On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:17:53 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


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






d

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


Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.


Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have
identified right away. You have been very helpful.


How can I be helpful Mr. Pearce?

The answer can be readily ascertain from the rest of your post....
you can't.
So forget it.

ScottW




How are you able to ascertain this if he hasn't respond
and what is it about my post that you think it would not be
possible? And what with this tonic about?

The plain fact of the matter is that Mr. Pearce has been talkin on
this thread over at uk.rec. since, but not here. How am I suppose
to help, oh well.




Well, I wouldn't want to see you upset, Eddie. So please, what are
your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good?
What are the specific aspects of the protocol which are bad? How can
they be improved?

d

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

Don Pearce said:

So please, what are
your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good?

I suggest you dig a hole, fill it halfway with concrete, toss in your
"protocols", then top it off with more concrete. This procedure will
accomplish two goals: First, it will elevate your "protocols" to the
exalted status of "cast in stone". Second, and more important, it will
enable them to achieve their optimal status for Normals because they
will never bother anybody ever again.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:54:06 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Don Pearce said:

So please, what are
your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good?

I suggest you dig a hole, fill it halfway with concrete, toss in your
"protocols", then top it off with more concrete. This procedure will
accomplish two goals: First, it will elevate your "protocols" to the
exalted status of "cast in stone". Second, and more important, it will
enable them to achieve their optimal status for Normals because they
will never bother anybody ever again.

Ok, but can I have some fun and games with them first?

d

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

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:00:12 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


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






d

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


Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.


Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have
identified right away. You have been very helpful.


How can I be helpful Mr. Pearce?

The answer can be readily ascertain from the rest of your post....
you can't.
So forget it.

ScottW


How are you able to ascertain this if he hasn't respond
and what is it about my post that you think it would not be
possible? And what with this tonic about?

The plain fact of the matter is that Mr. Pearce has been talkin on
this thread over at uk.rec. since, but not here. How am I suppose
to help, oh well.


Well, I wouldn't want to see you upset, Eddie. So please, what are
your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good?

There's nothing in your protocol that can possibly be done to
make it good. None.


What are the specific aspects of the protocol which are bad?

All of it.


How can they be improved?


I'm sorry to be somewhat blatant with you Mr. Pearce, but every
time you ask your subject to sit down, aware, taking your test
and consciously follow your protocol, you're ****ed most of the time.



This is your idea of helping, is it?

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

d

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

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






d

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


Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.


Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have
identified right away. You have been very helpful.


How can I be helpful Mr. Pearce?

The answer can be readily ascertain from the rest of your post....
you can't.
So forget it.

ScottW


How are you able to ascertain this if he hasn't respond
and what is it about my post that you think it would not be
possible? And what with this tonic about?

The plain fact of the matter is that Mr. Pearce has been talkin on
this thread over at uk.rec. since, but not here. How am I suppose
to help, oh well.


Well, I wouldn't want to see you upset, Eddie. So please, what are
your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good?

There's nothing in your protocol that can possibly be done to
make it good. None.


What are the specific aspects of the protocol which are bad?

All of it.


How can they be improved?


I'm sorry to be somewhat blatant with you Mr. Pearce, but every
time you ask your subject to sit down, aware, taking your test
and consciously follow your protocol, you're ****ed most of the time.



d

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

Don Pearce said:

So please, what are
your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good?

I suggest you dig a hole, fill it halfway with concrete, toss in your
"protocols", then top it off with more concrete. This procedure will
accomplish two goals: First, it will elevate your "protocols" to the
exalted status of "cast in stone". Second, and more important, it will
enable them to achieve their optimal status for Normals because they
will never bother anybody ever again.

Ok, but can I have some fun and games with them first?

Jeez, Don, that's what got you into trouble in the first place.

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:





The plain fact of the matter is that Mr. Pearce has been talkin on
this thread over at uk.rec. since, but not here. How am I suppose
to help, oh well.


Well, I wouldn't want to see you upset, Eddie. So please, what are
your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good?

There's nothing in your protocol that can possibly be done to
make it good. None.


What are the specific aspects of the protocol which are bad?

All of it.


How can they be improved?


I'm sorry to be somewhat blatant with you Mr. Pearce, but every
time you ask your subject to sit down, aware, taking your test
and consciously follow your protocol, you're ****ed most of the time.


This is your idea of helping, is it?


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


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?



d

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

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:20:20 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

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

It didn't serve anybody - including me.


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

d

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

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:05:18 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Don Pearce said:

So please, what are
your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good?

I suggest you dig a hole, fill it halfway with concrete, toss in your
"protocols", then top it off with more concrete. This procedure will
accomplish two goals: First, it will elevate your "protocols" to the
exalted status of "cast in stone". Second, and more important, it will
enable them to achieve their optimal status for Normals because they
will never bother anybody ever again.

Ok, but can I have some fun and games with them first?

Jeez, Don, that's what got you into trouble in the first place.


I'm sitting here happily watching the latest TV masterpiece from
Stephen Poliakoff. I don't have any kind of feeling of being in
trouble.

d

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

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 ?


d

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