John Phillips wrote:

On 2006-01-16, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??


The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference;

You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
be drawn about the validity of ABX here.

while Don's determines
an individual ability to detect a difference.

Yes, thank you, Don's test puts the *testee*, the *subject* the *victim*
to the test, in the end. It is also a test for the subject to (not) see
(but hear) past the stressfull situation.

Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!

These are completely
different matters and not at all equivalent, so you can't substitute
one test for the other and expect the same answer.

My test tests the tests.. That is, it tries to answer the question
whether or not ABX/DBT is applicable to the phenomenon of
"audiophoolery" ...

Don Pearce wrote:


Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
know that they should keep alert for the results.

Of course, sure, and yes.. Do inform me well before hand, as before hand
as possible though.



I generally know about a month in advance.


Good enough, hopefully, generally, for me.

d

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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:02:43 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

John Phillips wrote:

On 2006-01-16, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??


The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference;

You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
be drawn about the validity of ABX here.


Why would you draw such a conclusion? There is no evidence in this
test to support it. Do you believe that spiders become deaf when their
legs are pulled off?

while Don's determines
an individual ability to detect a difference.

Yes, thank you, Don's test puts the *testee*, the *subject* the *victim*
to the test, in the end. It is also a test for the subject to (not) see
(but hear) past the stressfull situation.

How do you have a test where the testee is *not* put to the test? I
would be interested to see one.

Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!

Is this how you believe I might conduct such a test? Remember I would
not even be in the room - you listen relaxing in your comfy chair,
then write down your answer when you are good and ready. Nothing could
be further from "tell me, bitch!".

These are completely
different matters and not at all equivalent, so you can't substitute
one test for the other and expect the same answer.

My test tests the tests.. That is, it tries to answer the question
whether or not ABX/DBT is applicable to the phenomenon of
"audiophoolery" ...

No, your test fails to test the test, because your conclusion depends
on a begged question - namely that if the result shows no difference,
the test must be at fault. That would be thrown out in the first
minute of any peer review.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:45:24 +0200, Forwarder wrote:



Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:



Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
know that they should keep alert for the results.



You know, in the end, the final analysis, as it were, if my preference
for my cables turns out to be *proven* with absolute certainty as being
a placebo, I will, in the end, choose to go on with the placebo...



Absolutely the correct choice. Of course the placebo effect tends to
vanish once the trick is revealed.

Well I am only human, not a being superior such as Thou. So I have a
tendency to doubt myself. And I am happy to report that the "doubt" has
no effect on my state of placebo, those italian beauties still disappear.



Would you rather do the test with the speakers disconnected? I am
happy if it helps you.


Let's see what happens after I fail your test. I will report my personal
preference audiophoolery results.

d

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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:11:55 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:45:24 +0200, Forwarder wrote:



Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:



Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
know that they should keep alert for the results.



You know, in the end, the final analysis, as it were, if my preference
for my cables turns out to be *proven* with absolute certainty as being
a placebo, I will, in the end, choose to go on with the placebo...



Absolutely the correct choice. Of course the placebo effect tends to
vanish once the trick is revealed.

Well I am only human, not a being superior such as Thou. So I have a
tendency to doubt myself. And I am happy to report that the "doubt" has
no effect on my state of placebo, those italian beauties still disappear.


No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.



Would you rather do the test with the speakers disconnected? I am
happy if it helps you.


Let's see what happens after I fail your test. I will report my personal
preference audiophoolery results.


Funny, I thought you were going to pass with ease - like you did last
time you blind tested yourself...

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:



Funny, I thought you were going to pass with ease - like you did last
time you blind tested yourself...



You know what they say, prepare for the worst ...

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:02:43 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


John Phillips wrote:


On 2006-01-16, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!



- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??


The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference;

You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
be drawn about the validity of ABX here.



Why would you draw such a conclusion?

Gee, one *does* wonder..

There is no evidence in this
test to support it.

"evidence" ? Maybe not.

Do you believe that spiders become deaf when their
legs are pulled off?

Absolutely. They also become constipated.



How do you have a test where the testee is *not* put to the test? I
would be interested to see one.

Me too. I dont purrport to have all the answers, you do, with some
oscilloscope in one had, and a crackling whip on the other.



Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!


Is this how you believe I might conduct such a test? Remember I would
not even be in the room

It was a "figure of speech" as it were.


- you listen relaxing in your comfy chair,

and busting my balls as to "is this my cable? Or... is it ... **** ... "

then write down your answer when you are good and ready. Nothing could
be further from "tell me, bitch!".

Yes yes, in theory, of course. I will take at least 15 minutes per
listen, though I *should* be ale to take at least TWO WEEKS per listen...



No, your test fails to test the test, because your conclusion depends
on a begged question - namely that if the result shows no difference,
the test must be at fault.

What else would be at fault then? After an ABX shows nill difference
between a pair of halcro dm58 monoblocks and a 250 yamaha receiver
(which it will do just that: WHAM: SAME DIFFERENCE!), would you be able
to substitute them with each other in the real world??? Come on!

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:33:46 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:02:43 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


John Phillips wrote:


On 2006-01-16, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!



- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??


The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference;

You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
be drawn about the validity of ABX here.



Why would you draw such a conclusion?

Gee, one *does* wonder..

There is no evidence in this
test to support it.

"evidence" ? Maybe not.

Do you believe that spiders become deaf when their
legs are pulled off?

Absolutely. They also become constipated.



How do you have a test where the testee is *not* put to the test? I
would be interested to see one.

Me too. I dont purrport to have all the answers, you do, with some
oscilloscope in one had, and a crackling whip on the other.


That would be your fantasy, perhaps ;-)



Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!


Is this how you believe I might conduct such a test? Remember I would
not even be in the room

It was a "figure of speech" as it were.


- you listen relaxing in your comfy chair,

and busting my balls as to "is this my cable? Or... is it ... **** ... "

then write down your answer when you are good and ready. Nothing could
be further from "tell me, bitch!".

Yes yes, in theory, of course. I will take at least 15 minutes per
listen, though I *should* be ale to take at least TWO WEEKS per listen...



No, your test fails to test the test, because your conclusion depends
on a begged question - namely that if the result shows no difference,
the test must be at fault.

What else would be at fault then? After an ABX shows nill difference
between a pair of halcro dm58 monoblocks and a 250 yamaha receiver
(which it will do just that: WHAM: SAME DIFFERENCE!), would you be able
to substitute them with each other in the real world??? Come on!

Why would you expect them to show a difference? Amplifier design has
reached a peak (we clearly are not talking SET, or any of that kind of
crap), at which it is impossible to tell one amplifier from another.
Of course if you turn the level up so that one of them starts
clipping, all bets are off.

Nil difference is precisely what I would expect between those two.

Of course they wouldn't substitute in the real world - different
features, appearance, all sorts of stuff really.

d

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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:04:11 +0200, Forwarder wrote:
whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it. I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.



I didn't know sheeps weighed that much.



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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:14:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:04:11 +0200, Forwarder wrote:
whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it. I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.



I didn't know sheeps weighed that much.

?

d

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