On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:00:36 GMT, wrote:


"Forwarder" wrote in message
. ..
dave weil wrote:



Wouldn't it be embarassing to your side if people couldn't even tell
the difference between an SET and a "normal" amp? What would that tell
you about the efficacy of blind testing? And if you were correct about
the "inferiority" of the amp, wouldn't it be a slam dunk? Funny then
how you don't bother investigating...perhaps there's a reason...

Very good point. I would say that anyone would be extremeley hard pressed
to single out the SET amp reliably in a DBT or ABX.

Previous copmparsions of long term A/B testing vs. quick switch ABX testing
showed that added distortion was picked up easily and quickly by the ABX
tests and not at all by the A/B switchers.

Which SETs were tested?

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:09:51 +0000, Signal wrote:

"Don Pearce" emitted :

I don't use tube amps, I don't know anybody who uses tube amps, and
the only reason I did the experiment was because I was ****ed off with
what looked like stupid arrogance - and of course because I could.

You are right of course in identifying gullibility as the reason that
many might buy something supposedly superior even when there is no
actual difference.

There's one born every minute, and here's a fine example. Don, you
exhibit this stupid arrogance that you can design a scientifically
viable test protocol just... like... that. In the next breath you tell
us you "know" cables sound the same, because you "proved" it to a
couple of hippies in the 70s. Then some clap trap about not being
duped at Sunday school aged 4. Well.. obviously you're the man for the
job!

Don, you are clearly a victim of ABXism. Just regurgitate whatever
you've heard Pinkerton and Krueger preach, it'll be fine...

The situation is of course different for SET amps -
they are demonstrably inferior in so many ways.

If the SET sounds is prefered by the listener it is superior.

This does not merit a serious reply. First so far - well done!

d

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

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:17:05 +0000, Signal wrote:

"Don Pearce" emitted :

I am well known among my friends to be bloody-minded and independent.
I have never perceived things merely because others do.

Nobody but nobody is immune to self influence.

Quite so - not me either, but I am not only aware of its existence,
but cautious of its effects. More so than most, it seems.

"Seems" being the operative word. Don't let your ego influence your
perception!

I am cautious of my first instincts, and distrustful of my own
judgment to the point that I think about things carefully before
deciding - particularly how I might have been wrong. *This* is what
you consider to be an overly inflated ego? Do try again.

d

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

From: (Don Pearce)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:17:54 GMT

If the SET sounds is prefered by the listener it is superior.

This does not merit a serious reply. First so far - well done!

His post may not, but yours certainly does.

Why don't you explain to me how you can make valid inferiority
arguments regarding preference.

"I like red. Red is the BEST color EVER!"

"Um, no. Green has about 140 less nm than red. Green is more centrally
located in the spectrum of visible light, meaning it is more balanced.
Grass is green. Why did God make grass green, if red is superior?
Therefore, green is superior."

If someone considers the sound of an SET with no NFB superior or more
involving, to that of SS or pentodes or amps with NFB or whatever, then
to them it is.

That seems like a ridiculously easy concept.

wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Forwarder" wrote in message
: .. .
: dave weil wrote:
:
:
:
: Wouldn't it be embarassing to your side if people couldn't even tell
: the difference between an SET and a "normal" amp? What would that tell
: you about the efficacy of blind testing? And if you were correct about
: the "inferiority" of the amp, wouldn't it be a slam dunk? Funny then
: how you don't bother investigating...perhaps there's a reason...
:
: Very good point. I would say that anyone would be extremeley hard pressed
: to single out the SET amp reliably in a DBT or ABX.
:
: Depends on how much power is being used for one thing. Distortion is
: another. See my post "From RAHE, article on distortion" and you will find :
: For detecting distortion at levels of less than 10%, the test frequencies
: had to be greater than 500 Hz. At 40 Hz, listeners accepted 100% distortion
: before they complained. The noise test tones had to reach 8,000 Hz and above
: before 1% distortion became audible, such is the masking effect of music.
:
That should surely read: "such appeared to be the masking effect of noise", eh ?
:-)

Does this mean, mr McKelvy, that a SET amplifier producing 1% or less THD
at avg. listening levels is ok with you now ?

inquiring minds like 2 know ;-)
R.

Thus spake Don Pearce:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:55:54 -0000, "Paul B" wrote:

What I'm suggesting is that anyone is going to get fairly confused
listening to the same piece of music to be able to distinguish
between any 2 cables. If the same person cannot distinguish runs
with the same cable but with a fair degree of
inductance/resistance/capacitance added, I would speculate (rightly
or wrongly) that a low score with just different cables *as well*,
points to the test method being unsatisfactory on its own.

They clearly aren't going to get confused, because they report that
they can distinguish the cables by listening to the same piece of
music. You are still failing to appreciate the point of the whole
thing - it is not an attempt to find out if it is possible to hear the
differences between two cables, which could lead to such confusion. It
is an attempt to verify whether *already reported* differences do in
fact have a physical manifestation, or are simply delusional. If they
are real, the effect will persist under blind conditions.

Of course if they do find it at all confusing to keep listening to the
same piece of music, they are perfectly free to put on another piece -
and another, and another and another until they are happy.

d

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


Bit more awake today! I was thinking more in gereral testing terms than
commenting on your specific protocol.

As for confusion, I have been in situations where I've played a piece of
music more than once & concluded that I couldn't really tell if the they
sounded the *same* or not when of course I knew they were identical. The
same idea but from the opposite direction if you will.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:00:36 GMT, wrote:


"Forwarder" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:



Wouldn't it be embarassing to your side if people couldn't even tell
the difference between an SET and a "normal" amp? What would that tell
you about the efficacy of blind testing? And if you were correct about
the "inferiority" of the amp, wouldn't it be a slam dunk? Funny then
how you don't bother investigating...perhaps there's a reason...

Very good point. I would say that anyone would be extremeley hard
pressed
to single out the SET amp reliably in a DBT or ABX.

Previous copmparsions of long term A/B testing vs. quick switch ABX
testing
showed that added distortion was picked up easily and quickly by the ABX
tests and not at all by the A/B switchers.

Which SETs were tested?

In that test none, I only mentioned it because of the quick switching.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Forwarder" wrote in message
: .. .
: dave weil wrote:
:
:
:
: Wouldn't it be embarassing to your side if people couldn't even tell
: the difference between an SET and a "normal" amp? What would that
tell
: you about the efficacy of blind testing? And if you were correct
about
: the "inferiority" of the amp, wouldn't it be a slam dunk? Funny then
: how you don't bother investigating...perhaps there's a reason...
:
: Very good point. I would say that anyone would be extremeley hard
pressed
: to single out the SET amp reliably in a DBT or ABX.
:
: Depends on how much power is being used for one thing. Distortion is
: another. See my post "From RAHE, article on distortion" and you will
find :
: For detecting distortion at levels of less than 10%, the test
frequencies
: had to be greater than 500 Hz. At 40 Hz, listeners accepted 100%
distortion
: before they complained. The noise test tones had to reach 8,000 Hz and
above
: before 1% distortion became audible, such is the masking effect of
music.
:
That should surely read: "such appeared to be the masking effect of
noise", eh ?
:-)

Have to take that up with the people who ran the tests.

Does this mean, mr McKelvy, that a SET amplifier producing 1% or less THD
at avg. listening levels is ok with you now ?

inquiring minds like 2 know ;-)
R.

No. I still want there to be as close to zero distortion and zero noise as
is possible.
They have other problems besides THD.
Second harmonic
Power supply hum goes to the speakers
Microphony
The limits for the kind of speakers that can be used, is the real deal
killer fo me.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:19:17 GMT, wrote:

I can tell real sugar in lemonade or other soft drinks
anytime.

I'll lay serious money that you can *not* tell sugar from aspartame by
taste alone.

Not sure about that particluar sweetner, but whatever they use in cola
drinks and the othe carbonated beverages I drink tastes different and when
I've accidentally had some diet soda in the past, I could instantly tell it
was no real sugar. Now that I'm a type II diabetic and HAVE to drink diet
soda, I still long for the unadulterated good taste of real sugar.

I tried the diet Coke that uses Splenda and it was a bit better but still
tasted different than sugar.
I have had some sugar free stuff that did taste very close to real sugar,
but they tend to have Malitol in them which has a laxative effect.

I'm not going to bet you, but it would be a simple enough blind test to set
up with soft drinks or whatever you think would be best for not being
detected as having a sugar substitute.

I long for things like that so please tell me what things they might be.
Please oh, please, oh please.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Serge Auckland" wrote


There is considerable difference between an SET and cable.


???

How TF did this creep in?

There's a wee bit of a difference between a SET and a pork pie also, in
case anybody didn't know it....


(That's the trouble with blowing entire threads and reading isolated
posts...)



The point is that the differences in cable as opposed to SET's are very
different. Cables of similar construction and size measure the same. SET
amps comapared to SS amps measure very differently because of their very
different performance. The differences tend to large enough that they can
be heard without blinding. In cables, if there are any differences they
would have to be very subtle and the best way to hear such differences is
to do a double blind comparison.


I certainly don't hear differences with speaker cables.


The only time I ever tried comapring speaker wire I used some 12 AWG
designer wire against some 16 AWG zip cord. Niether I, my wife, or any of
the friends I got to try, ever heard a difference. So far in other tests
of wire of similar construction, there has never been anyone who could
tell a difference. There may be someone who can, but so far they've not
been found and tested.


Ah! Now that's a refreshingly open-minded view...


That's one of the good things about doing reliable tests, if there are
differences it will casue investigation into why such a thing happened.
Is there a person or persons who can really hear such things? If so then
they'd be valuable to investigate for the difference in their hearing.
None of the findings are immune from challenge and revision when new
information comes to be known.


Tests are fine but they aren't everything - there's a lot more to enjoying
the 'Sound Of Music' (not the sodding film...) than simply what we think we
hear. Google 'psychoacoustics' (gives you a third of a million results) for
a heap of ideas, information, theories, guesses, facts, folklore etc...