Kudos to Arny Krueger

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Folks,

Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile
magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method to
test what is audible and what is not. John is known for, um, - well, let's
just call it an anti-science bias.

You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30 MB, 1
hour long) here:

www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/

Way to go, Arny!

--Ethan

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
> participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile
> magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method to
> test what is audible and what is not.

The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious forms of
bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to what we
"actually" hear when we sit down to listen.


> John is known for, um, -- well, let's
> just call it an anti-science bias.

John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to believe. In
that respect, he's no different from Arny, or 99% of the human race.


By the way, like Steven Sullivan, I very much appreciated your Stereophile
essay. I was flabbergasted that JA actually published it.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
methodology.

"William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:118535ka0poba4@corp.supernews.com...
> The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious
forms of
> bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to what
we
> "actually" hear when we sit down to listen.

The publication that he is chief editor of would indicate otherwise.
Furthermore, his poor attempts at justifying a lack of rigourous study of
most subjectivists claims published within Stereophile is further indication
to the contrary. Attempting to dismiss his attitude as nothing more than
closed mindedness that reflects the majority of the population does not deny
the above facts.

> John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to
believe.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ethan Winer wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
> participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of
Stereophile
> magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific
method to
> test what is audible and what is not. John is known for, um, - well,
let's
> just call it an anti-science bias.
>
> You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30
MB, 1
> hour long) here:
>
> www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>
> Way to go, Arny!
>
> --Ethan

I listened to most of this (as a part-time engineer, a subscriber to
Skeptical Inquirer, and a long-time user of some of your software
products).

Clearly, if one can't tell the difference between two pieces of
equipment, then, for the purpose of that listener, the two pieces of
equipment are identical under those circumstances.

Those who criticise DBT testing on general principles are on such
non-scientific ground that they might as well join a church.

What I don't get, and what I thought that Atkinson was getting at until
he veered off into mysticism, is why the tests have to be conducted
with short pieces of sound. If Atkinson's claim is that he can
differentiate between different power amps when listening to them for
an extended period, then let's design an experiment that tests this
hypothesis, but remains double blind. How long does he need? A half
hour on each? Ten minutes? An hour? Shouldn't be difficult - certainly,
far more time has been spent arguing over this than would be necessary
to conduct a *scientific* experiment as to whether two pieces of
equipment can be differentiated under these circumstances.

Kudos to Arny, indeed, for perservering when most others would have
given up. I have long taken the view that the more idiots there are in
the world, the better it is for me, so I don't try to educate them. I
might even sell them some $2,500 power cables for them to plug into the
Romex cable feeding their power outlets.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
newsO6dne89EYl1wx_fRVn-3Q@giganews.com...
> Folks,
>
> Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
> participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of
> Stereophile
> magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method to
> test what is audible and what is not. John is known for, um, - well, let's
> just call it an anti-science bias.
>
> You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30 MB, 1
> hour long) here:
>
> www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>
> Way to go, Arny!
>
> --Ethan
>

As one with preconceived notions about the superiority of the scientific
method, I have to say...

Rock on, Arnie! Keep up the good fight!

Craig

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

huwgareth@my-deja.com wrote:

> Ethan Winer wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
> > participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of
> Stereophile
> > magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific
> method to
> > test what is audible and what is not. John is known for, um, - well,
> let's
> > just call it an anti-science bias.
> >
> > You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30
> MB, 1
> > hour long) here:
> >
> > www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> >
> > Way to go, Arny!
> >
> > --Ethan

> I listened to most of this (as a part-time engineer, a subscriber to
> Skeptical Inquirer, and a long-time user of some of your software
> products).

> Clearly, if one can't tell the difference between two pieces of
> equipment, then, for the purpose of that listener, the two pieces of
> equipment are identical under those circumstances.

> Those who criticise DBT testing on general principles are on such
> non-scientific ground that they might as well join a church.

> What I don't get, and what I thought that Atkinson was getting at until
> he veered off into mysticism, is why the tests have to be conducted
> with short pieces of sound.

They don't *have* to be. That recommendation comes from work in
psychoacoustics, where short snippets as samples were found to increase
discriminatory success, due to the nature of audio memory.
The whole idea behind using them is to *increase* the chance of detecting
real difference, not make it harder. But a testee is
certainly free to use longer
samples, long switchgn intervals, etc.
The only problem is that if those results turn out negative, then
one must retest for the possibility that those conditions themselves
masked a real difference (because scientific work suggests they can).

If someone *passes* a DBT using longer samples, though, there's no basis
for challenging the result due to the sample length. I think most
objectivists would be 'OK' with such a report. There's no 'rule' that
says the samples have to be short.


> If Atkinson's claim is that he can
> differentiate between different power amps when listening to them for
> an extended period, then let's design an experiment that tests this
> hypothesis, but remains double blind. How long does he need? A half
> hour on each? Ten minutes? An hour? Shouldn't be difficult - certainly,
> far more time has been spent arguing over this than would be necessary
> to conduct a *scientific* experiment as to whether two pieces of
> equipment can be differentiated under these circumstances.

I think the idea is that 'living with' the amps revealed a difference, that
doing an DBT while unfamiliar with the amps didn't show. Fine! By
all means, let's see if it made a difference. Now having formed quite
definite 'feelings' about the difference in sound..to the point of being
*sure* that one sounds better than another -- do another DBT. Should be
easy to pass if you're right! And if so, you have valid grounds to
start agitating for long 'acclimation' periods before doing DBTs
of audio stuff. (Actually, researchers already routinely recommend and
employ pre-DBT training sessions to sensitize the testees to differences...
Arny K also recommends this on his pcabx site)




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 05:28:46 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
<ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
>reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
>are, when they aren't allowed to be the *only* arbiters of what you are
>hearing. What you 'actually' perceive when you sit down and listen in casual
>evulation, is an amalgam of truly audible plus other non-audible 'confounding'
>factors. Science may not be foolproof, but the existnce of such factors
>has been proved about as well as *anthing* has been. It's why scientific
>investigations of all sorts routinely employs bias controls. Cognitive/perceptual
>confounding factors are *insidious* and *pervasive*.

Brilliant; possibly the best I've ever read. But now define "hearing".
And then define the color red.

Ya just can't get there from here, is the problem. I'll be very
interested in your comments; thanks; and please don't take my
comments negatively; anything but.

But perhaps the "cognitive/perceptual confounding factors" actually
matter for music?

Just some thoughts. We human beans have such a desperate need to
quantify and simplify the overwhelming complexity of the external
world that the need can overwhelm the better angels of our modeling
nature. "Trust, but verify".

Chris Hornbeck

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ethan Winer wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
> participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of
> Stereophile magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the
> scientific method to test what is audible and what is not. John is
> known for, um, - well, let's just call it an anti-science bias.
>
> You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30
> MB, 1 hour long) here:
>
> www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>

The dude claims to hear differences in power cables. Nothing more needs
to be said on his credibility. He is so deluded, further discussion is
pointless.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>
> But perhaps the "cognitive/perceptual confounding factors" actually
> matter for music?

I'm sure thay do. It only worries me when these factors might persuade
me to part with $2500 for a pair of interconnects because those factors
have persuaded me that they sound better.

Has anyone tried a non-blind "trick" test where the cheap and expensive
cable were disguised as each other, or the guts of the amplifiers
swapped between the boxes so the listener really thought he was
listening to device A when it was device B?

Anahata

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:
> Raul Goyo-Shields wrote:
>> It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more
reliable than
>> subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any
form of
>> objective methodology.
>
> For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.

As usual Joe, you've missed the point.

<begin over Joe's head>

The point is that much of what these high-end snake-oil
artists claims sounds better, doesn't even sound different.

How can something really sound better, if it sounds no
different?

<end over Joe's head>

Joe, take as much time as you need to come up with a
well-thought-out answer, instead of your typical childish
hip-shots.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Julian wrote:

> I listened to most of the debate. It was weird how the
other guy
> didn't get how an amp isn't flat because you can tell a
signature
> after multiple passes, but digital conversions can be done
many times
> without a signature and are by far flatter.

Yes, its interesting that good converters can be that much
better than even really good amps.

> My question is what sample rate and bit depth are you
using for this?

I did the work I described at HE2005 with a Card Deluxe
running at 24/96.

I first established the transparency of the Card Deluxe with
these tests:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm

and moved on to these amplifier tests:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm

If I did it all over again today, my candidate cards would
be the M-Audio Audiophile 24/192 and/or the LynxTWO. Not
because there's anything wrong with the Card Deluxe, but
these are better price-performers, one much more expensive
but with far better performance, and one with similar
performance, but about half the price.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Clearly, if one can't tell the difference between two pieces of
> equipment, then, for the purpose of that listener, the two pieces of
> equipment are identical under those circumstances.

Exactly... "Under those circumstances." Double-blind testing, as it is currently
implemented, is not equivalent to simply sitting down and listening to music.
Nor is "subjective" testing, for that matter.


> Those who criticise DBT testing on general principles are on
> such non-scientific ground that they might as well join a church.

Not at all. Calling something "scientific" does not make it so. (The word itself
implies a degree of "truthfulness" that is not fully justified.) Simply because
double-blind testing is useful in other areas does not mean it provides useful
or valid results when judging hi-fi equipment.

What most people conveniently ignore when criticizing my views is that I don't
agree with either side in this issue. Both sides are "wrong," because their
testing procedures have not been proven to be correct. Simply removing bias does
not guarantee accurate, valid, or useful results.


> What I don't get, and what I thought that Atkinson was getting at until
> he veered off into mysticism, is why the tests have to be conducted
> with short pieces of sound. If Atkinson's claim is that he can
> differentiate between different power amps when listening to them for
> an extended period, then let's design an experiment that tests this
> hypothesis, but remains double blind. How long does he need? A half
> hour on each? Ten minutes? An hour? Shouldn't be difficult - certainly,
> far more time has been spent arguing over this than would be necessary
> to conduct a *scientific* experiment as to whether two pieces of
> equipment can be differentiated under these circumstances.

What is needed -- and I could name several well-known people who agree with
me -- is long-term blind listening tests in which people simply sit down and
listen for pleasure. Properly conducted, such testing would would provide useful
information about "how" people listen, what they think they hear, and establish
a baseline for judging "subjective" and "objective" testing. But such testing
would require many listeners, take a lot of time, and be difficult to implement
and run correctly. Not to mention the fact that both subjectivists and
objectivists have a vested interest in believing what they want to believe.
People are uncomfortable changing their world views.


> Kudos to Arny, indeed, for perservering when most others would have
> given up. I have long taken the view that the more idiots there are in
> the world, the better it is for me, so I don't try to educate them.
> I might even sell them some $2,500 power cables for them to plug
> into the Romex cable feeding their power outlets.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 5/12/05 12:33 AM, in article 3eg4l9F2tk32U1@individual.net, "Joe Sensor"
<crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote:

> Raul Goyo-Shields wrote:
>> It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
>> subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
>> methodology.
>
> For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.

Hehee... And in a word 'yes' (unless you;re doing the Orwell Thing)

Define
design a testable hypothesis
Test
examine results
peer review for others to attempt to duplicate results
Reassess
refine
Repeat

It's what got HiFi started in the ~30's professional engineering world
It's what keeps us refining and getting closer
It works reliably
NOTHING else does.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more
reliable than
>> subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any
form
>> of objective methodology.
>
> Double-blind testing is a subjective form of testing.
There is no
> proved correlation between what one hears in the tests and
what one
> hears when actually listening to music. (The same thing is
true of
> "subjectivist" reviewing, as well.)

This sounds similar to a key point from the Debate, but I
think it overstates the relevant facts by quite a bit.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

How many times I pretended to twist a knob on a monitor mixer to make a
mucian happy when I knew I was already at the feedback threshold.

In my experience the differences in transducers far far outwiegh
differences in electronics. If you don't like the sound change your
speakers, mics, placement or room acoustics.

As far as amps in a professional setting, durability and reliability
trump super specs almost every time.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:07:23 +0200, Kevin Aylward wrote:

> The dude claims to hear differences in power cables. Nothing more needs
> to be said on his credibility. He is so deluded, further discussion is
> pointless.

Theoretically it is possible for a component in your audio chain to be
sensitive for differences in power cables. The solution is to remove that
component and destroy it because it is an inferiour component. Replacing
the power cable is not a sensible option.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

>>For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.
>
>
> As usual Joe, you've missed the point.
>
> <begin over Joe's head>
>
> The point is that much of what these high-end snake-oil
> artists claims sounds better, doesn't even sound different.
>
> How can something really sound better, if it sounds no
> different?
>
> <end over Joe's head>

Extremes. I am not for the snake oil cables and such either. That ain't
me. Over my head? w.t.f. is that?





> Joe, take as much time as you need to come up with a
> well-thought-out answer, instead of your typical childish
> hip-shots.

You mean such as you did? Could you be any more hypocritical?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 05:46:03 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
<ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>huwgareth@my-deja.com wrote:

> ...

>If someone *passes* a DBT using longer samples, though, there's no basis
>for challenging the result due to the sample length. I think most
>objectivists would be 'OK' with such a report. There's no 'rule' that
>says the samples have to be short.
>
>
>> If Atkinson's claim is that he can
>> differentiate between different power amps when listening to them for
>> an extended period, then let's design an experiment that tests this
>> hypothesis, but remains double blind. How long does he need? A half
>> hour on each? Ten minutes? An hour? Shouldn't be difficult - certainly,

IIRC he lived with that transistor amp he hated for six months.

>> far more time has been spent arguing over this than would be necessary
>> to conduct a *scientific* experiment as to whether two pieces of
>> equipment can be differentiated under these circumstances.
>
>I think the idea is that 'living with' the amps revealed a difference, that
>doing an DBT while unfamiliar with the amps didn't show. Fine! By
>all means, let's see if it made a difference. Now having formed quite
>definite 'feelings' about the difference in sound..to the point of being
>*sure* that one sounds better than another -- do another DBT. Should be
>easy to pass if you're right! And if so, you have valid grounds to
>start agitating for long 'acclimation' periods before doing DBTs
>of audio stuff. (Actually, researchers already routinely recommend and
>employ pre-DBT training sessions to sensitize the testees to differences...
>Arny K also recommends this on his pcabx site)

If it takes long-term listening to show the difference, then do a
test using long-term listening.
How about having a large locked box (large enough for heat buildup
not to be a problem) in the listening room that contains the
amplifier. Once a day a 'maintenance person' comes in, and without the
testee seeing (send him to the shower or something), opens up the box,
spends five minutes doing something, tests the system so see that it
works, locks the box, notifies the listener that he is through, and
leaves until the next day. The listener then has 23 hours and 55
minutes of listening time until the maintenance person comes in again.
During each visit, the maintenance man might or might not have
changed out the amplifier (all amps used are precisely gain-matched).
He might swap it at every visit for a week, then go two weeks just
checking at each visit to see if the unit functions ok (off-site
records are kept of what amp is in the box when). This should give
adequate listening time at least for the listener to decided "like it"
or "hate it" as Atkinson said of the transistor amp he had for several
months that had passed a DBT (been indistinguishable from another good
amp). With that sort of time frame (especially several weeks at a
time) he should be able to say when the amp has been changed out.
Sorry, with the above, the maintenance person knows what's what.
Leave both amps in the locked box, make a switchbox driven by a
microcontroller, the maintainer turns a keyswitch to activate it, it
switches (inaudibly of course) or not, and displays a five-digit
number that encodes the switch setting, the maintainer writes it down
but doesn't know how to decode it into a switch setting. For longterm
listening (several days of one amp at a time), make the chances of
switching much less than 1/2. So it's a good DBT.

But then, what was that Presidential quote, "We have nothing to
fear but truth itself..."
And now I wonder why I just spent my time typing all that...


-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Or for that matter an automated system that switches (or not) between
units. It could be run from a PC with a form to fill out with your
opinions and ratings of the days listening. Pretty simple to implement.
Serial control of a couple good relays. You could test any reasonable
number of amps in a month. You could even make it interactive. As long
as the tester has no clue as to which amp it being listened to at any
time. Just ABC&D in a sealed black box and some sort of switching.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William,

> What is needed ... is long-term blind listening tests <

I have to agree with Arny. I can't see why listening long term increases
someone's ability to discern small differences. If anything I'd say it's the
other way around. But even if that were so, if you have to listen for a
month to detect some tiny improvement, how important really is that
improvement?

I know that when I A/B stuff where the differences are very small (not
blind, just fooling around) I need to hear the exact same short passage over
and over. A friend once asked me to listen for a change in a song his client
sent out for mastering. The ME claimed he made it "better" but my friend
couldn't hear any difference. I couldn't either, but I also "couldn't tell
if I could tell" until we took both versions of the tune and lined them up
in his DAW. Before we did that, one version might be playing a verse while
the next was at the chorus. Just having a different chord was enough to
throw off any perception of low end clarity and fullness from one version to
the next. But once I set up each tune to play the exact same 5 second
passage - over and over while switching back and forth - I was then able to
conclude with certainty that there was no meaningful difference.

Also, it is well known that the ear adjusts to changes in sound pretty
easily. So if anything, long term listening (live with a new power cable for
a month) will tend to *mask* real differences rather than reveal them
better.

--Ethan

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Anahata wrote:

> Better still, repeat with several victims, telling some
the truth and
> others the opposite. See if there's a better correlation
between their
> assessments and what they've been *told* they were
listening to, than
> between their assessments and what they were *actually*
listening to.

There's always that legendary meeting of our audio club,
where the host bragged about and demoed his new audiophool
amp and preamp, not knowing that Tom Nousaine coached the
host's teenage son to wire up a Pioneer receiver instead.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ethan Winer wrote:
> William,
>
>> What is needed ... is long-term blind listening tests <
>
> I have to agree with Arny. I can't see why listening long
term
> increases someone's ability to discern small differences.

In a way it does. Sometimes you have to listen a long time
before you set the stage for the audible difference to be
maximually audible. Stuff like a certain rim shot, etc.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Even if two models of amps have been "proven"
> to be equal in a DBS once the person gets it home, if he "wished he had
> bought the other model", this will in fact interfere with his enjoyment of
> it (and that is a FACT). So just look at DBS as a good way for YOU to find
> what works for you and let the other guy go his way. You won't be able to
> change him and if he finds joy in it (and he's not hurting anyone) who
> cares?

This is a valid point that its ignore a little too often by both parties.
The subjectivists ignore it because their claims are about auditory
differences, not experiential differences. Objectivists ignore it because
they are merely concerned with auditory differences. That being said,
objectivist reviewers do recognize value as measured by quality and sound
difference (e.g. PA from TAC). The question becomes what cost difference
can be justified. If one recognizes one is talking about aesthetics,
perceived quality, status, jewellery, etc. (i.e. factors related to
experience as a whole, but not to auditory differences), then whatever price
one feels comfortable paying (like any other luxury). However, if the price
differentiation is based on auditory superiority where there is no
difference, then strong dissentient is justifiable; i.e. it is not a debate
about perceived value, but about ignorance, duplicitousness, greed, and to
paraphrase Bloom, the closing of the American mind to any form of objective
search for truth. So yes, experience in a phenomenological context matters,
and for people who are affected by factors other than sound (which one would
expect is most people since reliability matters, and aesthetics has value),
that should not be denied. Just don't take the next step and have
experience supersede true sonic differences to the point where the latter
becomes irrelevant.

PS. Although one can argue that science some times behaves as a form of
religion (i.e. as a means for deriving meaning), to just dismiss it is the
quintessential example of throwing out the baby with the bath water. If the
standards subjectivists want to impose were to be imposed on subjectivism,
it would conclude that nothing is valid, and all conclusions about equipment
and sound are meaningless. Furthermore, if the standards of subjectivism
were applied to all other areas of human existence, then nothing would have
validity, and by extension true meaning.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Double-blind testing is a subjective form of testing. There is no
proved
correlation between what one hears in the tests and what one hears when
actually
listening to music. (The same thing is true of "subjectivist"
reviewing, as
well.)"

....and then later:
"Double-blind testing, as it is currently
implemented, is not equivalent to simply sitting down and listening to
music.
Nor is "subjective" testing, for that matter."



This strikes me as the crux of the biscuit. I'm perfectly comfortable
believing there could be some Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
variation that affects our perception of recorded music the moment we
try to quantify our perceptions of recorded music.

But regardless of whether we're doing it through rigorous double-blind
ABX testing, or subjective equipment reviews for audiophile magazines,
or just kicking back listening to tunes through our newly procured CD
player, that's what we are doing -- trying to quantify our perceptions
of recorded music.

None of us are innocent. None of us are immune to this "effect" (if it
indeed exists). In ALL of those circumstances our conscious perceptions
have been corrupted, coerced by the goal which we seek. The effort
[sic] required to make a choice between A & B in an ABX test is the
exact same manifestation of perverted perception as the effort Harry
Peason made when trying to decide whether a power amplifier was "taut"
or "robust".

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 12 May 2005 07:09:27 -0700, tymish@hotmail.com wrote:

>How many times I pretended to twist a knob on a monitor mixer to make a
>mucian happy when I knew I was already at the feedback threshold.

How many times have I pretended to adjust my amp to make a soundman
happy... and then have them say "great, thanks".

Al