Thus spake Jim Lesurf:
I can't cite examples but my impression FWIW, is that calibrated
variations can be fairly large before becoming significant. If that
is indeed the case, I suggest that using DB testing for testing
auditory differences is largely pointless.

I don't regard it as 'pointless'. Its 'point' is to indicate what the
actual limits of perception may be, regardless of the beliefs or
wishes of the individual. The results show that people often tend not
to be able to hear differences that they believe they can.

If subjects can't hear fairly large differences in a calibration cycle, I
can envisage 2 explanations. Firstly, some/many/most subjects are fairly
insensitive to variations & by definition, would be wasting money by buying
expensive audio equipment for sonic reasons alone. The second, is that
because the way the mind works, comparing sequences such as replaying the
same piece of music is going to confuse the subjects & muddy the results. I
can imagine this explanation being very inconvenient to many because it
throws in hidden variables such as how reliable human memory is & its
effects on the outcome. I only entertain this possibility because my own
experience suggests measuring qualitative stuff can be damned difficult. A
lot of people also state they can hear differences beyond measurability.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of research has already been done that
would be relevant to perception in general that can be applied to audio.
Lets take something less controversial like visual acuity. Photographs are
printed out at different resolutions or maybe colour depth & subjects asked
to make comparisons. In one test, the photos are laid out side by side & the
viewer asked which version they prefer & why. The next test, the photos are
viewed singly but in sequence. Both tests can be randomised. My assumption
would be that subject's scoring when comparing photos side by side would be
a lot higher than when viewed singly in sequence. Now, to me, this would
demonstrate how much effect memory has on perception. I can't think of a way
to do the same thing with auditory tests apart from the ludicrous idea of
playing back different criteria in each channel! The difference with audio
is that its coherence happens over time where a still picture's doesn't.
Pause a movie & the picture becomes static but retains some meaning. The
sound just disappears completely or mathematically would become set of a
sine waves of the time slice before the pause with the correct amplitude.
The photo test's relevance to audio is that the perceived differences vary
according to how much memory is involved in making comparisons (or how the
test is conducted.) The differences are still real & measurable with the
photos. I'm suggesting that although testing involving memory may mask
differences, those differences maybe indeed be real & considered to be
worthwhile by some people.

There some weaknesses here such as why doesn't testing using equipment not
track these supposed differences? One comment I can make is that most tests
are perhaps too static & are over-simplified. Another objection I have that
it goes against the grain of simplicity by heaping on more variables. Just
because many people believe in ghosts, doesn't mean they exist. I don't deny
that I may have built myself a house of cards here!

I heartily wish I could suggest alternatives but I can't.

Well, from the POV of the scientific method a hypothesis has to be
testable to have any validity/meaning. So if you/someone can't
propose and carry out an appropriate alternative we have to stick
with hypotheses we *can* test. This is to avoid people simply
believing whatever they choose, regardless of the reality.

But only if the tests are valid & don't end up perpetuating a fallacy. If it
meant going back to the drawing board, so be it.

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:47:15 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

If I had a preference for Coke over Pepsi & failed a DB taste test,
would that invalidate my preference?
I'd be very surprised if you did fail - I'd put it down to your
having a cold, or somesuch.

Actually if you take a mouthful of Coke after a mouthful of Pepsi it
won't taste that great - because Pepsi contains more sugar. Which is why
the "Pepsi Challenge" was fatally flawed. Everyone ended up picking
Pepsi because of the sugar factor.

However, when drunk in isolation, Coke tastes better, as Pepsi has too
much sugar in it.

And for an extreme example of this, take a swig of beer after a mouthful
of Coke (or Pepsi, or whatever they're serving), it'll taste foul. Does
that mean you don't like beer?

As ever, Richards misses the point of the Pepsi challenge - you *can*
tell the difference, because there *is* one. This does not apply to
cables.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:56:22 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You're assuming all 'supplied' cables are to the same 'quality'?
Judging by my collection they certainly don't come from the same
factory. And why would the supplier of a good quality separate ruin
its performance by supplying an inferior cable with it? Or do you
think the prices charged for these 'aftermarket' ones reflect the
cost of making them?

Most mid-range and upwards separates don't have cables thrown in these
days. It seems to be just the Japanese trash that does.

Firstly, the Japanese gear isn't trash. Secondly, the more expensive
stuff doesn't include cables because the makers know that the dealer
will sell the punter some overpriced 'audiophile' cable - and the box
maker saves a quid.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:54:37 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Paul B wrote:

I think the only concession you'll get here is to replace any freebee
"patch cord" with about the cheapest after-market one you can find &
spend any change on buying some MUSIC!

Replace the freebie one cos it sounds ****. To put it bluntly.

Ignore this clown because he knows **** - to put it bluntly. If you
have a lot of lectrical interference in your listening room, a more
heavily shielded cable *may* make an audible diffference. Otherwise,
forget it.

[1] In the 3 years or so since I've been reading this group, I've never
once seen Pinkerton post anything constructive. His S/N ratio is
probably 1dB...

How typical that you post a flat lie. It blends so well with all the
others. You put yourself forward in your sig line as a technical
professional, and yet you can't even conduct a proper blind comparison
of two cables - sheesh!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:30:55 +0200, Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:49:55 +0200, Fella wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:24:09 +0000, Glenn Richards

Or to put it another way, if I took time off work to do your challenge,
and won, I wouldn't be any better off. Because I'd have lost that £1,000
by taking time off work.


Liar. Chicken**** liar. You think that *anyone* reading this thread is
dumb enough to believe your fairy tales?


Anyone, and I mean ANYONE! reading this thread with an IOTA of
impartiality would agree that you are one psycho with a severe attitude
problem.


Projecting again, Mr Tio?

The man does some tests, whatever, says a thing or two about the
results, and you retort with "Liar. Chicken**** liar." and *I* am the
one with an attitude problem that I'd be "projecting"?!?!?!

No, he did a horribly flawed single 'test' where he *knew* there was a
difference, and he calls that 'the definitive answer'. That's the kind
of combination of stupidity and arrogance that would make me avoid
Squirrel Solutions like the plague.

Given the number of fairy tales that he's spewed on this group so far,
I wouldn't be surprised if he actually guessed the cables the wrong
way round...........

Wonder what would our esteemed double standarts Mistah Pearce think
about your attitude if you would have been a subjectivist?

Why not ask Don and Jim their opinion of Mr Richards?

Remembering of course that you've already demonstrated that you're
another of the Richards breed - all mouth and no balls.............

I gave pearce my email, we've agreed upon the protocol, all is set to go.

Excellent! Comment withdrawn and apology offered.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:30:55 +0200, Fella wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:49:55 +0200, Fella wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:24:09 +0000, Glenn Richards

Or to put it another way, if I took time off work to do your challenge,
and won, I wouldn't be any better off. Because I'd have lost that £1,000
by taking time off work.


Liar. Chicken**** liar. You think that *anyone* reading this thread is
dumb enough to believe your fairy tales?


Anyone, and I mean ANYONE! reading this thread with an IOTA of
impartiality would agree that you are one psycho with a severe attitude
problem.


Projecting again, Mr Tio?

The man does some tests, whatever, says a thing or two about the
results, and you retort with "Liar. Chicken**** liar." and *I* am the
one with an attitude problem that I'd be "projecting"?!?!?!


No, he did a horribly flawed

... Says you; a postman working in a bank. If you were a competent
"scientist" you would not jump up and down like that, shouting "Liar.
Chicken**** Liar! .. Just another lying chicken****!" etc.. at someone
who is presenting the truth the way he sees it. Point out *what you
think* his mistakes are in a civilized manner.



That's the kind
of combination of stupidity and arrogance

YOUR kind of combination of stupidity and arrogance produces this, mr
postman:

Someone: "I just did a test and am convinced that this is this and that
is that"

Mr Postman: " "Liar. Chicken**** Liar! .. Just another lying chicken****!"

Nuff said.


Why not ask Don and Jim their opinion of Mr Richards?


I don't care about their opinions of Glenn. I would ask their opinion of
your ill-mannered turrette syndrome outbiursts but I know how
"objective" such objectivists can be.



Excellent! Comment withdrawn and apology offered.

It's not me who you should apoligize to. It's Glenn.

In article , Paul B
wrote:
Thus spake Jim Lesurf:
I can't cite examples but my impression FWIW, is that calibrated
variations can be fairly large before becoming significant. If that
is indeed the case, I suggest that using DB testing for testing
auditory differences is largely pointless.

I don't regard it as 'pointless'. Its 'point' is to indicate what the
actual limits of perception may be, regardless of the beliefs or
wishes of the individual. The results show that people often tend not
to be able to hear differences that they believe they can.

If subjects can't hear fairly large differences in a calibration cycle,
I can envisage 2 explanations. Firstly, some/many/most subjects are
fairly insensitive to variations & by definition, would be wasting
money by buying expensive audio equipment for sonic reasons alone.

That may be so. However, if so, we would then have to be cautious about
trying to draw specific/individual conclusions from the above as it is a
generalisation. So some people *might* be able to hear *some* differences
when others cannot.

But to see if this is the case, we would first need some test subjects to
demonstrate in a suitable test that *they* *can* hear a given 'difference'
even if (many) others cannot. Otherwise the simplest hypothesis consistent
with results may be that - despite claims to the contrary - *no one* can
hear a given 'difference'.


The second, is that because the way the mind works, comparing sequences
such as replaying the same piece of music is going to confuse the
subjects & muddy the results. I can imagine this explanation being very
inconvenient to many because it throws in hidden variables such as how
reliable human memory is & its effects on the outcome. I only entertain
this possibility because my own experience suggests measuring
qualitative stuff can be damned difficult. A lot of people also state
they can hear differences beyond measurability.

The problem with the above is as follows:

IIUC there is good evidence to the effect that our memory and state of mind
affect what we notice, or how we perceive or judge what we experience.

This may be a reason for saying that 'time serial' comparison tests are
affected by this, so tending to reduce the noticibility of real
differences.

However this may also mean that people hear 'differences' which are due
simply to their change in mental (or physiological) state, etc. Thus they
may be saying that one item sounds different to another when the actual
sounds produced are unchanged.

Thus the same 'mechanism' produced to 'explain' why such tests tend to show
people unable to hear a difference also 'explains' why they may think they
hear differences in situations where none really exists.

The upshot being that we then have no reliable evidence that any such
differences exist. But plus having a reason for saying that what people
claim may be based on an error.

This would also give us grounds to say, "since the perceptions are
variable, there is no real point in worrying about differences so slight at
to fall within these variations".

Thus we end up with "a differences which makes no difference *is* no
difference". (Spok's Rule.) :-)

The advantage of some of the ABX forms of test is that the comparisons can
be done on all sorts of time scales - under the control of the test
subject. So they can switch quickly if worried about 'memory' or drifts in
their physiology, etc. For some kinds of difference this seems IIRC to
produce enhanced sensitivity. But for others it shows no sign of the
subjects being able to hear any difference, on any timescales people have
employed.



I heartily wish I could suggest alternatives but I can't.

Well, from the POV of the scientific method a hypothesis has to be
testable to have any validity/meaning. So if you/someone can't propose
and carry out an appropriate alternative we have to stick with
hypotheses we *can* test. This is to avoid people simply believing
whatever they choose, regardless of the reality.

But only if the tests are valid & don't end up perpetuating a fallacy.
If it meant going back to the drawing board, so be it.

The problem with *if* here is that it is a speculation. That has no real
use in the scientific method *unless* you can then propose a test which
would distinguish you hypothesis from the competing ones...

Thus a given test *might* not be 'valid'. But to decide this would require
a suitable test, ideally also a proposed 'mechanism' for the cause of the
lack of 'validity' which the new test would probe.

Without that, we have to work on the basis of using the hypotheses that are
consistent with the evidence we have, and trying to avoid adding mechanisms
which the evidence does not require, or ideas we cannot test.

Many things *might* be the case. But that does not tell us they *are* the
case. For that we require relevant evidence. Alas, "the evidence does not
agree with my beliefs" is not actually evidence... :-)

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Advertisers want their product to reach the largest audience. So if a more
objective assessment of the products on test produced a bigger readership
most would be happy.

If the magazine switched from reviews promoting audible differences
between cables to valid reviews of cables would the manufacturers of
such really view the magazine as a positive vehicle for promoting their
products compared to others?

And the manufacturers of digital electronics and amplifiers?

How many audiophiles would regularly purchase such a magazine? Surely
most audiophiles want to believe in significant audible differences
between components and are not going to purchase such magazines when
there are alternatives sustaining their beliefs.

If such audio magazines were commercially viable I strongly suspect
that one or two would have survived when they switched content to what
we now have a few decades ago.

In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You're assuming all 'supplied' cables are to the same 'quality'?
Judging by my collection they certainly don't come from the same
factory. And why would the supplier of a good quality separate ruin
its performance by supplying an inferior cable with it? Or do you
think the prices charged for these 'aftermarket' ones reflect the
cost of making them?

Most mid-range and upwards separates don't have cables thrown in these
days. It seems to be just the Japanese trash that does.

You're suggesting the Japanese can't make decent audio equipment? ;-)

However, that just sounds like a marketing ploy. The 'quality'
interconnects you recommend could be bought for pennies in bulk and
supplied with the equipment.

--
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"andy" wrote


I would suggest this is the wrong round. Since advertising forms the
bulk of the magazines profitable income the content is arranged to
attract advertising. This does not make the magazines evil but it does
mean they shy away from things that are going to hurt business and
gravitate towards things that are going to help. And the cold, hard,
clinical, objective truth may get bent a little in the process.

So, no, I don't think a different view would be 'suicide' for them. Nor
do
I think the editors look at it that way. I think that current and past
editors did what they felt best, and put the views they and their
contributors had to give. I think this is the case even when I disagree
with them.

You know the editors better than I do but I find it hard to believe
that the number one priority of the Hi-Fi News editor is not the
profitability of the magazine.



I was flicking through an old September 2004 copy of HFW last night (as you
do) and I spotted a letter in the butt-kissing section - you know, the 'I
think your mag is the best by far, it's the only one I read and the ink
doesn't even run when I use it to wipe my bum' bit....

The punter who admitted to owning a pair of 'white van' speakers (allegedly
bought by his brother) asked a series of vinyl-related questions (see page
102) including a mention of the excellent Moth Record Cleaning Machine -
saying, quite wisely, he didn't want to by a new cart if he wasn't going to
get the best from it.

He got the usual HFW response - NK answering the letter and his poodle
'Twerp' (DP) adding his own little bit afterwards - which recommended
various bits and bobs, including a rare mention of Stanton carts (until you
realise they were featured in a shoot out in the same mag) and Twerp
managing to recommend the spitchiest needle on the planet, the Goldring
G1042 (Goldring also being in the same shoot-out) which will make the *most*
of a the dirt on a record, believe you me....!! Priceless!!

(Oops!! :-)

OK, you smile, but then you notice there was strangely no mention of the RCM
by either NK or the poodle...??

It was totally ignored, when I would have thought to be the most important
'upgrade' by anyone owning secondhand vinyl, as the punter had stated he did
and who was thinking of buying a new cart...???

Until the penny dropped - the RCM is sold by British Audio Products who do
the HFN 'Accesories Club' stuff.......

Creepy, I call it....