Read this over on RAHE, I knew some of you would just love to read it if you
have not done so already. :-) From Bob Marcus.

Enjoy.

"A perennial claim holds that much of what objectivists think they know
about
audio is wrong because they rely on short-term switching comparison tests,
whereas audiophiles and reviewers evaluate components by listening to a
single system over the course of days or weeks. When challenged to produce
evidence that the latter method is more reliable, subjectivists insist that
a true comparison of the two approaches is too cumbersome to perform--though
they would hope that someone would do it for them some day!

Well, it turns out that somebody has, more than once, and the results don't
look good for the subjectivists. This is, admittedly, old news, though it's
largely new to me. And since the argument keeps coming up (most recently in
the Perception thread), I thought it would be useful to lay it out in full,
so we have it to refer to in the future.


Experiment #1 was conducted by David Clark and Lawrence Greenhill in the
late 1980s. Clark rigged up two black boxes. One was a straight-wire
pass-through. The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.
Members of two audiophile clubs were given one of the boxes to place in
their own systems for an extended period, and asked to report back on
whether they thought they had gotten the straight-wire box or the distorting
box. Results were null. In a quick-switching ABX test, however, subjects
were able to tell the difference between a clean signal and one with 2%
distortion added.


Experiment #2 was conducted by Tom Nousaine in 1996. He prepared two sets of
CD-Rs. One set of CD-Rs was a bit-for-bit copy of a commercially released
song. The second set added 4% harmonic distortion to the song. He mailed the
disks to 16 audiophiles and asked them whether they had received a clean
disk or a distorted disk. Again, results were null. He then administered an
ABX test to one of the subjects who had gotten it wrong. Using a looped
6-second extract of the song, this subject was able to score perfectly.


Three important points about the subjects in the long-term portion of these
experiments:
1) They were able to listen in their own system.
2) They were able to listen over extended periods. (Most of Nousaine's
subjects, for example, kept the disk for 3 weeks or more.)
3) They were able to listen to and evaluate a single presentation, rather
than directly comparing different presentations.


No listening test with a null result can ever be definitive, but these two
experiments provide solid data supporting the use of short-term switching
tests for audio comparisons and indicating the inappropriateness of the
long-term single-presentation method of evaluating audio equipment.
Furthermore, they demonstrate that comparisons of the two methods are
practical. Complaints about the complexity of such comparisons are empty
excuses. And no defender of the subjectivist faith has ever produced a
single experiment demonstrating that long-term single-presentation
evaluations are more sensitive that short-term switching comparisons for
detecting anything.


Finally, it should be noted that neither of these experiments represented
ground-breaking science. Psychoacoustics experts have long known that our
memory for partial loudness differences is very short (on the order of
seconds), and that any test which does not allow for direct comparisons will
likely produce a null result. Clark, Greenhill, and Nousaine merely
confirmed this using audiophile ears and systems."


bob

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:18:16 GMT, wrote:

Read this over on RAHE, I knew some of you would just love to read it if you
have not done so already. :-) From Bob Marcus.

Enjoy.

"A perennial claim holds that much of what objectivists think they know
about
audio is wrong because they rely on short-term switching comparison tests,
whereas audiophiles and reviewers evaluate components by listening to a
single system over the course of days or weeks. When challenged to produce
evidence that the latter method is more reliable, subjectivists insist that
a true comparison of the two approaches is too cumbersome to perform--though
they would hope that someone would do it for them some day!

Well, it turns out that somebody has, more than once, and the results don't
look good for the subjectivists. This is, admittedly, old news, though it's
largely new to me. And since the argument keeps coming up (most recently in
the Perception thread), I thought it would be useful to lay it out in full,
so we have it to refer to in the future.


Experiment #1 was conducted by David Clark and Lawrence Greenhill in the
late 1980s. Clark rigged up two black boxes. One was a straight-wire
pass-through. The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.
Members of two audiophile clubs were given one of the boxes to place in
their own systems for an extended period, and asked to report back on
whether they thought they had gotten the straight-wire box or the distorting
box. Results were null. In a quick-switching ABX test, however, subjects
were able to tell the difference between a clean signal and one with 2%
distortion added.


Experiment #2 was conducted by Tom Nousaine in 1996. He prepared two sets of
CD-Rs. One set of CD-Rs was a bit-for-bit copy of a commercially released
song. The second set added 4% harmonic distortion to the song. He mailed the
disks to 16 audiophiles and asked them whether they had received a clean
disk or a distorted disk. Again, results were null. He then administered an
ABX test to one of the subjects who had gotten it wrong. Using a looped
6-second extract of the song, this subject was able to score perfectly.


Three important points about the subjects in the long-term portion of these
experiments:
1) They were able to listen in their own system.
2) They were able to listen over extended periods. (Most of Nousaine's
subjects, for example, kept the disk for 3 weeks or more.)
3) They were able to listen to and evaluate a single presentation, rather
than directly comparing different presentations.


No listening test with a null result can ever be definitive, but these two
experiments provide solid data supporting the use of short-term switching
tests for audio comparisons and indicating the inappropriateness of the
long-term single-presentation method of evaluating audio equipment.
Furthermore, they demonstrate that comparisons of the two methods are
practical. Complaints about the complexity of such comparisons are empty
excuses. And no defender of the subjectivist faith has ever produced a
single experiment demonstrating that long-term single-presentation
evaluations are more sensitive that short-term switching comparisons for
detecting anything.


Finally, it should be noted that neither of these experiments represented
ground-breaking science. Psychoacoustics experts have long known that our
memory for partial loudness differences is very short (on the order of
seconds), and that any test which does not allow for direct comparisons will
likely produce a null result. Clark, Greenhill, and Nousaine merely
confirmed this using audiophile ears and systems."


bob

So?

Not only did they represent "ground-breaking science", they really
didn't represent science at all. Just anecdotal wishful stories.

Were's scientific rigor when you need it?

chuckle

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:32:51 -0600, dave weil
wrote:


Not only did they represent "ground-breaking science", they really
didn't represent science at all.

....should have read "Not only did they NOT represent "ground-breaking
science"...

dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:32:51 -0600, dave weil
wrote:


Not only did they represent "ground-breaking science", they really
didn't represent science at all.

...should have read "Not only did they NOT represent "ground-breaking
science"...

"2.5% harmonic distortion" is my favourite composition by De Falla.
"4% harmonic distortion" by the older Mozart is my other favourite..
Providing of course the the levels are matched to 0,04 db.
Ludovic Mirabel

On 14 Feb 2006 18:39:01 -0800, wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:32:51 -0600, dave weil
wrote:


Not only did they represent "ground-breaking science", they really
didn't represent science at all.

...should have read "Not only did they NOT represent "ground-breaking
science"...

"2.5% harmonic distortion" is my favourite composition by De Falla.
"4% harmonic distortion" by the older Mozart is my other favourite..
Providing of course the the levels are matched to 0,04 db.
Ludovic Mirabel

Well said, Ludovic. Buy you can count the number of heads it will pass
over, can't you? :-)

wrote in message
oups.com
dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:32:51 -0600, dave weil
wrote:


Not only did they represent "ground-breaking science",
they really didn't represent science at all.

...should have read "Not only did they NOT represent
"ground-breaking science"...

"2.5% harmonic distortion" is my favourite composition by
De Falla. "4% harmonic distortion" by the older Mozart is
my other favourite.. Providing of course the the levels
are matched to 0,04 db.

Exactly what one expects from audio know-nothings who can't tell an ohm from
a volt.

Just for future reference - 2.5% harmonic distortion of the kind described
by Nousaine is similar to what you get out of a SET running at medium power
levels.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:08:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Exactly what one expects from audio know-nothings who can't tell an ohm from
a volt.

Just for future reference - 2.5% harmonic distortion of the kind described
by Nousaine is similar to what you get out of a SET running at medium power
levels.

It's just another parlor trick without any peer review or "scientific
rigor". At least how it was related here.

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


Mr. Krooborg has a problem. Probably not a new one. We've
discovered so very many over recent years....

Exactly what one expects from audio know-nothings who
can't tell an ohm from a volt.

Arnii, please clarify something for us. You've posited
"telling an ohm from a volt" hundreds of times as a
requirement for choosing electronics for personal use.

Middius, that would be one of your fantasies that you've posted here very
many times.

"telling an ohm from a volt" is not a requirement for choosing electronics
for personal use. It's a requirement for making meaningful, reliable
comparisons that are worthy to be shared with others.

If your purported knowledge of electronics is so vast, why
do you have such a mediocre system?

Last time you deigned to reveal the contents of your personal system
Middius, it was even more mediocre than mine.

Any relevant discussions of audio systems should be inclusive of all of the
audio systems that they own, right? Middius, why don't you tell us about
the audio system you use for recording live performances and producing
recordings of the same for distribution to the public?

paul packer wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006 18:39:01 -0800, wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:32:51 -0600, dave weil
wrote:


Not only did they represent "ground-breaking science", they really
didn't represent science at all.

...should have read "Not only did they NOT represent "ground-breaking
science"...

"2.5% harmonic distortion" is my favourite composition by De Falla.
"4% harmonic distortion" by the older Mozart is my other favourite..
Providing of course the the levels are matched to 0,04 db.
Ludovic Mirabel

Well said, Ludovic. Buy you can count the number of heads it will pass
over, can't you? :-)

Paul, I bet that you did not foresee the fast as lightning
confirmation.. Arny for whom parody, wit and metaphor are words in an
obscure Chinese dialect jumped in not omitting to contribute his SET
obsession.
Next time I'll append an exegesis just for his use.
Ludovic Mirtabel

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:18:16 GMT, wrote:

Read this over on RAHE, I knew some of you would just love to read it if
you
have not done so already. :-) From Bob Marcus.

Enjoy.

"A perennial claim holds that much of what objectivists think they know
about
audio is wrong because they rely on short-term switching comparison tests,
whereas audiophiles and reviewers evaluate components by listening to a
single system over the course of days or weeks. When challenged to produce
evidence that the latter method is more reliable, subjectivists insist
that
a true comparison of the two approaches is too cumbersome to
perform--though
they would hope that someone would do it for them some day!

Well, it turns out that somebody has, more than once, and the results
don't
look good for the subjectivists. This is, admittedly, old news, though
it's
largely new to me. And since the argument keeps coming up (most recently
in
the Perception thread), I thought it would be useful to lay it out in
full,
so we have it to refer to in the future.


Experiment #1 was conducted by David Clark and Lawrence Greenhill in the
late 1980s. Clark rigged up two black boxes. One was a straight-wire
pass-through. The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.
Members of two audiophile clubs were given one of the boxes to place in
their own systems for an extended period, and asked to report back on
whether they thought they had gotten the straight-wire box or the
distorting
box. Results were null. In a quick-switching ABX test, however, subjects
were able to tell the difference between a clean signal and one with 2%
distortion added.


Experiment #2 was conducted by Tom Nousaine in 1996. He prepared two sets
of
CD-Rs. One set of CD-Rs was a bit-for-bit copy of a commercially released
song. The second set added 4% harmonic distortion to the song. He mailed
the
disks to 16 audiophiles and asked them whether they had received a clean
disk or a distorted disk. Again, results were null. He then administered
an
ABX test to one of the subjects who had gotten it wrong. Using a looped
6-second extract of the song, this subject was able to score perfectly.


Three important points about the subjects in the long-term portion of
these
experiments:
1) They were able to listen in their own system.
2) They were able to listen over extended periods. (Most of Nousaine's
subjects, for example, kept the disk for 3 weeks or more.)
3) They were able to listen to and evaluate a single presentation, rather
than directly comparing different presentations.


No listening test with a null result can ever be definitive, but these two
experiments provide solid data supporting the use of short-term switching
tests for audio comparisons and indicating the inappropriateness of the
long-term single-presentation method of evaluating audio equipment.
Furthermore, they demonstrate that comparisons of the two methods are
practical. Complaints about the complexity of such comparisons are empty
excuses. And no defender of the subjectivist faith has ever produced a
single experiment demonstrating that long-term single-presentation
evaluations are more sensitive that short-term switching comparisons for
detecting anything.


Finally, it should be noted that neither of these experiments represented
ground-breaking science. Psychoacoustics experts have long known that our
memory for partial loudness differences is very short (on the order of
seconds), and that any test which does not allow for direct comparisons
will
likely produce a null result. Clark, Greenhill, and Nousaine merely
confirmed this using audiophile ears and systems."


bob

So?

Not only did they represent "ground-breaking science", they really
didn't represent science at all. Just anecdotal wishful stories.

Were's scientific rigor when you need it?

chuckle

It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't recognize distortion
in double digits when they hear it and call it magical or whatever crap
comes to their tiny little minds.

wrote in message
oups.com...

dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:32:51 -0600, dave weil
wrote:


Not only did they represent "ground-breaking science", they really
didn't represent science at all.

...should have read "Not only did they NOT represent "ground-breaking
science"...

"2.5% harmonic distortion" is my favourite composition by De Falla.

Hmmm, I thought it was your normal output.

"4% harmonic distortion" by the older Mozart is my other favourite..

I thought that was when you really get rolling and start misrepresenting
Sean Olive's work as is your norm.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:16:16 GMT, wrote:

The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.

It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't recognize distortion
in double digits when they hear it and call it magical or whatever crap
comes to their tiny little minds.

Apparently, this is "double digits" in the world of Mr. McKelvy. Well,
there ARE two digits, I suppose...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:16:16 GMT, wrote:

The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.

It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't recognize distortion
in double digits when they hear it and call it magical or whatever crap
comes to their tiny little minds.

Apparently, this is "double digits" in the world of Mr. McKelvy. Well,
there ARE two digits, I suppose...

Inability to recognize that I was speaking of something besides these 2
comaprisons noted.

Can you say WAVAC?

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:47:46 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:16:16 GMT, wrote:

The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.

It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't recognize distortion
in double digits when they hear it and call it magical or whatever crap
comes to their tiny little minds.

Apparently, this is "double digits" in the world of Mr. McKelvy. Well,
there ARE two digits, I suppose...

Inability to recognize that I was speaking of something besides these 2
comaprisons noted.

Can you say WAVAC?

How many "long-term listeners" of the WAVAC do you know?

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:47:46 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:16:16 GMT, wrote:

The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.

It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't recognize
distortion
in double digits when they hear it and call it magical or whatever crap
comes to their tiny little minds.

Apparently, this is "double digits" in the world of Mr. McKelvy. Well,
there ARE two digits, I suppose...

Inability to recognize that I was speaking of something besides these 2
comaprisons noted.

Can you say WAVAC?

How many "long-term listeners" of the WAVAC do you know?

I was referring to Fremer. Personally I don't hang with people that deaf.

wrote in message
link.net
"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:47:46 GMT,
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:16:16 GMT,
wrote:
The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the
signal.

It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't
recognize distortion
in double digits when they hear it and call it
magical or whatever crap comes to their tiny little
minds.

Apparently, this is "double digits" in the world of
Mr. McKelvy. Well, there ARE two digits, I suppose...

Inability to recognize that I was speaking of something
besides these 2 comaprisons noted.

Can you say WAVAC?

How many "long-term listeners" of the WAVAC do you know?

I was referring to Fremer. Personally I don't hang with
people that deaf.

More to the point, how many Wavacs have been sold for more than 50% of list
price?

;-)

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:18:16 GMT, wrote:

Read this over on RAHE, I knew some of you would just love to read it if
you
have not done so already. :-) From Bob Marcus.

Enjoy.

"A perennial claim holds that much of what objectivists think they know
about
audio is wrong because they rely on short-term switching comparison tests,
whereas audiophiles and reviewers evaluate components by listening to a
single system over the course of days or weeks. When challenged to produce
evidence that the latter method is more reliable, subjectivists insist
that
a true comparison of the two approaches is too cumbersome to
perform--though
they would hope that someone would do it for them some day!

Well, it turns out that somebody has, more than once, and the results
don't
look good for the subjectivists. This is, admittedly, old news, though
it's
largely new to me. And since the argument keeps coming up (most recently
in
the Perception thread), I thought it would be useful to lay it out in
full,
so we have it to refer to in the future.


Experiment #1 was conducted by David Clark and Lawrence Greenhill in the
late 1980s. Clark rigged up two black boxes. One was a straight-wire
pass-through. The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.
Members of two audiophile clubs were given one of the boxes to place in
their own systems for an extended period, and asked to report back on
whether they thought they had gotten the straight-wire box or the
distorting
box. Results were null. In a quick-switching ABX test, however, subjects
were able to tell the difference between a clean signal and one with 2%
distortion added.


Experiment #2 was conducted by Tom Nousaine in 1996. He prepared two sets
of
CD-Rs. One set of CD-Rs was a bit-for-bit copy of a commercially released
song. The second set added 4% harmonic distortion to the song. He mailed
the
disks to 16 audiophiles and asked them whether they had received a clean
disk or a distorted disk. Again, results were null. He then administered
an
ABX test to one of the subjects who had gotten it wrong. Using a looped
6-second extract of the song, this subject was able to score perfectly.


Three important points about the subjects in the long-term portion of
these
experiments:
1) They were able to listen in their own system.
2) They were able to listen over extended periods. (Most of Nousaine's
subjects, for example, kept the disk for 3 weeks or more.)
3) They were able to listen to and evaluate a single presentation, rather
than directly comparing different presentations.


No listening test with a null result can ever be definitive, but these two
experiments provide solid data supporting the use of short-term switching
tests for audio comparisons and indicating the inappropriateness of the
long-term single-presentation method of evaluating audio equipment.
Furthermore, they demonstrate that comparisons of the two methods are
practical. Complaints about the complexity of such comparisons are empty
excuses. And no defender of the subjectivist faith has ever produced a
single experiment demonstrating that long-term single-presentation
evaluations are more sensitive that short-term switching comparisons for
detecting anything.


Finally, it should be noted that neither of these experiments represented
ground-breaking science. Psychoacoustics experts have long known that our
memory for partial loudness differences is very short (on the order of
seconds), and that any test which does not allow for direct comparisons
will
likely produce a null result. Clark, Greenhill, and Nousaine merely
confirmed this using audiophile ears and systems."


bob

So?

Not only did they represent "ground-breaking science", they really
didn't represent science at all. Just anecdotal wishful stories.

Were's scientific rigor when you need it?

chuckle
I guess we'll put you in the didn't love reading category.

wrote in message
link.net...
Read this over on RAHE, I knew some of you would just love to read it if
you have not done so already. :-) From Bob Marcus.

Enjoy.

"A perennial claim holds that much of what objectivists think they know
about
audio is wrong because they rely on short-term switching comparison tests,
whereas audiophiles and reviewers evaluate components by listening to a
single system over the course of days or weeks. When challenged to produce
evidence that the latter method is more reliable, subjectivists insist
that
a true comparison of the two approaches is too cumbersome to
perform--though
they would hope that someone would do it for them some day!

Well, it turns out that somebody has, more than once, and the results
don't
look good for the subjectivists. This is, admittedly, old news, though
it's
largely new to me. And since the argument keeps coming up (most recently
in
the Perception thread), I thought it would be useful to lay it out in
full,
so we have it to refer to in the future.

As usual, Mikey the Plagiarist cites inherently flawed experiments. These
are jokes, not science, and leave a bad taste in the mouth of any good
experimentalist.

A properly constituted test would have done the following:
1. Provided both versions with & without added distortion to each recipient.
2. Attempted to determine whether the threshold of distinction was higher
among those individuals who were able to compare disks for extended periods,
vs. those who heard the quick ABX switch.

Sick, Sick, Sick!!!

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:16:16 GMT, wrote:

The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.

It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't recognize distortion
in double digits when they hear it and call it magical or whatever crap
comes to their tiny little minds.

Apparently, this is "double digits" in the world of Mr. McKelvy. Well,
there ARE two digits, I suppose...

According to "Genius" McKelvy, 2.49999999999999% would be an astronomical
difference.

Let's forget about this moron. ABX vs. long-term listening is an important
question, too important to be left to morons.

"EE" wrote in message


A properly constituted test would have done the following:

1. Provided both versions with & without added distortion
to each recipient.

This has been done several times in other experiments.

2. Attempted to determine whether the threshold of
distinction was higher among those individuals who were
able to compare disks for extended periods, vs. those who
heard the quick ABX switch.

This has been done several times in other experiments.

You can do this experiment for yourself using tools and files you can freely
download from www.pcabx.com .

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"EE" wrote in message


A properly constituted test would have done the following:

1. Provided both versions with & without added distortion
to each recipient.

This has been done several times in other experiments.

2. Attempted to determine whether the threshold of
distinction was higher among those individuals who were
able to compare disks for extended periods, vs. those who
heard the quick ABX switch.

This has been done several times in other experiments.

You can do this experiment for yourself using tools and files you can
freely download from www.pcabx.com .

Arny, I give you credit for your original intent, as well as persistent
stubbornness, but your methods were flawed. PC sound cards with unspecified
hardware cannot be accepted as proxies for high end systems.

You have the capability to fix this. You have all the technical abilities
required to repeat these experiments in a manner answerable to your critics.
Empower yourself with an open mind.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:47:46 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:16:16 GMT, wrote:

The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.

It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't recognize
distortion
in double digits when they hear it and call it magical or whatever crap
comes to their tiny little minds.

Apparently, this is "double digits" in the world of Mr. McKelvy. Well,
there ARE two digits, I suppose...

Inability to recognize that I was speaking of something besides these 2
comaprisons noted.

Can you say WAVAC?

How many "long-term listeners" of the WAVAC do you know?

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:47:46 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:16:16 GMT, wrote:

The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.

It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't recognize
distortion
in double digits when they hear it and call it magical or whatever crap
comes to their tiny little minds.

Apparently, this is "double digits" in the world of Mr. McKelvy. Well,
there ARE two digits, I suppose...

Inability to recognize that I was speaking of something besides these 2
comaprisons noted.

Can you say WAVAC?

How many "long-term listeners" of the WAVAC do you know?

The point that you are missing in this is that Fremer used sighted listening
to evaluate a distortion generator being billed as an amplifier. That
amplifier generated massive amounts of distortion that he didn't recognize
as such, because he did an unreliable evaluation. Had he compared directly
to something else, he would have been able to hear that there was something
that shouldn't be there, assuming of course he compared to something he
already knew was accurate.

The chances of hearing distortion in a sighted comparison without any
reference to compare to are nil. That is why it is an unrelaible method.

EE wrote:
wrote in message
link.net...
Read this over on RAHE, I knew some of you would just love to read it if
you have not done so already. :-) From Bob Marcus.

Enjoy.

"A perennial claim holds that much of what objectivists think they know
about
audio is wrong because they rely on short-term switching comparison tests,
whereas audiophiles and reviewers evaluate components by listening to a
single system over the course of days or weeks. When challenged to produce
evidence that the latter method is more reliable, subjectivists insist
that
a true comparison of the two approaches is too cumbersome to
perform--though
they would hope that someone would do it for them some day!

Well, it turns out that somebody has, more than once, and the results
don't
look good for the subjectivists. This is, admittedly, old news, though
it's
largely new to me. And since the argument keeps coming up (most recently
in
the Perception thread), I thought it would be useful to lay it out in
full,
so we have it to refer to in the future.

As usual, Mikey the Plagiarist cites inherently flawed experiments. These
are jokes, not science, and leave a bad taste in the mouth of any good
experimentalist.

A properly constituted test would have done the following:
1. Provided both versions with & without added distortion to each recipient.

If you had gone to RAHE and found the thread where this originated, you
would have also found this bit of information:

"For Tom's experiment, comparing distorted and undistorted disks, all
of
the subjects had the commercial recording and were able to use it as a
reference. The one thing they were not allowed to do was to use a
second CD player in order to switch back and forth between the
commercial and test disks. Other than that, subjects were free to
evaluate the test disk in any way they chose. "





2. Attempted to determine whether the threshold of distinction was higher
among those individuals who were able to compare disks for extended periods,
vs. those who heard the quick ABX switch.

Sick, Sick, Sick!!!

Yes, you are.

The handle you use is EE. Does that stand for Eternally Erroneous?

wrote in message
ups.com...

EE wrote:
wrote in message
link.net...
Read this over on RAHE, I knew some of you would just love to read it
if
you have not done so already. :-) From Bob Marcus.

Enjoy.

"A perennial claim holds that much of what objectivists think they know
about
audio is wrong because they rely on short-term switching comparison
tests,
whereas audiophiles and reviewers evaluate components by listening to a
single system over the course of days or weeks. When challenged to
produce
evidence that the latter method is more reliable, subjectivists insist
that
a true comparison of the two approaches is too cumbersome to
perform--though
they would hope that someone would do it for them some day!

Well, it turns out that somebody has, more than once, and the results
don't
look good for the subjectivists. This is, admittedly, old news, though
it's
largely new to me. And since the argument keeps coming up (most
recently
in
the Perception thread), I thought it would be useful to lay it out in
full,
so we have it to refer to in the future.

As usual, Mikey the Plagiarist cites inherently flawed experiments. These
are jokes, not science, and leave a bad taste in the mouth of any good
experimentalist.

A properly constituted test would have done the following:
1. Provided both versions with & without added distortion to each
recipient.

If you had gone to RAHE and found the thread where this originated, you
would have also found this bit of information:

"For Tom's experiment, comparing distorted and undistorted disks, all
of
the subjects had the commercial recording and were able to use it as a
reference. The one thing they were not allowed to do was to use a
second CD player in order to switch back and forth between the
commercial and test disks. Other than that, subjects were free to
evaluate the test disk in any way they chose. "





2. Attempted to determine whether the threshold of distinction was higher
among those individuals who were able to compare disks for extended
periods,
vs. those who heard the quick ABX switch.

Sick, Sick, Sick!!!

Yes, you are.

The handle you use is EE. Does that stand for Eternally Erroneous?

NYOB = Nothing You Ought Believe

wrote in message
ups.com...


The handle you use is EE. Does that stand for Eternally Erroneous?

Can someone explain to me how this guy got on Usenet? Did someone think he
was doing the world a favor by setting up his computer so that he could
point-and-click vomit all over the place?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


NYOB = Nothing You Ought Believe

Not Your Ordinary Bugeater



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

From: EE
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 9:25 pm
Email: "EE"

Can someone explain to me how nob got on Usenet? Did someone think he
was doing the world a favor by setting up his computer so that he could
point-and-click vomit all over the place?

Karl Rove put nob on Usenet to confuse the issues.

Karl didn't count on nob replicating. Apparently nob fornicated with a
farm animal (the rumor is that, yes, it was a mammal) and slick was
born as a result.

But watch out: the NSA is (temporarily) on their side. You could be
bugged.

Hm. Bugged. Bugeater. Must be some kind of code.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: EE
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 9:25 pm
Email: "EE"

Can someone explain to me how nob got on Usenet? Did someone think he
was doing the world a favor by setting up his computer so that he could
point-and-click vomit all over the place?

Karl Rove put nob on Usenet to confuse the issues.

Karl didn't count on nob replicating. Apparently nob fornicated with a
farm animal (the rumor is that, yes, it was a mammal) and slick was
born as a result.

But watch out: the NSA is (temporarily) on their side. You could be
bugged.

Hm. Bugged. Bugeater. Must be some kind of code.

That's what I love about Liberals, their high value on reasoanble and civil
discussion, without name calling.

In article ,
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: EE
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 9:25 pm
Email: "EE"

Can someone explain to me how nob got on Usenet? Did someone think he
was doing the world a favor by setting up his computer so that he could
point-and-click vomit all over the place?

Karl Rove put nob on Usenet to confuse the issues.

Karl didn't count on nob replicating. Apparently nob fornicated with a
farm animal (the rumor is that, yes, it was a mammal) and slick was
born as a result.

But watch out: the NSA is (temporarily) on their side. You could be
bugged.

Hm. Bugged. Bugeater. Must be some kind of code.

That's what I love about Liberals, their high value on reasoanble and civil
discussion, without name calling.

How can you possibly generalize that to liberals? Have you never read a
political newsgroup?

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
message
oups.com...
From: EE
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 9:25 pm
Email: "EE"

Can someone explain to me how nob got on Usenet? Did someone think he
was doing the world a favor by setting up his computer so that he could
point-and-click vomit all over the place?

Karl Rove put nob on Usenet to confuse the issues.

Karl didn't count on nob replicating. Apparently nob fornicated with a
farm animal (the rumor is that, yes, it was a mammal) and slick was
born as a result.

But watch out: the NSA is (temporarily) on their side. You could be
bugged.

Hm. Bugged. Bugeater. Must be some kind of code.

That's what I love about Liberals, their high value on reasoanble and
civil
discussion, without name calling.

How can you possibly generalize that to liberals? Have you never read a
political newsgroup?

ok... then audiophile liberals

ScottW

From: - view profile
Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 4:07 pm
Email:

That's what I love about Liberals, their high value on reasoanble and civil
discussion, without name calling.

This high road brought to you by the cretin that said that I'd trade
the lives of American soldiers for votes.

I can do without conservative 'civility' and 'reasonableness.'

Thanks anyway.

wrote in message
link.net...
:
: "dave weil" wrote in message
: ...
: On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:16:16 GMT, wrote:
:
: The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.
:
: It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't recognize distortion
: in double digits when they hear it and call it magical or whatever crap
: comes to their tiny little minds.
:
: Apparently, this is "double digits" in the world of Mr. McKelvy. Well,
: there ARE two digits, I suppose...
:
: Inability to recognize that I was speaking of something besides these 2
: comaprisons noted.
:
: Can you say WAVAC?
:
can you write comparison ?
now for your claimed technical knowledge, let's hear from you,
McK, how was that 2.5 % THD addition circuit if fact realized ?
Any ideas , hm ?

surprise me,
Rudy

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

wrote in message
link.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:16:16 GMT,
wrote:

The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.

It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't
recognize distortion in double digits when they hear
it and call it magical or whatever crap comes to their
tiny little minds.

Apparently, this is "double digits" in the world of Mr.
McKelvy. Well, there ARE two digits, I suppose...

Inability to recognize that I was speaking of something
besides these 2 comaprisons noted.

Can you say WAVAC?

can you write comparison ?
now for your claimed technical knowledge, let's hear from
you, McK, how was that 2.5 % THD addition circuit if fact
realized ? Any ideas , hm ?

A circuit was developed that added even order distortion to the signal, in a
fashion that emulates a SET,

"Ruud Broens" said:


wrote in message
hlink.net...
:
: "dave weil" wrote in message
: ...
: On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:16:16 GMT, wrote:
:
: The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.
:
: It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't recognize distortion
: in double digits when they hear it and call it magical or whatever crap
: comes to their tiny little minds.
:
: Apparently, this is "double digits" in the world of Mr. McKelvy. Well,
: there ARE two digits, I suppose...
:
: Inability to recognize that I was speaking of something besides these 2
: comaprisons noted.
:
: Can you say WAVAC?
:
can you write comparison ?
now for your claimed technical knowledge, let's hear from you,
McK, how was that 2.5 % THD addition circuit if fact realized ?
Any ideas , hm ?

surprise me,
Rudy


Simple, actually.
Put a WAVAC somewhere in the signal path, doesn't matter where.

If that gives too much THD, then fine tune with rectangular white
paper sheets, pins and aspirins until you've reached 2.5 %.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal said:

Put a WAVAC somewhere in the signal path, doesn't matter where.

If that gives too much THD, then fine tune with rectangular white
paper sheets, pins and aspirins until you've reached 2.5 %.

What about the petrified bubble gum and flakes of blue bricks?

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" said:
:
:
: wrote in message
: hlink.net...
: :
: : "dave weil" wrote in message
: : ...
: : On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:16:16 GMT, wrote:
: :
: : The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal.
: :
: : It sure ain't with the long term listeners, who can't recognize distortion
: : in double digits when they hear it and call it magical or whatever crap
: : comes to their tiny little minds.
: :
: : Apparently, this is "double digits" in the world of Mr. McKelvy. Well,
: : there ARE two digits, I suppose...
: :
: : Inability to recognize that I was speaking of something besides these 2
: : comaprisons noted.
: :
: : Can you say WAVAC?
: :
: can you write comparison ?
: now for your claimed technical knowledge, let's hear from you,
: McK, how was that 2.5 % THD addition circuit if fact realized ?
: Any ideas , hm ?
:
: surprise me,
: Rudy
:
:
: Simple, actually.
: Put a WAVAC somewhere in the signal path, doesn't matter where.
:
: If that gives too much THD, then fine tune with rectangular white
: paper sheets, pins and aspirins until you've reached 2.5 %.
:
He, don't spoil the fun, by giving it, all away,
Lot's ;-)

but if memory serves right, wasn't it McK who claimed the awful
WAVAC would stand out like a sore thumb, _no need for aB~x_
and all that - but if it serves his nefarious purproses,
he has NO problem with 2.5 % being ~indetectable~ ?

LOL,
Rudy

George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
said:


Put a WAVAC somewhere in the signal path, doesn't matter where.

If that gives too much THD, then fine tune with rectangular white
paper sheets, pins and aspirins until you've reached 2.5 %.


What about the petrified bubble gum and flakes of blue bricks?


Shhhh! Don't give away all clues at once!
I have a silent hope that our new friend mr. SoundHasPriority
discovers this thread and will cast his pearls before us mere swine.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal said:

[snip unproven lie's about WAVAC horrorshow amplifiers, LOt"S]

If that gives too much THD, then fine tune with rectangular white
paper sheets, pins and aspirins until you've reached 2.5 %.

What about the petrified bubble gum and flakes of blue bricks?

Shhhh! Don't give away all clues at once!
I have a silent hope that our new friend mr. SoundHasPriority
discovers this thread and will cast his pearls before us mere swine.

Thanks M.r DeWaaal for, admitting you are a swine. LOl! Its like my
friend's have boat's and you are, without a clue from your Prioiririty
Mail. Been done, there that. I thought you were supposeded to grow a brain
Mr. Sanders. Having a problem with your ummm, horizontle control? ;-)