[bob]

On Jul 21, 6:51*pm, Sonnova wrote:

I don't follow you. How can the test be double-blind if the participants can
see from the labels which they are drinking?

The only thing that has to be blind in an ABX test is X. The listener
can know what A and B are, and which is which. He just has to
determine which one matches X.

So an ABX taste test could go like this: You have a bottle of Coke and
a bottle of Pepsi, both clearly labeled, and a third bottle,
unlabeled. Your task would be to determine which of the two was in
Bottle #3. That task would presumably be easier than what you were
trying to accomplish, though there's no way to know if the result
would be different without doing it.

bob

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:25:15 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 21, 10:31*pm, Sonnova wrote:

But getting back to audio, is it possible that (some of) the same pitfalls
that occur in a taste-test such as those we've been discussing could also be
present in D-B test for audio components?

No more than either of them would share the same pitfalls as DB
medical trials. You're talking about very different biological
mechanisms here. The aftertaste problem suggests that taste tests
might require some "palate cleansing" between tastes. Whereas for
listening tests, any gap between samples decreases the sensitivity of
the test.

It may be that you're drawing too strong a conclusion from the taste
tests you ran yourself. I'm sure you tried to be as scientific as
possible, but there may be a better test design that would produce a
different result.

bob


Sure, that's possible. Anyway, I know one from another where it counts and
that's all that's important to me.

[Malcolm Lee]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:49 +0000, outsor wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no. However
simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag. of the
subjective variety will serve.

So you demand scientific rigour from the "subjective folk" but when
asked for the same from yourself "simple observation" suffices. Not
very convincing, is it?

They do not start "auditions" with such
a self declaration but certainly leave the reader by article's end with
the firm impression that such ability to wrap their ears around some
supposed sonic attributes is absolute.

Who is "the reader"? Most hi-fi magazines have a readership of
tens of thousands of people.What evidence have you got they they all
end up with a "firm impression" of the reviewer's "absolute"
abilities in perceiving "sonic attributes"?

Malcolm

[C. Leeds]

wrote:
Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

A asked:

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

outsor answers:

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no.

This is hardly scientific. You've made specific claims and attributed
them to unnamed others, in some these threads using actual quotation
marks. Now it's clear that you're just making this stuff up.

However
simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag. of the
subjective variety will serve....

again, you're fabricating these claims. Yet, you demand scientific rigor
from others!

[Steven Sullivan]

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:49 +0000, outsor wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no. However
simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag. of the
subjective variety will serve.

So you demand scientific rigour from the "subjective folk" but when
asked for the same from yourself "simple observation" suffices. Not
very convincing, is it?

I take it you have never read , say, any of Stereophile's editorials
or letters from its readers , dismissing the utility of blind comparison
of audio components?

I personally witnessed John Atkinson retail his story about why he doesn't
think such blind testing is useful. The logic of it was as follow: he
compared two amps blind. He found he could not tell them apart, so he
chose A over B. After living with it he became dissatisfied with the
sound , so he went back to amp B, which he loved. His conclusion is that
blind testing is of no use in deciding which amp sounds better.

Needless to say, such reasoning is hardly scientific. But it is the sort
of thing one encounters frequently in the 'audiophile' culture.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:24:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:13:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam
cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some
other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat
of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt
marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then
cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some
third party move the cups around from the position that
they person who marked them and covered the markings
left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola
was where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to
admit that I couldn't tell which of the major colas
were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out, but
the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I
could and sometimes I couldn't. By the scientific
results of these tests (and I've been challenged more
than once) it would seem that there is no real
difference between Coke and Pepsi.

IME the anecdote above is one of the reasons why we
invented the ABX test. In the ABX version of the test
above, you would have correctly-labelled bottles of Coke
and Pepsi to compare to. I think you would find that it
makes all the difference in the world.

I don't follow you. How can the test be double-blind if
the participants can see from the labels which they are
drinking?

The fluids for reference purposes are clearly labelled. The fluids for taste
testing still have their indentities concealed.

Yes, but that's a given, is it not? Ostensibly the fluids were all decanted
from cans or bottles that were clearly and proudly emblazoned with the
maker's various logos, trademarks, and product names.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:25:38 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 21, 6:51*pm, Sonnova wrote:

I don't follow you. How can the test be double-blind if the participants can
see from the labels which they are drinking?

The only thing that has to be blind in an ABX test is X. The listener
can know what A and B are, and which is which. He just has to
determine which one matches X.

So an ABX taste test could go like this: You have a bottle of Coke and
a bottle of Pepsi, both clearly labeled, and a third bottle,
unlabeled. Your task would be to determine which of the two was in
Bottle #3. That task would presumably be easier than what you were
trying to accomplish, though there's no way to know if the result
would be different without doing it.

bob

OK, now I understand. Thank you. These tests were obviously not ABX, but
merely double blind. The taster (me in this case) only knew that there were
three colas present. Assumptively, (on my part) one of them was Coke, one was
Pepsi, and the third was something else. I didn't know which was which, and
neither did any of the spectators. Each sample was labeled, but the labels
were hidden from view and the order of the samples' arrangement on the table
was randomized by someone who also did not know which was which. The person
who prepared the samples and covered the labels was no present when the
second person randomized their position. Therefore no one knew which was
which and thus could not, via inadvertent body language, send me visual
clues. It looks pretty foolproof to me except that the taste of one cola
obfuscates the taste of the other.

[[email protected]]

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

A asked:

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

outsor answers:

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no.

This is hardly scientific. You've made specific claims and attributed
them to unnamed others, in some these threads using actual quotation
marks. Now it's clear that you're just making this stuff up.

However
simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag. of the
subjective variety will serve....

again, you're fabricating these claims. Yet, you demand scientific rigor
from others!

Outsor's second law:

Where the relevant or the interesting or the substantive is lacking, the
pedantic will do.

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:49 +0000, outsor wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no.
However
simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag. of the
subjective variety will serve.

So you demand scientific rigour from the "subjective folk" but when
asked for the same from yourself "simple observation" suffices. Not
very convincing, is it?

I take it you have never read , say, any of Stereophile's editorials
or letters from its readers , dismissing the utility of blind comparison
of audio components?

I personally witnessed John Atkinson retail his story about why he doesn't
think such blind testing is useful. The logic of it was as follow: he
compared two amps blind. He found he could not tell them apart, so he
chose A over B. After living with it he became dissatisfied with the
sound , so he went back to amp B, which he loved. His conclusion is that
blind testing is of no use in deciding which amp sounds better.

Needless to say, such reasoning is hardly scientific. But it is the sort
of thing one encounters frequently in the 'audiophile' culture.

It is also the way people make decisions that give them equipment/systems
that they don't feel compelled to change every two years. Instead,
components that stay in systems five, ten, fifteen, twenty years.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:25:34 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:49 +0000, outsor wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no.
However
simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag. of the
subjective variety will serve.

So you demand scientific rigour from the "subjective folk" but when
asked for the same from yourself "simple observation" suffices. Not
very convincing, is it?

I take it you have never read , say, any of Stereophile's editorials
or letters from its readers , dismissing the utility of blind comparison
of audio components?

I personally witnessed John Atkinson retail his story about why he doesn't
think such blind testing is useful. The logic of it was as follow: he
compared two amps blind. He found he could not tell them apart, so he
chose A over B. After living with it he became dissatisfied with the
sound , so he went back to amp B, which he loved. His conclusion is that
blind testing is of no use in deciding which amp sounds better.

Needless to say, such reasoning is hardly scientific. But it is the sort
of thing one encounters frequently in the 'audiophile' culture.

It is also the way people make decisions that give them equipment/systems
that they don't feel compelled to change every two years. Instead,
components that stay in systems five, ten, fifteen, twenty years.


In many cases, there is no reason to change out equipment that frequently.
For instance, I have a pair of VTL 140 monobloc amps. These amps were new in
the early 90's. Each uses six 807 transmitter tubes for 140 Watts each in
pentode mode and 60 Watts each in triode mode. They also have huge power
supplies with humongous electrolytic capacitors for nice, stiff, B+. The
resistors are all low noise types, the tubes have DC on the filaments with
regulated filament voltages and they all have low EA capacitors in the signal
path. I simply don't see how a newer amp could or would be any better. The
same is true for my Audio Research SP-15 and ditto my Yamaha T-85 FM tuner.
They work well, sound good and both are about 20 years old. My speakers are
much newer (Martin-Logan Vistas with Sunfilre powered subs) as is my SACD
player (Sony XA777ES). I think my system sounds superb and see no need to buy
new equipment all the time.

[Malcolm Lee]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:00:43 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:49 +0000, outsor wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no.
However simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag.
of the subjective variety will serve.

So you demand scientific rigour from the "subjective folk" but when
asked for the same from yourself "simple observation" suffices. Not
very convincing, is it?

I take it you have never read , say, any of Stereophile's editorials or
letters from its readers , dismissing the utility of blind comparison of
audio components?


Why are you addressing this to me? I'm not the one defending
scientific rigour in all things. And as for Stereophile's views
on blind testing - I am well aware of them and agree with them.

I personally witnessed John Atkinson retail his story about why he
doesn't think such blind testing is useful. The logic of it was as
follow: he compared two amps blind. He found he could not tell them
apart, so he chose A over B. After living with it he became
dissatisfied with the sound , so he went back to amp B, which he loved.
His conclusion is that blind testing is of no use in deciding which amp
sounds better.

Needless to say, such reasoning is hardly scientific. But it is the
sort of thing one encounters frequently in the 'audiophile' culture.

It is the sort of reasoning that one encounters everywhere in life.
It's called being human.

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:25:34 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:49 +0000, outsor wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no.
However
simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag. of the
subjective variety will serve.

So you demand scientific rigour from the "subjective folk" but when
asked for the same from yourself "simple observation" suffices. Not
very convincing, is it?

I take it you have never read , say, any of Stereophile's editorials
or letters from its readers , dismissing the utility of blind comparison
of audio components?

I personally witnessed John Atkinson retail his story about why he
doesn't
think such blind testing is useful. The logic of it was as follow: he
compared two amps blind. He found he could not tell them apart, so he
chose A over B. After living with it he became dissatisfied with the
sound , so he went back to amp B, which he loved. His conclusion is
that
blind testing is of no use in deciding which amp sounds better.

Needless to say, such reasoning is hardly scientific. But it is the
sort
of thing one encounters frequently in the 'audiophile' culture.

It is also the way people make decisions that give them equipment/systems
that they don't feel compelled to change every two years. Instead,
components that stay in systems five, ten, fifteen, twenty years.


In many cases, there is no reason to change out equipment that frequently.
For instance, I have a pair of VTL 140 monobloc amps. These amps were new
in
the early 90's. Each uses six 807 transmitter tubes for 140 Watts each in
pentode mode and 60 Watts each in triode mode. They also have huge power
supplies with humongous electrolytic capacitors for nice, stiff, B+. The
resistors are all low noise types, the tubes have DC on the filaments with
regulated filament voltages and they all have low EA capacitors in the
signal
path. I simply don't see how a newer amp could or would be any better. The
same is true for my Audio Research SP-15 and ditto my Yamaha T-85 FM
tuner.
They work well, sound good and both are about 20 years old. My speakers
are
much newer (Martin-Logan Vistas with Sunfilre powered subs) as is my SACD
player (Sony XA777ES). I think my system sounds superb and see no need to
buy
new equipment all the time.

Well, I expect you make my point. My guess is that you chose each component
carefully based on good reviews, and then confirming listening on your own
(or maybe just the latter). No ABX involved. The sound pleased you (it
may not please another person quite as much as a solid-state amp) and you
chose to live with it.
All the gear you have (except the speakers which I've not heard, but all the
rest) is top flight gear that was well received when new and has stood the
test of time. That's very different than people either choosing gear that
is inferior (because they believe that abx shows "it all sounds alike") or
gear that is "flavor of the month" based on intenet and magazine hoopla.

Point is, ABX has nothing to do with choosing a really good sound system.
Good ears, a knowledge of live music, and the courage of your convictions is
what is required.

[[email protected]]

"I take it you have never read , say, any of Stereophile's editorials or
letters from its readers , dismissing the utility of blind comparison of
audio components?

I personally witnessed John Atkinson retail his story about why he doesn't
think such blind testing is useful. The logic of it was as follow: he
compared two amps blind. He found he could not tell them apart, so he
chose A over B. After living with it he became dissatisfied with the
sound , so he went back to amp B, which he loved. His conclusion is that
blind testing is of no use in deciding which amp sounds better.

Needless to say, such reasoning is hardly scientific. But it is the sort
of thing one encounters frequently in the 'audiophile' culture."

I recall thinking and writing in this news group at the time the "debate"
was published in his mag. that in fact he made the case of the objectiv
critic. He demonstrated what is well known in studies of such things,
that if one places oneself in a situation known to produce subjective
results which exist only as a brain percettion, then one will most likely
produce such effects.

He entered into a blind context and the effect was not there. He entered
into the unblinded context and the effect was there. He was but another
data point on the known effect. He a person of considerable technical
knowledge and experience with audio gear was in the end human too.

I think he was posting in the news group at the time of the publication of
the article, he did not respond.

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:49 +0000, outsor wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no.
However
simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag. of the
subjective variety will serve.

So you demand scientific rigour from the "subjective folk" but when
asked for the same from yourself "simple observation" suffices. Not
very convincing, is it?

I take it you have never read , say, any of Stereophile's editorials
or letters from its readers , dismissing the utility of blind comparison
of audio components?

I personally witnessed John Atkinson retail his story about why he doesn't
think such blind testing is useful. The logic of it was as follow: he
compared two amps blind. He found he could not tell them apart, so he
chose A over B. After living with it he became dissatisfied with the
sound , so he went back to amp B, which he loved. His conclusion is that
blind testing is of no use in deciding which amp sounds better.

Needless to say, such reasoning is hardly scientific. But it is the sort
of thing one encounters frequently in the 'audiophile' culture.

It is also the way people make decisions that give them equipment/systems
that they don't feel compelled to change every two years. Instead,
components that stay in systems five, ten, fifteen, twenty years.

LOL. So, audiophiles are notoriously people who DON'T change their components
every few years?

Now I've heard *everything*.



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[[email protected]]

"Well, I expect you make my point. My guess is that you chose each
component
carefully based on good reviews, and then confirming listening on your own
(or maybe just the latter). No ABX involved. The sound pleased you (it
may not please another person quite as much as a solid-state amp) and you
chose to live with it.
All the gear you have (except the speakers which I've not heard, but all
the
rest) is top flight gear that was well received when new and has stood the
test of time. That's very different than people either choosing gear that
is inferior (because they believe that abx shows "it all sounds alike") or
gear that is "flavor of the month" based on intenet and magazine hoopla.

Point is, ABX has nothing to do with choosing a really good sound system.
Good ears, a knowledge of live music, and the courage of your convictions
is
what is required."

Or we may consider it from another angle. Not having the benefit of blind
testing he had no way to know if other gear just as satisfying was
available in a large range of choices that would not sound different in
any other combination then the one he chose.

And maybe at a fraction of the price and with the features he really
wanted because the sonic attributes were now a neutral factor common to
the entire large range of choices.

The hifi mags. could then report "these 50 amps can not individually be
distinguished by listening alone as to sonic attributes nor preference, so
we can now turn to the factors that really matter to our readers".

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:49 +0000, outsor wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless
of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no.
However
simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag. of the
subjective variety will serve.

So you demand scientific rigour from the "subjective folk" but when
asked for the same from yourself "simple observation" suffices. Not
very convincing, is it?

I take it you have never read , say, any of Stereophile's editorials
or letters from its readers , dismissing the utility of blind
comparison
of audio components?

I personally witnessed John Atkinson retail his story about why he
doesn't
think such blind testing is useful. The logic of it was as follow: he
compared two amps blind. He found he could not tell them apart, so he
chose A over B. After living with it he became dissatisfied with the
sound , so he went back to amp B, which he loved. His conclusion is
that
blind testing is of no use in deciding which amp sounds better.

Needless to say, such reasoning is hardly scientific. But it is the
sort
of thing one encounters frequently in the 'audiophile' culture.

It is also the way people make decisions that give them equipment/systems
that they don't feel compelled to change every two years. Instead,
components that stay in systems five, ten, fifteen, twenty years.

LOL. So, audiophiles are notoriously people who DON'T change their
components
every few years?

Now I've heard *everything*.

I can't tell you whether or not we are in the majority or minority of
audiophiles, but I can tell you that people like Sonnova and myself, who
have bought really high quality gear on a careful, "musical" basis tend to
have systems that change only gradually.....with pieces having long, useful
lives. He mentioned VTL and ARC....both brands I have also had in my system
for many years with extreme music pleasure. And these are not the only
"brands" or technologies that can give that pleasure.....but one needs to
find gear that they can live happily with without nagging issues, and then
live happily. ABX won't help. Nor will buying the "brand of the
month".....both fallacious ways of making audio choices in my opinion, and
practiced by some if not many.

[Steven Sullivan]

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:00:43 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:49 +0000, outsor wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no.
However simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag.
of the subjective variety will serve.

So you demand scientific rigour from the "subjective folk" but when
asked for the same from yourself "simple observation" suffices. Not
very convincing, is it?

I take it you have never read , say, any of Stereophile's editorials or
letters from its readers , dismissing the utility of blind comparison of
audio components?


Why are you addressing this to me? I'm not the one defending
scientific rigour in all things. And as for Stereophile's views
on blind testing - I am well aware of them and agree with them.


So, *you* were already well aware that examples existed that
supported outsor's claim, but your quibble was that he
didn't specifically cite one?



I personally witnessed John Atkinson retail his story about why he
doesn't think such blind testing is useful. The logic of it was as
follow: he compared two amps blind. He found he could not tell them
apart, so he chose A over B. After living with it he became
dissatisfied with the sound , so he went back to amp B, which he loved.
His conclusion is that blind testing is of no use in deciding which amp
sounds better.

Needless to say, such reasoning is hardly scientific. But it is the
sort of thing one encounters frequently in the 'audiophile' culture.

It is the sort of reasoning that one encounters everywhere in life.
It's called being human.

Which also means being wrong a lot. That's why *humans* invented ways
to help increase the odds of being right.


--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Malcolm Lee]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:27:03 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:00:43 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:49 +0000, outsor wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless
of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no.
However simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi
mag. of the subjective variety will serve.

So you demand scientific rigour from the "subjective folk" but
when
asked for the same from yourself "simple observation" suffices. Not
very convincing, is it?

I take it you have never read , say, any of Stereophile's editorials
or letters from its readers , dismissing the utility of blind
comparison of audio components?


Why are you addressing this to me? I'm not the one defending
scientific rigour in all things. And as for Stereophile's views on
blind testing - I am well aware of them and agree with them.


So, *you* were already well aware that examples existed that supported
outsor's claim, but your quibble was that he didn't specifically cite
one?



One example is not scientific evidence - which is what outsor was
demanding from others.


I personally witnessed John Atkinson retail his story about why he
doesn't think such blind testing is useful. The logic of it was as
follow: he compared two amps blind. He found he could not tell them
apart, so he chose A over B. After living with it he became
dissatisfied with the sound , so he went back to amp B, which he
loved. His conclusion is that blind testing is of no use in deciding
which amp sounds better.

Needless to say, such reasoning is hardly scientific. But it is the
sort of thing one encounters frequently in the 'audiophile' culture.

It is the sort of reasoning that one encounters everywhere in life.
It's called being human.

Which also means being wrong a lot. That's why *humans* invented ways
to help increase the odds of being right.

And such ways are useful only when there is a wrong and a right choice.
In the matter of personal preference they are irrelevant.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

*
Point is, ABX has nothing to do with choosing a really
good sound system.

Much more of a personal opinion than any kind of a fact that has general
application. Even just these few of the many lessons of ABX are clear to a
great many people:

(1) High end audio magazines are absolutely not to be trusted without
confirmation, or be taken at face value.
(2) High end audio stores are absolutely not to be trusted without
confirmation, or be taken at face value.
(3) High end audio manufacturers are absolutely not to be trusted without
confirmation, or be taken at face value.
(4) Change "High End" to "Mid Fi" and it is still all true. Usually the need
to be more cost effective forces MidFi to stick closer to the truth.

There are cases where even trusted professional journals fall into the trap
of overstating the benefits of new technology. HDCD and the technical
support for it which also applied to SACD and DVD-A come immediately to
mind.

Good ears, a knowledge of live music, and the courage of your convictions
is what is required.

Good ears is an interesting term, because I'm not sure that there is even
that much agreement about what it means. Some people think that good ears
are just those floppy things on the sides of our heads, and the plumbing and
transducers immediately attached to them. Others do understand that all by
themselves the floppy appendages, the plumbing and the transducers are
completely worthless without the well-trained grey matter they connect with.
Unfortunately a lot of that grey matter is not well-trained.

If knowledge of live music were all that important, then musicians would
make the best audio research, development, and sound production people. They
most certainly don't. Most performing musicians don't know what the audience
hears when they perform because performing live precludes sitting in the
audience. Furthermore, musicians have the disturbing tendency to listen to
the music, not the details of the reproduction.

IME it takes a lot more than courage of one's convictions. What those
convictions are, can be very relevant to the component selection process.
Many of us are sitting here, shaking our heads about a recent outpouring of
misplaced convictions in what seems to us to be egregious snake oil and
pseudo science.

[Steven Sullivan]

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:27:03 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:00:43 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:49 +0000, outsor wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless
of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no.
However simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi
mag. of the subjective variety will serve.

So you demand scientific rigour from the "subjective folk" but
when
asked for the same from yourself "simple observation" suffices. Not
very convincing, is it?

I take it you have never read , say, any of Stereophile's editorials
or letters from its readers , dismissing the utility of blind
comparison of audio components?


Why are you addressing this to me? I'm not the one defending
scientific rigour in all things. And as for Stereophile's views on
blind testing - I am well aware of them and agree with them.


So, *you* were already well aware that examples existed that supported
outsor's claim, but your quibble was that he didn't specifically cite
one?



One example is not scientific evidence - which is what outsor was
demanding from others.

So, you now claim to only be aware of one example? Yet you also claim to be
'well aware' of Stereophile's views, which have been expressed more than
once.

Challenging someone to present evidence of something you already know to be
true is....curious behaviour.

I personally witnessed John Atkinson retail his story about why he
doesn't think such blind testing is useful. The logic of it was as
follow: he compared two amps blind. He found he could not tell them
apart, so he chose A over B. After living with it he became
dissatisfied with the sound , so he went back to amp B, which he
loved. His conclusion is that blind testing is of no use in deciding
which amp sounds better.

Needless to say, such reasoning is hardly scientific. But it is the
sort of thing one encounters frequently in the 'audiophile' culture.

It is the sort of reasoning that one encounters everywhere in life.
It's called being human.

Which also means being wrong a lot. That's why *humans* invented ways
to help increase the odds of being right.

And such ways are useful only when there is a wrong and a right choice.

Actually, they're also useful in product preference testing and development.
And have been so used in audio, for loudspeakers

In the matter of personal preference they are irrelevant.

You get a free pass to prefer whatever you like. But you don't get a free pass
to assert that two amps sound different, if your preference is not actually
based on the sound they make.

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Most performing musicians don't know what the audience
hears when they perform because performing live precludes sitting in the
audience.

That's a huge over generalization, Arny. Most serious musicians that I
know spend A LOT of time in the audience seats. I probably spend about
5-7 hours a week in audience seats. I spend another 15-20 hours a week
in a similar spacial position to where microphones that are recording
instruments and voices are placed.

Furthermore, musicians have the disturbing tendency to listen to
the music, not the details of the reproduction.

That's an interesting statement, borne, IMO, of lack of knowledge of how
musicians study for their performance skill. Now, if you mean that most
musicians can't listen to a recording and accurately state the type of
distortion that is present, what frequency range is displaying problems,
expressed in Hz, and so forth, I would agree with you. That's not what
we're trained to do, and most of us have absolutely no interest in such
things (though that is starting to change).

But musicians are trained, both formerly and by experience, to
continually listen to very fine details in sound. This is especially
true in the area of timbres of instruments/voices. (Now, I'm going to
state some facts here that some people in the past have labeled as
"bragging". Please know that that's not the intention at all.) I can,
from an audience seat some, say, 40' away, tell if a steel string
guitarist is using light gauge strings or medium gauge strings, the
difference being measured in hundredths of an inch. I can easily tell
whether a trombonist is using an instrument with a .557 bore or one with
a .475 bore, or if that same player is using the same horn but with two
different brands of mouthpiece. It's easy to tell if a guitarist is
using a Martin 0028 made in 1965 or one made last year. We can tell
those things because we have to obsess over sound in order to compete in
the profession. Therefore, I think that we are good candidates for
listening to music reproduced with audio gear and hearing the
differences.

Now, all that said, I think that audio people and musical people have A
LOT to learn from each other, and I, for one, would like to see more
collaboration on boards such as this as a way to facilitate a "meeting
of the minds/ears".

[[email protected]]

A list of how various varibles in musical production can provide audible
differences. Then:

"Therefore, I think that we are good candidates for listening to music
reproduced with audio gear and hearing the differences."

Good indeed, but demonstratively not unique.

Trained experienced listeners for specific variables on the reproduction
end can not in blind testing show that most of the claims of the
subjectively inclined exist outside their heads.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:42:13 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Most performing musicians don't know what the audience
hears when they perform because performing live precludes sitting in the
audience.

That's a huge over generalization, Arny. Most serious musicians that I
know spend A LOT of time in the audience seats. I probably spend about
5-7 hours a week in audience seats. I spend another 15-20 hours a week
in a similar spacial position to where microphones that are recording
instruments and voices are placed.

Furthermore, musicians have the disturbing tendency to listen to
the music, not the details of the reproduction.

That's an interesting statement, borne, IMO, of lack of knowledge of how
musicians study for their performance skill. Now, if you mean that most
musicians can't listen to a recording and accurately state the type of
distortion that is present, what frequency range is displaying problems,
expressed in Hz, and so forth, I would agree with you. That's not what
we're trained to do, and most of us have absolutely no interest in such
things (though that is starting to change).

My experience is that most musicians don't give a hoot about reproduced
sound. They can hear what they are listening for (usually the playing of
their own type of instrument) on a table radio.

[Malcolm Lee]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:15:51 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:27:03 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:00:43 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:49 +0000, outsor wrote:

Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities
regardless of
such
a "futile and silly brain.

"Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?"

As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no.
However simple observation of implied such abilities in any
hifi mag. of the subjective variety will serve.

So you demand scientific rigour from the "subjective folk" but
when
asked for the same from yourself "simple observation" suffices.
Not very convincing, is it?

I take it you have never read , say, any of Stereophile's
editorials or letters from its readers , dismissing the utility of
blind comparison of audio components?


Why are you addressing this to me? I'm not the one defending
scientific rigour in all things. And as for Stereophile's views on
blind testing - I am well aware of them and agree with them.


So, *you* were already well aware that examples existed that
supported outsor's claim, but your quibble was that he didn't
specifically cite one?



One example is not scientific evidence - which is what outsor was
demanding from others.

So, you now claim to only be aware of one example? Yet you also claim
to be 'well aware' of Stereophile's views, which have been expressed
more than once.


The same view expressed numerous times is still a single view - as you
are "well aware". You also seem to believe that Sterephile's view on
blind testing supports outsor's contention that

"subjective folk declare absolute their abilities...."

I don't.

Challenging someone to present evidence of something you already know to
be true is....curious behaviour.


I suggest you re-read this sub-thread as you seem to have rather lost
track of it. The challenge was for outsor to provide the same
scientific evidence for his assertion that

"subjective folk declare absolute their abilities...."

as he was demanding of others for their views. I do not "know
(this) to be true" - in fact I think it is utterly wrong - which
is why outsor was challenged.

Sterophile's views on blind-testing are a red herring introduced by
yourself. If you want to play that game, you can count me out.

[rest snipped]

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Most performing musicians don't know what the audience
hears when they perform because performing live
precludes sitting in the audience.

That's a huge over generalization, Arny.

No, especially when you then make one of the arguments that I deconstruct
below.

Please explain how you can sit in the audience seating area, and also sit on
the platform and perform, at that same time.

If you can't that, then you are stuck claiming that music sounds the same on
the platform and in the audience seating area.

If you say, well you hear other musicians playing, then explain how you
sound the same as some other musician, and them playing their music has the
identical same effect on you as you playing your music.

[[email protected]]

"I suggest you re-read this sub-thread as you seem to have rather lost
rack of it. The challenge was for outsor to provide the same
cientific evidence for his assertion that

subjective folk declare absolute their abilities...."

s he was demanding of others for their views. I do not "know
this) to be true" - in fact I think it is utterly wrong - which
s why outsor was challenged."

I don't recall demanding scientific evidence of anyone. In fact I started
a sub thread about science in subjective listening making the point that
we need not even evoke science in the least. I made the point that by
listening alone one can either demonstrate that reported perception events
reported by subjective folk exist in the brain and not the bit of audio
gear said to produce it. If in blind listening alone it disappears and in
sighted listening it appears we can reach a valid conclusion being
completely ignorant of the science of audio reproduction.

What was demanded of me were examples to illustrate the claims subjective
folk make. They were provided by myself and others. Those kind of claims
were made or they were not.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

My experience is that most musicians don't give a hoot about reproduced
sound. They can hear what they are listening for (usually the playing of
their own type of instrument) on a table radio.

I absolutely agree.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
wrote:

A list of how various varibles in musical production can provide audible
differences. Then:

"Therefore, I think that we are good candidates for listening to music
reproduced with audio gear and hearing the differences."

Good indeed, but demonstratively not unique.

I didn't claim otherwise, of course.


Trained experienced listeners for specific variables on the reproduction
end can not in blind testing show that most of the claims of the
subjectively inclined exist outside their heads.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Most performing musicians don't know what the audience
hears when they perform because performing live
precludes sitting in the audience.

That's a huge over generalization, Arny.

No, especially when you then make one of the arguments that I deconstruct
below.

Please explain how you can sit in the audience seating area, and also sit on
the platform and perform, at that same time.

If you can't that, then you are stuck claiming that music sounds the same on
the platform and in the audience seating area.

If you say, well you hear other musicians playing, then explain how you
sound the same as some other musician, and them playing their music has the
identical same effect on you as you playing your music.

When you wrote, "Most performing musicians don't know what the audience
hears when they perform..." I presumed that you meant "they" being
musicians in general. You used the qualifier "most" performing
musicians. If you meant the statement the way you now "deconstruct" it,
it wouldn't be "most", it would be "all".

[C. Leeds]

wrote:

I don't recall demanding scientific evidence of anyone.

How about this:

If the subjective folk want to once again regain credibility then
they must do their own tests

or this:
Not having the benefit of blind
testing he had no way to know if other gear...

or this:

Outsor's first law, the rationalizations of the subjective audio radical
fringe are of the same kind as those claimed in astrology and esp,
especially in reasons they fail in being able to demonstrate basic truth
claims about same.

or this:

All we have at best is an anecdotal example
which would be better supported with controled testing.

or this:

Double blind tests can be done conforming to his ownlistening session
preferences. This addresses the false oppisition he posed...

or this:

Of course science is the way one bypasses such individual perturbations of
opinion, of radical views, and of individual belief systems underlying
"making up ones mind".. There is no need of debate because the science
has been done.

or this:
The tests are to exclude the possibility that what is claimed to be heard
doesn't appear in the signal before the ears.

or this:
...being "heard" is about credability and not
freedom to post one's opinion...
That is the entire basis for a scientific way

or this:
Now we have science which allows us to move beyond the "I hear it, I
really do, don't you believe me?" state of affairs.

or this:
I hastened to mention that we can move beyond
individual opinion, everyone has one, and use science to resolve the
assertions of the subjective folk.

or this:
I think the hifi mags. would do us all a great
service and drop the "audition" nonsense altogether. Even if they could
demonstrate its validity, it is irrelevant information...

Be cautious when challenging Oustor, however, or he'll cite his on of
his own "laws"
Outsor's second law:

Where the relevant or the interesting or the substantive is lacking, the
pedantic will do.

[C. Leeds]

Harry Lavo wrote:

I can't tell you whether or not we are in the majority or minority of
audiophiles, but I can tell you that people like Sonnova and myself, who
have bought really high quality gear on a careful, "musical" basis tend to
have systems that change only gradually.....with pieces having long, useful
lives.

That's certainly the case with my system. My preamplifier (ARC SP-11)is
more than 20 years old; my speakers (Infinity IRS Beta) are more than 20
years old. One of my "newer" components is my turntable (VPI TNT) that's
more than a decade old.

As Harry says, this equipment has long life. That's part of why it's
often not as expensive as it might first appear.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

My experience is that most musicians don't give a hoot about
reproduced sound. They can hear what they are listening for (usually
the playing of their own type of instrument) on a table radio.

I absolutely agree.

Not being a musician such as yourself, I'm in no position to venture an
opinion on this matter. Nevetheless many of the 'musicians' at
rec.music.classical.recordings often make commotions over whose mastering
and/or re-mastering of a particular performance sounds best (even historical
ones which sound horrid, even at their best). Often times they are on the
look-out to purchase new and improved pressings of recordings they already
own. It also appears that the major record companies expect to thrive on
such an activity. Never engaging in such pursuits myself, I don't know what
to make of this story.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Most performing musicians don't know what the audience
hears when they perform because performing live
precludes sitting in the audience.

That's a huge over generalization, Arny.

No, especially when you then make one of the arguments
that I deconstruct below.

Please explain how you can sit in the audience seating
area, and also sit on the platform and perform, at that
same time.

If you can't that, then you are stuck claiming that
music sounds the same on the platform and in the
audience seating area.

If you say, well you hear other musicians playing, then
explain how you sound the same as some other musician,
and them playing their music has the identical same
effect on you as you playing your music.

When you wrote, "Most performing musicians don't know
what the audience hears when they perform..." I presumed
that you meant "they" being musicians in general.

No, I meant just those particular musicians that are performing.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:38:26 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

My experience is that most musicians don't give a hoot about
reproduced sound. They can hear what they are listening for (usually
the playing of their own type of instrument) on a table radio.

I absolutely agree.

Not being a musician such as yourself, I'm in no position to venture an
opinion on this matter. Nevetheless many of the 'musicians' at
rec.music.classical.recordings often make commotions over whose mastering
and/or re-mastering of a particular performance sounds best (even historical
ones which sound horrid, even at their best). Often times they are on the
look-out to purchase new and improved pressings of recordings they already
own. It also appears that the major record companies expect to thrive on
such an activity. Never engaging in such pursuits myself, I don't know what
to make of this story.



There are always exceptions to any rule. That's why we say "most musicians"
instead of "all musicians".

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:37:58 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Harry Lavo wrote:

I can't tell you whether or not we are in the majority or minority of
audiophiles, but I can tell you that people like Sonnova and myself, who
have bought really high quality gear on a careful, "musical" basis tend to
have systems that change only gradually.....with pieces having long, useful
lives.

That's certainly the case with my system. My preamplifier (ARC SP-11)is
more than 20 years old; my speakers (Infinity IRS Beta) are more than 20
years old. One of my "newer" components is my turntable (VPI TNT) that's
more than a decade old.

As Harry says, this equipment has long life. That's part of why it's
often not as expensive as it might first appear.


No argument there. And it's generally the fact that it's pricy to begin with
that actually makes it worth repairing when its broken, or to get refurbished
at some point to return it to like new performance and operation.

[[email protected]]

My experience is that most musicians don't give a hoot about
reproduced sound. They can hear what they are listening for (usually
the playing of their own type of instrument) on a table radio.

I absolutely agree.

"Not being a musician such as yourself, I'm in no position to venture an
opinion on this matter. Nevetheless many of the 'musicians' at
rec.music.classical.recordings often make commotions over whose mastering
and/or re-mastering of a particular performance sounds best (even
historical ones which sound horrid, even at their best). Often times they
are on the look-out to purchase new and improved pressings of recordings
they already own. It also appears that the major record companies expect
to thrive on such an activity. Never engaging in such pursuits myself, I
don't know what to make of this story."

It is valid. And like those who make the music they could likely spot the
master/mix pattern on a table radio. The master/fix people are making a
point to change the sound in some way they consider to meet some goal
different/better then some others would.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
wrote:

A list of how various varibles in musical production can provide audible
differences. Then:

"Therefore, I think that we are good candidates for listening to music
reproduced with audio gear and hearing the differences."

Good indeed, but demonstratively not unique.

I didn't claim otherwise, of course.


Trained experienced listeners for specific variables on the reproduction
end can not in blind testing show that most of the claims of the
subjectively inclined exist outside their heads.

[[email protected]]

I don't recall demanding scientific evidence of anyone.

How about this:

If the subjective folk want to once again regain credibility then
they must do their own tests

or this:
Not having the benefit of blind
testing he had no way to know if other gear...

or this:

Outsor's first law, the rationalizations of the subjective audio radical
fringe are of the same kind as those claimed in astrology and esp,
especially in reasons they fail in being able to demonstrate basic truth
claims about same.

or this:

All we have at best is an anecdotal example
which would be better supported with controled testing.

or this:

Double blind tests can be done conforming to his ownlistening session
preferences. This addresses the false oppisition he posed...

or this:

Of course science is the way one bypasses such individual perturbations
of
opinion, of radical views, and of individual belief systems underlying
"making up ones mind".. There is no need of debate because the science
has been done.

or this:
The tests are to exclude the possibility that what is claimed to be
heard
doesn't appear in the signal before the ears.

or this:
...being "heard" is about credability and not
freedom to post one's opinion...
That is the entire basis for a scientific way

or this:
Now we have science which allows us to move beyond the "I hear it, I
really do, don't you believe me?" state of affairs.

or this:
I hastened to mention that we can move beyond
individual opinion, everyone has one, and use science to resolve the
assertions of the subjective folk.

or this:
I think the hifi mags. would do us all a great
service and drop the "audition" nonsense altogether. Even if they could
demonstrate its validity, it is irrelevant information...

And I repeat, I don't recall demanding scientific evidence of anyone.
All of the above are making points of logic or pointing to facts at hand,
or my opinion even if the word "science" should have been used. To demand
scientific evidence would be of the order of "please provide the research
results supporting your conclusions" that amp "a" has a more "glorious
midrange bloom" then does amp "b". Nowhere does such appear and no
obvious demand of any poster was made. Indeed, in a part of my first
comment above that was snipped, I mentioned having started a sub thread to
steer the discussion away from science and into logic alone.

I wanted the discussion to be about the information and not what jumping
of hoops could be "demanded" of any poster. It is a kind of logical third
person approach. Making demands of people is not my style. However one
could see that given the kinds of information and logic I was evoking an
inner voice on your part demanding evidence might have been evoked.

Be cautious when challenging Oustor, however, or he'll cite his on of his
own "laws" Outsor's second law: Where the relevant or the
interesting or the substantive is lacking, the pedantic will do.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:38:26 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

My experience is that most musicians don't give a hoot about
reproduced sound. They can hear what they are listening for (usually
the playing of their own type of instrument) on a table radio.

I absolutely agree.

Not being a musician such as yourself, I'm in no position to venture an
opinion on this matter. Nevetheless many of the 'musicians' at
rec.music.classical.recordings often make commotions over whose mastering
and/or re-mastering of a particular performance sounds best (even
historical
ones which sound horrid, even at their best). Often times they are on the
look-out to purchase new and improved pressings of recordings they
already
own. It also appears that the major record companies expect to thrive on
such an activity. Never engaging in such pursuits myself, I don't know
what
to make of this story.



There are always exceptions to any rule. That's why we say "most
musicians"
instead of "all musicians".

The answer then depends upon the %age of musicians vs. non-musicians who are
in constant pursuit of better re-masterings.
Since the activity I made reference to takes place with respect to
'historical recordings' recordings, I believe it is very nearly only
musicians which are making fuss about the sound of those. It goes to say
whether the listen on a table radio or a super rig, they do care about
sound, not to mention Joshua Bell owns a $4 million dollar violin because of
its special sound.
http://www.stringsmagazine.com/issue...overstory.html

[Arny Krueger]

"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message


The answer then depends upon the %age of musicians vs.
non-musicians who are in constant pursuit of better
re-masterings.
Since the activity I made reference to takes place with
respect to 'historical recordings' recordings, I believe
it is very nearly only musicians which are making fuss
about the sound of those. It goes to say whether the
listen on a table radio or a super rig, they do care
about sound, not to mention Joshua Bell owns a $4 million
dollar violin because of its special sound.
http://www.stringsmagazine.com/issue...overstory.html

The idea that musicans don't know what they actually sound like while they
play, is probably an explanation for those who favor extremely expensive
instruments. I don't blame them for wanting to sound as good as they can,
but they don't have any direct evidence for what they do actually sound like
to the audience. Therefore they are susceptible to potentially poor economic
choices.

As a live sound technician, I've been abused by classically-trained
musicians who on the one hand would not cooperate with technical efforts to
make them sound better, and on the other hand tried to ruin my reputation
with gossip, and tried to get me fired because I was unable to use the
technology they hobbled to cover up their lack of talent and unwillingness
to rehearse.