| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
... On Jul 9, 2:58 pm, "Walker" wrote: It's similar to a top level wine from the same vineyard and winery but a year apart. And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not accepted in the high end audio realm? Any of us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that particular wine, will think that both wines are identical and so will the guy writing for the food magazine but those used to that wine will recognize the difference immediately. And are more than willing to submit themselves to properly controlled blind testing. Your preconceived notions are showing. You might want to see to that. What I was referring to is that someone who is familiar with something notices subtle changes before anyone who is not familiar with it and I was using the fine wine as the concept of high end and not run of the mill. I have no qualms about double blind testing and I've issued a challenge if you read that far. I'm willing to be tested under my controlled conditions and by people who are qualified. I'm not about to let every Tom, Dick and Harry into my house and I'll only do it two or three times but I'm willing and prepared to be shown up if that's what reality dictates. Bob W |
|
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:58:44 -0700, Walker wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not alone. But believe me if you were to switch between your old cables and the new ones in a double-blind evaluation, you would not be able to tell one cable from the other. No one ever has been able to it. You see, the properties of wire are well known. Have been for decades. Between DC and about 100KHz, there is nothing that you can do to Interconnects less than 10 ft long or speaker cables less than 25 ft long without external components added to them that would affect the sound in any way. Have any of you actually tried a set of these cables or are you simply going by what you've read or heard and accepted it as fact because it looks good on paper? No, I have not actually tried a set of these expensive cables lately, but on the other hand, I haven't flapped my arms while I jump off a roof either, but I know that doing so will NOT result in my flying. Just as I know that nothing that one can do with wire and a set of connectors will have any affect on an audio signal, and for the same reason. The laws of physics says that wire is wire from DC to at least 50 KHz. I have, in the past, however been privy to a number of double-blind listening tests of highly touted and expensive cables vs the cheap molded variety, and nobody on a panel of audio experts, including some rather famous ones, could detect any difference whatsoever between the two. It's a point of refining what is already highly refined and the difference is very subtle but obvious when you know your system. It's not going to make any difference with a Radio Shack system but it blends in with the upgraded parts of a high end system and doesn't become the weak link in the chain. I do advocate the use of good interconnects which are well made. In fact, I recommend the use "quasi-balanced" interconnects (where the shield is not part of the cable, carries no current, and is just an electromagnetic and electrostatic shield. Good connections, kept clean and as air-tight as possible are important. It is also important for the wire used in the cables to be well soldered to the connectors and not just crimped. This is in the name of reliability and a low noise floor, however, not in the name of one cable sounding better than another. There's nothing wrong with decent lamp cord and interconnects slightly better than those that come with stereos but neither are the OEM connectors, transformers, tubes, capacitors, resistors and coils etc on high end gear yet some of us can't wait to upgrade them. Why not the cables that connect them all? As long as you understand that simple cables will neither enhance or detract from your system's performance as long the above criteria are met, there is nothing wrong with upgrading one's cables. Just don't expect a $1000 pair of say, speaker cables, to sound any "better" than the same length of 14 gauge lamp cord. It's similar to a top level wine from the same vineyard and winery but a year apart. Any of us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that particular wine, will think that both wines are identical and so will the guy writing for the food magazine but those used to that wine will recognize the difference immediately. No, it's not similar at all. Wine is the result of a long process filled with variables, many of which are NOT under the wine maker's direct control. Weather, rainfall, soil conditions vary from one growing season to the next, the wine maker cannot control these and they make a big difference in the quality of the final product. Wire. OTOH, is wire. as long as it's copper, connected firmly to the connectors at each end and the connectors themselves make decent contact, there are no variables. Now different cable manufacturers will tell you that the way they orient the cable strands in their products or the type of insulation they use make them sound "better" and may spew-out marketing mumbo-jumbo about suppressing spurious outside magnetic fields, etc., but this is all stuff and nonsense AT AUDIO FREQUENCIES. Now, at 100 MHz, it is every bit possible that these things might make a difference, but from DC to 50 or even 100 KHz in runs for speaker cable of less than 50 Ft from the amplifier and in interconnects less than 20 ft from component to component, these things simply do not apply in any audible way. If a couple of you are interested and have enough experience with audiophile systems to report back on it here I'll agree to participate in a test at my house with my system and the recordings of my choice. I'll have the components outside the stand with easy access to the interconnects and the speaker wires are all on banana plugs. It's all tube gear and can't be turned off and on rapidly but this can't be a rapid test and will take time between changes. It may be weird and I'll only do it a few times but if I can't convince you with 80% accuracy from 10 changes over a couple of hours I'll buy you lunch. However, if I do hit 8/10 you'll buy me lunch and suffer my ridicule. Who knows; it might be over quickly with three wrong choices but even on blind guessing I'll probably hit 50% and not crap out before six tries. Worse thing that can happen to you, aside from buying lunch, is that you'll enjoy a couple of hours with a kick ass system and you might even say "Screw the test and I'm buying lunch but I just want to listen to music". Could be That I would enjoy your system immensely, but OTOH, WRT your test, been there, done that. and there is no difference. There can't be. It's as impossible as jumping off a roof, flapping your arms and flying. Physics says that both are impossible and so they are. I'm in Las Vegas and some of you will be coming here because that's what a lot of people do. Email me and we'll trade phone numbers and maybe set up something. If you don't have a car I'll come and get you and take you back to your hotel. There are only three options; I can tell the difference, I can't tell the difference or I just like going out to lunch. Bob Walker Will do next time I'm heading out to Vegas. |
|
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Scott wrote:
: : And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines : is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not : accepted in the high end audio realm? It is, unfortunately, not de rigeur in wine tastings. It seems more common that in audio, but, for example, Robert Parker, the most powerful man in the wine world, refuses to do blind tastings, apparently: http://www.slate.com/?id=2067055 : I know a few wine connoisseurs, none of which have done any double : blind taste testing in building their wine collections. do you think : that is a problem? Depends on whether they make claims to the effect that wine X is remarkably superior to wine Y, X represents the terroire better, or whatever parallels the claims among audio delusionists. If it's just "I like French burgundies, and I particularly like this one, so I bought a case", then of course not. But suppose, to make up an example, a wine company started marketing bottle label demagnetizers, for $2000 each, and some influential wine critic said that the wine in the demagnetized bottle was smoother, richer, had a longer aftertaste, and expressed the winemaker's true intent with more clarity that one would think possible. And then someone started marketing wine racks made from African blackwood (mpingo), and gosh darn it if Michael Fremer's brother-in-law didn't see an immediate improvement in the flavor and nose of his Sauternes, which improvement only got more pronounced the closer they were to the center of the rack! Would you a) nod wisely and hope to save the scratch for the label demagntizer and blackwood rack, or b) laugh at these guys, and think they were deluding themselves, and should do a double-blind taste test to back up the claims? And sighted wine tastings give results that show people who think a wine is expensive experience it as tasting better, even if it's the SAME wine from the SAME bottle that they had previously tasted as a cheap one: http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/...tes_better.php -- Andy Barss |
|
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Scott wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:04 am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" wrote: ?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind conditions. WHO did, and under *what* conditions? Which simply showed that not all the relevant things were being measured. And yet this same psuedo-scientific misinformation continues to be pawned off as true and supported by "science' to this day. I know of no case where a measurable reason for audible difference was not found. Do you? There is also of course the whole realm of devices, treatments, and tweaks that have only the faintest (or no) rational basis for having the claimed audible effect in the first place, much less the substantial differences reported. In that category we can put the Belt's tweaks, Shakti stones, Mpingo discs, the Hallograph, the craziness at Machina Dynamica, LP demagnetizers, cryogenic treatment of CDs, and the like. So there are plenty of pairs of devices, including cables, or treatmetns, that would fit the requirements -- if measured performance does not predict an audible difference, yet the subject 'passed' the challenge, then they would be eligible for the million, because there would be no known physical cause. OK then do tell us about the "measured" performance of all the tweaks you just cited as paranormal. You are refering to measured performance. So it must be fair to assume someone has actually done some measurements. Except, that's not always necessary, Scott. It's not like science starts from a blank slate when confronted with every claim. Something that has no rational basis for making a difference -- based on known laws of physics and engineering -- requires evidence FROM THE PEOPLE MAKING THE CLAIM that is actually works. The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal. Michael Fremer made much the same objection during the Pear/Tara cables dustup. Randi replied: "We define "paranormal" as describing an event or a phenomenon that can actually be shown to occur, but has no explanation within scientific reasoning. So Fremer was right. Because it follows that any audible difference between cables will have a scientific explination. Now all Fremer has to do is show that the differences HE claims to hear ARE due to those well-known scientific explanations. Because cables typically shouldn't be different enough in the known parameters, to have differences. Yet he hears them routinely. Detecting differences between two varieties of excellent conductors of low-voltage electrical signals . speaker leads . via a direct auditory test, would fall within this usage. There in lies the debate. But it seems that some simply debate by declaring they are simply right. Why Randi decided to jump into this is beyond me. It isn't a question of paranormal activity but a question of whether or not the distortions of any cable are audible. The dead moose in the room for everyone on the JREF side of this debate is that it is quite easy to make cables sound different. Regardless, we of course have the right to accept this claim as paranormal in nature, and we hereby do accept it as such. We will even create, for the purposes of this experimental protocol, a special category of "golden ears," just for [Fremer]". I suppose yoy have the right to misuse words for the sake of fueling the flames between objectivists and subjectivists if that is what you are into doing. But it doesn't change the *fact* that any audible differences between cables will have a scientific explination and none of this has anything to do with the paranormal. Fremer still objected: "But there are scientific explanations for sonic differences among cables, including (among others) inductance, resistance and capacitance, all of which can have an effect on frequency response. Effective shielding (or not) can and does affect measurable noise spectra due to the intrusion (or not) or RFI/EMI. The word "excellent" is meaningless IMO. According to Webster it does have meaning. I think I'm taking Webster over you. Not sure what relevance your unorthodox opinion about the meaning or lack of about that word has on any of this though. LOL. It's *Fremer* you're replying to there, not me, Scott. *He's* the once who was quibbling about the word 'excellent'. That is one side of it. But the fact still remains Randi never managed to put any audiophile claims to the preliminary test. The onus is on the claimants to submit to the preliminary process, where the claimant works with JREF to come to a suitable protocol. Dowsing, ESP and other reported phenomena also have scientific explanations on tap (typically to do with psychological effects). So really, by your criteria, nothing he's testing is really 'paranormal'. He resolved nothing with all his grandstanding. He kinda made a bit of an ass of himself on the whole subject by painting people with an overly broad brush. Then when faced with his numerous misrepresentations of the facts he dismissed them as unimportant. And Fremer made a typical ranting lunatic of himself in his replies. Meanwhile, Stereophile decided Randi was a fraud because his real name isn't Randi. Atkinson later clains that was all sarcasm. Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would quantum physics have qualified for the JREF challenge before physicists figured it out? You're seriously equating the claims and effects that audiophiles tout, with quantum effects whose existence was confirmed repeatedly by multiple scientists doing careful experiments? No, I was asking a question in regards to the rules of JREF challenge. Certainly you realize that there was a time when many of the implications of quantum mechanics had not been confirmed by any experiemtnal evidence? Did you catch the part where I said "before physicists figured it out?" Before physicists 'figured it out' they had observed these puzzling effects under laboratory conditions. Big difference. But now I have to ask. With all this grandstanding what is stopping so called skeptics from simply taking on these so called "voodoo" beliefs in audio by actually testing the objects that are found to be so objectionable? What is stopping subjectivists -- the ones who actually beleive in this stuff -- from volunteering to win $1 million? If objectivists want to debunk things....why not actually do it? I would expect things like Belt tweeks to be easy pickings. Personally I just don't care that much. If Peter Belt and his followers are having fun I see no point it trying to stop that. Gee, and what is the typical response from subjectivists when presented with data gathered by objectivists? -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
|
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
This discussion about cables and double-blind testing is absurd
because the debaters have already made up their minds. The greatest scientist in the world could not convince Arny that he was wrong unless he had used Arny's preferred testing method. The most "rational" objectivist could not convince Harry Pearson, Gordon Holt or any subjectivist that they cannot hear the difference between products. Has anyone ever been convinced by what they read in this subject matter? Every explanation I have read that demonstrates why double-blind testing does not work makes sense to me. Arny would probably never bother to read past the first line. On the other hand, Harry Pearson would probably never read an article "proving" that you cannot hear the difference between cables or amps. In the end, everyone is preaching to the converted but no one is really convincing anyone to change. As for me, I know that $30 cables do not sound the same as $400 cables, which do not sound like $5000 cables. Whether the difference is worth the money is the better question. I believe that if you spend about 2-5% of your budget on cables, you would be content with the sound and not feel like you have been conned. |
|
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:07:22 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Jul 9, 12:37*pm, Dick Pierce wrote: On Jul 9, 2:58*pm, "Walker" wrote: It's similar to a top level wine from the same vineyard and winery but a year apart. And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not accepted in the high end audio realm? Um, it certainly is used in *some* cases. I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of wine tasting is not done with double blind protocols. Actually, that depends upon whether or not we're talking about formal or informal wine tastings. No formal does not mean tie and tails, it means that wines are being formally tested for rank, and yes, formal tasting is a wine test, and is always double blind as are food tastings such as those done by serious food magazines. I think a more interesting question would be how do the results of the double blind comparisons in wine tasting differ from the sighted ones. i don't think that question has ever been carefully studied. then my next question would be who buys wine by the bottle or glass blind? As for the lack of acceptance for blind protocols in high end audio, I use blind protocols in my auditions, does that mean I am not participating in the high end? The problem with sighted evaluations is that the label sets up expectations. If I were to give you two glasses of Merlot to taste, and you saw me decant one from a bottle marked Chateau St, Jean from Sonoma CA and the other was a bottle of "Two-Buck-Chuck" from Trader Joe's, you would have expectations that the much more expensive Chateau St Jean Merlot would be the better wine, and so it would be. This has been proven over and over and over again. Sighted biases spoil the test. In fact, tests have been conducted where the exact same wine was poured into both a cheap labeled bottle and an expensive labeled bottle and the wine from the expensive labeled bottle has won, every time even though both were the same wine! Any of us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that particular wine, will think that both wines are identical and so will the guy writing for the food magazine but those used to that wine will recognize the difference immediately. And are more than willing to submit themselves to properly controlled blind testing. I know a few wine connoisseurs, none of which have done any double blind taste testing in building their wine collections. do you think that is a problem? No. They are choosing wines that they like, they are not usually trying to choose wine based on which of a number of bottles is the best of that type. Double-blind testing in wine is done to rate wines for awards or for publications where ranking is important irrespective of cost or brand. Back in the 1970's, for instance, the wine world was shocked to find that a famous French wine institute had awarded their grand prize to a bottle of California cabernet. Nobody was more shocked by this result than the tasting panel of French wine connoisseurs who unanimously voted for the California wine. All said that had they known the wine was not French, they probably wouldn't have given it as high of a score as they did, thus validating the value of double-blind wine tasting in such judgings. |
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:59:17 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Jul 9, 9:04 am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" wrote: ?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind conditions. Which simply showed that not all the relevant things were being measured. And yet this same psuedo-scientific misinformation continues to be pawned off as true and supported by "science' to this day. There is also of course the whole realm of devices, treatments, and tweaks that have only the faintest (or no) rational basis for having the claimed audible effect in the first place, much less the substantial differences reported. In that category we can put the Belt's tweaks, Shakti stones, Mpingo discs, the Hallograph, the craziness at Machina Dynamica, LP demagnetizers, cryogenic treatment of CDs, and the like. So there are plenty of pairs of devices, including cables, or treatmetns, that would fit the requirements -- if measured performance does not predict an audible difference, yet the subject 'passed' the challenge, then they would be eligible for the million, because there would be no known physical cause. OK then do tell us about the "measured" performance of all the tweaks you just cited as paranormal. You are refering to measured performance. So it must be fair to assume someone has actually done some measurements. The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal. Michael Fremer made much the same objection during the Pear/Tara cables dustup. Randi replied: "We define "paranormal" as describing an event or a phenomenon that can actually be shown to occur, but has no explanation within scientific reasoning. So Fremer was right. Because it follows that any audible difference between cables will have a scientific explination. It would but there isn't any just as the "scientific explanation" says there won't be. Detecting differences between two varieties of excellent conductors of low-voltage electrical signals . speaker leads . via a direct auditory test, would fall within this usage. There in lies the debate. But it seems that some simply debate by declaring they are simply right. Why Randi decided to jump into this is beyond me. It isn't a question of paranormal activity but a question of whether or not the distortions of any cable are audible. The dead moose in the room for everyone on the JREF side of this debate is that it is quite easy to make cables sound different. Well, in a left-handed way, I think I understand. Since the laws of physics dictate that there can be no differences between the "sound" imparted by two different cables of the same length, then if such differences ARE found to exist, then the reason why they sound different must lie outside of the physical world, I.E. the reasons must be metaphysical; in other words paranormal. Regardless, we of course have the right to accept this claim as paranormal in nature, and we hereby do accept it as such. We will even create, for the purposes of this experimental protocol, a special category of "golden ears," just for [Fremer]". I suppose yoy have the right to misuse words for the sake of fueling the flames between objectivists and subjectivists if that is what you are into doing. But it doesn't change the *fact* that any audible differences between cables will have a scientific explination and none of this has anything to do with the paranormal. But science tells us that there can be no differences at audio frequencies. Fremer still objected: "But there are scientific explanations for sonic differences among cables, including (among others) inductance, resistance and capacitance, all of which can have an effect on frequency response. He's right except in one all-important regard: while differences in inductance, resistance and capacitance do have an effect on frequency response, the values of those inductors, capacitors, and resistors would have to be orders of magnitude higher than it is possible to build a couple of meters of coaxial cable to have or for a reasonable length of sufficiently heavy speaker cable to have in order for these cables to have to cause any audible affect on signals in the audio passband. Of course, some cable manufacturers can add external capacitance, resistance, and inductance to their cables to consciously alter the frequency rsponse characteristics of their cables, but that's cheating, isn't it? The whole idea of high-end cable marketing is that each brand of cables advertises that their product compromises the signals LESS than do their competitors. |
|
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 8:06*pm, Scott wrote:
On Jul 9, 11:59 am, ScottW2 wrote: Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. *Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of magical properties outside the laws of physics. the question isn't claims by manufacturers. It is to me and it quite obviously is to the JREF challenge. If so then why are they bothering reviewers? Why not make the challenge to the cable manufacturers. maybe because it is silly to challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague assertions that are pretty much unchallengable? I guess the real question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value. Ads are sales pitches not documentaries. A little google searching comes up with http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html which shows you what he actually said, and that he actually challenged Pear Audio's claims directly. You'll need to scroll down the page to the headline: MORE CABLE NONSENSE. |
|
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 10:40*pm, "Mr. Finsky" wrote:
This discussion about cables and double-blind testing is absurd because the debaters have already made up their minds. The greatest scientist in the world could not convince Arny that he was wrong unless he had used Arny's preferred testing method. Certainly some of the debaters have made up their minds since they claim to hear differences that can't be substantiated using unbiased testing. One would be hard pressed to find competent scientists let alone the world's greatest scientist (nominations please?) who would have confidence that sighted tests of speaker cables can reliably differentiate between small differences in sounds. Arny's methodology tries to minimize biases and yet be as sensitive as possible to detecting small sound differences. Please cite any instances where Arny has indicated that only his testing methods will produce valid results. The most "rational" objectivist could not convince Harry Pearson, Gordon Holt or any subjectivist that they cannot hear the difference between products. So let them reliably identify the differences with blind testing and then everyone will believe. Has anyone ever been convinced by what they read in this subject matter? Every explanation I have read that demonstrates why double-blind testing does not work makes sense to me. Really? How about blind testing doesn't work because the wind is blowing from the northeast or blind testing doesn't work because hearing can't take place without hearing. Its quite easy to come up with hypotheses why blind testing doesn't work but demonstrating convincingly that there is any validity in such notions is much harder. Arny would probably never bother to read past the first line. On the other hand, Harry Pearson would probably never read an article "proving" that you cannot hear the difference between cables or amps. Arny often reads past the first line to point out the absurdities associated with sighted testing. In the end, everyone is preaching to the converted but no one is really convincing anyone to change. Are you sure of that? It seems that the number of die-hard subjectivists here has declined significantly over the past several years. The subjectivists in this thread are greatly outnumbered by those disputing magic cable claims. As for me, I know that $30 cables do not sound the same as $400 cables, which do not sound like $5000 cables. Whether the difference is worth the money is the better question. I believe that if you spend about 2-5% of your budget on cables, you would be content with the sound and not feel like you have been conned. Everyone is free to believe what they wish. Unbiased testing has never demonstrated that there is any advantage to using exotic expensive cables over competent low-cost cables suitable for the application. |
|
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:54:53 -0700, Guenter Scholz wrote
(in article ): In article , Arny Krueger wrote: "Guenter Scholz" wrote in message .... snip the glib comments... an inductor is a coil of wire. An inductor is a coil of wire that has surprizingly little in common with a cable. In fact, cables minimize their inductance by simply having two conductors that are close to each other and have current flowing in them in opposite directions. .... well, I guess, it all depends on how the speaker cable is physically arranged; ie, how the individual strands are arranged etc At VHF and UHF frequencies, yes, performance MIGHT well be dependent upon how "strands are arranged, etc" but at audio frequencies? No. Heck, you can buy wire would resistors that are non-inductive and they are not very long.... ???? FYI, a wire wound resistor is a small 1 cm or so cylinder with wire wound on it and it is used to provide resistance. Of course this wire is a high resistance wire like nichrome and not simple copper. It is used to make wire-wound resistors simply because it has high resistance and dissipates current as heat. There won't be more than about 10 cm or so of wire. The inductance this coil of wire causes can be problem some in certain applications... ie you don't need 10's of feet depending on the application - in this case - the amp. Wasn't Kimber cable braided flat so it could fit into carpets... Braided speaker cable was not an innovation of Kimber. ... fine, I'm getting old and don't remember the brand... many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor. Simply not true. Most cables are formed of parallel strands of wire, and few if any of them are very good capacitors. Arnie, you'd be correct iff the wires were not individually insulated as is the case of the above speaker wire. He's correct anyway. Kirchoff's law and all that. nevertheless, even the strands of wire in your zip cord, not insulated as they are, will provide capacitance because of an effect known as the skin effect ... the gist of which is that depending on the frequency electrons do not travell uniformely in the wire What, pray tell, does skin effect have to do with frequencies between DC and 20 KHz? Skin effect comes into play at frequencies above somewhere around 10 MHz, but below that, the effect is nil. In fact at microwave frequencies, skin effect is the operative conductor model. So much so that at those frequencies one can dispense with the core of the conductor altogether. Ever heard of a wave guide? |
|
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Mr. Finsky" wrote in message
This discussion about cables and double-blind testing is absurd because the debaters have already made up their minds. It appears that you have made up your mind, for better or worse. The greatest scientist in the world could not convince Arny that he was wrong unless he had used Arny's preferred testing method. That would be a proven false claim, given my support for the ABC/hr and a number of other reliable testing procedures that I did not personally develop, unlike ABX. The most "rational" objectivist could not convince Harry Pearson, Gordon Holt or any subjectivist that they cannot hear the difference between products. There seems to be some indications that some of the leading subjectivist reviewers may have private thoughts and doubts about their life's work. Has anyone ever been convinced by what they read in this subject matter? Yes, tons of people. Even I had to be convinced to do the first ABX test. Every explanation I have read that demonstrates why double-blind testing does not work makes sense to me. The false claim here is that DBTs do work. What they fail to do are things that are known by other reliable means to be impossible. Arny would probably never bother to read past the first line. Easy to say, hard to prove. On the other hand, Harry Pearson would probably never read an article "proving" that you cannot hear the difference between cables or amps. Krueger has no doubt read far more Pearson, Atkinson, Fremer, even Moncrieff, than vice-versa. In the end, everyone is preaching to the converted but no one is really convincing anyone to change. There are actually a large number of people who have adopted the reliable listening test way. You can find them here and on other forums. As for me, I know that $30 cables do not sound the same as $400 cables, which do not sound like $5000 cables. Talk about someone with their mind made up! Whether the difference is worth the money is the better question. Whether there is any signficant difference once the hype and bad science is stripped way is the best question. I believe that if you spend about 2-5% of your budget on cables, you would be content with the sound and not feel like you have been conned. I know that there is generally no electronic or audible difference between $3, $30, $300, and $5,000 cables. In every reasonable case, what comes out is an excellent facsimile of what went in. |
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:58:44 -0700, Walker wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Have any of you actually tried a set of these cables or are you simply going by what you've read or heard and accepted it as fact because it looks good on paper? No, I have not actually tried a set of these expensive cables Then you're not qualified to speak about them and anything that you say is nothing but conjecture based on a common belief or doctrine of physical reality. Reality is challenged and disproven every day and we call it progress. That's why we have solar power, LCD TVs and cell phones and are planning a manned trip to Mars. Otherwise we'd still be churning butter and watching TV by candle light. The cable thing has been challenged and may well be proven in a few years with new instruments that are more sensitive or looking for something else to measure. Until it relates to something important no one will care but to the initiated it doesn't matter because we have it already and are enjoying it. I'll sum up by saying that I've done it and I've seen it and I know others who have as well and unless you've tried and failed several times you can't objectively say that I'm wrong and even then you won't convinve me otherwise but I'll respect you for trying and honor your right to pontificate. You are welcome to your beliefs but don't confuse doctrine with fact and I choose to explore and will continue to do so. Bye, it was nice. Bob W |
|
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 5:26 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote: On Jul 9, 9:04 am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" wrote: ?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind conditions. WHO did, and under *what* conditions? Dennis Drake among others when listening to various test pressings of his Mercury CDs, under double blind conditions if memory serves me correctly. Which simply showed that not all the relevant things were being measured. And yet this same psuedo-scientific misinformation continues to be pawned off as true and supported by "science' to this day. I know of no case where a measurable reason for audible difference was not found. Do you? You seem to have been claiming that standard meausurements predict that all CDPs sound the same. I simply pointed out that "those" measurements clearly did not tell the whole story and only served to fuel urban legend under the guise of science about the sound of CDPs. There is also of course the whole realm of devices, treatments, and tweaks that have only the faintest (or no) rational basis for having the claimed audible effect in the first place, much less the substantial differences reported. In that category we can put the Belt's tweaks, Shakti stones, Mpingo discs, the Hallograph, the craziness at Machina Dynamica, LP demagnetizers, cryogenic treatment of CDs, and the like. So there are plenty of pairs of devices, including cables, or treatmetns, that would fit the requirements -- if measured performance does not predict an audible difference, yet the subject 'passed' the challenge, then they would be eligible for the million, because there would be no known physical cause. OK then do tell us about the "measured" performance of all the tweaks you just cited as paranormal. You are refering to measured performance. So it must be fair to assume someone has actually done some measurements. Except, that's not always necessary, Scott. It's not like science starts from a blank slate when confronted with every claim. Something that has no rational basis for making a difference -- based on known laws of physics and engineering -- requires evidence FROM THE PEOPLE MAKING THE CLAIM that is actually works. I'm pretty sure that if one wanted to do this "scientifically" one would have to actually do some meaningful measurements to pass peer review. You spoke about "measured" performance. Are you now saying that we can speak about "measured performance" without the need of actual measurements? That strikes me as rather unscientific not to mention just plain wrong headed. Why are you refering to "measured performance" when no such measurements have been made? The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal. Michael Fremer made much the same objection during the Pear/Tara cables dustup. Randi replied: "We define "paranormal" as describing an event or a phenomenon that can actually be shown to occur, but has no explanation within scientific reasoning. So Fremer was right. Because it follows that any audible difference between cables will have a scientific explination. Now all Fremer has to do is show that the differences HE claims to hear ARE due to those well-known scientific explanations. Because cables typically shouldn't be different enough in the known parameters, to have differences. Yet he hears them routinely. Actually Fremer doesn't "have" to do anything. The challenge fell apart and never made it to the preliminary stage of testing. Nothing was proven or resolved. Detecting differences between two varieties of excellent conductors of low-voltage electrical signals . speaker leads . via a direct auditory test, would fall within this usage. There in lies the debate. But it seems that some simply debate by declaring they are simply right. Why Randi decided to jump into this is beyond me. It isn't a question of paranormal activity but a question of whether or not the distortions of any cable are audible. The dead moose in the room for everyone on the JREF side of this debate is that it is quite easy to make cables sound different. Regardless, we of course have the right to accept this claim as paranormal in nature, and we hereby do accept it as such. We will even create, for the purposes of this experimental protocol, a special category of "golden ears," just for [Fremer]". I suppose yoy have the right to misuse words for the sake of fueling the flames between objectivists and subjectivists if that is what you are into doing. But it doesn't change the *fact* that any audible differences between cables will have a scientific explination and none of this has anything to do with the paranormal. Fremer still objected: "But there are scientific explanations for sonic differences among cables, including (among others) inductance, resistance and capacitance, all of which can have an effect on frequency response. Effective shielding (or not) can and does affect measurable noise spectra due to the intrusion (or not) or RFI/EMI. The word "excellent" is meaningless IMO. According to Webster it does have meaning. I think I'm taking Webster over you. Not sure what relevance your unorthodox opinion about the meaning or lack of about that word has on any of this though. LOL. It's *Fremer* you're replying to there, not me, Scott. *He's* the once who was quibbling about the word 'excellent'. I have no problem disagreeing with Fremer. But your reference to that opinion lacked any context. you just floated it out there for no apparent reason or attribution to it's author. That is one side of it. But the fact still remains Randi never managed to put any audiophile claims to the preliminary test. The onus is on the claimants to submit to the preliminary process, where the claimant works with JREF to come to a suitable protocol. No the onus is on both parties and is pretty much acknowledged by JREF in their webpage. they acknowledge that a failure to reach an agreement on protocols and is not proof of anything about the claims being considered for testing. Dowsing, ESP and other reported phenomena also have scientific explanations on tap (typically to do with psychological effects). So really, by your criteria, nothing he's testing is really 'paranormal'. It's not my criteria it is the criteria of the JREF. I have already posted the relevant quotes from their webpage on the subject. If you disagree with them then take it up with them. He resolved nothing with all his grandstanding. He kinda made a bit of an ass of himself on the whole subject by painting people with an overly broad brush. Then when faced with his numerous misrepresentations of the facts he dismissed them as unimportant. And Fremer made a typical ranting lunatic of himself in his replies. Meanwhile, Stereophile decided Randi was a fraud because his real name isn't Randi. Atkinson later clains that was all sarcasm. Fremer often resorts to such behavior. it is not one of his qualities as a personality in the business. But it has no bearing on the fact that Randi was making numerous factual errors in this whole mess and dismissed them as trivial when faced with them. Fremer's volitility does not excuse Randi's behavior. Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would quantum physics have qualified for the JREF challenge before physicists figured it out? You're seriously equating the claims and effects that audiophiles tout, with quantum effects whose existence was confirmed repeatedly by multiple scientists doing careful experiments? No, I was asking a question in regards to the rules of JREF challenge. Certainly you realize that there was a time when many of the implications of quantum mechanics had not been confirmed by any experiemtnal evidence? Did you catch the part where I said "before physicists figured it out?" Before physicists 'figured it out' they had observed these puzzling effects under laboratory conditions. Big difference. They had? I think not. I believe physicists had concluded they had pretty much figured out everything there was to figure out with Newtonian physics except for this one little problem with black body radiation. I'm pretty sure they had not observed the many "puzzling effects" of quantum physics at that point. If they had I don't think they would have drawn such profoundly eroneous conclusions about the state of physics. But now I have to ask. With all this grandstanding what is stopping so called skeptics from simply taking on these so called "voodoo" beliefs in audio by actually testing the objects that are found to be so objectionable? What is stopping subjectivists -- the ones who actually beleive in this stuff -- from volunteering to win $1 million? I have already explained that a few times. a shell game is a shell game no matter how you dress it. But back to the point, why didn't you answer my question? what is stopping so called skeptics from simply taking on these so called "voodoo" beliefs in audio by actually testing the objects that are found to be so objectionable? If objectivists want to debunk things....why not actually do it? I would expect things like Belt tweeks to be easy pickings. Personally I just don't care that much. If Peter Belt and his followers are having fun I see no point it trying to stop that. Gee, and what is the typical response from subjectivists when presented with data gathered by objectivists? I'll tell you when the objectivist do a proper job of it. But I guess you think all the posturing and name calling instead is....more effective? more rational? |
|
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 5:25*pm, Andrew Barss wrote:
Scott wrote: : : And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines : is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not : accepted in the high end audio realm? It is, unfortunately, not de rigeur in wine tastings. It seems more common that in audio, but, for example, Robert Parker, the most powerful man in the wine world, refuses to do blind tastings, apparently: http://www.slate.com/?id=2067055 : I know a few wine connoisseurs, none of which have done any double : blind taste testing in building their wine collections. do you think : that is a problem? Depends on whether they make claims to the effect that wine X is remarkably superior to wine Y, X represents the terroire better, or whatever parallels the claims among audio delusionists. If it's just "I like French burgundies, and I particularly like this one, so I bought a case", then of course not. But suppose, to make up an example, a wine company started marketing bottle label demagnetizers, for $2000 each, and some influential wine critic said that the wine in the demagnetized bottle was smoother, richer, had a longer aftertaste, and expressed the winemaker's true intent with more clarity that one would think possible. And then someone started marketing wine racks made from African blackwood (mpingo), and gosh darn it if Michael Fremer's brother-in-law didn't see an immediate improvement in the flavor and nose of his Sauternes, which improvement only got more pronounced the closer they were to the center of the rack! Would you a) nod wisely and hope to save the scratch for the label demagntizer and blackwood rack, or b) laugh at these guys, and think they were deluding themselves, and should do a double-blind taste test to back up the claims? Neither. I have no interest in laughing at others simply because I see the world differently. That is the first step on the road to intolerance. IMO we have seen more than enough of that in this world. heck, you could have cut to the chase and just asked me about the LP demagnetizer given that I am an audiophile with a rather extensive LP collection. I have neither saved up for one nor laughed at anyone for enjoying theirs. Why is it about "laughing rights" for some? Why is it so bothersome that people enjoy things that likely are nothing more than a placebo. And sighted wine tastings give results that show people who think a wine is expensive experience it as tasting better, even if it's the SAME wine from the SAME bottle that they had previously tasted as a cheap one: http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/...tes_better.php So one can improve the percieved taste just by changing the price tag. Sounds like a cool wine tweek. And one that is quite effective. |
|
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:40:48 -0700, Mr. Finsky wrote
(in article ): This discussion about cables and double-blind testing is absurd because the debaters have already made up their minds. The greatest scientist in the world could not convince Arny that he was wrong unless he had used Arny's preferred testing method. The most "rational" objectivist could not convince Harry Pearson, Gordon Holt or any subjectivist that they cannot hear the difference between products. Has anyone ever been convinced by what they read in this subject matter? Every explanation I have read that demonstrates why double-blind testing does not work makes sense to me. Arny would probably never bother to read past the first line. On the other hand, Harry Pearson would probably never read an article "proving" that you cannot hear the difference between cables or amps. In the end, everyone is preaching to the converted but no one is really convincing anyone to change. As for me, I know that $30 cables do not sound the same as $400 cables, which do not sound like $5000 cables. Well, if they don't. then some cable manufacturers are purposely designing their cables to be fixed "tone controls" because simple runs of coax or 16 gauge or larger stranded conductors used as speaker cable have no sound. They merely conduct the signal applied to them. extremely long runs can cause a build-up of impedance factors that can cause a slight roll-off above 10-15 KHz, but that's about all. Whether the difference is worth the money is the better question. I believe that if you spend about 2-5% of your budget on cables, you would be content with the sound and not feel like you have been conned. If you spend any more than is necessary to do the job reliably expecting to get some increase in performance by doing so, you have been conned. |
|
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 10:40*pm, "Mr. Finsky" wrote:
This discussion about cables and double-blind testing is absurd because the debaters have already made up their minds. .... snip ... As for me, I know that $30 cables do not sound the same as $400 cables, which do not sound like $5000 cables. Q.E.D. Thank you for providing both a premise and proof in one post. |
|
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Guenter Scholz" wrote in
message In article , Arny Krueger wrote: "Guenter Scholz" wrote in message .... snip the glib comments... an inductor is a coil of wire. An inductor is a coil of wire that has surprizingly little in common with a cable. In fact, cables minimize their inductance by simply having two conductors that are close to each other and have current flowing in them in opposite directions. .... well, I guess, it all depends on how the speaker cable is physically arranged; ie, how the individual strands are arranged etc Actually, strand arrangement does not make much difference. Even extreme cases of that, where the strands are separately insulated, makes no difference. FYI, a wire wound resistor is a small 1 cm or so cylinder with wire wound on it and it is used to provide resistance. FYI, wire wound resistors can be up to 50 cm long. Even low powered wirewound resistors are generally far longer than 1 cm. There won't be more than about 10 cm or so of wire. Just completely wrong. Wire wound resistors can have dozens of meters of wire in them. The inductance this coil of wire causes can be problem some in certain applications... ie you don't need 10's of feet depending on the application - in this case - the amp. OTOH, if you you wind a wire wound resistor like it was wound with speaker cable, with parallel wires carrying current flowing in opposite directions, you have what is known in the trade as a "non-inductive wirewound resistor". Wasn't Kimber cable braided flat so it could fit into carpets... Braided speaker cable was not an innovation of Kimber. ... fine, I'm getting old and don't remember the brand... many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor. Simply not true. Most cables are formed of parallel strands of wire, and few if any of them are very good capacitors. Arnie, you'd be correct iff the wires were not individually insulated as is the case of the above speaker wire. ????? Speaker wire is geneally composed of two individually insulated wires. But, it still isn't a very good capacitor. nevertheless, even the strands of wire in your zip cord, not insulated as they are, will provide capacitance because of an effect known as the skin effect Bad science. Skin effect is not a capacitive (electrostatic) effect. It is actually an electomagnetic effect. Skin effect is not due to insulation. ... the gist of which is that depending on the frequency electrons do not travel uniformely in the wire That much is true, but the reason why has nothing to do with insulation. Skin effect has to do with the density of the magnetic field around the wire. A tube has far less skin effect than a cylinder with equal current-carrying capacity because the magnetic field created by the conductor is more widely dispersed due to the larger diameter of the tube. We certainly noticed doing ABX texting. ABX texting? Are you talking about cell phones???? But most critical we found was level matching across the audible frequency spectrum and that proved next to impossible to do. Sounds like a very pathological setup. you'd be suprised how poorly matched channels can be on older 'audiophile' tube stuff... Not really, because I am an older "audiophile" and did extensive testing of tubed gear back in the day. No, its very easy to ear a few dBs over many octaves. But how do you hook up normal audio components in a normal audio system and obtain such incredibly large differences that are simply due to reasonable speaker cable, and nothing else? .... like I said, you use some of the 'audiphile' cables, Been there done that. a longer run does help, Have to stay relevant here. and then use your ABX box to switch between said and, say, zip cord to your hearts content. Been there, done that. Suprising how difficult it is if your betting some money (beer) on your opinion :-) I'm not betting on my opinion, I'm betting on what I've done, what others have done, and what the basic science behind it says. |
|
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"JWV Miller" wrote in message
... On Jul 9, 10:40 pm, "Mr. Finsky" wrote: snip Really? How about blind testing doesn't work because the wind is blowing from the northeast or blind testing doesn't work because hearing can't take place without hearing. Its quite easy to come up with hypotheses why blind testing doesn't work but demonstrating convincingly that there is any validity in such notions is much harder. snip It is interesting to note that my attempt to define how such validation of ABX testing for evaluation of differences in musical reproduction might be done, here on RAHE a few years ago, the attempt wasn't met by constructive dialog but rather repeated attempts to ridicule and disparage (a) the idea of the validation itself ("it wasn't needed...abx was 'settled science' ") and (b) the specific suggestions of test techniques and sequences made by me (themselves used extensively in the realm of food testing and psychological experimentation). This dispite the fact that the validation techniques I was proposing were to some degree incorporated within ABC/hr testing, considered even by the double-blind enthusiasts as superior to abx for evaluation of music. I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Finsky, attempts at constructive dialog on this subject go nowhere. |
|
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Harry Lavo wrote:
"JWV Miller" wrote in message ... On Jul 9, 10:40 pm, "Mr. Finsky" wrote: snip Really? How about blind testing doesn't work because the wind is blowing from the northeast or blind testing doesn't work because hearing can't take place without hearing. Its quite easy to come up with hypotheses why blind testing doesn't work but demonstrating convincingly that there is any validity in such notions is much harder. snip It is interesting to note that my attempt to define how such validation of ABX testing for evaluation of differences in musical reproduction might be done, here on RAHE a few years ago, the attempt wasn't met by constructive dialog but rather repeated attempts to ridicule and disparage (a) the idea of the validation itself ("it wasn't needed...abx was 'settled science' ") and (b) the specific suggestions of test techniques and sequences made by me (themselves used extensively in the realm of food testing and psychological experimentation). This dispite the fact that the validation techniques I was proposing were to some degree incorporated within ABC/hr testing, considered even by the double-blind enthusiasts as superior to abx for evaluation of music. Exactly Harry, and you were trying to co-opt test designs/validations appropriate for *preference* testing into a *difference* detection test (ABX). I and others attempted to explain the fallacy of that conflation relative to validation. The methodology to validate a preference test is not the same as that for a differentiation test, as *purpose* of the test is different, thus the confounding variables that need controlled are different. You refuse to accept this, and choose to consider such criticism as "disparagement". That's your choice, of course, but it's hardly a fair evaluation of the history of this subject. I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Finsky, attempts at constructive dialog on this subject go nowhere. If you choose to interpret any disagreement with your preconceived opinions as "not constructive", then I would agree with you. Keith Hughes |
|
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Scott wrote:
: I'm pretty sure that if one wanted to do this "scientifically" one : would have to actually do some meaningful measurements to pass peer : review. You spoke about "measured" performance. Are you now saying : that we can speak about "measured performance" without the need of : actual measurements? That strikes me as rather unscientific not to : mention just plain wrong headed. Why are you refering to "measured : performance" when no such measurements have been made? There are well-established means of doing perception tests for peer-reviewed science journals. Subjwcts can try to differentiate two stimuli; judge them to be the same or different; rank them on a 5-point scale of preference; etc. ABX, plus a subject and stimulus sample size big enough to do simple stats on, would pass peer review at any good journal. -- Andy Barss |
|
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:16:42 -0700, Walker wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:58:44 -0700, Walker wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Have any of you actually tried a set of these cables or are you simply going by what you've read or heard and accepted it as fact because it looks good on paper? No, I have not actually tried a set of these expensive cables Then you're not qualified to speak about them and anything that you say is nothing but conjecture based on a common belief or doctrine of physical reality. Reality is challenged and disproven every day and we call it progress. That's why we have solar power, LCD TVs and cell phones and are planning a manned trip to Mars. Otherwise we'd still be churning butter and watching TV by candle light. Hogwash, Three years in Lockheed Missile and Space Company's Cable Lab taught me more about conductors than all the double-blind tests ever conducted. There is no way for a simple speaker cable of adequate wire size or an interconnect of the lengths generally used in people's stereo systems can possibly have any affect on the sound of the signal passing through them. It's simply not possible. If you want to believe in that kind of snake oil, be my guest, but you are deluding yourself. No difference exists because no difference CAN exist. That's been proved over the years by countless double-blind evaluations. The cable thing has been challenged and may well be proven in a few years with new instruments that are more sensitive or looking for something else to measure. Until it relates to something important no one will care but to the initiated it doesn't matter because we have it already and are enjoying it. Not likely. There is nothing in wire left to measure that isn't already measurable. Let me repeat: No one has EVER been able to tell the difference between expensive cables and cheap (but properly functioning) cables in any double-blind test ever conducted. Wire is wire at audio frequencies I'll sum up by saying that I've done it and I've seen it and I know others who have as well and unless you've tried and failed several times you can't objectively say that I'm wrong and even then you won't convinve me otherwise but I'll respect you for trying and honor your right to pontificate. You are welcome to your beliefs but don't confuse doctrine with fact and I choose to explore and will continue to do so. They aren't "beliefs" they are simple laws of physics Just as you can't flap your arms and fly like a bird for very good physical reasons, cable can have no "sound" for other very good physical reasons. Bye, it was nice. Bob W |
|
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "JWV Miller" wrote in message ... On Jul 9, 10:40 pm, "Mr. Finsky" wrote: snip Really? How about blind testing doesn't work because the wind is blowing from the northeast or blind testing doesn't work because hearing can't take place without hearing. Its quite easy to come up with hypotheses why blind testing doesn't work but demonstrating convincingly that there is any validity in such notions is much harder. snip It is interesting to note that my attempt to define how such validation of ABX testing for evaluation of differences in musical reproduction might be done, here on RAHE a few years ago, the attempt wasn't met by constructive dialog but rather repeated attempts to ridicule and disparage (a) the idea of the validation itself ("it wasn't needed...abx was 'settled science' ") and (b) the specific suggestions of test techniques and sequences made by me (themselves used extensively in the realm of food testing and psychological experimentation). This dispite the fact that the validation techniques I was proposing were to some degree incorporated within ABC/hr testing, considered even by the double-blind enthusiasts as superior to abx for evaluation of music. Exactly Harry, and you were trying to co-opt test designs/validations appropriate for *preference* testing into a *difference* detection test (ABX). I and others attempted to explain the fallacy of that conflation relative to validation. The methodology to validate a preference test is not the same as that for a differentiation test, as *purpose* of the test is different, thus the confounding variables that need controlled are different. You refuse to accept this, and choose to consider such criticism as "disparagement". That's your choice, of course, but it's hardly a fair evaluation of the history of this subject. I pointed out to you several times that in fact tests of statistical "difference" are routinely applied to the scalars in using such tests. Thus the base tests for validation were large samples with proven statistical differences in total and across attributes, across a chosen and agreed upon population of audiophiles. All the ABX test had to do was to show a similar set of overall differences among a fairly large sameple of people, using 17 point samples, to validate. That seemed too threatening, I guess. In other words the base test did measure "preference", but the preference of large groups of people of equipment reproducing music, with a proven statistical "difference" of this preference as a starting point. What other standard would you use to illustrate that there was a real subjective statistical difference (in preference of musical reproduction)? Moreover, the subjects do not even know that equipment is the variable being tested since they are monadically evaluating a musical sample. I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Finsky, attempts at constructive dialog on this subject go nowhere. If you choose to interpret any disagreement with your preconceived opinions as "not constructive", then I would agree with you. I beg to differ. You raised the point...I refuted it...and you and others simple insisted as you do here that you were right and ignoring the fact that I was talking about a demonstrably statistically significant preference as the starting point. |
|
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 10, 8:17*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:06*pm, Scott wrote: *maybe because it is silly to challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague assertions that are pretty much unchallengable? Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads? http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/123...on-bs-audio-ca... I read something about it. but I am much more familiar with the state of advertising here in the U.S. Enough so that i don't ever confuse advertising copy with impatial objective information. I guess the real question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value. *Some people hope for a better world. *With so much information flowing around in media, a requirement for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO. A better world? seriously aren't there more significant ways to better the world than policing ad copy in the high end of audio? *Ads are sales pitches not documentaries. *I don't know anyone who likes to get ripped off. *Do you? Indeed I don't. But I have only run across one person so far that actually felt ripped off after buying a cable. Have you bought expesive cables only to feel ripped off afterwards? I'm not going to take you to task for any of your personal subjective opinions. But I hope you understand that such opinions are just that, personal and subjective as opposed to universal and objective. *I prefer to consider them informed opinions. And this sets you apart from every other audiophile how? They are still personal and subjective. And I still support you in having those opinions. After all it is what sounds good to you that matters in your persuit of excellent sound. |
|
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:22:13 -0700, ScottW2 wrote
(in article ): On Jul 10, 2:00*pm, Scott wrote: On Jul 10, 8:17*am, ScottW2 wrote: On Jul 9, 1:06*pm, Scott wrote: *maybe because it is silly to challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague assertions that are pretty much unchallengable? Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads? http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/123...on-bs-audio-ca... I read something about it. but I am much more familiar with the state of advertising here in the U.S. Enough so that i don't ever confuse advertising copy with impatial objective information. As you must. Too bad an honest manufacturer cannot be believed because of the nonsense of others. It's also too bad that manufacturer won't get any interest from dealers when trying to get his product represented in the audio shops. I guess the real question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value. *Some people hope for a better world. *With so much information flowing around in media, a requirement for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO. A better world? seriously aren't there more significant ways to better the world than policing ad copy in the high end of audio? Is that a reasonable justification...that there is always a more heinous crime to condemn? I've managed to enjoy this hobby without dealing with Pol Pot, but I haven't been able to avoid bs cable sales. Call me selfish. *Ads are sales pitches not documentaries. *I don't know anyone who likes to get ripped off. *Do you? Indeed I don't. But I have only run across one person so far that actually felt ripped off after buying a cable. Have you bought expesive cables only to feel ripped off afterwards? No, I either buy on the cheap or build my own. But the sales pitches once only pushed at over priced salans have moved mainstream into Radio Shack and Best Buy pushing overpriced monster crap. That over priced garbage is even showing up on home depot shelves and displacing other reasonably priced interconnects off the shelves which is getting very annoying. The crap is as pernicious as caulpera taxifolia. I believe that one has to pay a certain amount above the price of Radio Shack crappola to get interconnect cables that are quasi-balanced and decently made, but this level of quality addresses reliability and a low noise floor, not sonics. I.E. I'm perfectly all right with buying Monster Cable's lowest price quasi-balanced cable (about $30 give or take a few bucks for 1 or 2 meter lengths.) It's well made, reliable and worth the price for the peace of mind. |
|
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 10, 8:22*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:00*pm, Scott wrote: On Jul 10, 8:17*am, ScottW2 wrote: On Jul 9, 1:06*pm, Scott wrote: *maybe because it is silly to challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague assertions that are pretty much unchallengable? Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads? http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/123...on-bs-audio-ca... I read something about it. but I am much more familiar with the state of advertising here in the U.S. Enough so that i don't ever confuse advertising copy with impatial objective information. *As you must. Too bad an honest manufacturer cannot be believed because of the nonsense of others. *It's also too bad that manufacturer won't get any interest from dealers when trying to get his product represented in the audio shops. Huh? Who in particular has had this problem? I guess the real question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value. *Some people hope for a better world. *With so much information flowing around in media, a requirement for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO. A better world? seriously aren't there more significant ways to better the world than policing ad copy in the high end of audio? *Is that a reasonable justification...that there is always a more heinous crime to condemn? Yes, extremely reasonable IMO. I've managed to enjoy this hobby without dealing with Pol Pot, but I haven't been able to avoid bs cable sales. Call me selfish. you haven't? So you have bought expensive cables and felt ripped off? If that was the case you should have gone with a vendor that offered a free home trial. there are many that do so. *Ads are sales pitches not documentaries. *I don't know anyone who likes to get ripped off. *Do you? Indeed I don't. But I have only run across one person so far that actually felt ripped off after buying a cable. Have you bought expesive cables only to feel ripped off afterwards? *No, I either buy on the cheap or build my own. Then how is it you are not avoiding cable sales as you claimed above? you kind of lost me there. It would seem that you have avoided the very trappings you seem very concerned about. I don't see where you have a problem. *But the sales pitches once only pushed at over priced salans have moved mainstream into Radio Shack and Best Buy pushing overpriced monster crap. That over priced garbage is even showing up on home depot shelves and displacing other reasonably priced interconnects off the shelves which is getting very annoying. *The crap is as pernicious as caulpera taxifolia. Oh c'mon. I have been to Home Depot. They still sell the same stuff they always sold. If that is what you want. I would think that even folks who are convinced that all cables sound the same would at least buy something along the lines of Blue Jean cables simply because they are well made. I'm not going to take you to task for any of your personal subjective opinions. But I hope you understand that such opinions are just that, personal and subjective as opposed to universal and objective. *I prefer to consider them informed opinions. And this sets you apart from every other audiophile how? Is every other audiophile alike? In the belief that their opinions are informed? I have never met one that thought otherwise. If you have please point em out. Just in this thread alone we've had numerous false claims debunked. * If I've said something false, I'm open to a rational explanation of what and why. I wish I could put you in touch with Andy Payor. I think he would have a few things to say about your assertions on the sound of TT platters. But I don't know how to get a hold of him. Many audiophiles do many home brewed auditions/tests/comparisons all with various indeterminal levels of rigor and out of that we find a multitude of opinions many of which directly contradict other opinions. I don't doubt your sincerity or integrity. but I do respectfully doubt a few of your opinions. They are still personal and subjective. *Not really. *They are based on simple and long proven fundamentals of electronics and mechanics. *It is the uninformed that must declare all things subjective as they have no other recourse. Again I have my suspicions that Andy Payor had you beat on that and he clearly drew very different conclusions than you did on a number of specific things when it comes to TT design and sound. Unfortunately the last time I saw his data was in Hong Kong 8 years ago. I wish I had copies. *And I still support you in having those opinions. *Some of my statements are speculation in the absense of sufficient detail to declare as "applicable" fact to situation described. *But in general the reasons I give are based in simple fundamental physics and indisputable. After all it is what sounds good to you that matters in your persuit of excellent sound. *In the pursuit of excellent sound, I think why is as important as what. What gives a single data point. *Why can provide you a compass and direction. Without why you are left with trial and error your only tool in a world of inifinite options. Knowing why can also reap great rewards in maximizing price/ performance ratio. I don't have a problem with trial and error. |
|
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message snip Exactly Harry, and you were trying to co-opt test designs/validations appropriate for *preference* testing into a *difference* detection test (ABX). I and others attempted to explain the fallacy of that conflation relative to validation. The methodology to validate a preference test is not the same as that for a differentiation test, as *purpose* of the test is different, thus the confounding variables that need controlled are different. You refuse to accept this, and choose to consider such criticism as "disparagement". That's your choice, of course, but it's hardly a fair evaluation of the history of this subject. I pointed out to you several times that in fact tests of statistical "difference" are routinely applied to the scalars in using such tests. For "preference" yes. Showing that the results of group A are or are not statistically different is not at all the same as a *difference* (i.e. a/b with other variables - such as participants - held constant) test with sufficient replicates to evaluate the response statistically. Thus the base tests for validation were large samples with proven statistical differences in total and across attributes, across a chosen and agreed upon population of audiophiles. All the ABX test had to do was to show a similar set of overall differences among a fairly large sameple of people, using 17 point samples, to validate. That seemed too threatening, I guess. Threatening, no. Uninformative, certainly. You want to use *as a reference* a test that a) has not been validated for difference distinction and b) that focuses on another parameter altogether, i.e. preference, and c) presents numerous confounding variables ( "...across attributes..." as you stated above). In other words the base test did measure "preference", but the preference of large groups of people of equipment reproducing music, with a proven statistical "difference" of this preference as a starting point. What other standard would you use to illustrate that there was a real subjective statistical difference (in preference of musical reproduction)? One that looks for difference Harry, not one that looks at "preference", however that may be defined for any given individual. That is the problem with your approach. When preference can be affected by a whole assortment of parameters, parameters that vary from individual to individual, from day to day for any particular individual, the results cannot then be correlated to any particular stimulus. You can say that there was a statistically significant preference for A, for example, but you cannot unambiguously associate that preference with the *difference* between A and B, only with the fact that the "A" population, at the time of testing, were more inclined to rate music from "A" higher than were the population that ranked music from "B". You have, in essence, performed a "music appreciation" test between two populations, where the changing of equipment is actually a *confounding* variable in evaluating the results. If you had each participant rate both A and B, then you must, perforce, introduce a significant time delay that introduces all the other physical/emotional variations that can affect enjoyment, and thus scaling, OR you have to use a quicker switching methodology that then brings all of your purported flaws of ABX with it. And throws in a variable scaling method to further reduce precision. Moreover, the subjects do not even know that equipment is the variable being tested since they are monadically evaluating a musical sample. Ergo, they cannot have training in detection of relevant differences either. They will, of course, also be subject to all the other "faults" leveled at ABX (ad nauseum) relative to focus, and attention, etc. I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Finsky, attempts at constructive dialog on this subject go nowhere. If you choose to interpret any disagreement with your preconceived opinions as "not constructive", then I would agree with you. I beg to differ. You raised the point...I refuted it...and you and others simple insisted as you do here that you were right and ignoring the fact that I was talking about a demonstrably statistically significant preference as the starting point. I beg to differ as well. You provided a refutation, the efficacy of which has not been demonstrated. OK Harry, here's a very possible scenario for you: Case A: Two different systems, A and B (and what the differences are is not important to the point) are tested using an ABX methodology. 20 people are tested, 20 trials each, and at p=0.01 the results for difference were significant. Systems A and B are measured electrically and acoustically, and are shown to be clearly and significantly different in response. Posit: The differences in A and B, while measurable and detectable by trained listeners, *on average* does not affect the musical enjoyment either system provides. Case B: The same systems A and B are tested monadically for preference. 100 people are tested for each system. The results show that at p=0.01 or 0.05, the scalar means are not statistically different, nor are the variances. *Your* conclusion: ABX has been shown to be inaccurate, and is thus discarded. No other conclusion is possible if the monadic preference test is accepted as a suitable standard. The *correct* conclusion: ABX has been shown to provide detectability for a measurable acoustic difference below the threshold at which that difference affects 'musical appreciation' however defined by the scalar descriptions used in your monadic test. Thus the monadic test for preference is shown, in this instance, to be an inappropriate reference. For your proposed test to be of *any* utility as a comparison standard for ABX, it would have to demonstrate detectability for the range of parameters for which ABX is used. You haven't done that, and IMO, it cannot be done, for the reasons provided in the case presented above. Please examine the case study and feel free to provide any rationale for why that situation cannot or would not arise, and if it does arise, how that does not invalidate your monadic preference test as a reference to validate ABX. You will keep in mind, I hope, that any reference standard must be shown appropriate across the range of probes to be validated. Keith Hughes |
|
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:45:29 -0700, ScottW2 wrote
(in article ): On Jul 11, 8:21*am, Sonnova wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:22:13 -0700, ScottW2 wrote (in article ): On Jul 10, 2:00*pm, Scott wrote: On Jul 10, 8:17*am, ScottW2 wrote: On Jul 9, 1:06*pm, Scott wrote: *maybe because it is silly to challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague assertions that are pretty much unchallengable? Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads? http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/123...on-bs-audio-ca... I read something about it. but I am much more familiar with the state of advertising here in the U.S. Enough so that i don't ever confuse advertising copy with impatial objective information. *As you must. Too bad an honest manufacturer cannot be believed because of the nonsense of others. *It's also too bad that manufacturer won't get any interest from dealers when trying to get his product represented in the audio shops. I guess the real question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value. *Some people hope for a better world. *With so much information flowing around in media, a requirement for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO. A better world? seriously aren't there more significant ways to better the world than policing ad copy in the high end of audio? *Is that a reasonable justification...that there is always a more heinous crime to condemn? I've managed to enjoy this hobby without dealing with Pol Pot, but I haven't been able to avoid bs cable sales. Call me selfish. *Ads are sales pitches not documentaries. *I don't know anyone who likes to get ripped off. *Do you? Indeed I don't. But I have only run across one person so far that actually felt ripped off after buying a cable. Have you bought expesive cables only to feel ripped off afterwards? *No, I either buy on the cheap or build my own. *But the sales pitches once only pushed at over priced salans have moved mainstream into Radio Shack and Best Buy pushing overpriced monster crap. That over priced garbage is even showing up on home depot shelves and displacing other reasonably priced interconnects off the shelves which is getting very annoying. *The crap is as pernicious as caulpera taxifolia. I believe that one has to pay a certain amount above the price of Radio Shack crappola That very much depends on what RS crapola. They used to offer a decent moderately priced interconnect. Not the bottom of line unplated contact stuff. A decent gold plated connector. Last time I went to a store (over a year ago) I checked on line to confirm stock. When I got to the store they only had their overpriced RS gold line (which as far as I can tell is just repackaging what I want and marking it up), Monster cable and some extremely cheap crap. When I asked for the cable I wanted, I found it was only in the stock room and only customers who actually asked for it could get it. Now they don't even stock having priced up the RS to monster levels. to get interconnect cables that are quasi-balanced Not sure what you mean by "quasi-balanced". All my interfaces are se. Quasi-balanced - Most premium interconnects are made this way. In a quasi balanced coaxial interconnects, there are three conductors: The shield, and two wires inside the shield. One of the wires is "hot", the other is "return" and then there's the shield. The "hot" conductor is affixed to both RCA connector tips, the return is affixed to both RCA connector barrels (completing the circuit) and the shield is connected to the barrel on only one end. It covers the whole cable from end to end but since it is connected at only one end, it carries NO SIGNAL and is a shield only. Cheap interconnects are only half shielded because the shield is also the return. One can easily tell a Quasi-balanced interconnect because there is always arrows on either the connectors, printed at intervals on the cable itself, or on labels affixed to the cable. The arrows point AWAY from the end that has the shield connected to the barrel of the RCA plug. Proper proceedure is to use the pre-amp or the integrated amp/receiver as the common ground plane so that all arrows on all cables point away from that component. Most people wrongly interpret the arrow to mean signal direction and usually arrange these cables with the arrow pointing in the direction of signal flow. I.E. FROM the tuner or CD player TO the preamp, FROM the pre-amp TO the power amp, etc. This is wrong the arrows should point away from the pre-amp/ integrated/receiver toward everything else. So there is one common reference point for all of the shields. THis arrangement is best for the lowest noise and prevents ground-loops. I also ground my preamp to a cold water pipe, but this is optional, especially if your listening room has three prong mains plugs where one is grounded. and decently made, but this level of quality addresses reliability and a low noise floor, not sonics. I.E. I'm perfectly all right with buying Monster Cable's lowest price quasi-balanced cable (about $30 give or take a few bucks for 1 or 2 meter lengths.) My biggest complaint with monster is that tornado RCA connector which doesn't meet industry stds and is so tight they have to be practically screwed on. They damage receptacles and put unnecessary strain on the entire assy to remove. It's well made, reliable and worth the price for the peace of mind. Every time I had to remove that monster connector, it was war  .For anything more than the RCA home depot (now only available in 6ft or more on my last visit as more and more shelf space is gobbled up by monster), I prefer blue jean cables. http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/audio/index.htm They tell you exactly what cable they use so if you want to know shield effectivity or capacitance/ft....you can. Except that they're only HALF shielded. The center conductor is shielded but the shield is also the "return" half of the circuit (so it appears from their description) and carries a signal so the shield is not "shielded". If you're happy with them, fine, but I wouldn't use them in my system for that reason. |
|
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message snip Exactly Harry, and you were trying to co-opt test designs/validations appropriate for *preference* testing into a *difference* detection test (ABX). I and others attempted to explain the fallacy of that conflation relative to validation. The methodology to validate a preference test is not the same as that for a differentiation test, as *purpose* of the test is different, thus the confounding variables that need controlled are different. You refuse to accept this, and choose to consider such criticism as "disparagement". That's your choice, of course, but it's hardly a fair evaluation of the history of this subject. I pointed out to you several times that in fact tests of statistical "difference" are routinely applied to the scalars in using such tests. For "preference" yes. Showing that the results of group A are or are not statistically different is not at all the same as a *difference* (i.e. a/b with other variables - such as participants - held constant) test with sufficient replicates to evaluate the response statistically. How can you say that? I was proposing two monadic samples of 300 people each. Much more statistical;u reliable than seventeen sample individual tests. In fact the JAES has published peer-reviewed articles that show that at seventeen samples, even the statistical sampling guidelines commonly used are in error...slightly in favor of a "null" result. Thus the base tests for validation were large samples with proven statistical differences in total and across attributes, across a chosen and agreed upon population of audiophiles. All the ABX test had to do was to show a similar set of overall differences among a fairly large sameple of people, using 17 point samples, to validate. That seemed too threatening, I guess. Threatening, no. Uninformative, certainly. You want to use *as a reference* a test that a) has not been validated for difference distinction and b) that focuses on another parameter altogether, i.e. preference, and c) presents numerous confounding variables ( "...across attributes..." as you stated above). This is a test technique used widely and statistical significance is just that....significant. Your charges are pure fantasy. You can't have statistically significant difference in preference without there being a difference. In other words the base test did measure "preference", but the preference of large groups of people of equipment reproducing music, with a proven statistical "difference" of this preference as a starting point. What other standard would you use to illustrate that there was a real subjective statistical difference (in preference of musical reproduction)? One that looks for difference Harry, not one that looks at "preference", however that may be defined for any given individual. That is the problem with your approach. When preference can be affected by a whole assortment of parameters, parameters that vary from individual to individual, from day to day for any particular individual, the results cannot then be correlated to any particular stimulus. You can say that there was a statistically significant preference for A, for example, but you cannot unambiguously associate that preference with the *difference* between A and B, only with the fact that the "A" population, at the time of testing, were more inclined to rate music from "A" higher than were the population that ranked music from "B". You have, in essence, performed a "music appreciation" test between two populations, where the changing of equipment is actually a *confounding* variable in evaluating the results. If you had each participant rate both A and B, then you must, perforce, introduce a significant time delay that introduces all the other physical/emotional variations that can affect enjoyment, and thus scaling, OR you have to use a quicker switching methodology that then brings all of your purported flaws of ABX with it. And throws in a variable scaling method to further reduce precision. Looke Keith. People are listening to MUSIC. THEY are asked to rate the experience. THEY are asked to RATE the reproduced music on a "liking" scale (that's how they express their "preference".) They are also asked to rate specific musical attributes (the sound of the violins, for example, or the sound of the tympani, or the sound of the guitars, etc.) When you have two large samples, exposed to the same music, and with only one variable changed (lets say the CD player use) if you get statistically significant differences in the ratings you KNOW that it is the variable creating it. The ratings are very similar to those use in ABC/hr, and is one of the reason it is prefered to ABC...it measures quality differences, not just differences. There IS *no direct preference* expressed in monadic testing....the only way a preference shows up is because of statistical sampling of two large bases or respondents. That is WHY I proposed this very expensive and cumbersome test as the "touchstone" demonstrating that a real difference in preference exists. Isn't that after all what we as audiophiles hope to achieve in our own testing? And as an added benefit, it is able to give an indication of in what area of musical reproduction that rating preference exists. Just like two years ago, you just keep raising the same old cannards and in the process show you really don't stop to understand the technique I am expousing. If you doubt it, consult a real experiemental psychologist or statistician. Moreover, the subjects do not even know that equipment is the variable being tested since they are monadically evaluating a musical sample. Ergo, they cannot have training in detection of relevant differences either. They will, of course, also be subject to all the other "faults" leveled at ABX (ad nauseum) relative to focus, and attention, etc. Absolutely not, since they are not doing comparisons nor quick switching. They are simply listening to one set of music, taking notes as they see fit, and at the end rating the experience overall and on certain attributes. Their are NONE of the problems of ABX. I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Finsky, attempts at constructive dialog on this subject go nowhere. If you choose to interpret any disagreement with your preconceived opinions as "not constructive", then I would agree with you. I beg to differ. You raised the point...I refuted it...and you and others simple insisted as you do here that you were right and ignoring the fact that I was talking about a demonstrably statistically significant preference as the starting point. I beg to differ as well. You provided a refutation, the efficacy of which has not been demonstrated. Except every day in many fields. I am not talking about a technique restricted to audio. It is a general technique used to objective subjective judgements in general. OK Harry, here's a very possible scenario for you: Case A: Two different systems, A and B (and what the differences are is not important to the point) are tested using an ABX methodology. 20 people are tested, 20 trials each, and at p=0.01 the results for difference were significant. Systems A and B are measured electrically and acoustically, and are shown to be clearly and significantly different in response. Posit: The differences in A and B, while measurable and detectable by trained listeners, *on average* does not affect the musical enjoyment either system provides. Case B: The same systems A and B are tested monadically for preference. 100 people are tested for each system. The results show that at p=0.01 or 0.05, the scalar means are not statistically different, nor are the variances. *Your* conclusion: ABX has been shown to be inaccurate, and is thus discarded. No other conclusion is possible if the monadic preference test is accepted as a suitable standard. First, 100 is too small a sample. I posited 300, which is generally accepted as large enough to show small rating differences if they exist due to the variable under test. Second, the test in both tests is for positive difference. There is no sense in a statistical "no difference". The applied statistics are different, but the concept is the same. The worst that can happen is that there is "no difference" (signicant at the 95% level) in overall rating, but there are differences in attribute ratings (again at the 95%+ level). However these are still valuable, and show that their *are* perceived differences in sound atributes even if their is no difference in overall ratings. So in this case, you conclude that their are audible differences. If both the overall rating and the individual attribute ratings show no difference at the 95% level, then you can conclude that in all liklihood their is no difference due to the variable under test. The point of this is to find a variable that does show up as a difference in monadic preference amongst a large group of audiophiles (or perhaps sub-seqment of same) in a test that is equally double-blind and which is evaluative and ratings based, relaxed, music-focused, and which doesn't require a forced choice. Then to subject the same variable to the standard abx tests for difference and find out how well that test fares in spotting those same differences....how many people succeed, how many fail, how obvious does the difference seem to show up. Only if ABX failed to detect the differences in any appreciable way would ABX be judged a failure. That's why I call it a validation test. If ABX is doing its job and is as good at evaluating musical reproduction differences as it is in spotting distortion artifacts among trained listeners, then this test should be a piece of cake for ABX.....especially as you keep insisting that the monadic test is less sensitive than ABX. However, insisting that such a test not be done because it is not needed ("proved science") or somehow inappropriate is simply begging the question. I propose that we see. That's a validation test. The *correct* conclusion: ABX has been shown to provide detectability for a measurable acoustic difference below the threshold at which that difference affects 'musical appreciation' however defined by the scalar descriptions used in your monadic test. Thus the monadic test for preference is shown, in this instance, to be an inappropriate reference. For your proposed test to be of *any* utility as a comparison standard for ABX, it would have to demonstrate detectability for the range of parameters for which ABX is used. You haven't done that, and IMO, it cannot be done, for the reasons provided in the case presented above. Please examine the case study and feel free to provide any rationale for why that situation cannot or would not arise, and if it does arise, how that does not invalidate your monadic preference test as a reference to validate ABX. You will keep in mind, I hope, that any reference standard must be shown appropriate across the range of probes to be validated. I have done just that above. |
|
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Mr. Finsky wrote:
unless he had used Arny's preferred testing method. The most "rational" objectivist could not convince Harry Pearson, Gordon Holt or any subjectivist that they cannot hear the difference between products. Wanna bet? Here's Gordon Holt, interviewed in 2007 for Stereophile's 25th anniversary issue http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/ "Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me..." As for me, I know that $30 cables do not sound the same as $400 cables, which do not sound like $5000 cables. No, you don't *know* that. You *believe* that. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
|
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Scott wrote:
On Jul 9, 5:26 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Scott wrote: On Jul 9, 9:04 am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" wrote: ?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind conditions. WHO did, and under *what* conditions? Dennis Drake among others when listening to various test pressings of his Mercury CDs, under double blind conditions if memory serves me correctly. That's not a very detailed description. I assume you would want the test to meet the strict criteria *you* keep saying tests to date usually haven't met. I know of no case where a measurable reason for audible difference was not found. Do you? You seem to have been claiming that standard meausurements predict that all CDPs sound the same. Nope. Straw man. And you should know better. Before physicists 'figured it out' they had observed these puzzling effects under laboratory conditions. Big difference. They had? I think not. I believe physicists had concluded they had pretty much figured out everything there was to figure out with Newtonian physics except for this one little problem with black body radiation. I'm pretty sure they had not observed the many "puzzling effects" of quantum physics at that point. If they had I don't think they would have drawn such profoundly eroneous conclusions about the state of physics. You might want to look up 'photoelectric effect', for example, before you attempt such arguments, much less claim that 'physicists', wholesale, had 'concluded they they had pretty much figured out everything there was to figure out with Newtonian physics'. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
|
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 11, 11:50*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:25*am, Scott wrote: On Jul 10, 8:22*pm, ScottW2 wrote: On Jul 10, 2:00*pm, Scott wrote: On Jul 10, 8:17*am, ScottW2 wrote: On Jul 9, 1:06*pm, Scott wrote: *As you must. Too bad an honest manufacturer cannot be believed because of the nonsense of others. *It's also too bad that manufacturer won't get any interest from dealers when trying to get his product represented in the audio shops. Huh? Who in particular has had this problem? *Who hasn't? *I don't see any low cost cables being offered in salons. I don't see ipods there either and yet millions of people have managed to get them. again I don't see the problem. Would you actually be in favor of dictating what private business owners offer for sale? I'm a free enterprise kind of guy. I'd rather let the "salon" owners pick their products and I'll pick my places to shop. I really don't see any cheap cable crisis. I've managed to enjoy this hobby without dealing with Pol Pot, but I haven't been able to avoid bs cable sales. Call me selfish. you haven't? So you have bought expensive cables and felt ripped off? *No, I've tried to politely endure sales droids on a mission but worse, I see declining retail availability everywhere. Seriously? You seriously see a cheap cable crisis? *But the sales pitches once only pushed at over priced salans have moved mainstream into Radio Shack and Best Buy pushing overpriced monster crap. That over priced garbage is even showing up on home depot shelves and displacing other reasonably priced interconnects off the shelves which is getting very annoying. *The crap is as pernicious as caulpera taxifolia. Oh c'mon. I have been to Home Depot. They still sell the same stuff they always sold. If that is what you want. *No, they don't. *They used to sell a 3 ft. cable. Last time I was there Monster was occupying that space. Is every other audiophile alike? In the belief that their opinions are informed? No, with opinions that are actually informed. Would you consider your beliefs on TT design better informed than Andy Payor's? You are simply trying to set yourself apart by declaring your beliefs are facts while other peoples' beliefs are just beliefs. Can't go there with you. But alas, many many audiophiles do seem to share your self confidence. Just in this thread alone we've had numerous false claims debunked. * If I've said something false, I'm open to a rational explanation of what and why. I wish I could put you in touch with Andy Payor. I think he would have a few things to say about your assertions on the sound of TT platters. But I don't know how to get a hold of him. Many audiophiles do many home brewed auditions/tests/comparisons all with various indeterminal levels of rigor and out of that we find a multitude of opinions many of which directly contradict other opinions. I don't doubt your sincerity or integrity. but I do respectfully doubt a few of your opinions. *Likewise. *My methodology in this case was simple. Take a bad case platter which rings like a bell and listen to the record strongly coupled to the platter and then decoupled from the platter. *If platter resonance was an audible factor, it should have been easy in such a case to hear a difference. I didn't. But you can't draw any universal conclusions on one particular test that lacked any number of controls including a same sound bias that may have been present. Certainly you can see the difference between your home brewed comparison and the sort of data that one would use to draw universal conclusions. You have set one listener up as a reference, yourself. You failed to provide important bias controls. You did nothing to calibrate the sensitivity of the test. what of the number of trials? maybe you had a bad day? I actually saw the write ups on a good deal of the work Any Payor did on developing the Rockport Sirius III. I have to give him a huge edge on rigor. *Not really. *They are based on simple and long proven fundamentals of electronics and mechanics. *It is the uninformed that must declare all things subjective as they have no other recourse. Again I have my suspicions that Andy Payor had you beat on that and he clearly drew very different conclusions than you did on a number of specific things when it comes to TT design and sound. Unfortunately the last time I saw his data was in Hong Kong 8 years ago. I wish I had copies. * So do I. I'm going to check with the folks at Continuum. They seem to have done research that may have actually been more extensive than Andy Payor's. The problem with this sort of stuff is that not everyone wants to share their research. I can understand why. I will also check with the folks at SME. |
|
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Andrew Barss wrote:
Scott wrote: : : And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines : is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not : accepted in the high end audio realm? It is, unfortunately, not de rigeur in wine tastings. It seems more common that in audio, but, for example, Robert Parker, the most powerful man in the wine world, refuses to do blind tastings, apparently: http://www.slate.com/?id=2067055 The bigger the name as a 'connoisseur', the more they have to lose in a controlled situation. It's analogous to the sitch in the audio industry too. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
|
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Walker wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:58:44 -0700, Walker wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Have any of you actually tried a set of these cables or are you simply going by what you've read or heard and accepted it as fact because it looks good on paper? No, I have not actually tried a set of these expensive cables Then you're not qualified to speak about them and anything that you say is nothing but conjecture based on a common belief or doctrine of physical reality. Reality is challenged and disproven every day and we call it progress. That's why we have solar power, LCD TVs and cell phones and are planning a manned trip to Mars. Otherwise we'd still be churning butter and watching TV by candle light. Did we ever 'watch TV by candlelight'? The 'common belief or doctrine of physical reality' is what lets you predict, with pretty good accuracy, that your TV and cell phone will work tomorrow. Indeed, that 'science' itself will continue to work .The laws of physics aren't likely to change wholesale overnight. Which is what some of the loopier audio tweaks would actually require. Would you say we should hold off considering them unlikely to have real effects, just because some audiophiles claim to they do? I'll sum up by saying that I've done it and I've seen it and I know others who have as well and unless you've tried and failed several times you can't objectively say that I'm wrong and even then you won't convinve me otherwise but I'll respect you for trying and honor your right to pontificate. You are welcome to your beliefs but don't confuse doctrine with fact and I choose to explore and will continue to do so. Your highly uncontrolled 'observations' do not necessarily generate the 'facts' you believe them to. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
|
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 11, 9:38*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote: On Jul 9, 5:26 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Scott wrote: On Jul 9, 9:04 am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind conditions. WHO did, and under *what* conditions? Dennis Drake among others when listening to various test pressings of his Mercury CDs, under double blind conditions if memory serves me correctly. That's not a very detailed description. You didn't ask for a detailed desciption. You asked who did it and under what conditions. I answered your question. *I assume you would want the test to meet the strict criteria *you* keep saying tests to date usually haven't met. I asked Dennis himself about these tests. He said they were level matched time synched double blind. What more do you want? I know of no case where a measurable reason for audible difference was not found. Do you? You seem to have been claiming that standard meausurements predict that all CDPs sound the same. Nope. Straw man. *And you should know better. here are your words from this thread. "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course)." You might want to check thse things before crying strawman. (note for moderator: I am leaving all quotes in tact for sake of showing that these were Steve's words in context) Before physicists 'figured it out' they had observed these puzzling effects under laboratory conditions. Big difference. They had? I think not. I believe physicists had concluded they had pretty much figured out everything there was to figure out with Newtonian physics except for this one little problem with black body radiation. I'm pretty sure they had not observed the many "puzzling effects" of quantum physics at that point. If they had I don't think they would have drawn such profoundly eroneous conclusions about the state of physics. You might want to look up 'photoelectric effect', for example, before you attempt such arguments, much less claim that 'physicists', wholesale, had 'concluded they they had pretty much figured out everything there was to figure out with Newtonian physics'. So that adds up to "many" puzzling things? I think you are grasping at straws here. And missing the point. That being many things derived from quantum physics would have seemed like magic 150 years or so ago and would have actually met the Randi challenge. |
|
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 12, 3:17*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote: Scott wrote: : : And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines : is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not : accepted in the high end audio realm? It is, unfortunately, not de rigeur in wine tastings. It seems more common that in audio, but, for example, Robert Parker, the most powerful man in the wine world, refuses to do blind tastings, apparently: http://www.slate.com/?id=2067055 The bigger the name as a 'connoisseur', the more they have to lose in a controlled situation. It's analogous to the sitch in the audio industry too. Do tell us how Robert Parker stands to diminish his name should he choose to use blind protocols in his evaluation of wines? If it has been so widely accepted among wine connoisseurs I see no logical reason that he would stand to lose anything by such a change in his protocols. |
|
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Scott wrote:
: Do tell us how Robert Parker stands to diminish his name should he : choose to use blind protocols in his evaluation of wines? If it has : been so widely accepted among wine connoisseurs I see no logical : reason that he would stand to lose anything by such a change in his : protocols. He assigns wines points on a 100 point scale (though I've never seen anything rated below around 76-80 points). He also claims to be able to recall with precision every wine he's ever had. Suppose he were subjected to blind taste tests, and it were discovered that his point scores vary tremendously from those assigned when he knew the wine, its year, its maker, etc. Down goes his reputation. -- Andy Barss |
|
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 12, 9:58*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 12, 7:45*am, Scott wrote: On Jul 11, 9:38*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Scott wrote: On Jul 9, 5:26 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Scott wrote: On Jul 9, 9:04 am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind conditions. WHO did, and under *what* conditions? Dennis Drake among others when listening to various test pressings of his Mercury CDs, under double blind conditions if memory serves me correctly. That's not a very detailed description. You didn't ask for a detailed desciption. You asked who did it and under what conditions. I answered your question. *I assume you would want the test to meet the strict criteria *you* keep saying tests to date usually haven't met. I asked Dennis himself about these tests. He said they were level matched time synched double blind. What more do you want? I'd like to know the exact CDPs were tested. *Were they current generation DACs or is this a test of obsolete DAC technology? they were not current for sure. These tests were done in service of the production of his 1994 remasters of the Mercury classical catalog. This particular anomly was discovered when he was testing the physical product from various manufacturers. He discovered that with certain CDPs the CDs from some manufaturers were quite less than transparent compared to the masters. This observation was later confirmed in a number of other tests conducted by other parties. |
|
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:24:24 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Jul 12, 3:17*am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Andrew Barss wrote: Scott wrote: And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not accepted in the high end audio realm? It is, unfortunately, not de rigeur in wine tastings. It seems more common that in audio, but, for example, Robert Parker, the most powerful man in the wine world, refuses to do blind tastings, apparently: http://www.slate.com/?id=2067055 The bigger the name as a 'connoisseur', the more they have to lose in a controlled situation. It's analogous to the sitch in the audio industry too. Do tell us how Robert Parker stands to diminish his name should he choose to use blind protocols in his evaluation of wines? If it has been so widely accepted among wine connoisseurs I see no logical reason that he would stand to lose anything by such a change in his protocols. What if Robert Parker were to find that his DBT results were at odds with his stated (and published) opinions? It would diminish his credibility, and he probably realizes that. |
|
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:19:08 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Walker wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:58:44 -0700, Walker wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Have any of you actually tried a set of these cables or are you simply going by what you've read or heard and accepted it as fact because it looks good on paper? No, I have not actually tried a set of these expensive cables Then you're not qualified to speak about them and anything that you say is nothing but conjecture based on a common belief or doctrine of physical reality. Reality is challenged and disproven every day and we call it progress. That's why we have solar power, LCD TVs and cell phones and are planning a manned trip to Mars. Otherwise we'd still be churning butter and watching TV by candle light. Did we ever 'watch TV by candlelight'? The 'common belief or doctrine of physical reality' is what lets you predict, with pretty good accuracy, that your TV and cell phone will work tomorrow. Indeed, that 'science' itself will continue to work .The laws of physics aren't likely to change wholesale overnight. Which is what some of the loopier audio tweaks would actually require. Would you say we should hold off considering them unlikely to have real effects, just because some audiophiles claim to they do? I'll sum up by saying that I've done it and I've seen it and I know others who have as well and unless you've tried and failed several times you can't objectively say that I'm wrong and even then you won't convinve me otherwise but I'll respect you for trying and honor your right to pontificate. You are welcome to your beliefs but don't confuse doctrine with fact and I choose to explore and will continue to do so. Your highly uncontrolled 'observations' do not necessarily generate the 'facts' you believe them to. The bottom line here is that the laws of physics (including the electrical theory that governs the behavior of electrical conductors with frequency) are immutable. Perpetual motion is impossible and always will be. Humans cannot fly without the use of machines, one cannot lift a locomotive by his muscle power alone, and normal runs of audio cables, by themselves, can have no effect on the signal passing through them. They either are conductors are they aren't. |
|
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 12, 10:52*am, Andrew Barss wrote:
Scott wrote: : Do tell us how Robert Parker stands to diminish his name should he : choose to use blind protocols in his evaluation of wines? If it has : been so widely accepted among wine connoisseurs I see no logical : reason that he would stand to lose anything by such a change in his : protocols. He assigns wines points on a 100 point scale (though I've never seen anything rated below around 76-80 points). *He also claims to be able to recall with precision every wine he's ever had. * Suppose he were subjected to blind taste tests, and it were discovered that his point scores vary tremendously from those assigned when he knew the wine, its year, its maker, etc. Down goes his reputation. That is a very differnt thng than simply transitioning protocols and continuing to make judgements. Yes you make a legitimate supposition. But then haven't other wine connoisseurs actually done quite well in literally recalling and identifying wines even under blind conditions? Blind protocols might not be the grand diminisher that your supposition proposes. It assumes he would fail quite miserably. An assumption I would not make. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Top 100 Reasons For Despising Arnie | Audio Opinions | |||
| About Arnie K | Audio Opinions | |||
| rec.audio.Arnie.Krueger | Audio Opinions | |||
| *Thank Heaven For Arnie Kroo* | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
