On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:57:17 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


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 ?



You clearly didn't read it. Neither have you read the several
explanations I have given over the course of the thread.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
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 ?


You clearly didn't read it. Neither have you read the several
explanations I have given over the course of the thread.




Why don't you just give a short answer with at least 2 words in a
sentence.



d

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

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
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 ?


You clearly didn't read it. Neither have you read the several
explanations I have given over the course of the thread.



Where did the small differences go?


How did the experiment prove it was never there?







Pearce Consulting

EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
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 ?


You clearly didn't read it. Neither have you read the several
explanations I have given over the course of the thread.



Where did the small differences go?


How did the experiment prove it was never there?

-------------------------------------------------
Let's look at your argument with Mr. Pearce:
You said:
"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?

He answered:
That any difference was too small to be audible.

I have a suggestion for him to prove his point without fail. It is an
article of faith in the chapel that tubed amplifiers are worse than
Solid State and that SET tubed amplifiers
are the worst of the worst. From "good" to "very. very bad" there
should be an "audible difference". If the "test" with his improved
protocol fails to make a decent-sized average audio buyers panel hear
that difference with statistical validity then what is the point of
it?.
My guess is that if he ever takes up the bet he will get another null
"The majority heard no difference" outcome.
But there is another terrifying scenario: They heard the differnce AND
liked the SET better. Horrors!
Two excellent reason to continue spouting speculation and avoid the
experiment
Ludovic Mirabel.






Pearce Consulting

On 15 Jan 2006 18:31:11 -0800, wrote:


EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
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 ?


You clearly didn't read it. Neither have you read the several
explanations I have given over the course of the thread.



Where did the small differences go?


How did the experiment prove it was never there?

-------------------------------------------------
Let's look at your argument with Mr. Pearce:
You said:
"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?

He answered:
That any difference was too small to be audible.

I have a suggestion for him to prove his point without fail. It is an
article of faith in the chapel that tubed amplifiers are worse than
Solid State and that SET tubed amplifiers
are the worst of the worst. From "good" to "very. very bad" there
should be an "audible difference". If the "test" with his improved
protocol fails to make a decent-sized average audio buyers panel hear
that difference with statistical validity then what is the point of
it?.
My guess is that if he ever takes up the bet he will get another null
"The majority heard no difference" outcome.
But there is another terrifying scenario: They heard the differnce AND
liked the SET better. Horrors!
Two excellent reason to continue spouting speculation and avoid the
experiment
Ludovic Mirabel.

Of course. My test has nothing to do with the majority. My test is for
the very few who claim they can reliably - and we usually get claims
like "night and day" - hear the difference between two items; I used
interconnects for my example. The test is designed to establish
whether they can in reality hear the difference, or if their knowledge
of what is connected overrides the audible cues.

I(f they can really *hear* a difference, they will continue to do so
even unsighted. My test goes out of its way to make sure they have
every advantage that can be given to them in making their choice -
apart of course from actually knowing what is connected.

d

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

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:19:01 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
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 ?


You clearly didn't read it. Neither have you read the several
explanations I have given over the course of the thread.



Where did the small differences go?


How did the experiment prove it was never there?



They disappeared along with the visual stimulus which produced them.

They were there - they existed in the visual domain. Once that was
removed, they disappeared as well.

d

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

wrote in message
oups.com...

I have a suggestion for him to prove his point without fail. It is an
article of faith in the chapel that tubed amplifiers are worse than
Solid State and that SET tubed amplifiers
are the worst of the worst.

Set amps are the result of a well-studied attempt to do just about
everything wrong when it comes to building an amplifier.

From "good" to "very. very bad" there should be an "audible difference".

Stereophile magazine has provided information about how SET amplifiers vary
their frequency response with loudspeaker load. In contrast, the frequency
response of a good SS amplifier varies only slightly with a loudspeaker
load, again accordiing to Stereophile measurements.

As a rule, a SET amp's frequency response variations with a loudspeaker load
fall well outside the range of variations that are audible. Hearing the
difference between a SET amp with a loudspeaker load and the proverbial
straight wire should be quite easy. This contrasts with good SS amps that
are difficult or impossible to distinguish from a straight wire, even with
fairly taxing loudspeaker loads.

If the "test" with his improved
protocol fails to make a decent-sized average audio buyers panel hear
that difference with statistical validity then what is the point of
it?.

This would have been demonstrated years ago, but for the fact that nobody
with a brain would buy a SET amp, and it takes a fairly good brain to
organize a good DBT.

My guess is that if he ever takes up the bet he will get another null
"The majority heard no difference" outcome.

Put a worthy bet in escrow and send me a SET amp. I'll set up a
straight-wire bypass test with a loudspeaker-like load and post the results
on www.pacbx.com . People can listen and reach their own conclusions.

But there is another terrifying scenario: They heard the differnce AND
liked the SET better. Horrors!

It takes a pretty blinkered mind to want an amplifier that clearly and
audibly colors every sound passing through it.

wrote in message
oups.com...


He answered:
That any difference was too small to be audible.

I have a suggestion for him to prove his point without fail. It is an
article of faith in the chapel that tubed amplifiers are worse than
Solid State and that SET tubed amplifiers
are the worst of the worst. From "good" to "very. very bad" there
should be an "audible difference". If the "test" with his improved
protocol fails to make a decent-sized average audio buyers panel hear
that difference with statistical validity then what is the point of
it?.
My guess is that if he ever takes up the bet he will get another null
"The majority heard no difference" outcome.
But there is another terrifying scenario: They heard the differnce AND
liked the SET better. Horrors!
Two excellent reason to continue spouting speculation and avoid the
experiment
Ludovic Mirabel.


See, the trick is they will only test what they eant to show as no
difference.
What they want to claim as differnt, they will NOT test. There "excuse" is
claiming that one is a subtle difference, but the other is an
obvious difference. But maybe the test is so poorly
designed that it even obfuscates obvious differences.
this is eothing they do not want to see, and
do not want others to see.

Of course, the other major flaw is that it does not remove the bias of
preconceiving that things sound the same.



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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...


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?


The specific aspect that it is bad?
Well, this:

There are three possibilities for the preconceived bias state of the
listener.
1) no bias
2) bias that thngs will sound different
3) bias that things will sound the same.

The test does not eliminate the third item.

I don't thnk think that it is possible that any test could
eliminate that bias.
A test that asks the subject to discriminate differences,
when the listener preconcieves that there are no differences,
one can't force him to percieve soemtning he believes des not exist.

You try to overcome this by forcing the respondent to answer A or B,
but that presents another problem, that the unbiased, or biased towards a
difference,
test subject is not permitted to answer honestly, that he perceives no
difference.



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

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
oups.com...

He answered:
That any difference was too small to be audible.

I have a suggestion for him to prove his point without fail. It is an
article of faith in the chapel that tubed amplifiers are worse than
Solid State and that SET tubed amplifiers
are the worst of the worst. From "good" to "very. very bad" there
should be an "audible difference". If the "test" with his improved
protocol fails to make a decent-sized average audio buyers panel hear
that difference with statistical validity then what is the point of
it?.
My guess is that if he ever takes up the bet he will get another null
"The majority heard no difference" outcome.
But there is another terrifying scenario: They heard the differnce AND
liked the SET better. Horrors!
Two excellent reason to continue spouting speculation and avoid the
experiment

See, the trick is they will only test what they want to show as no
difference.

Paranoia runs deep. In fact its a lot more ego-satisfying for a listener to
say that he does hear a difference.

What they want to claim as different, they will NOT test.

If SET amps grew on trees we would have tested them long ago. But, who in
their right mind wants to pay money for such an intentional POS as a SET?
What SET manufacturer wants to sponsor a DBT of their product?

There "excuse" is
claiming that one is a subtle difference, but the other is an
obvious difference.

It's not an excuse, its already documented.

But maybe the test is so poorly
designed that it even obfuscates obvious differences.


Maybe there's a communist under every bed! ;-)

this is nothing they do not want to see, and
do not want others to see.

Double negatives, anybody?

Of course, the other major flaw is that it does not remove the bias of
preconceiving that things sound the same.

A paranoid myth that the high end audio wants to use to pull the wool over
people's eyes with.