"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


I agree. FWIW I have been wanting for *decades* for people to engage
in this test in sufficent numbers to get useful and reliable
statistical results.



Jim. When I wantd to organise some evaluation tests here in Scandinavia,
I approached a broadcasting company and also a magazine. Between them,
they laid on the facilities and the equipment.

The problem is that people make the claim, but then refuse to engage
in the test...

I had no difficulty in finding candidates for the component evaluation
panel with which I was involved. It was not necessary to add any
financial incentive as Mr Pinkerton has done, but the word "challenge"
was never used either:-)

Can you say where the details of the test systems/protocols/results are
published? I would be interested in reading them.

They are not published at the moment, as they are to be part of a series
of tests. I am told there is a very good possibility that they will be
carried by an English language magazine, but if not, I will ensure
that you get a copy plus a translation. I was grateful to you for your
interest and suggestions regarding the protocols, when we discussed
this matter earlier.

As has recently been posted elsewhere, some 'ABX' / DBT tests *have* been
reported - *some* of which apparently show some component differences are
audible.

Indeed. As we found. But only a few participants had
sufficiently good levels of audio perception to reliably and repeatly
pick out the changes. I think this links nicely with something that
Andy Evans wrote regarding timbre.

Another set of perception test in the same series, proved that most people
without specific training are considerably more "cloth eared" (please
excuse the technical terminology!) than one would have imagined.

This is something that has been apparent to the record industry
and broadcasters for a very long time. They receive very few
complaints from the public and so could, and perhaps do,
set their "quality threshold" accordingly.


However I don't know of any for cables that fall outwith the
'exceptions' listed on

(snip)


I have not been, and do not intend to be involved in cable testing,
except perhaps as an interested but impartial participant, as part
of a group,without any expectations one way or the other.
I would certainly not become involved in any test where large
amounts of money and equally large mouths are involved!! :-)


Since this thread is actually titled "Power Cable Challenge" I should
add that I also know of no such tests that have shown differences
for power cables.

Are you surprised? As I mentioned previously, I would have
thought with your industry connections, you would have been
able to get a test organised with the help of a magazine and a
studio or broadcaster.


Regards to all
Iain

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:28:12 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Iain, when I'm really "listening" to music, image matters a great deal
to me. It's just that 95% of my music playing is not like that.


Hi Don. Isn't that called "casual listening" ?
I wish I could do it:-)


Easy - I don't have a special music room. And if I'm playing a music
video, that creates all of the image for me - it overrides the sound.

Whenever I listen to my system (I have a separate music room on the
lower ground floor) I totally forget everything else, and time stands
still.
I am totally absorbed in the musc.

When I finally swich of my amp, and come back upstairs, the house
is in darkness, and it is 0300 hrs!


And is there a sarcastic note left on your cold dinner plate? ;-)

No.Never:-)
I take great care not to neglect the lady I love:-)



But that's what a good valve amp does to you:-)


Yes, a good valve amp can be as good as an SS amp, just a whole load
more expensive.


Hey. This is high-end audio:-) Who counts the pennies?
I built the amplifier myself. It sounds and looks just as
I want it to. Hence a very high satisfaction factor:-)

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Pics/C50_002.jpg

Regards to all

--
Iain
www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches

On 2006-01-21, Iain Churches wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
As has recently been posted elsewhere, some 'ABX' / DBT tests *have* been
reported - *some* of which apparently show some component differences are
audible.

Indeed. As we found. But only a few participants had
sufficiently good levels of audio perception to reliably and repeatly
pick out the changes. ...

May I point out gently the trap into which Stereophile is reported to
have fallen in this respect?

It has been reported that some years ago they tested about 3,000 people
for their ability to discern whether a CD had been tweaked or not
(green felt pens came into this somewhere as I recall). Apparently,
Stereophile pointed to a small sub-set of the test subjects who had
got statistically significant scores as evidence that some people could
distinguish the tweaked CDs.

However, even with purely random guessing, some of the 3,000 will
score that well from just statistics. So the Stereophile conclusion
was incorrect. They should have re-tested the top scorers and only
if they scored well again should their conclusion have been drawn.
They might alternatively have looked at the size of the sub-set and
checked if it too was statistically significant, but a re-test would
have been more convincing.

--
John Phillips

"Don Pearce" wrote


But that's what a good valve amp does to you:-)


Yes, a good valve amp can be as good as an SS amp, just a whole load
more expensive.


Hmm*....

OK, you may be interested in this:

Yesterday a very nice chap called to buy some kit/have a bit of a sesh (here
for over 3 hours). He brought with him his own recently acquired 350 quid
Quad** pre/power amp (not the lesser model - I'm not sure what it was) which
I can only describe as *outstanding* - one of the very few ss amps I've
heard that I could easily live with!!

After a while, I cut a Dynavox EL34 PP amp (*250 quid) into the equation and
whanged a very dramatic drum 'n bass techno 12 inch 45 on with the wick up
to about halfway. To say his eybrows shot up would be an understatement - he
'bought it' in less than 10 seconds from a stone cold start with the
original Chinese EL34s in it which are raw from virtually zero use!! OK, he
didn't buy it as such (had spent a few bob already) but I will be very
surprised if he doesn't buy one in the future!!

Now, I suspect he will read this, I invite him to say so here if he doesn't
agree with what I've said.

I don't want to see the 'valve vs ss' (or CD vs LP) **** perpetuated in this
group any longer than is absolutely necessary (although even a little part
of me wants to 'keep valves special'!!) - all I will say is that CD/LP and
even MP3s on his amazing little iPod *all* sounded fekkin' *excellent*
whether it was valves, ss, B&Ws or my Jerichos!! (Ain't those iPods
summat? - Up to 60 Gig in the palm of your hand!!)

Preferences are one thing - hurling babies out with the bathwater on the
basis of some stupid personal prejudice (based on whatever factology) is
another!! I see the differences as being rather like petrol/diesel engines -
different ways of achieving much the same end result with specific reasons
for choosing/advocating either one.....

(What I got from the sesh was how amazingly similar the Jerichos and B&Ws
started out and how very different they sounded after a short while....!!??)


**quid Quad??

Wasn't he in Mopey Dick.....???

:-)

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:30:03 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


But that's what a good valve amp does to you:-)


Yes, a good valve amp can be as good as an SS amp, just a whole load
more expensive.


Hmm*....

OK, you may be interested in this:

Yesterday a very nice chap called to buy some kit/have a bit of a sesh (here
for over 3 hours). He brought with him his own recently acquired 350 quid
Quad** pre/power amp (not the lesser model - I'm not sure what it was) which
I can only describe as *outstanding* - one of the very few ss amps I've
heard that I could easily live with!!

After a while, I cut a Dynavox EL34 PP amp (*250 quid) into the equation and
whanged a very dramatic drum 'n bass techno 12 inch 45 on with the wick up
to about halfway. To say his eybrows shot up would be an understatement - he
'bought it' in less than 10 seconds from a stone cold start with the
original Chinese EL34s in it which are raw from virtually zero use!! OK, he
didn't buy it as such (had spent a few bob already) but I will be very
surprised if he doesn't buy one in the future!!

Maybe - but it is like I always say about buying speakers. If you hear
a pair that make you go "WOW", just walk on by - they ain't hi fi, and
I can't live with them in the long time.

Now, I suspect he will read this, I invite him to say so here if he doesn't
agree with what I've said.

I don't want to see the 'valve vs ss' (or CD vs LP) **** perpetuated in this
group any longer than is absolutely necessary (although even a little part
of me wants to 'keep valves special'!!) - all I will say is that CD/LP and
even MP3s on his amazing little iPod *all* sounded fekkin' *excellent*
whether it was valves, ss, B&Ws or my Jerichos!! (Ain't those iPods
summat? - Up to 60 Gig in the palm of your hand!!)

iPods are brilliant, but I suspect they are being matched in every
respect apart from fashion by all the MP3 players.


Preferences are one thing - hurling babies out with the bathwater on the
basis of some stupid personal prejudice (based on whatever factology) is
another!! I see the differences as being rather like petrol/diesel engines -
different ways of achieving much the same end result with specific reasons
for choosing/advocating either one.....

Expect the diesels still go tick-a-tick-a-tick if you listen
carefully.

(What I got from the sesh was how amazingly similar the Jerichos and B&Ws
started out and how very different they sounded after a short while....!!??)

Fun, innit?


**quid Quad??

Wasn't he in Mopey Dick.....???

:-)

Call me Ishmail.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote


Maybe - but it is like I always say about buying speakers. If you hear
a pair that make you go "WOW", just walk on by - they ain't hi fi, and
I can't live with them in the long time.


No truer was was ever thus spake but this *was* a specific bit of *GADIGGER
DIGGER DIGGER* staccato electronic noise (Art Of Noise 'Close Up etc'??)
designed to grab the attention (a 'pant filler' as I like to term it! :-)


iPods are brilliant, but I suspect they are being matched in every
respect apart from fashion by all the MP3 players.


I do hope you are right - I have just given Son No 1 an instruction to get
me a Venturer (?? - his recommendation??) from Bedford this afternoon!!


Expect the diesels still go tick-a-tick-a-tick if you listen
carefully.


More AON on atm - the bit with the motor bike - it's not the bike I listen
for, it's the *tappets*!!


(What I got from the sesh was how amazingly similar the Jerichos and B&Ws
started out and how very different they sounded after a short
while....!!??)

Fun, innit?


Yes, bears out your earlier remark about 'wow factor' doesn't it? :-)



**quid Quad??

Wasn't he in Mopey Dick.....???

:-)

Call me Ishmail.


And I alone am left to tell the tale....

Gawd, I've just seen an embarrassing thing, checking the lyrics - the 'happy
as clams' which now sounds 'happy as clowns' with my newfound clarity (as
posted recently) bloody *is* 'happy as CLAMS'!! - I got gotta peel this back
a tad and just listen to the frickin' music!! Where's me MP3 player...??

Now Don, it's a lovely day - get out tha house and wash the car! Better yet,
get out tha house and wash MY car!! :-)

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
On 2006-01-21, Iain Churches wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
As has recently been posted elsewhere, some 'ABX' / DBT tests *have*
been
reported - *some* of which apparently show some component differences
are
audible.

Indeed. As we found. But only a few participants had
sufficiently good levels of audio perception to reliably and repeatly
pick out the changes. ...

May I point out gently the trap into which Stereophile is reported to
have fallen in this respect?

You may:-)

You can be sure, that however carefully the tests are conducted, and
whatever protocol, there will alway sbe someone (usually on the outside)
who will have something to say (and usually after the event:-)
I cannot speak for Stereophile, but in the test with which I was
associated, all those who took part were sastisfied with the methods.

It has been reported that some years ago they tested about 3,000 people
for their ability to discern whether a CD had been tweaked or not
(green felt pens came into this somewhere as I recall). Apparently,
Stereophile pointed to a small sub-set of the test subjects who had
got statistically significant scores as evidence that some people could
distinguish the tweaked CDs.

The tests in which I was involved had nothing to do with green felt pens,
or anything so exotic.

We were simply interested to know if people
could hear the difference between a silver foil and an industrial standard
output coupling capacitor on a simple mu-follower stage.


However, even with purely random guessing, some of the 3,000 will
score that well from just statistics. So the Stereophile conclusion
was incorrect. They should have re-tested the top scorers and only
if they scored well again should their conclusion have been drawn.
They might alternatively have looked at the size of the sub-set and
checked if it too was statistically significant, but a re-test would
have been more convincing.

Agreed. There was much discussion about how the tests should be
carried out, and we were anxious to involve those on the test panel in
deciding the protocol. Each member was allowed to suggest a piece
of music with which he/she was familiar to be used in the test, and so we
had a good selection of material from which people could choose.
All participants were allowed access to the test material before hand
to become acquainted with the music involved.

And how can anyone make a random guess when they don't know
when the source is being switched? We allowed a window of 5 secs
in which they must indicate.

On a re-test, those with the best scores, got more or less the same
results. Interesting too was the fact that even with the TC sheet in front
of them, telling where the changes were taking place, a large percentage
of those tested could not hear any difference.

I should mention again that we were not concerned about whether one
cap was better than the other, but if people could discern a difference.

I firmly believe that the way the test is organised, has a great
effect upon the number of people who are interested to take part.
In my view, an ostentatious "challenge" with large sums of money is
not the way it should be done.

Iain

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:23:17 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"John Phillips" wrote in message
.. .
On 2006-01-21, Iain Churches wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
As has recently been posted elsewhere, some 'ABX' / DBT tests *have*
been
reported - *some* of which apparently show some component differences
are
audible.

Indeed. As we found. But only a few participants had
sufficiently good levels of audio perception to reliably and repeatly
pick out the changes. ...

May I point out gently the trap into which Stereophile is reported to
have fallen in this respect?

You may:-)

You can be sure, that however carefully the tests are conducted, and
whatever protocol, there will alway sbe someone (usually on the outside)
who will have something to say (and usually after the event:-)
I cannot speak for Stereophile, but in the test with which I was
associated, all those who took part were sastisfied with the methods.

I'm sure the Stereophile method was good as well. What was flawed was
the post-experimental statistical analysis.

It has been reported that some years ago they tested about 3,000 people
for their ability to discern whether a CD had been tweaked or not
(green felt pens came into this somewhere as I recall). Apparently,
Stereophile pointed to a small sub-set of the test subjects who had
got statistically significant scores as evidence that some people could
distinguish the tweaked CDs.

The tests in which I was involved had nothing to do with green felt pens,
or anything so exotic.

We were simply interested to know if people
could hear the difference between a silver foil and an industrial standard
output coupling capacitor on a simple mu-follower stage.

What people, though? Were they a fully random sample, people who were
interested in whether they could tell, or people who believed they
could tell? If you had a mix, did the results correlate in any way
with these three groups?


However, even with purely random guessing, some of the 3,000 will
score that well from just statistics. So the Stereophile conclusion
was incorrect. They should have re-tested the top scorers and only
if they scored well again should their conclusion have been drawn.
They might alternatively have looked at the size of the sub-set and
checked if it too was statistically significant, but a re-test would
have been more convincing.

Agreed. There was much discussion about how the tests should be
carried out, and we were anxious to involve those on the test panel in
deciding the protocol. Each member was allowed to suggest a piece
of music with which he/she was familiar to be used in the test, and so we
had a good selection of material from which people could choose.
All participants were allowed access to the test material before hand
to become acquainted with the music involved.

And how can anyone make a random guess when they don't know
when the source is being switched? We allowed a window of 5 secs
in which they must indicate.

On a re-test, those with the best scores, got more or less the same
results. Interesting too was the fact that even with the TC sheet in front
of them, telling where the changes were taking place, a large percentage
of those tested could not hear any difference.

Can you explain this part. Are you saying they knew when the capacitor
was switched? And was it always switched at this point, or was the
switch/don't switch decision made randomly? Could the sound of the
switch operation be heard by the subjects?

I should mention again that we were not concerned about whether one
cap was better than the other, but if people could discern a difference.

That's fair.

I firmly believe that the way the test is organised, has a great
effect upon the number of people who are interested to take part.
In my view, an ostentatious "challenge" with large sums of money is
not the way it should be done.


Unfortunately those who make great claims of their ability to hear
differences between things that should not sound different are very
insistent that they should not prove their claims. The challenge is,
if you like, a slightly impatient response to that unreasonable
position.

You will always get disinterested volunteers for the more general
question you posed - the ego is not in question.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
[snip]
Jim. When I wantd to organise some evaluation tests here in
Scandinavia, I approached a broadcasting company and also a magazine.
Between them, they laid on the facilities and the equipment.

The problem is that people make the claim, but then refuse to
engage in the test...

I had no difficulty in finding candidates for the component
evaluation panel with which I was involved. It was not necessary to
add any financial incentive as Mr Pinkerton has done, but the word
"challenge" was never used either:-)

Can you say where the details of the test systems/protocols/results
are published? I would be interested in reading them.

They are not published at the moment, as they are to be part of a series
of tests. I am told there is a very good possibility that they will be
carried by an English language magazine, but if not, I will ensure that
you get a copy plus a translation.

In order for them to have any value for anyone outwith the immediate
participants, the details should be openly published. This is to allow the
scrutiny and assessment which is a normal part of the scientific method.
Until this is done, the results can't be reliably judged by anyone, so have
no value until such time.

I would certainly welcome a personal copy if the details/results are not
published in a magazine/journal. However I think that they should then be
published, say, on the web. Otherwise any comments I made in public would
also be worthless as others would have no way to decide if the comments I
made were well-founded or not.

I was grateful to you for your interest and suggestions regarding the
protocols, when we discussed this matter earlier.

Happy to help. :-) As you know, I have a genuine interest in such matters,
and in particular, an interest in seeing if there are any 'new' ideas here
which can shed light on the relevant physics/physiology/etc...

[snip]


Since this thread is actually titled "Power Cable Challenge" I should
add that I also know of no such tests that have shown differences for
power cables.

Are you surprised? As I mentioned previously, I would have thought
with your industry connections, you would have been able to get a test
organised with the help of a magazine and a studio or broadcaster.

You might think so. :-) However when in the past I have invited those in
the industry to participate in such a test they have shown zero interest.
The attitude tends to be variations on the theme of, "We already know they
sound different, so can't be bothered to run tests which might not show
'useful' sic results.'

Afraid I have no contacts with studios or broadcasters. Just with some
magazines and some individuals in the domestic audio areas. Although given
my academic background I do have access to a lot of test/measurement kit.
:-)

I would like to engage in such 'listening' tests. Alas, I am less young and
fit than I used to be [1], so am not really up to organising ones that
would involve other people. And I doubt that my personal inability to tell
one mains cable from another would mean much. :-) Ideally, such a test
should involve a number of test participants to be of real use.

Also, when I have approached them in the past, the makers and sellers of
cables have not been willing to co-operate. This means it would involve
buying (or borrowing) some cables, for which I would then have no real use.
In principle, I could get some money back for an article, but TBH audio
mags do not exactly pay vast sums per page. :-) Magazine reviews tend to
depend on the makers/sellers loaning/giving the items to the magazine or
reviewer.

I suspect my main use in such tests nowdays would be in the way you mention
above. Partly to assess proposed test protocols/methods to advise and help
avoid flaws. Partly to examine and assess the results to see what light
they may shed on the proposed hypotheses, and check their level of
statistical reliability. I could certainly do some basic measurements on
cables and check responses, etc, as that is relatively simple.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] As I have re-confirmed to myself in recent weeks, when working on
fixing an intermittent fault in my main power amp. I simply can't see as
well as I used to, nor are my fingers as nimble/steady. I'm also
slower-minded. Hence something I would have sorted in a day or two 20 years
ago has taken me ages. :-/ This was complete with mistaking a 0R22 load
resistor for a 22R one! Thus blowing the fuses in the amp when I tested it
at one point. :-) Couldn't read the expletive numbers on the resistor
clearly enough! Fortunately, I'd designed the amp to survive such
encounters...

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...


May I point out gently the trap into which Stereophile is reported to
have fallen in this respect?

You may:-)

You can be sure, that however carefully the tests are conducted, and
whatever protocol, there will alway sbe someone (usually on the outside)
who will have something to say (and usually after the event:-)

That is a vital part of the scientific method. However their comments can
also be assessed by other since the entire process is one of open scrutiny.

However the interesting thing about John's comment was that it was not
regarding the protocol of the test, but of the error of "selecting
results". This can easily lead to invalid conclusions as he indicated. By
suitable 'selection' you can from a large ensemble of tests get an 'result'
you want.

The point here is one I made a while ago. The test must be suitable for the
hypothesis being tested.

From what John said, the test was of a given population of test suvjects to
see if "people can tend to hear this difference" in a general way.

However "can some specific people hear this difference" is a different
hypothesis. Hence as John indicated, it would then require re-testing
people who seemed to "do well" sic in the first set of tests. Actually it
would *also* require re-testing some of those who "did badly" to see if
their results also changed. IIRC statisticians refer to this problem with
terms like "reversion to the mean".



I firmly believe that the way the test is organised, has a great effect
upon the number of people who are interested to take part. In my view,
an ostentatious "challenge" with large sums of money is not the way it
should be done.

You may be correct. However IIUC the offer of a large sum only appeared
*after* people kept appearing, making the claims, and then refusing to
engage in a suitable test. And that the level of 'ostentation' and emotion
on both sides seems to have grown as a result of people steadily exhibiting
this behaviour of "make the claim, but refuse to put it to a test".

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html