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.

I think the difficulty here is that "listeners" is a variable and so
is "test conditions". The test conditions would be not too difficult
to replicate, but the listeners could not be easily replicated, nor
could their emotional/health states at time of testing, even if they
were.

I would hazard a guess that the quality, aural acuity and perceptual
sensitivity of a listening panel could not be easily standardised, and
since the whole experiment depends on their aural perception, I'd
forsee this as a logistical problem.

How would you suggest tackling this in logistical terms? If you
randomise the panel, this would not correspond to audiophile
listeners. Maybe you would need to randomise a sample of audiophiles
who had already been tested for good hearing. Whether you would
consider musicians and audiophiles as equivalent would, additionally,
truly set the cat among the pidgeons.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:42:25 -0800 (PST), Andy Evans
wrote:

I think the difficulty here is that "listeners" is a variable and so
is "test conditions". The test conditions would be not too difficult
to replicate, but the listeners could not be easily replicated, nor
could their emotional/health states at time of testing, even if they
were.

I would hazard a guess that the quality, aural acuity and perceptual
sensitivity of a listening panel could not be easily standardised, and
since the whole experiment depends on their aural perception, I'd
forsee this as a logistical problem.


Why would you need to? The only thing we're trying to establish is
whether one length of wire sounds different to another. To these
listeners, here, today. We find that they don't. So we try another
set, another place another time. They can't tell any difference
either. Anyone who thinks he can has an easy million dollars waiting
to be collected. It's been waiting a long time :-)

In article
,
Andy
Evans wrote:
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.

I don't think you wrote the above, Andy, despite taking the credit
for it.

It would help if you were to identify when you quote in the standard
manner. However...

I think the difficulty here is that "listeners" is a variable and so is
"test conditions". The test conditions would be not too difficult to
replicate, but the listeners could not be easily replicated, nor could
their emotional/health states at time of testing, even if they were.

This is why a number of different such tests have been done, using varied
listeners, and various situations. As the evidence rolls in, this gives
some statistical scope to the reliability of the results. Your objections
have been thought of, and repeatedly dealt with, over some decades.

I would hazard a guess that the quality, aural acuity and perceptual
sensitivity of a listening panel could not be easily standardised, and
since the whole experiment depends on their aural perception, I'd forsee
this as a logistical problem.

How would you suggest tackling this in logistical terms?

Since you didn't bother to reference who you were quoting, you'd have
to say who you are asking, and why they should do what you ask. :-)
However...

I/we don't need to "suggest" anything as people working on the topic have
*already* tackled the problems you raise, as indicated above. The tests
already done cover a range of cases and listeners, and there is the
tendency for the results to show that - regardless of beliefs to the
contrary - people often show no ability to hear the 'differences' they
assert they can. I lost count some years ago of how many different such
tests have been done using different groups of listeners, etc. People have
been doing them for over two decades to my knowledge.

Similarly, there are cases when listeners *can* distinguish one thing from
another and do so with statistical reliability, e.g. where the comparison
is for a large enough difference in level, or frequency response.

If you randomise the panel, this would not correspond to audiophile
listeners.

People have, as I point out, used both various 'audiophile' groups, and
other groups. So far as I know, the results are fairly consistent for
specific classes of items under examination - e.g. between amps. They
indicate what can, and cannot, be heard with any reliability in
various cases, by a range of people.

Maybe you would need to randomise a sample of audiophiles who
had already been tested for good hearing. Whether you would consider
musicians and audiophiles as equivalent would, additionally, truly set
the cat among the pidgeons.

It is, of course, open to you and anyone else to run their own properly
conducted tests, and report the results. No need for any "maybe" or
speculations which are unsupported by the evidence we already have. So, for
example, if you think a specific factor matters, or that some people are
'golden eared' then you can test your theory and see if the evidence
supports it. However if you check the history of what already has been done
you may well find that someone else has already tried the hypothesis you
have in mind, and found it didn't stack up when tested. So if you wish
to learn, then the standard academic science methods of a literature
search and doing your own experiments are yours to take up. :-)


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

On 28 Dec, 14:55, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:42:25 -0800 (PST), Andy Evans

wrote:
I think the difficulty here is that "listeners" is a variable and so
is "test conditions". The test conditions would be not too difficult
to replicate, but the listeners could not be easily replicated, nor
could their emotional/health states at time of testing, even if they
were.

I would hazard a guess that the quality, aural acuity and perceptual
sensitivity of a listening panel could not be easily standardised, and
since the whole experiment depends on their aural perception, I'd
forsee this as a logistical problem.

Why would you need to? The only thing we're trying to establish is
whether one length of wire sounds different to another. To these
listeners, here, today. We find that they don't. So we try another
set, another place another time. They can't tell any difference
either. Anyone who thinks he can has an easy million dollars waiting
to be collected. It's been waiting a long time :-)

Is it cash or a cheque?
Borosteve.

In article ,
Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote:
Why would you need to? The only thing we're trying to establish is
whether one length of wire sounds different to another. To these
listeners, here, today. We find that they don't. So we try another
set, another place another time. They can't tell any difference
either. Anyone who thinks he can has an easy million dollars waiting
to be collected. It's been waiting a long time :-)

Crikey - that's gone up. Last I heard it was 10 grand.

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

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

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:08:27 +0000, Jim Lesurf wrote:

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.


Absolutely correct - as long as you add the rider that they are
audibly indistinguishable under the conditions of said test -
whatever they may be.

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.


Correct.

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. :-)


No, it doesn't matter what the purpose of the test is - the results
(such as they are) stand. The only only "logical fallacy" I'm referring
to is that those that say that a test that fails to find a difference
between A and B "proves" that A and B are identical.


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.


Absolutely correct.

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

If listeners in a "test" situation cannot distinguish the sound between
one system and another then one cannot assume that those same listeners
in another situation (for the sake of argument a "home" situation) would
also not be able to distinguish between the systems.

The problem, of course, is that when said listeners claim such
differences, some "scientists" say that that is nonsense and that if
they (the listeners) hear such differences at home, then they must
surely be able to hear the same differences under test/laboratory
conditions.

Since the two situations are fundamentally different and that what is
being "measured" is one aspect of human perception there is a bit of a
problem in asserting that the "home" vis-a-vis the "laboratory"
situation will have no affect on the perception itself.

Personally, I think that if a "well" (and there are very few of those)
conducted listening test fails to show a difference between two systems/
components, then the differences (if any) are probably not worth worrying
too much about. However, I see no problem whatsoever in anyone conducting
their own home listening tests and deciding on the basis of those tests
that one item is better than the other. It is the height of arrogance for
anyone to claim that they are "wrong".

Regards

Malcolm

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:10:14 -0600, Malcolm
wrote:

Personally, I think that if a "well" (and there are very few of those)
conducted listening test fails to show a difference between two systems/
components, then the differences (if any) are probably not worth worrying
too much about. However, I see no problem whatsoever in anyone conducting
their own home listening tests and deciding on the basis of those tests
that one item is better than the other. It is the height of arrogance for
anyone to claim that they are "wrong".

It shouldn't have to be "well" conducted if, as disciples claim,
cables make an immediate and striking difference.

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

"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.

No pre-judging involved whatsoever. I have not "asserted" that A and B
are necessarily different. The same conclusion (quoted above) applies
whether A and B are different ot not. All I'm saying is that if such
a test fails to show a difference between A and B then that at the end
of the test you still have no "certainty" whether A is different to B
or not.

Malcolm

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:19:31 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:10:14 -0600, Malcolm wrote:

Personally, I think that if a "well" (and there are very few of those)
conducted listening test fails to show a difference between two systems/
components, then the differences (if any) are probably not worth
worrying too much about. However, I see no problem whatsoever in anyone
conducting their own home listening tests and deciding on the basis of
those tests that one item is better than the other. It is the height of
arrogance for anyone to claim that they are "wrong".

It shouldn't have to be "well" conducted if, as disciples claim, cables
make an immediate and striking difference.

Er, I think any test that wants to be taken seriously *must* be well
conducted.

However, I take (and agree with) your point that if there is an
obvious difference between cables (or any other components) even a
poor test will show the differences - in fact, I think I implied in
a previous post that *any* test is rather unnecessary in such
circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt, I've never made any claim that
cables make any sort of difference to the sound of a system - I
wouldn't know - I've never tried any sort of "tests" on them myself
- as I stated in a previous post to this thread.


Malcolm

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

No pre-judging involved whatsoever. I have not "asserted" that A and B
are necessarily different. The same conclusion (quoted above) applies
whether A and B are different ot not. All I'm saying is that if such
a test fails to show a difference between A and B then that at the end
of the test you still have no "certainty" whether A is different to B
or not.


Certainty is a rare thing in this world. Even if a test apparently shows a
difference there is no certainty that there is one, as people quite commonly
vote A better than A when they aren't aware that they are hearing exactly
the same thing twice.

David.