EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:




You sure resent something it if it don't serve you well.

It didn't serve anybody - including me.

I am sorry that it didn't served you.

I was right first time. Sorry I wasted everybody's time by being
goaded into a reply.


Tell me what happen if the subject fail to detect subtle differences
between his gear as compared to others during your test ?


What did it proved?


That any difference was too small to be audible.

QED


But isn't your experiment and test protocol suppose to help detect
subtle differences ? Are you saying that your test would proved that
this experiment will not help detect small differences ?


You clearly didn't read it. Neither have you read the several
explanations I have given over the course of the thread.



Where did the small differences go?


How did the experiment prove it was never there?

-------------------------------------------------
Let's look at your argument with Mr. Pearce:
You said:
"Tell me what happen if the subject fail to detect subtle differences
between his gear as compared to others during your test ?
What did it proved?

He answered:
That any difference was too small to be audible.

I have a suggestion for him to prove his point without fail. It is an
article of faith in the chapel that tubed amplifiers are worse than
Solid State and that SET tubed amplifiers
are the worst of the worst. From "good" to "very. very bad" there
should be an "audible difference". If the "test" with his improved
protocol fails to make a decent-sized average audio buyers panel hear
that difference with statistical validity then what is the point of
it?.
My guess is that if he ever takes up the bet he will get another null
"The majority heard no difference" outcome.
But there is another terrifying scenario: They heard the differnce AND
liked the SET better. Horrors!
Two excellent reason to continue spouting speculation and avoid the
experiment
Ludovic Mirabel.






Pearce Consulting