ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Paul B wrote:


Paul B. again

The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly coarse when stepping
through volume but I wouldn't care to state I could hear even that
little
in
a DB test!

Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug.
1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found that most of his panel
were unable to distinguish 1,75db difference between the volumes
produced by a thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a signal*
Once again: to follow Sean Olive's investigation; "difference" appears
to be the wrong question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
people can distinguish components. "Which one do you like better?"
(blinded-why not?) is a much better bet. But of course that sounds too
human and not "scientific" enough
Ludovic Mirabel
If this message appears twice in some servers I apologise. Google
accepted it yesterday but failed to post it.


It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a lie.

ScottW

How do you know that what Ludovic says is a lie?

Ludovic, can you substantiate this? Can you, for instance, scan those
pages of strereo review and post them somewhere?

"Fella" wrote in message

ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Paul B wrote:


Paul B. again

The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly
coarse when stepping through volume but I wouldn't
care to state I could hear even that little in
a DB test!

Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo
Review, Aug. 1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found
that most of his panel were unable to distinguish
1,75db difference between the volumes produced by a
thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a
signal* Once again: to follow Sean Olive's
investigation; "difference" appears to be the wrong
question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
people can distinguish components. "Which one do you
like better?" (blinded-why not?) is a much better bet.
But of course that sounds too human and not
"scientific" enough

Ludovic Mirabel

If this message appears twice in some servers I
apologise. Google accepted it yesterday but failed to
post it.

It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a
lie.

I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
account is factually correct.

If I were going to recreate Greenhill's cable tests today, I'd do things
differently. Heck, if Greenhill redid his tests today, he'd do things
differently.

How do you know that what Ludovic says is a lie?

Well Scotty writes a lot of weird stuff. He's a bit of a loose cannon.
However, compared to Middius and Sackman, he's a perfect picture of
relevance and correctness.

Ludovic, can you substantiate this? Can you, for
instance, scan those pages of Stereo Review and post
them somewhere?

Mirabel's error is that he lives in the past and he sets the bar for proof
related to DBTs far higher than he sets the bar for his golden-eared
beliefs.

Fella wrote:
ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Paul B wrote:


Paul B. again

The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly coarse when stepping
through volume but I wouldn't care to state I could hear even that
little
in
a DB test!

Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug.
1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found that most of his panel
were unable to distinguish 1,75db difference between the volumes
produced by a thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a signal*
Once again: to follow Sean Olive's investigation; "difference" appears
to be the wrong question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
people can distinguish components. "Which one do you like better?"
(blinded-why not?) is a much better bet. But of course that sounds too
human and not "scientific" enough
Ludovic Mirabel
If this message appears twice in some servers I apologise. Google
accepted it yesterday but failed to post it.


It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a lie.

ScottW

How do you know that what Ludovic says is a lie?

Ludovic, can you substantiate this? Can you, for instance, scan those
pages of strereo review and post them somewhere?



Below is a more accurate summary of the article, reprinted from
an old post I made on RAHE...a thread that Dr. Mirabilis
also posted to:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en

Bottom line was that statistically significant positive cable difference
ABX results (at least 12/15, which corresponds to p.019) were achieved by
various subjects using both pink noise *and* music as test signals,
but that in each case there was a reasonable explanation (e.g.,
grossly mismatched cable gauges, and/or use of pink noise).




//


30 foot lengths were used.

Greenhill found the following for the panel as a whole:

1) monster vs. 24 gauge w/pink noise, levels unmatched:
statistically significant difference

2) monster vs. 24 gauge w/pink noise, levels matched
statistically significant difference

3) monster vs. 16 gauge w/pink noise, levels unmatched
statistically significant difference

4) monster vs 16 gauge, w/choral music, levels unmatched
no stat. sig. difference

5) monster vs. 24 gauge w/choral music, levels unmatched
statistically significant difference

6) 16 gauge vs. 24 gauge , w/pink noise, levels unmatched
statistically significant difference

Greenhill also analyzed the results in terms of *psychoacoustical*
significance difference:

"We also used, however, a stronger criterion: psychoacoustical
significance. In psychoacoustical testing, it is generally accepted that
the threshold at which a phenomenon can be considered definitely audible
is when listeners are aware of it at least 75% of the time. This is the basis
for our definition of a 'hit' as at least 12/15 correct answers. Applied to
the whole panel, this meant that 124 answers out of 165 trials for each
comparison had to be correct before we concluded that the difference between
the cables were indeed audible" Greenhill (1983), Stereo Review p 50.

By this criterion, only the differences observed in 1 and 6 were
'psychoacoustically significant'. These both involve nonlevelmatched
comparisons using pink noise.

"Julian Hirsch's measurments of the 24-gauge wire showed it to be much
higher in resistance than Monster Cable or 16-gauge wire. Its 1.8 ohm
resistance resulting in a 1.76 dB insertion loss with an 8 ohm resistive load,
which means that fully one third of the amplifiers output was being
dissipated by the cable over the 30-foot runs we used. This accounts for
the unanimously audible decrease in level. Frequency response was also
affected because the 24 gauge cable's relatively high series resistance
interacted with the system impedence of the KEF 105.2 speakers used int
hese tests to produce 1.25 dB frequecy response depressions at 100, 1000
and 4000 Hz....the level matching procedure corrected only for an overal
level mismatch, not for frequency response changes caused by the 24 guage
wire." Greenhill (1983) Stereo Review p. 49.

A 0.16 dB insertion loss difference and a 0.04 dB frequency response
variation were also measured between the Monster and 16-gauge cables;
Greenhill proposes that the former explains the results of comparison 3.

Greenhill's main conclusion is that Monster Cable and 16 gauge are both
audibly different from 24 gauge wire, and that 16 gauge is good enough to
be indistinguishable from Monster Cable when playing music.

Greenhill also notes that 'One of the listeners on the panel ran a quick
but controlled listening test of Monster against high-capacitance Mogami
Cable (with its 'damper' removed) and 8 gauge Levinson HF-10C twin lead,
both more costly than MC. He did no better at distinguishing MC from the
other two than chance would allow."

Greenhill also notes that one listener did appear to be a bona fide
'golden ear', since he was the only one to distinguish MC from 24 gauge in
music and level-matched pink noise tests. He was unable to tell MC from
16 guage using music, however (nor was anyone else).

Greenhill finally speculates that had 6 ft runs been used instead of 30
foot runs, no audible differences would have been detected between any
of the cables.



--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Sillybot charges up his dime-store ray gun.

ABX results

I put to you, Sillybot, a question that has been repeatedly posed by
Ludovic, and each time you've waffled or ducked or otherwise evaded
answering. It could be you're too dumb to understand the question, but I
think it's more likely you're terrified of actual science and are only
willing to endorse phoney 'borg science that you claim reinforces your
religious beliefs. Anyway, here's the question:

You keep referring to medical/pharmaceutical DBTs as the paradigm of all
DBTs' efficacy. However, Ludovic has repeatedly pointed out the biggest
difference between real DBTs used for drug trials and the half-assed
kind endorsed by the Hive. That difference being that with real DBTs,
the evidence of effectiveness is objectively measured with proven
diagnostic tools such as lab work or radiological exams, whereas in the
dogmatic preachings of the aBxism choir, the only "evidence" is entirely
subjective. In simple terms, the "evidence" yielded by aBxism rituals
has no objective basis whatsoever.

Why, then, do you keep repeating the same discredited position?


And a follow-up question from me: When are you finally, finally, FINALLY
going to undertake an audio DBT yourself? It's quite inane of you to
keep insisting on the effectiveness of aBxism rituals when you're
clearly scared of them yourself. Not that hypocrisy is an unknown
quality in the Hive. ;-) It's just that you seem like you should know
better. Maybe when you grow up, you'll see how asinine your prating is.
But in the meantime, you should take my word for it. I urge you to
breach the comfort of your church for the sake of learning something
about real life.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

That difference being that with
real DBTs, the evidence of effectiveness is objectively
measured with proven diagnostic tools such as lab work or
radiological exams, whereas in the dogmatic preachings of
the aBxism choir, the only "evidence" is entirely
subjective.

Resolved then, that anything with a hint of subjectivsm be ignored.

So what have you got for us now, Middiot?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

That difference being that with
real DBTs, the evidence of effectiveness is objectively
measured with proven diagnostic tools such as lab work or
radiological exams, whereas in the dogmatic preachings of
the aBxism choir, the only "evidence" is entirely
subjective.

Resolved then, that anything with a hint of subjectivsm be ignored.

So what have you got for us now, Middiot?

Not quite sure what George is blathering about now, but from the
above you'd think he never heard of measurements, and the funny way
that things that yield positive DBT results always seem to yield
a mundane measurable difference. And of course ABX is
simply a subset of DBTs. George is free to run a 'calibrating'
DBT on his own hearing, to discover where his discriminative
thresholds lie for various audible parameters. He may then
compare them to average thresholds in the literature. He may
find he is (more/less) sensitive than average to that difference.
He will certainly find a point where he can no longer audibly
detect a difference that is still measurable. He will find that
the value of the parameter measures closer to known thresholds
at that point, than it did when he *could* hear a difference.
And then, his reinvention of the wheel will be complete.


Or maybe he's just *afraid* of measurements...they can
brutally reveal one's, er, *personal shortcomings', after all.



--
- S.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

That difference being that with
real DBTs, the evidence of effectiveness is objectively
measured with proven diagnostic tools such as lab work or
radiological exams, whereas in the dogmatic preachings of
the aBxism choir, the only "evidence" is entirely
subjective.

Resolved then, that anything with a hint of subjectivsm be ignored.

So what have you got for us now, Middiot?

Not quite sure what George is blathering about now, but from the
above you'd think he never heard of measurements, and the funny way
that things that yield positive DBT results always seem to yield
a mundane measurable difference. And of course ABX is
simply a subset of DBTs. George is free to run a 'calibrating'
DBT on his own hearing, to discover where his discriminative
thresholds lie for various audible parameters. He may then
compare them to average thresholds in the literature. He may
find he is (more/less) sensitive than average to that difference.
He will certainly find a point where he can no longer audibly
detect a difference that is still measurable. He will find that
the value of the parameter measures closer to known thresholds
at that point, than it did when he *could* hear a difference.
And then, his reinvention of the wheel will be complete.


Or maybe he's just *afraid* of measurements...they can
brutally reveal one's, er, *personal shortcomings', after all.




David Niven's Academy Award refernence noted. :-)

"Steven Sullivan" wrote

Your suggestion was investigated by L.
Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51.

Below is a more accurate summary of the article,
reprinted from an old post I made on RAHE...a
thread that Dr. Mirabilis also posted to:

30 foot lengths were used.

1) monster vs. ....

That interesting but 1983 Monster cable is
not really relevant to consumers today.
More than 20 years later some still don't like
the implementation of their cable technology,
do you?

"Powell" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote

Your suggestion was investigated by L.
Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51.

Below is a more accurate summary of the article,
reprinted from an old post I made on RAHE...a
thread that Dr. Mirabilis also posted to:

30 foot lengths were used.

1) monster vs. ....

That interesting but 1983 Monster cable is
not really relevant to consumers today.
More than 20 years later some still don't like
the implementation of their cable technology,
do you?

At audio frequencies and with any kind of reasonble speaker load, wire of a
given gauge = wire of a given gauge. Since wire gauges haven't changed
since 1983...

Fella wrote:
ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Paul B wrote:


Paul B. again

The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly coarse when stepping
through volume but I wouldn't care to state I could hear even that
little
in
a DB test!

Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug.
1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found that most of his panel
were unable to distinguish 1,75db difference between the volumes
produced by a thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a signal*
Once again: to follow Sean Olive's investigation; "difference" appears
to be the wrong question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
people can distinguish components. "Which one do you like better?"
(blinded-why not?) is a much better bet. But of course that sounds too
human and not "scientific" enough
Ludovic Mirabel
If this message appears twice in some servers I apologise. Google
accepted it yesterday but failed to post it.


It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a lie.

ScottW

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fella says:
How do you know that what Ludovic says is a lie?

Ludovic, can you substantiate this? Can you, for instance, scan those
pages of strereo review and post them somewhere?

Thank you. I believe that you are genuineinely concerned about truth.
Here is Greenhill's ABX cable test complete. If you want the
whole article go to your Public Library. I don't have the skills (or
patience) to scan a ten page article to google acceptable size, The
table was pain in the neck enough,
There were 15 repeat tests in each line. The numbers stand for the
correct responses (hits) of the panelist A,B, C...etc). "Levels
matched" means that Greenhill adjusted levels ie. volumes where
necessary to compensate for the loss through the thinner cable.
Monster and 16 ga cable were of equal diameter.
Here is Greenhill's table. If it is confusing blame Google. I tried
to arrange it cleanly but could not do any better than this.
SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K
Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise
15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
2. Same but levels matched
9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12
12
3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise
13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12
7
4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise
15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15

5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music
4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6
10 10
6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music
14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12
10
______________________________________________
% of "hits" in the total of 6 tests 90 tries:
67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50? 83 50


Note the excellent results everybody had with pink noise and abysmal
result with music in test 6. The thicker, 16 gauge Monster conducted
music louder by 1,75 db to the speaker.
I with my old ears have no problem hearing i db difference between rt.
and lt, side. (I have a stepped volume knob on my preamp). The image
shifts immediately away from the centre. Note that Pinkerton in his
offer of a prize for distinguishing cables wants 0,05db match.
To forestall the inevitable silly comment I'll reprint my own old
text:" All the panelists did well comparing uneven diameter cables
when pink noise was played to them. The scores were much worse when
music was used as a signal and became awful when
similar diameters were used. Oddly I'm interested in music not pink
noise. "
I am not going to waste time arguing with Sullivan. His MO. is to say
that he puts you in his killfile when he has to clam up for lack of an
answer. I don't participate in discussions of that kind. And in this
particular case I honestly can not see through his verbiage what
exactly he's trying to say.
My answer to Arny is: if Greenhill is out-of-date where on earth are
the more up to date professional journal acceptable studies? You have
my word that I would read them as openmindedly as possible? In
particular the POSITIVE ones if they ever appear. You'll have a
convert.
But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue
furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and death
matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as
occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars". Why on earth in the
silly half-informed web debates would one lie to win an argument about
cables or something similar? The web seems to have become a refuge of
all the frustrated sociopaths. I met the kind in my stormy political
youth and they still scare me.
That's why I want to take this opportunity to thank Arny for his
honesty in his text in this thread and - can an immigrant use an
old-fashioned English word- gentlemanliness. I apologise for thinking
that he's become unable to rise above the feelings of irrational
hostility to anyone disagreeeing with him. It is a pleasant surprise-
if imitated it would make the web a much saner place.
I'll deal with Scottie when I can bring myself to it. Right now the
stomach is churning at the very thought,
Regards Ludovic Mirabel
..

wrote:

But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue
furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and death
matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as
occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars".


Thank you Mirabel for the detailed account. I should note that it was
ScottW that called what you said "a lie", in effect calling you a liar,
not me. Though you know that, just wanted to put it on record.

I am just trying to geniunely understand things. ScottW came across as a
geniunely OK sort of a person to me these latter days. Especially with
the stories about getting together with friends, listening vinyl, etc.
You have always been one of the better arguments of subjectivism here.
So when ScottW called you a liar I just wanted to get to the bottom of
things.

I'll deal with Scottie when I can bring myself to it.

I don't think you need to anymore.

wrote in message
ups.com

My answer to Arny is: if Greenhill
is out-of-date where on earth are the more up to date
professional journal acceptable studies?

They are unpublishable because they are too unremarkable. There's no news
value in finding that measurable differences of the size that Mirabel as
seized on are audible.

Nobody seems to take the few problems that Greenhill's listeners had
detecting differences too seriously. Greenhill's few problematical tests
AFAIK involved suboptimal program material, questionable listeners, and
cable-swapping with long switching delays. These are strong, well-known
detriments to listener performance.

Anybody who thinks that ABX tests eliminate everybody's ability to hear
differences in the 1-2 dB range need only perform their own tests using
tools and audio files they can download freely from:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/levels/index.htm

I don't have Greenhill's article at my disposal, but here's an "off the top
of my head" comparison of Greenhill's cable tests and the "10 Requirements
For Sensitive and Reliable listening tests" posted at www.pcabx.com :

(1) Program material must include critical passages that enable audible
differences to be most easily heard.

Greenhill's test fail to meet this critreria because he had to pander to the
immature musical tastes of his listeners. They balked at listening to some
musical selections that they didn't like, even though those particular
musical selections might yield more sensitive results.

(2) Listeners must be sensitized to a audible differences, so that if an
audible difference is generated by the equipment, the listener will notice
it and have a useful reaction to it.

Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests included zero formal
listener training.

(3) Listeners must be trained to listen systematically so that audible
problems are heard.

Again, Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests included zero formal
listener training. I have some personal experience with them and they
basically wanted to do things their own way, and not take advantage of what
was known about getting the most sensitive and reliable test results.


(4) Procedures should be "open" to detecting problems that aren't
necessarily technically well-understood or even expected, at this time. A
classic problem with measurements and some listening tests is that each one
focuses on one or only a few problems, allowing others to escape notice.

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 3 strikes against them.
(5) We must have confidence that the Unit Under Test (UUT) is
representative of the kind of equipment it represents. In other words the
UUT must not be broken, it must not be appreciably modified in some secret
way, and must not be the wrong make or model, among other things.

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 3 strikes against them.

(6) A suitable listening environment must be provided. It can't be too dull,
too bright, too noisy, too reverberant, or too harsh. The speakers and
other components have to be sufficiently free from distortion, the room must
be noise-free, etc..

It is unknown how chaotic things actually were at the time that Greenhill's
Stereo Review cable listening tests were performed. My experience with his
group was that they tended to dissolve into chaos.


(7) Listeners need to be in a good mood for listening, in good physical
condition (no blocked-up ears!), and be well-trained for hearing
deficiencies in the reproduced sound.

It is unknown how motivated the listener's were at the time that Greenhill's
Stereo Review cable listening tests were performed. My experience with his
group was that they tended to have a defeatest attitude about blind tests.


(8) Sample volume levels need to be matched to each other or else the
listeners will perceive differences that are simply due to volume
differences.

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 4 or more strikes against
them.


(9) Non-audible influences need to be controlled so that the listener
reaches his conclusions due to "Just listening".

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 4 or more strikes against
them.

(10) Listeners should control as many of the aspects of the listening test
as possible. Self-controlled tests usually facilitate this. Most
importantly, they should be able to switch among the alternatives at times
of their choosing. The switchover should be as instantaneous and
non-disruptive as possible.

AFAIK Greenhill's cable tests involved cable-swapping and therefore
prohibited fast switchovers. The listener's lacked fine control over the
listening test.

Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests were highly suboptimal
tests. The ready availability of online tests that meet all 10 requirements
show that the 10 requirements are not unrealistic goals.

Anybody who uses Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests as
examples of blind listening tests is at the best is either badly mislead or
simply is trying to find grounds to criticize blind listening tests at any
cost, not matter how unreasonable their critique is.



An exception or a small number of exceptions obtained under questinable
circumstances does not disprove a rule.



On balance, a lot has been learned about doing proper listening tests since
Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests. I have no doubt that if
Greenhill chose to waste his time by redoing these tests, he'd do things
differently. Remember, these tests happened something like 20 years ago.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:57:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com

My answer to Arny is: if Greenhill
is out-of-date where on earth are the more up to date
professional journal acceptable studies?

They are unpublishable because they are too unremarkable. There's no news
value in finding that measurable differences of the size that Mirabel as
seized on are audible.

Nobody seems to take the few problems that Greenhill's listeners had
detecting differences too seriously. Greenhill's few problematical tests
AFAIK involved suboptimal program material, questionable listeners, and
cable-swapping with long switching delays. These are strong, well-known
detriments to listener performance.

I find it funny that you dismiss this test but haven't done the same
for the Nousaine "Zip tests". Perhaps guys like Mr. Pinkerton should
look at this...

Anybody who thinks that ABX tests eliminate everybody's ability to hear
differences in the 1-2 dB range need only perform their own tests using
tools and audio files they can download freely from:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/levels/index.htm

I don't have Greenhill's article at my disposal, but here's an "off the top
of my head" comparison of Greenhill's cable tests and the "10 Requirements
For Sensitive and Reliable listening tests" posted at www.pcabx.com :

(1) Program material must include critical passages that enable audible
differences to be most easily heard.

Greenhill's test fail to meet this critreria because he had to pander to the
immature musical tastes of his listeners. They balked at listening to some
musical selections that they didn't like, even though those particular
musical selections might yield more sensitive results.

I'm not sure that the tests fulfilled this criteria. AFAIK, the
selections weren't chosen such "critical passages". However, I'll let
this go at this time.

(2) Listeners must be sensitized to a audible differences, so that if an
audible difference is generated by the equipment, the listener will notice
it and have a useful reaction to it.

Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests included zero formal
listener training.

No "formal listening". All that was allowed to happen was that the
subjects were allowed to acclimate themselves to the program material.
This certainly isn't the same thing as you mean by "formal listener
training".

(3) Listeners must be trained to listen systematically so that audible
problems are heard.

Again, Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests included zero formal
listener training. I have some personal experience with them and they
basically wanted to do things their own way, and not take advantage of what
was known about getting the most sensitive and reliable test results.

No "systematic training".

(4) Procedures should be "open" to detecting problems that aren't
necessarily technically well-understood or even expected, at this time. A
classic problem with measurements and some listening tests is that each one
focuses on one or only a few problems, allowing others to escape notice.

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 3 strikes against them.

Well, we already have two firm strikes and one iffy strike against the
test.

(5) We must have confidence that the Unit Under Test (UUT) is
representative of the kind of equipment it represents. In other words the
UUT must not be broken, it must not be appreciably modified in some secret
way, and must not be the wrong make or model, among other things.

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 3 strikes against them.

No problem here.

(6) A suitable listening environment must be provided. It can't be too dull,
too bright, too noisy, too reverberant, or too harsh. The speakers and
other components have to be sufficiently free from distortion, the room must
be noise-free, etc..

It is unknown how chaotic things actually were at the time that Greenhill's
Stereo Review cable listening tests were performed. My experience with his
group was that they tended to dissolve into chaos.

Obviously not the case, base on the description of the events.

(7) Listeners need to be in a good mood for listening, in good physical
condition (no blocked-up ears!), and be well-trained for hearing
deficiencies in the reproduced sound.

It is unknown how motivated the listener's were at the time that Greenhill's
Stereo Review cable listening tests were performed. My experience with his
group was that they tended to have a defeatest attitude about blind tests.

Obviously there were problems in this regard.

(8) Sample volume levels need to be matched to each other or else the
listeners will perceive differences that are simply due to volume
differences.

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 4 or more strikes against
them.

No apparent problem here - but we have 4 1/2 strikes against the test
already.

(9) Non-audible influences need to be controlled so that the listener
reaches his conclusions due to "Just listening".

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 4 or more strikes against
them.

Here's the 5 1/2 strike. Obviously, this couldn't have been a "just
listening" environment because of the circumstances described.

(10) Listeners should control as many of the aspects of the listening test
as possible. Self-controlled tests usually facilitate this. Most
importantly, they should be able to switch among the alternatives at times
of their choosing. The switchover should be as instantaneous and
non-disruptive as possible.

AFAIK Greenhill's cable tests involved cable-swapping and therefore
prohibited fast switchovers. The listener's lacked fine control over the
listening test.

Same problem with the Zip test.

Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests were highly suboptimal
tests. The ready availability of online tests that meet all 10 requirements
show that the 10 requirements are not unrealistic goals.

So now we have 6 1/2 strikes against the Zip test. Therefore, why
bother trotting it out?

Anybody who uses Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests as
examples of blind listening tests is at the best is either badly mislead or
simply is trying to find grounds to criticize blind listening tests at any
cost, not matter how unreasonable their critique is.

Same with the Zip test.

An exception or a small number of exceptions obtained under questinable
circumstances does not disprove a rule.

Same with the Zip test.

On balance, a lot has been learned about doing proper listening tests since
Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests. I have no doubt that if
Greenhill chose to waste his time by redoing these tests, he'd do things
differently. Remember, these tests happened something like 20 years ago.

I guess we can also discount the results that Mr. Krueger trots out on
the ABX web site as well, based on the comments in the above
paragraph.

wrote:

Fella wrote:
ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Paul B wrote:


Paul B. again

The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly coarse when stepping
through volume but I wouldn't care to state I could hear even that
little
in
a DB test!

Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug.
1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found that most of his panel
were unable to distinguish 1,75db difference between the volumes
produced by a thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a signal*
Once again: to follow Sean Olive's investigation; "difference" appears
to be the wrong question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
people can distinguish components. "Which one do you like better?"
(blinded-why not?) is a much better bet. But of course that sounds too
human and not "scientific" enough
Ludovic Mirabel
If this message appears twice in some servers I apologise. Google
accepted it yesterday but failed to post it.


It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a lie.

ScottW

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fella says:
How do you know that what Ludovic says is a lie?

Ludovic, can you substantiate this? Can you, for instance, scan those
pages of strereo review and post them somewhere?

Thank you. I believe that you are genuineinely concerned about truth.
Here is Greenhill's ABX cable test complete. If you want the
whole article go to your Public Library. I don't have the skills (or
patience) to scan a ten page article to google acceptable size, The
table was pain in the neck enough,
There were 15 repeat tests in each line. The numbers stand for the
correct responses (hits) of the panelist A,B, C...etc). "Levels
matched" means that Greenhill adjusted levels ie. volumes where
necessary to compensate for the loss through the thinner cable.
Monster and 16 ga cable were of equal diameter.
Here is Greenhill's table. If it is confusing blame Google. I tried
to arrange it cleanly but could not do any better than this.


SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K
Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

2. Same but levels matched 9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12 12
3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise

13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12 7
4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise
15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15

5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music 4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10
6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music
14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10
______________________________________________
% of "hits" in the total of 6 tests 90 tries:
67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50? 83 50


Note the excellent results everybody had with pink noise and abysmal
result with music in test 6.

So, two out of 11 listeners scoring better than chance is 'abysmal'.
"Spin" noted.

In fact, there's nothing particularly unusual about finding that pink noise
reveals system response differences more readily than choral music -- or pretty
much any other music. Even so,two of the listeners were statistically
able to detect the difference with choral music as well -- *if* the system response
was different enough. In the case of 16 vs Monster, it wasn't.

Note, too, that scores tended to be higher for the Monster vs 24g (choral)
than monster vs 16 (choral) even when they didn't individually reach the
p0.05 level. With more trials some of these listeners may have been
able to score a statistically significant difference. One can confidently
predict that with some training, as per Arny's 10 recommendations,
more would have. That is *unlikely* to be the case with Monster vs. 16,
but of course it would be proper to re-conduct that test too after training.



The thicker, 16 gauge Monster conducted music louder by 1,75 db to
the speaker.

And that was more obvious with pink noise than with choral music,
to some but not all of the listeners.


I with my old ears have no problem hearing i db difference between rt.
and lt, side. (I have a stepped volume knob on my preamp). The image
shifts immediately away from the centre. Note that Pinkerton in his
offer of a prize for distinguishing cables wants 0,05db match.

Indeed, because of those two listeners who *were* more sensitive than the
others, to level differences. You don't know in advance who will and will not
'hear' that, so you set the bar reasonably high enough that it doesn't
matter.

It's obvious to any scientist Greenhill's results simply *confirm* the
need to level match.



To forestall the inevitable silly comment I'll reprint my own old
text:" All the panelists did well comparing uneven diameter cables
when pink noise was played to them. The scores were much worse when
music was used as a signal and became awful when
similar diameters were used. Oddly I'm interested in music not pink
noise. "


The scores were not *uniformly* worse. In fact the scores were
almost uniformly *better* whenever 24 guage was used --
and two listeners still scoring better than chance regardless of
sound samples used. That is sufficient evidence that the two
cables were *different* -- a result that you have claimed, btw,
never occurs in audio gear ABX tests.


I am not going to waste time arguing with Sullivan. His MO. is to say
that he puts you in his killfile when he has to clam up for lack of an
answer. I don't participate in discussions of that kind. And in this
particular case I honestly can not see through his verbiage what
exactly he's trying to say.


Dr. Mirabilis, I have backtracked to this post because I see others
swallowing your codswallop whole on this thread, and I'm setting
the record straight.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message

ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Paul B wrote:


Paul B. again

The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly
coarse when stepping through volume but I wouldn't
care to state I could hear even that little in
a DB test!

Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo
Review, Aug. 1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found
that most of his panel were unable to distinguish
1,75db difference between the volumes produced by a
thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a
signal* Once again: to follow Sean Olive's
investigation; "difference" appears to be the wrong
question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
people can distinguish components. "Which one do you
like better?" (blinded-why not?) is a much better bet.
But of course that sounds too human and not
"scientific" enough

Ludovic Mirabel

If this message appears twice in some servers I
apologise. Google accepted it yesterday but failed to
post it.

It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a
lie.

I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
account is factually correct.


I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
floobylovers bull**** about it.


Mirabel's error is that he lives in the past and he sets the bar for proof
related to DBTs far higher than he sets the bar for his golden-eared
beliefs.


Typical of his kind. For every article like Greenhill's, there are
dozens if not hundreds of claims of difference in audiophilia
that are based on far flimsier methodology. And his own 'comparisons'
are doubtless no better. So why can't he just admit that unless he's
controlled for standard biases, his own claims of difference are
potentially colored by the same frailties we all share? It's not
so hard to say, 'I might have been imagining what I heard, I can't
know for sure, based on how I did the comparison.'






--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
account is factually correct.

I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
floobylovers bull**** about it.

As I have pointed out before, you need to take care reading this
article,
as subsequent discussion with Dr. Greenhill revealed that much of the
published analysis of the data and the resultant editorializing that
appeared under his byline was not written by Greenhill. Instead,
it was written by some of the editors of Stereo Review, particularly,
I understand, by the magazine's long-time technical editor David
Ranada who, sadly, left SR's succesor, Sound & Vision, last week,
along with editor Bob Ankosko and other members of staff.

The changes made in the editing to Dr. Greenhill's text were examined
at length in International Audio Review and Stereophile in the
mid-1980s,
whose editors were supplied copies of the original manuscript.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Good god, man, you actually post in that cesspool?! I refuse to,
although I do flip to it occasionally just to see if there's anything
besides the usual filth. I'm amused to find my old friend Elmer there.
He used to take umbrage at even the slightest off-color remark. I guess
if you're desperate to be heard, you'll put up with anything.

To save wear and tear on your fax machine, you might refer people to
this page, from which they can download the article;

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/wisdom.html

bob

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Note, too, that scores tended to be higher for the Monster vs 24g (choral)
than monster vs 16 (choral) even when they didn't individually reach the
p0.05 level. With more trials some of these listeners may have been
able to score a statistically significant difference.

So, did you offer the same sort of insight after the "Zip test", when
the test had to be terminated early, right in the middle of a trend
that Zip was displaying towords showing a positive difference between
amps? Seems like the box malfunctioned right at the point where he was
becoming a "trained listener"...

John Atkinson wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
account is factually correct.

I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
floobylovers bull**** about it.

As I have pointed out before, you need to take care reading this
article,
as subsequent discussion with Dr. Greenhill revealed that much of the
published analysis of the data and the resultant editorializing that
appeared under his byline was not written by Greenhill. Instead,
it was written by some of the editors of Stereo Review, particularly,
I understand, by the magazine's long-time technical editor David
Ranada who, sadly, left SR's succesor, Sound & Vision, last week,
along with editor Bob Ankosko and other members of staff.

I'm not surprised at his departure; he was being preposterously
under-represented in the 'new' S&V. I hope he finds a journalistic
home where his work will be better appreciated.


The changes made in the editing to Dr. Greenhill's text were examined
at length in International Audio Review and Stereophile in the
mid-1980s,
whose editors were supplied copies of the original manuscript.


Dr. Greenhill also wrote/writes for Stereophile, no? What's
his opinion today of the audibility of cable difference?
Specifically, does he believe that audible differences exist
where standard measurements do not support such likelihood?

Do *you* believe that, for that matter?




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Note, too, that scores tended to be higher for the Monster vs 24g (choral)
than monster vs 16 (choral) even when they didn't individually reach the
p0.05 level. With more trials some of these listeners may have been
able to score a statistically significant difference.

So, did you offer the same sort of insight after the "Zip test", when
the test had to be terminated early, right in the middle of a trend
that Zip was displaying towords showing a positive difference between
amps? Seems like the box malfunctioned right at the point where he was
becoming a "trained listener"...

'Zip' was free to retake the test if he wanted to. But 'Zip' also claimed
to have considerable experience with his 'reference' amp, and had
already claimed to be able to tell it from others by listening. IIRC 'Zip'
also agreed,*at first*, that he hadn't passed. A week or so later, he decided it
was *all wrong*.





--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message

ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Paul B wrote:


Paul B. again

The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly
coarse when stepping through volume but I wouldn't
care to state I could hear even that little in
a DB test!

Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo
Review, Aug. 1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found
that most of his panel were unable to distinguish
1,75db difference between the volumes produced by a
thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a
signal* Once again: to follow Sean Olive's
investigation; "difference" appears to be the wrong
question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
people can distinguish components. "Which one do you
like better?" (blinded-why not?) is a much better bet.
But of course that sounds too human and not
"scientific" enough

Ludovic Mirabel

If this message appears twice in some servers I
apologise. Google accepted it yesterday but failed to
post it.

It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a
lie.

I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
account is factually correct.


I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
floobylovers bull**** about it.


You might also want to alert people to the fact that this was a test between
24 gauge zip, 16 gauge zip, and early Monster Cable which professed nothing
more than to be a good quality 14 or16 gauge (depending on model) zip,
albeit at a high price (moderate by today's standards). Is it surprising
that the test between the "16's" didn't show a difference?
Does that have any direct applicability to more esoteric speaker cables of
the last ten years?

Not that the test is invalid, perhaps just your use of it. I think Lud's
point is
that with music, even the 24 vs 16 gauge test with a 1.75 db difference
didn't show a difference,
especially if you take the entire panel into account which you need to do if
you want to draw any "universal" conclusions.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:49:38 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Note, too, that scores tended to be higher for the Monster vs 24g (choral)
than monster vs 16 (choral) even when they didn't individually reach the
p0.05 level. With more trials some of these listeners may have been
able to score a statistically significant difference.

So, did you offer the same sort of insight after the "Zip test", when
the test had to be terminated early, right in the middle of a trend
that Zip was displaying towords showing a positive difference between
amps? Seems like the box malfunctioned right at the point where he was
becoming a "trained listener"...

'Zip' was free to retake the test if he wanted to.

And the proctors were free to extend the testing to meet your new
criteria as well. So what's your point? Are you now claiming things
that aren'tin evidence, because that's what it seems here. "May have
been able..." falls under the umbrella of pure unfounded speculation.
Zip *may* have also been able to score a statistically significant
difference as well, and there's more support for that opinion when you
look at the trending of his scores. Still, I wouldn't claim it as
anything other than a partially founded speculation itself.

But 'Zip' also claimed
to have considerable experience with his 'reference' amp, and had
already claimed to be able to tell it from others by listening.

So, are you now saying that all you have to do to be a "trained
listener" is to claim that you can tell the difference (or not, as the
case may be)?

IIRC 'Zip'
also agreed,*at first*, that he hadn't passed. A week or so later, he decided it
was *all wrong*.

Well, you can look at the test scores and see a marked improvement the
second day, when the box suddently malfunctioned. It looks to me as if
he was "learning" at that time. But, before you accuse me of it, I'm
not claiming anything sinister about the box not operating as it was
supposed to. It just happened.

BTW, here's the initial report, with the test results:

http://tinyurl.com/a976n

He goes from 3 of 10 to 5 of 10 the next day. On his wife's FIRST (and
only) taking of the test, she scored 9 out of 16. If we use your
logic, either might have been able to improve their score, and it
looked like Zip was certainly doing just that.

Just going by your own standards here, Mr. Sullivan.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You might also want to alert people to the fact that this
was a test between 24 gauge zip, 16 gauge zip, and early
Monster Cable which professed nothing more than to be a
good quality 14 or16 gauge (depending on model) zip,
albeit at a high price (moderate by today's standards).

Here's more evidence of Harry Lavo's technical incompetence - he thinks that
there's more to speaker wire than amount of copper per foot and modest
proximity between the two conductors (IOW modest or lower impedance).

Is it surprising that the test between the "16's" didn't
show a difference?

There's nothing that can be done to 16 gauge zip cord but make it too long
or make it worse.

Does that have any direct applicability to more esoteric
speaker cables of the last ten years?

Not that the test is invalid, perhaps just your use of
it. I think Lud's point is
that with music, even the 24 vs 16 gauge test with a 1.75
db difference didn't show a difference,

Just shows that even with golden ears having their way, peeing in the soup,
and getting long term, slow-switched sessions with music designed to tickle
their ears as opposed to revealing differences, no joy.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


'Zip' was free to retake the test if he wanted to.

Not only that, but Zip essentially dictated how the test was done.

But 'Zip' also claimed
to have considerable experience with his 'reference' amp,

It was "mind-blowingly" better, right? Well, something like that.

and had already claimed to be able to tell it from others by
listening.

Check google for the details.

IIRC 'Zip' also agreed,*at first*, that he hadn't passed.

Check google for the details.

A week or so later, he decided it was *all wrong*.

Check google for the details.

Zip was just another golden ear dissembling. Hardly news at all.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Your suggestion was investigated by L.
Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51.

Below is a more accurate summary of the article,
reprinted from an old post I made on RAHE...a
thread that Dr. Mirabilis also posted to:

30 foot lengths were used.

1) monster vs. ....

That interesting but 1983 Monster cable is
not really relevant to consumers today.
More than 20 years later some still don't like
the implementation of their cable technology,
do you?

At audio frequencies and with any kind of reasonble
speaker load, wire of a given gauge = wire of a
given gauge. Since wire gauges haven't changed
since 1983...

If I could suspend my disbeliefs in exchange for
a nineteenth century viewpoint of physic, your
statement might be true. To do this I would
need to forget about the advances in computer
modeling not available in 1983, advances in
material science, manufacturing techniques,
improvement in overall equipment standards
and the volumes of cable reviews written in
audio magazines. I’m sorry, I don’t think that
I could dumb-down that far, Arny.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:46:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


'Zip' was free to retake the test if he wanted to.

Not only that, but Zip essentially dictated how the test was done.

But 'Zip' also claimed
to have considerable experience with his 'reference' amp,

It was "mind-blowingly" better, right? Well, something like that.

and had already claimed to be able to tell it from others by
listening.

Check google for the details.

IIRC 'Zip' also agreed,*at first*, that he hadn't passed.

Check google for the details.

A week or so later, he decided it was *all wrong*.

Check google for the details.

Zip was just another golden ear dissembling. Hardly news at all.

None of this affects the fact that the tests never even came close to
conforming to your own strictures.

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Your suggestion was investigated by L.
Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51.

Below is a more accurate summary of the article,
reprinted from an old post I made on RAHE...a
thread that Dr. Mirabilis also posted to:

30 foot lengths were used.

1) monster vs. ....

That interesting but 1983 Monster cable is
not really relevant to consumers today.
More than 20 years later some still don't like
the implementation of their cable technology,
do you?

At audio frequencies and with any kind of reasonble
speaker load, wire of a given gauge = wire of a
given gauge. Since wire gauges haven't changed
since 1983...

If I could suspend my disbeliefs in exchange for
a nineteenth century viewpoint of physics, your
statement might be true.

Right, that would require about 2 millenia of advancement on your part,
Powell.

To do this I would
need to forget about the advances in computer
modeling not available in 1983, advances in
material science, manufacturing techniques,
improvement in overall equipment standards
and the volumes of cable reviews written in
audio magazines.

The inclusion of the last item sets the pace for the rest of your comment,
Powell. Something about the blind leading the blind.

I’m sorry, I don’t think that I could dumb-down that far, Arny.

Right, Powell. For you to understand how cables really work would take a lot
of development in the opposite directiong.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:


swallowing your codswallop

Is that some kind of seafood dish, cod and scallops, perhaps



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Clyde Slick said:

swallowing your codswallop

Is that some kind of seafood dish, cod and scallops, perhaps

For all we know, he's talking about Kroo****s. Pending the results of
appropriately calibrated DBTs, of course.

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:49:38 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Note, too, that scores tended to be higher for the Monster vs 24g (choral)
than monster vs 16 (choral) even when they didn't individually reach the
p0.05 level. With more trials some of these listeners may have been
able to score a statistically significant difference.

So, did you offer the same sort of insight after the "Zip test", when
the test had to be terminated early, right in the middle of a trend
that Zip was displaying towords showing a positive difference between
amps? Seems like the box malfunctioned right at the point where he was
becoming a "trained listener"...

'Zip' was free to retake the test if he wanted to.

And the proctors were free to extend the testing to meet your new
criteria as well. So what's your point? Are you now claiming things
that aren'tin evidence, because that's what it seems here. "May have
been able..." falls under the umbrella of pure unfounded speculation.
Zip *may* have also been able to score a statistically significant
difference as well, and there's more support for that opinion when you
look at the trending of his scores. Still, I wouldn't claim it as
anything other than a partially founded speculation itself.


Sir, I use the word 'may' for a reason. Please don't disregard
the rhetorical care I've taken to not *over*claim. Zip indeed
'may' have done better too with repeated trials -- performance
on one trial does not *determine* performance on another in
any absolute way -- but I'm also noting that the conditions of
Zipser's test were different from Greenhill's a some important ways,
which suggest he *may* never have done better. Namely, that
he had already 'trained' on his reference amp, and he helped determine
the conditions he felt would optimize his performance on the test.

Of course, he later claimed he was suffering from a *hangover*....



But 'Zip' also claimed
to have considerable experience with his 'reference' amp, and had
already claimed to be able to tell it from others by listening.

So, are you now saying that all you have to do to be a "trained
listener" is to claim that you can tell the difference (or not, as the
case may be)?

No, but it certainly tends to help performance in a blind listening test...
if there is a real difference. Psychoacoustics and market research often
uses training sessions. Nothing controversial about that.
It's on Arny's list too. Zip, for that matter, was allowed
to acclimate himself repeatedly to the 'guest' amp , in sighted
trials during his test. Maki implies that Zip did this until
he felt he could tell them apart. This isn't the same as rigorous
training where differences are introduced then gradually reduced
to threshold, but it's better than nothing.

At the same time, the Greenhill results simply didn't display much that
yells out for retesting, from a science/engineering/psychoacoustics
POV. They rather boringly accorded with what an engineer of
scientist would have expected from the variables being compared.
Wires with physically 'big' differences can be predicted to
sound different (in blind tests)to at least some people, and the
differences can be expected to be apparent to *more* people
when sensitivity-enhancing test signals are used. When levels
are matched, the differences become harder to hear. Alert the media.

The one interesting result was the subject who got 13/15 on the
monster vs 16g, with pink noise. That one was worthy of
retest to see if the result is robust or a fluke. But
certainly one could add more trials to any of the other test
to increase their predictive power. I would like to have seen
25 trials per subject per test, myself.


IIRC 'Zip'
also agreed,*at first*, that he hadn't passed. A week or so later, he decided it
was *all wrong*.

Well, you can look at the test scores and see a marked improvement the
second day, when the box suddently malfunctioned. It looks to me as if
he was "learning" at that time. But, before you accuse me of it, I'm
not claiming anything sinister about the box not operating as it was
supposed to. It just happened.

The question underlying your complaint is whether the correct/15 seen in
16 vs 24g, using the same music

Monster vs. 16ga.,choral music
4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10
Monster vs. 24ga, choral music
14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10


are more *significantly* different than the correct/10 zip got from day 1
to 2, using a variety of music

3
5


That is, how do differences of 10, 1,4,2,-1,5,1,3,5,2,0 more out of 15
each compare to 2 more out of 10? This requires a different statistical
analysis.


But even before that, perhaps you now see two problem comparing the two
tests.

First, what could account for the difference from day one to 2? It's not
reasonable to attribute a putative change to the *gear* under test,
because that didn't change. In fact you could argue for simply summing the
two days' results together as one test -- (the argument *against* tjat
depends on a claim that an ABX box makes a notable difference in
sensitivity , and should be considered an independent test. *If* you
believe that, btw, one could not help noting that he did a little better
when he used the ABX box. ; ) In the Greenhill test, the 'gear' under
test DOES change betweem the two sessions, so it's reasonable to propse
that the gear may have been the cause of any putative change. Which is
what I did propose. I didn't claim that the change was proven to be
significant.

Second, in another sense the two tests are different in even more ways.
Between the two Greenhill tests above, there's just one variable from the
subject's POV: the component. In Zipser's, his variables were the
component *and* the test signal. The latter was not varied systematically.


If you want to critize the Zipser trial, where different sound samples
were used *within* a single test, it would be valid to suggest that test
signal should have been controlled for. Perhaps Zip did better with
certain music than others, but AFAIK that analysis wasn't done (and with
the small number of trials vs the multiplicity of music, I doubt it could
have been done.) But it seems to have been Zip's choice to play a variety
of music -- stuff I imagine he felt comfortable and familiar with -- for
sighted warm-up as well as test runs. However, we do have one possible comparison point:
his wife, focusing on just one part of one track -- a more highly
recommended protocol -- got 9/16 on her ABX run: not much better than
Zips' best 5/10. But now we've varied the test subject too.



Maki summed up the test this way:

Conclusion.
The results indicated that in these sessions at least, the Pass amps
could not be distinguished from the Yamaha integrated amp.


Which is close to dead-on. Somewhat more neutral would be: the subjects'
perceptions of audible difference between the Pass amp and Yamaha
integrated were not supported in these sessions.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

"Fella" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:

But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue
furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and death
matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as
occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars".


Thank you Mirabel for the detailed account. I should note that it was
ScottW that called what you said "a lie", in effect calling you a liar,
not me. Though you know that, just wanted to put it on record.

Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for my
classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat himself.

ScottW

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:


swallowing your codswallop

Is that some kind of seafood dish, cod and scallops, perhaps

No, Mr. Slick. This is just one frustrated chapel member venting his
spite.
Mind you , it could be worse. At least Sullivan stops at inventing a
funny ha ha name for me: and talking about "codswallop". I wonder how
I earned all this bile? Could it really be that it sticks in his craw
that I am an M.D and a Fellow of the Royal College and a former
researcher in the Medical Research Ccil of Great Britain while he
contributes to news groups. Does seem a little primitive but what is
one to think knowing that once he really took trouble to search for my
credentials (in the wrong place) hoping to prove that I was a fake
because he could not find my name in the U.S. sources where I never
practiced.
At that his is only a mild version of the foam at the mouth fury
of some of his brethren in the in true faith chapel. "Liar" from the
pens of these fanatics for truth the fatuous NYOB and his pal Scottie,
"Lying ****bag" repeated 3 times in one posting from Pinkerton when I
caught him spewing fake references. that had nothing to do with the
subject under discussion.
That is why I feel obliged to note that Krueger, at least in his
arguments with me, kept to the rules of civilised discourse. Which does
not mean that I won't continue fighting him tooth and nail....on paper.
I do wish though he'd stop giving the impression he suspects that most
of those disagreeing with him are in a sinister plot.
Ludovic Mirabel

Not being able to resist argument but unwilling to have
Sullivan go into one of his "I don't have an answer" silent sulks (
Sully sulking. Ha ha- irresistibly funny. Almost as funny as his "Dr.
Mirabilis") I'll say something here about his posting today:

He says: "The scores were not *uniformly* worse".
My sentence was: "uniformly worse when MUSIC was played" (as compared
with pink noise)
Granted anputating crucial sense in this fashion allows you to argue
still standing up. All in a day's work for our local self-nominated
representative of science. Since it seems consistent with his standards
of debate he can have it and keep it.

He continues:
" In fact the scores were
almost uniformly *better* whenever 24 guage was used --
and two listeners still scoring better than chance regardless of
sound samples used. That is sufficient evidence that the two
cables were *different* -- a result that you have claimed, btw,
never occurs in audio gear ABX tests"

It is hard to believe that a man wants to be taken seriously
while attributing such moronisms dug out from the depths of his
distorted psyche to others. I "claimed" that you can "never" get a
"different result".in ABX!!!!.
Just two weeks ago I rereviewed for his benefit the Oakland
ABX website that Sullivan quoted at me twice. For the nth time I
pointed out that the had positive results but only when comparing
badly dissimilar components that a deaf man would have a problem not
hearing.. Of course you have positive results when you compare apples
with oranges or a 24 g wire with a 16 g wire- using man made noise
instead of music.

Now kiddies watch Sullivan tie himself up in knots..
Greenhill's states his statistical criteria thus( loc.cit.p.50) "It is
generally accepted that the threshold at which a phenomenon can be
considered definitely audible is when listeners are aware of it at
least 75% of the time" Did you see it? 75&. Two listeners out of 11
just reached that threshold. I pointed out several times before and
Sullivan must know (am I overestimating him?) that the moderators of
all the other "Stereo Review" and "Audio" ABX component comparions
amalgamated the results and came up with nul, negative majority verdict
while in my opinion the only interesting panelists were those few who
HEARD inspite of the ABX fog. There was quite a discussion about it in
RAHE with Marcus the litigation lawyer putting on a positively last
appearance in this thread telling me how wrong I was
I was severely chastised by the other members and friends
of Sullivan's chapel Ovchain, Pierce, JJ etc. (Quotes on request) The
positive results were just flukes- majority rules, Mirabel doesn't know
what he's talking about.
Lo and behold Suddenly our Sullivan prefers the minority
verdict. At his convenience- when it suits him he finds "sufficient
evidence" in a testimony of two.
more gifted listeners. And he has the brass to charge ME with
neglecting those who did better than the average........
Watch now. .As it happens TWO ( note;also TWO) listeners also
reached this threshold of "hits" when comparing Monster vs. 16 gauge
cable (same diameter- remember?:"wire is wire) in pink noise test. They
HEARD the difference. I don't hear Sullivan applauding:" that is
sufficient evidence that the two cables were different". God forbid.
Cables never are- instant excommunication from the chapel.
I'm just waiting to see how he gets out of this one. Or do we
get another sulk? Bets on for how long anyone?
Sullivan will say whatever spittle brings to his tongue as we
used to say in my native country. Perhaps he underestimates the IQ of
his audience, perhaps he overestimates the effect of his audacity.
And he has the almost incredible brass to say: "Even so,two of
the listeners were statistically able to detect the difference with
choral music as well -- *if* the system response was different enough.
In the case of 16 vs Monster, it wasn't"


A little story from the past: . In my previous postings I
mentioned that one of the participants whom the (so-called) objectivist
Greenhill called a "golden ear" (no doubt tongue-in-cheek) showed that
he could distinguish between cables while ABXing
with results that surpassed. Greenhill's statistical criteria for
validity-.he scored 82% in atotal of 90 tests
You can imagine the outcry!!! Flags were being burnt,
windows broken, revenge sworn. Everyone in the chapel knows that wires
*must not* sound different. It is an article of faith. So they don't. I
was screamed at dozens of times that in DBT testing majority rules. I
thought it was an idiocy and I still do. People differ- that's why
ticks on paper "tests" which do not embrace human variety test only the
abilities of the participants . That's why they are most unlikely to
ever be of slightest use to non-participants.
Now Sullivan emerges and teaches me to respect the
minority that does better!
..:All of a sudden our Sullivan is defending the fact that individuals
with individual abilities, musical exposure etc. matter in a listening
group not the average Tom.Dick and Harry. He is telling this to ME who
has been repeating it again and again.
Did our Sullivan think over what he was doing to the ABX
faith?; If two good ones outweigh the others how can you be sure that
you got a convincing negative DBT ever? "No difference" to anyone in
the panel you collected this time?. How can you be certain, but truly
CERTAIN that somewhere there isn't a guy or a girl who hear the
difference, Or a whole slew of them? Virtuosi, conductors, Jenn et al?
He may change tactics and invoke measurements? But
Sullivan, my boy. if the mesurements tell you everything you need to
know why pester people with your "test". Are you a collector of
negatives? So far you can not reference one, single ABX component
comparison with a positive outcome by the majority of listeners
published in any reputable scientific journal. Not even about
loudspeakers (See Sean Olive's text).
Sullivan do you see where you got your ABX. by defending individual
results as distinct from the group?? Arny would never dig that hole for
himself.
With friends like NYOB, ScottW and you he doesn't need enemies.
Could it be that you reached your competence level some time ago and
that it is all the way downhill from now on?
..
Ludovic Mirabel

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:50:51 -0800, "Scott "broken record"W"
wrote:


Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for my
classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat himself.

Don't you have some Hispanic to arrest or something?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:50:51 -0800, "Scott "broken record"W"
wrote:


Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for my
classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat himself.

Don't you have some Hispanic to arrest or something?

How could you work if the kitchen was closed?

ScottW

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:26:50 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:50:51 -0800, "Scott "broken record"W"
wrote:


Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for my
classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat himself.

Don't you have some Hispanic to arrest or something?

How could you work if the kitchen was closed?

None of our kitchen people live in your state.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:


swallowing your codswallop

Is that some kind of seafood dish, cod and scallops, perhaps

No, Mr. Slick. This is just one frustrated chapel member venting his
spite.
Mind you , it could be worse. At least Sullivan stops at inventing a
funny ha ha name for me: and talking about "codswallop". I wonder how
I earned all this bile? Could it really be that it sticks in his craw
that I am an M.D and a Fellow of the Royal College and a former
researcher in the Medical Research Ccil of Great Britain while he
contributes to news groups. Does seem a little primitive but what is
one to think knowing that once he really took trouble to search for my
credentials (in the wrong place) hoping to prove that I was a fake
because he could not find my name in the U.S. sources where I never
practiced.
At that his is only a mild version of the foam at the mouth fury
of some of his brethren in the in true faith chapel. "Liar" from the
pens of these fanatics for truth the fatuous NYOB and his pal Scottie,
"Lying ****bag" repeated 3 times in one posting from Pinkerton when I
caught him spewing fake references. that had nothing to do with the
subject under discussion.
That is why I feel obliged to note that Krueger, at least in his
arguments with me, kept to the rules of civilised discourse. Which does
not mean that I won't continue fighting him tooth and nail....on paper.
I do wish though he'd stop giving the impression he suspects that most
of those disagreeing with him are in a sinister plot.
Ludovic Mirabel

Not being able to resist argument but unwilling to have
Sullivan go into one of his "I don't have an answer" silent sulks (
Sully sulking. Ha ha- irresistibly funny. Almost as funny as his "Dr.
Mirabilis") I'll say something here about his posting today:

He says: "The scores were not *uniformly* worse".
My sentence was: "uniformly worse when MUSIC was played" (as compared
with pink noise)
Granted anputating crucial sense in this fashion allows you to argue
still standing up. All in a day's work for our local self-nominated
representative of science. Since it seems consistent with his standards
of debate he can have it and keep it.

He continues:
" In fact the scores were
almost uniformly *better* whenever 24 guage was used --
and two listeners still scoring better than chance regardless of
sound samples used. That is sufficient evidence that the two
cables were *different* -- a result that you have claimed, btw,
never occurs in audio gear ABX tests"

It is hard to believe that a man wants to be taken seriously
while attributing such moronisms dug out from the depths of his
distorted psyche to others. I "claimed" that you can "never" get a
"different result".in ABX!!!!.
Just two weeks ago I rereviewed for his benefit the Oakland
ABX website that Sullivan quoted at me twice. For the nth time I
pointed out that the had positive results but only when comparing
badly dissimilar components that a deaf man would have a problem not
hearing.. Of course you have positive results when you compare apples
with oranges or a 24 g wire with a 16 g wire- using man made noise
instead of music.

Now kiddies watch Sullivan tie himself up in knots..
Greenhill's states his statistical criteria thus( loc.cit.p.50) "It is
generally accepted that the threshold at which a phenomenon can be
considered definitely audible is when listeners are aware of it at
least 75% of the time" Did you see it? 75&. Two listeners out of 11
just reached that threshold. I pointed out several times before and
Sullivan must know (am I overestimating him?) that the moderators of
all the other "Stereo Review" and "Audio" ABX component comparions
amalgamated the results and came up with nul, negative majority verdict
while in my opinion the only interesting panelists were those few who
HEARD inspite of the ABX fog. There was quite a discussion about it in
RAHE with Marcus the litigation lawyer putting on a positively last
appearance in this thread telling me how wrong I was
I was severely chastised by the other members and friends
of Sullivan's chapel Ovchain, Pierce, JJ etc. (Quotes on request) The
positive results were just flukes- majority rules, Mirabel doesn't know
what he's talking about.
Lo and behold Suddenly our Sullivan prefers the minority
verdict. At his convenience- when it suits him he finds "sufficient
evidence" in a testimony of two.
more gifted listeners. And he has the brass to charge ME with
neglecting those who did better than the average........
Watch now. .As it happens TWO ( note;also TWO) listeners also
reached this threshold of "hits" when comparing Monster vs. 16 gauge
cable (same diameter- remember?:"wire is wire) in pink noise test. They
HEARD the difference.

Same diameter my ass..... look at this pdf page 3
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Greenhill.pdf

The monster cable looks to be 12 gauge equivalent.
Resistance measurements for a 30 foot run are .09 ohms
vs .24 ohms for the 16 gauge.

Ludo... you are simply not to be trusted... and thats putting it politely.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:26:50 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:50:51 -0800, "Scott "broken record"W"
wrote:


Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for
my
classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat
himself.

Don't you have some Hispanic to arrest or something?

How could you work if the kitchen was closed?

None of our kitchen people live in your state.

Save the heartland... Ca. is already lost, even the waiters are hispanic.

ScottW

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:05:45 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Save the heartland... Ca. is already lost, even the waiters are hispanic.

Then your son is lost.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message

ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Paul B wrote:


Paul B. again

The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly
coarse when stepping through volume but I wouldn't
care to state I could hear even that little in
a DB test!

Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo
Review, Aug. 1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found
that most of his panel were unable to distinguish
1,75db difference between the volumes produced by a
thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a
signal* Once again: to follow Sean Olive's
investigation; "difference" appears to be the wrong
question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
people can distinguish components. "Which one do you
like better?" (blinded-why not?) is a much better bet.
But of course that sounds too human and not
"scientific" enough

Ludovic Mirabel

If this message appears twice in some servers I
apologise. Google accepted it yesterday but failed to
post it.

It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a
lie.

I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that
Mirabel's
account is factually correct.


I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
floobylovers bull**** about it.


You might also want to alert people to the fact that this was a test
between
24 gauge zip, 16 gauge zip, and early Monster Cable which professed
nothing
more than to be a good quality 14 or16 gauge (depending on model) zip,
albeit at a high price (moderate by today's standards). Is it surprising
that the test between the "16's" didn't show a difference?
Does that have any direct applicability to more esoteric speaker cables of
the last ten years?

Not that the test is invalid, perhaps just your use of it. I think Lud's
point is
that with music, even the 24 vs 16 gauge test with a 1.75 db difference
didn't show a difference,
especially if you take the entire panel into account which you need to do
if
you want to draw any "universal" conclusions.


Perhaps if more people got the message that music is not always the best
type of signal to use for difference testing, it would become clearer why
nobody heard a 1.75 difference. Using Pink Noise would have been a uch
better and more revealing way to have discovered that kind of spl differnce.
Instead those who recomend using anything other than music are mocked and
called metrons or some such.

ScottW wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:

But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue
furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and death
matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as
occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars".

Thank you Mirabel for the detailed account. I should note that it was
ScottW that called what you said "a lie", in effect calling you a liar,
not me. Though you know that, just wanted to put it on record.

Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for my
classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat himself.

ScottW

Scottie seems to think that everyone has no other life
to
live but like he lives and breathes lurking in the undergrowth of the
web waiting for an opportunity to yap at someone.
Reluctantly and feeling somewhat nauseated I had to
answer his semiliterate efforts several times before. Every time the
answer was followed by a couple of weeks silence. Then a new clever,
clever trap would be sprung quoting past failures as though they
were victories.
So in his phrase: "for the record". He started by
accusing me of
"hypocrisy" about Greenhill article. My hypocrisy consisted of quoting
one
of the participants 82% accuracy score, when distinguishing between
cables and repeating Greenhill's description of him as "golden ear".-
This was my reason for criticising the "Stereo Review"
writers'
invariable conclusions that the outcome of their ABX tests were
negative
ignoring individuals such as the "golden ear'". The distinction between

*quoting* and expressing an opinion about the quote was too
sophisticated for Scottie. He called it "hypocrisy"
It also became quite obvious that he was not
familiar with
the meaning of "reference".. After I gave the precise Journal, volume,
names of writers, title and dates reference to an article he wanted me
to copy all of it for his benefit. He claimed that he could not find a
Public Library in the City of San Diego!!! Obviously he never visited
one.
And he has not done so to-date while he has the temerity to pontificate

about subjects he simply does not understand.
His next effort culminated in calling me a liar
over Olive's
article. This was based truly incredibly on one sentence that I chose
to
quote. Once again, equally incredibly, instead of finding and reading
the
original he wanted me to post it to him.
Basing himself on that one sentence this
illiterate buffoon
had the temerity to call me a liar, and repeat it because I said that
Olive's
panel *performed badly when asked to discriminate between components
and much better when asked simply " which one do you prefer?"
So here- reluctantly (because I hate typing nearly
as much
as I hate stupidity)- is more from Olive's article: (JAES, vol.51, #9,
Sept.2003, pps. 806-825)
" "The loudspeaker preferences AND PERFORMANCE of these listeners
were compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant
differences IN PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different
categories of listeners.. The trained listeners were the most
discriminating and reliable listeners with mean Fl values 3-27 times
higher than the other four listener categories. PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES
ASIDE loudspeaker PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT across all
categories of listeners...."
FURTHER:
He says also " PERFORMANCE AND preference " in the very title of
his article. And defines his index of performance so that there is no
ambiguity thusly: ""This metric accounts for the listeners'
ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability
to repeat their ratings expressed in the denominator."
In the future if Scottie yaps again I'll just
requote this text.
Life is to short to deal with Scotties of this world again and again.
Ludovic Mirabel.