of muddy water from the advantage
of the arm chair. Hello Borg™, it's the clue
phone and it's for you :-).
Gruvmyster
> The moral, for me, is that a tire compound change that makes a big difference
> on an Indy car will make no difference on your old VW bus. But lots of foolish
> people still put those new tires on that bus and get laughed at by other VW
> drivers.
So do we have yet another challenge arising, one which includes your "super
revealing" system?
Christ, what a load of ignorant people there are in the world! Sheesh.
Doug
Chuck Ross
(Greg Guarino) wrote:
> I think the fact that the cables were level matched from 100Hz to
> 16KHz within .05 dB gives us a pretty good clue as to why he
> failed. Do you disagree?
Does this mean that the cables were -not- matched below 100hz and
above 16KHz, or just that it wasn't possible to tell given the equipment
available?
--
"Yes, it supposedly has problems in the top octave, but most
live music does not go strongly up that high, anyway, and so a
lot of recordings, many of which are overly hot up top, can
benefit by a small amount of high-end attenuation." - Ferstler on Bose 901
Edward Derson Hou
>
> Anonymous lo14 wrote in message...
> >here my friend isnt Streophiles "Letters.'
> >nor an rao newbie you are.
>
>
> What does this mean? You're just trying to set me up to flame you back,
> aren't you?
>
Ken:
I suggest that you simply ignore all posts and replies from "anonymous."
It is simply trolling for attention.
It's not worth your time, nor anyone else's.
Regards
-Eddie
>
> >_you_ claim sloppy scinece _you_ bring evidence.
> >failing that you posta retraction in due form.
> >
>
>
> Post a retraction? Or, bring evidence? Are you really serious? Or, are
> you just trolling for fun?
>
> I hate to even write any more words because I'd hate to waste the time on
> something that won't be read. But, I said:
>
> "And to be honest, in my opinion, that such a verification was not performed
> suggests somewhat sloppy science."
>
> Are you suggesting that I bring evidence that supports my assertion that
> verification of the accuracy of test equipment is essential?
>
>
>
>
Ken Bauernfreund
Arny Krüger wrote ...
>>>why wouldnt you grace this forum with results of your
>>>science with properly functionnig test instruments?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Now why the attitude?
>
>Indeed, now why the attitude with you?
>
>That you don't seem to think that you have any responsibility to support
your
>claims with a little work of your own.
I don't believe that I shrugged off responsibility to support my claims with
work. I was asked to grace the forum, not to take responsibility for
supporting my position.
>>Is it that you wanted to demonstrate a really intelligent response?
>
>Believe it or not, real scientists say things like this when others come up
>with ideas of their own and its perfectly all right.
Yeah -- I guess I agree. Actually, I can't help but to believe that the
only
intention behind this posting was to take a sarcastic shot at my posting.
Sarcasm is cool with me. I've always thought it was okay to respond in
kind. Which is exactly what I did. I also believe that I have offered up
some analogies to support some of "my science." If I was to specifically
get challenged on some of these arguments then I would have taken it
seriously.
Ken Bauernfreund
Arny Krüger wrote in message <714sir$4or$1...@excalibur.flash.net>...
Arny -- I absolutely agree with you on this. I think that you've hit part
of the problem right on the head. The issue is one of communication. As I
see it, there's an attempt to communicate two things: 1) the communicator's
impression of the absolute magnitude of the difference and 2) the
significance to the communicator of the magnitude of the difference.
For me a recent upgrade to my VPI turntable allowed me to better hear the
body of the upright bass on Miles' Kind of Blue. To most, the magnitude of
this difference would be considered quite small and insignificant. To me,
being able to hear this was worth every penny that I spent on the upgrade.
I might communicate to others that this improvement was HUGE. I would do so
because I believe that being able to hear the bass this way is HUGE (and
very cool I might add). I doubt that most human beings would care less
about being able to hear this and wouldn't spend a dime on such an
upgrade -- to them the difference would be tiny.
I assume that the writers of these high-end magazines perceive their readers
to be individuals who would also agree that hearing the bass better would
also consider this a HUGE improvement. I would assume that their intended
audience is not the average Joe who could care less. I assume that's why so
many people who care less about hearing the music this way find this writing
style so offensive. I would assume that this would also be true for other
enthusiast magazines.
Ken Bauernfreund
Nousaine wrote ...
><<<I'd suspect that during long term relaxed subjective listening, that my
>brain probably hovers in that middle ground. If I was to volunteer to do a
>blind test, I'd really hope that my brain was in peak jamming mode at the
>time of the test.>>>
>
>Really? All your high-end buddies claim that long term relaxed listening is
the
>way to discover those subtle details you speak of.
Yes, because the longer the term of the session, there is a greater chance
that there will be times when a good mental state will be reached that will
enable observation of the differences. I've found that it sometimes takes
me about an hour of chilling out and listening without thinking before I'm
feeling that I am really sharp enough to be able to detect differences.
I've also noticed that this is a point that I can't make myself get to. A
times I've noticed that going off and doing something else helps. For
example, on many occasions I've noticed more while off reading a book.
There have been many occasions where I've been pulled out of a good book by
the music and by an observation that something has changed. Actually, this
is part of my testing methodology for any new piece of audio equipment. If
that piece of equipment doesn't pull my attention away from a book while
listening to music to which I am very familiar, then it ain't worth it.
><<< With my luck though, the stress of wanting to kick that test's butt,
would
>probably send my brain into serious duh-mode. My
>personal and unscientifically-based view is that this is what happens to
most
>normal human beings during tests such as the one Greg participated in. I've
>been surprised at myself by how I even go into duh-mode someone watches me
code
>while standing behind me. It took me a long time to overcome that one.>>>
>
>Now why wouldn't the need to 'kick the test's butt' send you into peak
form?
>Don't we kick into high gear in search for the 'thrill of victory'?
For some, that might be the case. For most though, I really doubt it.
Unless, of course, we're really skilled in it. Do you play golf? Did you
ever notice how much more difficult teeing off at that first hole is than at
the others? I don't know about you, but that used to terrorize me because
of all the folks hanging around watching. This barely bothers me now
because I've gotten a lot better and am a lot more confident. But this
confidence has come through lots of practice, and lots of money spent on
lessons. I'd say an even bigger contributor to this fear going away is me
keeping myself from kicking into high gear. Controlling myself from
thinking too much about the thrill of victory has helped a great deal.
>Youu go into 'duh-mode' simply because someone doesn't think you can write
that
>code? Or the wrong person is in the room? Or that you are beign observed?
Because I'm no longer as deeply focused on the coding. Because I allow
thoughts to enter my mind about what that person behind me is thinking.
Because I haven't trained myself enough in being able to stay focused
regardless of what's going on around me.
>People perform their best under stress conditions. True some people choke
under
>test....but they weren't really prepared. It's easy to claim that you
really
>knew the answers after you failed the test and the answers are revealed.
Yes, but how does one truely prepare for a blind test? Probably by taking
lots of them. It takes lots of real experience to understand what might be
causing stress.
>Your difference-apology position is not supported by any known information
>about human perception or human behavior.
>
See my point about golfing above. I'm not a student of the science of human
behavior. But, I've played and watched enough competitive sports to tell
you that your argument that people perform best under stress conditions
requires some serious qualification. This would most certainly apply to
someone like Michael Jordon. But I really don't see it applying to a novice
I understand that Tiger Woods' dad used to walk around with a bullhorn
shouting out commands while Tiger was in the process of the downswing. He
was helping his kid to be better able to mentally screen out outside
influences. All I need for one of my shots to go to hell is for someone
around me to speak while on my upswing. According to your argument the
'thrill of victory" should enable me to overcome this. I think that it's
quite the opposite.
TorResist
instead of a single approach. It speaks well for that fancy Edinburgh
education:
>I thought that, too.
That's why I offered to bet him $500 that he'd
>fail a blind test, *any* blind test. I think any advantage you believe
>expensive cables give *your* system is equally illusory........
I smell something, chum. Why, it IS Chum! It's bait!
>I am familier with JuJu, aka voodoo. Same difference as 'high-end'
>audio................
Hmmmm... Is the difference between trolling and baiting that a troll looks for
ANY one to bite it and bait goes after a specific fish? Maybe I've got them
confused.
>Seriously, I'd love to hear your system in a decent room, you have
>some excellent gear there. Shame about the tube amp, but nobody's
>perfect! :-)
Ah yes. The provocative left-handed compliment. And here I thought my late
granny was the Queen of the genre. She once said to a friend, at a wedding:
"Dear, that is a *LOVELY* dress you have on tonight. I am *SO* pleased your
taste in clothing has changed."
tor b
SJMARCY
failed so miserably. Is it possible he is not the high end expert some might
want us to believe he is? If that is the system he chose (with AR speakers -
ugghh) then he shouldn't expect me to look for him for system buying advice>>
Ouch. Well, some have blamed the test, others the equipment, now it's Singh's
turn...
Maybe those wires, like most wire, have no discenible sound. That could expain
things too.
I hope that Singh and others do some more tests to shed some more light on the
subject. Hey maybe those HT magazine honchos who just did a wire shoot out in
the latest issue could also be listeners. That would really be interesting as
they really bad mouthed Mr. Nousaine on the last page.
Stan
Sandman
Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in article
<717pbt$st5$1...@excalibur.flash.net>...
Have you ever noticed any differences in anything?
At least your ;-( changed to a ;-). Was that a difference? Or merely a
distinction without a difference? Or merely indistinguishible
indifference?
Sandman
Sandman
TorResist <torr...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981028155011...@ng123.aol.com>...
> Stew:
>
> >Remember, this is the system of Greg's choice, and the self-same one
> >on which he already claimed to hear those 'vast' differences in cable
> >sound, so don't even start that game!
>
> C'mon Stew. You don't wanna pick a fight with me do you? Could it be your
> *expectation* of what you think I *would* say is coloring your response
to what
> I *did* say? I already answered that in a different post. I said, more or
less,
> that there is an extremely high probability that the differences Greg
thought
> he heard were illusory. I never claimed there was no such thing as belief
and
> expectation playing a big part in perception. Hell, there was an article
in the
> Science section of NY Times a few weeks ago about how a patients belief
in a
> medicine that was *proven* to be ineffective shrunk a tumor, and then the
thing
> grew back and the guy died when Kruger (or his twin) told him the
medicine was
> a placebo! So belief is pretty potent stuff, I think.
>
> >So, is everyone going round to your house next weekend? :-)
> >
>
> Sure thing! I'll invite ALL the Borgs over at once. But not until I count
up
> all the silverware, install a metal detector at the door, and put a
chastity
> belt on the family dog. ;-)
You think that's going to stop the Kroosausage? Better put a muzzle on
that dog as well!
Sandman