Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you
cite, and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.
It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded
analog audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in the
region, and compared a short piece of wire with a device that put the
audio signal into CD format and then conveted it back to a regular audio
signal. We found no audible difference, using a variety of musicians,
audio engineers and experienced audiophiles as our listeners.

Again, you're confusing methodology with method.

Again, you're turning me off with your endless hair-splitting. If you want
an endless discussion of semantics, I suggest you find an appropriate Usenet
group. There are at least 3 Usenet groups with semantics in their names.


It's quite simple! The two words have *very* different meanings in a
research context. I accept that they're used interchangeably in the
popular/public media, but when you're talking about tests and evidence
you should, I think, explain the reasoning behind your methods. Is that
so unreasonable?

I have no real desire to turn you on to this, or anything else, btw :-)

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
What are they?

I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I would
have thought any lay person would point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience.

Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?

Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think that yo would
naturally find a lot of people in a group of musicians, audio engineers and
experienced audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to distinguish
sonic differences?


Yes - I did read the summary relating to the participants ...

It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that the people involved
were possibly middle aged men?

No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the youngest were in their
20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio engineers, and audiophiles.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?

You are obviously clutching for straws.


.... who have two characteristics (at least) in common - professional
familiarity with audio, and (related) an element of expectation relating
to the results. Add to this peer pressure (the results matter to them in
a way that they would not matter - thankfully - to a 10 year old child)
and I think I'm right to question method. It really isn't that difficult.

We had a thread on the tests of a UK consumer mag (called 'Which?') a
while back - their tests 'revealed' audible differences in CD players
and amplifiers. This was fairly unanimously rejected as unscientific
drivel on this NG, and I did go to the trouble of writing to the
magazine editiors for clarification of their test protocols. They were
far more forthcoming - and aware of limitations - than you appear to be.
Why might that be?