What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:02:37 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:27:23 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[snip]

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate
them reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever
can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what
make it is before you can hear any difference?

And I take it you're avoiding acknowledging any flaws in listening
tests and thus consider them foolproof. Fine by me, carry on in your
your fantasy world.

Malcolm

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:22:03 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate them
reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what make
it is before you can hear any difference?

The more GOLD the better presumably ? Alchemy and all that .....

Graham

How about this one
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWN:IT&ih=003

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/34ayet

"Description

Hi End Fibre Optical TOS link cable. 5 metre length with Gold plated
connectors for superior contact connection."

Bill

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:27:48 -0600, Malcolm
wrote:

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate them
reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

They do when there's meaningful differences :-)

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

Musicians are no different from ordinary mortals in knowing what
sounds as close as possible to the original - despite what those in
awe of them may think.

No, many are different:

a) They tend to have good auditive memory. Ordinary mortals tend to be
more visual/kinetic etc

b) With the aid of this memory they can store the sounds they hear on
a daily basis into long term memory - ordinary mortals would have more
of a short term memory for things like oboes, bassoons etc.

c) They are highly trained to differentiate pitch, loudness and tone.
The average age of starting a musical career is 7 years old, so by the
time such musicians leave conservatoire they have been playing music
on a daily basis for 14 years. This is really radically different from
ordinary mortals/.

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

'Rock and roll' has a lot more energy, life and vibrancy than 'classical' ever will.

Energy - Shostakovich, Liszt, Vivaldi
Life - what classical music doesn't have life
Vibrancy - Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Bizet, Verdi, Berlioz etc.


Besides, don't you tire of hearing a zillion mildly different
performances of the same old music that's been going around for
centuries ?

I tire of hearing a zillion different girl bands singing "baby baby"
and a zillion rock bands with fuzz guitar, loud drums and lyrics that
could be written by robots.

When was the last decent symphony written ? 50 years ago ?

Symphony No. 15 in A major (Opus 141), Dmitri Shostakovich's last, was
written in a little over a month during the summer of 1971 in Repino

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:26:50 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:27:48 -0600, Malcolm wrote:

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate
them reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever
can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

They do when there's meaningful differences :-)

Very true! There's absolutely no problem when such tests show a
reliable reproducible difference between A and B. One can then have a
certain amount of confidence that A and B do indeed differ.

The problem is that many (most?) such tests fail to reliably
distinguish between A and B. One cannot, in that case, say that
A and B are the same. That's a logical fallacy. If/when the
tests fail to show a difference between A and B, one still
doesn't know if A and B are the same or not - which seems to
me to make the test a bit of a waste of time!

In the cases where such tests do reliably distinguish between
A and B, the differences are liable to be so obvious as the make
the test rather superfluous anyway.

Malcolm

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

Bill Taylor wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate them
reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what make
it is before you can hear any difference?

The more GOLD the better presumably ? Alchemy and all that .....


How about this one
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWN:IT&ih=003

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/34ayet

"Description

Hi End Fibre Optical TOS link cable. 5 metre length with Gold plated
connectors for superior contact connection."

Wonderful. Fraud and deception truly abound in audio.

Graham

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

In article , Malcolm
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:26:50 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:27:48 -0600, Malcolm wrote:

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can
hear these differences you claim then you should be able to
demonstrate them reliably to others in proper tests. But of course
no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such
"tests". Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful
results.

They do when there's meaningful differences :-)

Very true! There's absolutely no problem when such tests show a
reliable reproducible difference between A and B. One can then have a
certain amount of confidence that A and B do indeed differ.

The problem is that many (most?) such tests fail to reliably
distinguish between A and B. One cannot, in that case, say that A and B
are the same. That's a logical fallacy.

Indeed. That is why the conclusion would not be that they are "the same".
Only that the evidence from the test indicated them to be audibly
indistinguishable when compared.

However if they have different brand names, cost different amounts, etc,
they clearly are not "the same" so far as a potential user/buyer are
concerned. A listening comparison test isn't intended to deal with those
points, nor to see if they are "the same". Just to give evidence to
indicate if there are any audible differences which might affect a choice.

So the "flaw" seems to be that you wish to draw inappropriate conclusions
from a test intended for another purpose. This isn't a "flaw" in the test,
but in your inappropriate use of the results. The "logical fallacy" is in
the way you present an inappropriate conclusion and bypass the appropriate
one. :-)

If someone perfers one brand name to another, or wants to buy expensive kit
to show off or feel good, or have neat looking gear, that is nothing to do
with such a test.

However, if we test and compare two items or systems and find that the
listeners can't distinguish the sound using one from using the other, then
we have evidence that they need not take assumptions that they "sound
different" seriously when commenting on the items or systems. *Unless* some
other appropriately run test shows other results in the form of evidence
that can be assessed.

Thus if the above is the "fundamental flaw" you were referring to, then I
am afraid it is in your understanding, not in the tests. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

The problem is that many (most?) such tests fail to reliably
distinguish between A and B. One cannot, in that case, say that
A and B are the same. That's a logical fallacy. If/when the
tests fail to show a difference between A and B, one still
doesn't know if A and B are the same or not - which seems to
me to make the test a bit of a waste of time!


So in other words you pre-judge the outcome by asserting that there *is* an
audible difference between A & B. Then, if the test fails to support this
assertion you dismiss the test as flawed.

Hmmm...

David.

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:23:13 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote:

So in other words you pre-judge the outcome by asserting that there *is* an
audible difference between A & B. Then, if the test fails to support this
assertion you dismiss the test as flawed.

It's religion. As there IS a God, any test that fails to prove him is
flawed. Or so they say.