Audio, hi-fi and car audio - Advice needed on new Hi-Fi system

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
JBorg wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
JBorg wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
JBorg wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

If you really believe in 'cable sound', I have a standing offer of
£1,000 to *anyone* who can tell apart any two cables under
double-blind conditions, [...]

You sure 'bout this proclamation you made above?

If not, kindly cease and desist from making further comment to this
thread at RAO.

Yes, I'm sure, [...]

And so you are. If you're sure of what you have proclaimed, then you
must specify the conditions involved under your double-blind experiment.

For example, will you be using a "blackbox" or QSC device among other
things ... etc, etc.

http://www.qscstore.com/noname.html

I no longer have such a device, but I'm happy for anyone to bring
along their own.

What is your specific procedure when comparing the cables as you listen
from one to the other during the test, a quick plug and switch?

It's your experiment, could you "walk" me to this part-- in a sentence
or two?

When I was comparing amplifiers, I used a 4-channel attenuator to set
the gain of both amplifiers to be exactly the same within +/- 0.1dB,
and I used a 4-pole relay to perform quick switching. The control box
had 3 positions, A, B and X. X could be connected to either A or B by
operation of a concealed 3-way switch with centre 'off' position, so
that every time the switch was changed to begin a new trial, there
were two clicks.

I thank you for a concise, 3 paragraph explanation. I particularly enjoy
your ability to recognize basic sentence structure, proper use of tense,
and correct subject to verb agreement. Good use of caps too!

But this is about comparing amplifiers, is it not?

The listener has his own choice of sound source, and has control of
the box, so that he can refer to A and B as often as he needs before
deciding the identity of X. When he has decided, he notes down his
decision on a scoresheet and calls in the test assistant, who has an
equivalent scoresheet with a randomised set of As and Bs. The
assistant verifies that this is the completion of trial 5 (or
whatever), and sets the X switch to the appropriate A or B setting for
trial 6, and then leaves the room. It's not as perfectly double-blind
as a computer-controlled ABX box, but it seems to work pretty well.

This, too, is still about amplifiers, is it not?

Good use of parenthesis though, and how about those commas.

In the absence of an ABX switchbox (and some people claim that they're
not totally transparent), the assistant will simply change over the
connections while the listener turns his back, and will then leave the
room. Under these conditions, it is of course necessary to ensure that
the amps and/or cable connection points are not visible from the
listening position. Obviously, it takes a lot longer to do the A to B
to X changing in this case, so the switchbox is really useful and
saves wear and tear on the assistant!

Here, you are describing manual operation which, as you admitted, some
participant believe to be not totally transparent, unfortunately.

Nevertheless, I commend your concerns about the wear and tear it brings to
your assistant. How about the interruptions, disruptions, and distractions
that it bring to the participant, are these not an important concerns?

In addition, how would you determine whether your participant positively
hears sound differences between the unit under test?

The benchmark is set at 16 out of 20 correct identifications. That's
necessary to get 95% confidence that the result is not radndom chance.

But that's after your experiment when you tally the results under your
conditions.

Yes.

Good.

How do you determine when one positively hears or not, the sound
difference between cables during the test, again, under your conditions?

What do you mean by that?

I meant exactly that-- how do you determine when one positively hears or
not, the sound differences "during" your test?

The listener decides when they are happy that X is either A or B, the
scoresheet determines whether they were correct.

Are you saying that your experiment will be 100% accurate only when the
listener is "happy" ? What if the listener is tired and "not happy" like,
for example, due to confusion and exhaustion as the test progress. Would
your scoresheet still determine then whether the listener is still accurate
and correct?

It's certainly possible for the listener to record a 'no
difference', but I've never had one do that (out of a dozen or so). We
audiophiles like to think that we can *always* hear a difference! :-)

But did the listener able to hear the sound difference before the test?

# 1 If you believe that, due to mental and/or psychological disturbances,
the listener was able to hear sound diferences before the test,
how do you know?

and I'm posting from uk.rec.audio.

So?

So if the post appears on r.a.o it's because someone else crossposted
the thread at some point.

Your inanity is showing again. I object to your apparent delusiveness of
blaming someone for handing out your foolish agendas at RAO.

What the heck are you blathering about? I have no 'foolish agenda', so
what's your point?

Pls. see question #1

Care to comment about newsgroup headers?

Care to comment about what is your point (aside from the one on top of
your head)?

Pls. see question #1

I unsubscribed from the cesspit that is RAO over a year ago.

And the reasons RAO is in the state as you said it is--is due to
charlatans such as yourself who unsurprisingly lie to himself
in order to mislead unsuspecting audiophiles.

What utter ********!

That's not ********. You are attempting to cover your lie with
another lie as a distraction by accusing me of quoting you out
of context. This is your diverting tactic for failing to response
to the question of how were you able to differentiate the
differences as I ask below.

I responded exactly to your question, you are simply trolling.

NO, you did not exactly respond ...

Please explain how I quoted you out of context.

.... LOOK here, where is your exact respond explaining how I quoted
you out of context?

So again, you stated:

" If you've done your homework, you already know this - I
still imagine that there are differences. Luckily, I now
*know* that they are not physically present."

So again, I ask:

#2 " If you imagine that there are these differences that exist
and that you are able to differentiate these imaginations
from the physical world, how did you *physically* *know*
and conclude that they were not *physically* present if it
in fact exist, by your own admission, during sighted
listening?"

http://tinyurl.com/oag0

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the original thread: The Truth about DBT vs Reality (RAO)

You admitted to have positive results after numerous DBTs,
yet you stated that:

"... I still imagine that there are differences. Luckily,
I now *know* that they are not physically present."

How did you differentiate the differences?

Since you bothered to pick up that quote, you obviously read the rest
of the post, which refers to 'differences' between two amps which are
sonically indistinguishable under controlled conditions, [...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You will have difficulty covering up your lie here.

What 'lie'? WTF are you blathering about?

How about the LIE of you accusing me of quoting you out of context.

BUT YOU SNIP IT. Here's what you accused me of on your previous
post:

"... You are the charlatan here, deliberately quoting out of
context in a pathetic attempt to score a cheap shot."

#3 Why did you snip it, why did you not respond?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's what Yustabe said in that thread:

" I take it, from reading George's blurb about your experience,
that, before the test, you heard differences between the
amps, and during the DBT, you heard no differences. What
happened after the test was over, and you went back sighted?"

To which you directly replied:

" If you've done your homework, you already know this - I
still imagine that there are differences. Luckily, I now
*know* that they are not physically present."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I was not contesting whether you were comparing amps that were
sonically indistinguishable.

But I *was*, which was the entire point. The point of the above is
that it's a demonstration of the fatally flawed nature of sighted
listening.

Look, I am questioning the comment alone you made which you use to
support your arguments against Yustabe [see Q. #2 above]. I am not
querying your belief about the flawed nature of sighted comparison.
I know it's flawed.

but which I
still imagine to sound different when I *know* which one is playing.

If you're comparing 2 amps that are sonically indistinguishable under
controlled conditions yet still imagine to hear sound differences
when you *know* which one is playing, wouldn't that means that there's
a psychological disturbances occuring between your ears?

Of course, *that's the point*. Another popular demonstration of this
effect is the 'false sighted' test, where the audience believes that
they are listening to two devices, but in fact they are *not*
switched. The listeners will still record all the usual audiobabble
about 'ambience' and 'inner detail' etc etc, even though the physical
soundfield has definitely not changed.

This is about the flaws of making sighted comparison, and I'm glad we
both agreed it's flawed.

Now pls. answer question #1, #2, #3, and others above.

--

.... ball is on your court.