Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Product comparisons

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 5:59:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Product comparisons are not scientific experiments. It is pointless to
try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
full scientific protocol be carried our. If the prospective purchaser
hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
criticisms.

If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so
on your time and your dime.

More about : product comparisons

Anonymous
September 5, 2005 8:53:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.

Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise.

> It is pointless to
> try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
> products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
> full scientific protocol be carried our.

Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand.

> If the prospective purchaser
> hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
> difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
> criticisms.

Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you
start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better
to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't
be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated
newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about
how things sound to them.

Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that
isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements
about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open
the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical
assessments and claims.

For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only
describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a
statement like:

>> The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
>> themselves are responsible for these phenomena.

(Post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/3...)

When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it
here.

bob
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 3:25:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
>
> Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise.
>
> > It is pointless to
> > try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
> > products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
> > full scientific protocol be carried our.
>
> Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand.
>
> > If the prospective purchaser
> > hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
> > difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
> > criticisms.
>
> Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you
> start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better
> to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't
> be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated
> newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about
> how things sound to them.
>
> Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that
> isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements
> about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open
> the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical
> assessments and claims.
>
> For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only
> describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a
> statement like:
>
> >> The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
> >> themselves are responsible for these phenomena.
>
> (Post:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/3...)
>
> When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it
> here.
>
> bob

Hello,

The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was

"I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a
consistent lack of difference between products.

The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena."

I agree with his statement.

The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest
explanation for this is that products have sonic differences. Otherwise
you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really
an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything
you like.

--
Michael Mossey "Correctly functioning amps and cd players have
dramatic,
audible differences in subjective effect."
Related resources
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:21:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
> >
> > Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise.
> >
> > > It is pointless to
> > > try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
> > > products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
> > > full scientific protocol be carried our.
> >
> > Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand.
> >
> > > If the prospective purchaser
> > > hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
> > > difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
> > > criticisms.
> >
> > Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you
> > start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better
> > to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't
> > be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated
> > newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about
> > how things sound to them.
> >
> > Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that
> > isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements
> > about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open
> > the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical
> > assessments and claims.
> >
> > For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only
> > describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a
> > statement like:
> >
> > >> The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
> > >> themselves are responsible for these phenomena.
> >
> > (Post:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/3...)
> >
> > When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it
> > here.
> >
> > bob

> Hello,

> The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was

> "I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a
> consistent lack of difference between products.

> The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
> themselves are responsible for these phenomena."

> I agree with his statement.

> The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
> stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest
> explanation for this is that products have sonic differences.

It depends entirely upon other circumstances. What were the products?
What were the listening conditions? And does the 'reality' stand up
to investigation at the *objective* level?



> Otherwise
> you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really
> an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything
> you like.

You're ignoring, of course, the distinct possibility of self-reinforcing
perception. And the fact that various forms of perceptual bias are
a *given*.

What made you decide , a priori that these are *less* likely than real
difference?


--

-S
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:27:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
> >
> > Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise.
> >
> > > It is pointless to
> > > try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
> > > products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
> > > full scientific protocol be carried our.
> >
> > Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand.
> >
> > > If the prospective purchaser
> > > hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
> > > difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
> > > criticisms.
> >
> > Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you
> > start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better
> > to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't
> > be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated
> > newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about
> > how things sound to them.
> >
> > Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that
> > isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements
> > about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open
> > the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical
> > assessments and claims.
> >
> > For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only
> > describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a
> > statement like:
> >
> > >> The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
> > >> themselves are responsible for these phenomena.
> >
> > (Post:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/3...)
> >
> > When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it
> > here.
> >
> > bob
>
> Hello,
>
> The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was
>
> "I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a
> consistent lack of difference between products.
>
> The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
> themselves are responsible for these phenomena."
>
> I agree with his statement.
>
> The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
> stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest
> explanation for this is that products have sonic differences.

You seem to not understand the difference between simple and
simplistic.

> Otherwise
> you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really
> an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything
> you like.

Not at all. It' a shame you've never studied psychology. It's an
evolving field, but it can explain an awful lot.

> --
> Michael Mossey "Correctly functioning amps and cd players have
> dramatic,
> audible differences in subjective effect."

....so dramatic, in fact, that you could hear them with your eyes
closed?

bob
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 6:18:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
> > >
> > > Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise.
> > >
> > > > It is pointless to
> > > > try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
> > > > products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
> > > > full scientific protocol be carried our.
> > >
> > > Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand.
> > >
> > > > If the prospective purchaser
> > > > hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
> > > > difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
> > > > criticisms.
> > >
> > > Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you
> > > start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better
> > > to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't
> > > be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated
> > > newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about
> > > how things sound to them.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that
> > > isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements
> > > about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open
> > > the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical
> > > assessments and claims.
> > >
> > > For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only
> > > describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a
> > > statement like:
> > >
> > > >> The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
> > > >> themselves are responsible for these phenomena.
> > >
> > > (Post:
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/3...)
> > >
> > > When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it
> > > here.
> > >
> > > bob
>
> > Hello,
>
> > The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was
>
> > "I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a
> > consistent lack of difference between products.
>
> > The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
> > themselves are responsible for these phenomena."
>
> > I agree with his statement.
>
> > The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
> > stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest
> > explanation for this is that products have sonic differences.
>
> It depends entirely upon other circumstances. What were the products?
> What were the listening conditions? And does the 'reality' stand up
> to investigation at the *objective* level?
>
>
>
> > Otherwise
> > you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really
> > an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything
> > you like.
>
> You're ignoring, of course, the distinct possibility of self-reinforcing
> perception. And the fact that various forms of perceptual bias are
> a *given*.

'Bias' isn't creative, and it requires a detailed explanation, to
account for peculiarly consistent results. In other words, you have to
give an account that explains how 'bias' can produce consistent
effects, when it appears at first blush to be incapable of such. After
all, if our brains are so easily fooled by 'bias' that they can produce
these interesting effects, what is to constrain them from time to time?
What makes them produce the SAME sound on an amplifier last heard heard
MONTHS ago? EVERY time that I listened to a given amp (several trials,
months apart) it sounded the same, and different from my then-current
amp. I also had a friend come over and listen with me. The expression
on his face told me that I was not imagining things, when I hooked up
the Sony TA-N88B, which, by the way, is a very ordinary-looking amp.

> What made you decide , a priori that these are *less* likely than real
> difference?
>
>
> --
>
> -S
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 6:19:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
>
> Well, they can be performed with scientific controls
> for bias in place, as is done in marketing research
> and product development. The rationale for this is
> the the same as it is for basic scientific research.
>
> > It is pointless to
> > try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
> > products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
> > full scientific protocol be carried our.
>
> Indeed. And I haven't in fact seen anyone insist that.
>
> I have seen loads of audiophiles concluding that two things sound
> different, simply because they did a nonscientific product comparison.
> Often this isn't sufficient evidence for such a claim.

Sufficient for WHOM? And what qualifies as 'scientific'? That in itelf
is controversial.

I listen under conditions that meet MY criteria. That includes a rather
quiet, late-night environment, no illumination, and excellent,
familiar, recordings. If any differences are there to be heard, they
will be heard under those conditions or else they're too subtle to be
worthwhile.

> Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely
> uncontroversial fact, to a scientist.

That's irrelevant, because we're not acting as scientists, nor are we
claiming to. What scientists think here is irrelevant to our purposes.

Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My
choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
scientific organization.

People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.
("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
octane gas gives better performance.") Why do you fixate on audio?
What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
sort of response?

If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
that I'm wasting my money?

It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
should be.

They need be only as rigorous as I need.

Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
they were inferior to what I had.

I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography.
I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and
enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also
compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These
comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable
for my use.

I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of
the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at
first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are
pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in
future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism
in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not
there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On
the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I
presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that
you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I
suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs
of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and
amplifiers.

I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 6:23:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest
explanation for this is that products have sonic differences. Otherwise
you
have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really an
explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything you
like."

You have it reversed. When it is observed using listening alone that
knowing or not which is connected toggles the subjective effect on and
off,
then the explanation requires that the knowing either changes the signal
at
a distance or the difference resides in the observer. Given the obvious
choice we have also the simplest answer.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 6:29:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6 Sep 2005 23:25:47 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:

>The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was
>
>"I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a
>consistent lack of difference between products.
>
>The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
>themselves are responsible for these phenomena."
>
>I agree with his statement.

In the face of all available experimental evidence? Fascinating logic
process you must have!

>The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
>stands up to investigation at the subjective level.

So is the reality of sighted listeners hearing differences which
patently do not exist in the physical soundfield, i.e. when nothing
has actually been changed. This is a *much* more likely reason for
U238 believing that he can hear differences among cables.

> The simplest
>explanation for this is that products have sonic differences.

No, it isn't.

> Otherwise
>you have to explain it as random neuronal firings

No, you don't. There need be no neurological activity whatever for
differences to be *imagined*.

>--which isn't really
>an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything
>you like.

So can magic - which is a more likely explanation for 'cable sound'
than anything to be found in physics or medicine.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:29:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
> >
> > Well, they can be performed with scientific controls
> > for bias in place, as is done in marketing research
> > and product development. The rationale for this is
> > the the same as it is for basic scientific research.
> >
> > > It is pointless to
> > > try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
> > > products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
> > > full scientific protocol be carried our.
> >
> > Indeed. And I haven't in fact seen anyone insist that.
> >
> > I have seen loads of audiophiles concluding that two things sound
> > different, simply because they did a nonscientific product comparison.
> > Often this isn't sufficient evidence for such a claim.

> Sufficient for WHOM? And what qualifies as 'scientific'? That in itelf
> is controversial.


Not at all. By scientific standards, a sighted claim of
audible difference, absent any independent support, is simply
inadequate as proof of real difference.


> I listen under conditions that meet MY criteria. That includes a rather
> quiet, late-night environment, no illumination, and excellent,
> familiar, recordings. If any differences are there to be heard, they
> will be heard under those conditions or else they're too subtle to be
> worthwhile.

How would you verify this? Or do you believe that error is impossible
under these circumstances?

> > Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely
> > uncontroversial fact, to a scientist.

> That's irrelevant, because we're not acting as scientists, nor are we
> claiming to. What scientists think here is irrelevant to our purposes.

But when audiophiles start talking about *why* they heard what they
heard, they move directly into the realm of science.

> Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My
> choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
> scientific organization.

Of course not. But the reasons you publicly provide for that
choice can either be make scientific sense, or not.
Buying a red car because you like red more than other colors,
is uttely unobjectionable from a scientific standpoint.
Buying a red car because you think red makes a car go
faster, is quite objectionable from a scientific standpoint.
Audiophile claims tend to be of the latter type, alas.

> People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
> not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.
> ("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
> octane gas gives better performance.")

All of those are verifiable scientifically, so the could certainly
cause concern among those who care. And I expect that they do.

> Why do you fixate on audio?

On rec.audio.high-end? It seems to make a certain sense.

> What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
> sort of response?

Probably the same thing that brings out this sort of response
when quack medical claims are made on other forums.

> If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
> that I'm wasting my money?

Depends on your stated reason for using 94 octane.
If you happen to simply like the number '94', I certainly won't
tell you you're wasting your money. But if you claim to
use 94 octane because it makes your car perform better, and
there is good reason to believe it doesn't, then I'll be happy
to inform you of that.

But more likely, I'd leave that sort of education to Stewart P.
He knows loads more about cars than I do.

> It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
> are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
> constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
> rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
> should be.

;>

And who are you to tell me what my place is?


> They need be only as rigorous as I need.

If you are upset when people question your
claims on a public forum
and the logic behind them, might I suggest you either refrain
from making such claims, or else ensuring that they are
unobjectionable?

> Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
> out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
> try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
> CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
> mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
> they were inferior to what I had.

Well, there's the thing...you don't know 'in fact' if they were
inferior in any objective sense. I'm afraid you don't even know
if they really sounded different.

> I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography.
> I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and
> enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also
> compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These
> comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable
> for my use.

> I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
> own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of
> the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at
> first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are
> pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in
> future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism
> in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not
> there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On
> the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I
> presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that
> you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I
> suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs
> of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and
> amplifiers.

Many things *are* of course really different. But it is also the
case that not everything we *perceive* as different, really is.

> I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
> audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
> 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.

Quite possibly so. But that doesn't mean you have become immune
to psychological bias.


--

-S
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 6:47:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> > Sufficient for WHOM? And what qualifies as 'scientific'? That in itelf
> > is controversial.
>
> Not at all. By scientific standards, a sighted claim of
> audible difference, absent any independent support, is simply
> inadequate as proof of real difference.

You use the term 'scientific' when the term itself is undefined, and
when exactly what constitutes a 'scientific' audio/listening test is
itself controversial. But I think we must agree that such a comparison
must be 'objective' and 'sensitive'. This means that the same
(familiar) conditions used to listen to Product A must be used to
listen to Product B, and that the system's other components must be of
high overall quality. To listen in an unfamiliar environment is a
recipe for disaster.

> > I listen under conditions that meet MY criteria. That includes a rather
> > quiet, late-night environment, no illumination, and excellent,
> > familiar, recordings. If any differences are there to be heard, they
> > will be heard under those conditions or else they're too subtle to be
> > worthwhile.
>
> How would you verify this? Or do you believe that error is impossible
> under these circumstances?

I don't believe error is impossible, but I believe that taking the
precautions I did take were sufficient to assure a high degree of
reliability in the results. I listened in the dark and repeated the
comparisons over several evenings. The results were consistent and
unmistakable.

> > > Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely
> > > uncontroversial fact, to a scientist.
>
> > That's irrelevant, because we're not acting as scientists, nor are we
> > claiming to. What scientists think here is irrelevant to our purposes.
>
> But when audiophiles start talking about *why* they heard what they
> heard, they move directly into the realm of science.

There is a difference between forming an hypothesis and conducting a
full-blown examination of that hypothesis on the one hand, and
performing a 'casual' comparison for evaluating a potential purchase on
the other. Such a comparison does not warrant a full-blown 'scientific'
protocol (whatever that is). It merely needs to be 'objective' and
'sensitive'. The hypothesis police are not needed or wanted.

> > Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My
> > choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
> > scientific organization.
>
> Of course not. But the reasons you publicly provide for that
> choice can either be make scientific sense, or not.

That is a matter of some controversy in itself. We all know that even
the most rigorous research is not always conclusive and without error.
But, even if someone happens to be wrong about a whether a particular
product (cables or amplifiers) 'REALLY' is better, what difference does
it make to YOU? Making a purchase is not the same sort of thing as
submitting a research paper to a peer-reviewed journal, now is it?
You're applying a standard where it has no place. It's quite literally
none of your business.

> Buying a red car because you like red more than other colors,
> is utterly unobjectionable from a scientific standpoint.
> Buying a red car because you think red makes a car go
> faster, is quite objectionable from a scientific standpoint.

No, it is not. People are permitted to believe anything they want,
however nonsensical it may appear to you or me. If, however, they want
to publish such a claim in 'Nature', then you certainly have a valid
point, and there are mechanisms in place to weed out such foolishness.
It's all a matter of context.

> Audiophile claims tend to be of the latter type, alas.

They are not 'claims' in the same sense as a submission to 'Nature'.
There are different levels of 'seriousness' in claims. I play tennis,
and I string my racquets with natural beef gut. There are players I run
into who swear it makes no difference, or 'is not worth the cost' and I
politely ignore them. They are mistaken: Cheap, and mistaken. I do not
believe it is my solemn duty to harangue them every time I see them at
the courts and tie up their time arguing about the superiority of gut,
and how cheap they are. It's impolite.

The same applies here. People come here to discuss high-end audio.
Constantly haranguing them about 'DBT protocol' and the like is frankly
impolite. It is NOT educative.

> > People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
> > not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.
> > ("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
> > octane gas gives better performance.")
>
> All of those are verifiable scientifically, so the could certainly
> cause concern among those who care. And I expect that they do.

But that's not the point. These claims are not being made in a research
paper being submitted to 'Nature', are they? They are 'informal'
claims. They are in principle, refutable. So are claims about audio
amplifiers and cables, but the process is inherently subjective and not
without controversy. It involves an observer whose only way of making
the determination is by listening.

>
> > Why do you fixate on audio?
>
> On rec.audio.high-end? It seems to make a certain sense.

HUH?

> > What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
> > sort of response?
>
> Probably the same thing that brings out this sort of response
> when quack medical claims are made on other forums.
>
> > If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
> > that I'm wasting my money?
>
> Depends on your stated reason for using 94 octane.

No, it does not.

> If you happen to simply like the number '94', I certainly won't
> tell you you're wasting your money. But if you claim to
> use 94 octane because it makes your car perform better, and
> there is good reason to believe it doesn't, then I'll be happy
> to inform you of that.

I didn't ask you.

> But more likely, I'd leave that sort of education to Stewart P.
> He knows loads more about cars than I do.
>
> > It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
> > are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
> > constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
> > rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
> > should be.
>
> ;>
>
> And who are you to tell me what my place is?

The one making the purchase. This seems, shall we say, obvious, nicht
wahr?

> > They need be only as rigorous as I need.
>
> If you are upset when people question your
> claims on a public forum
> and the logic behind them, might I suggest you either refrain
> from making such claims, or else ensuring that they are
> unobjectionable?

No, that's not the problem. This is a discussion group whose purpose is
to serve those who wish to discuss high-end audio products. It was
never intended to serve those who want to turn such discussions into a
peer-reviewed process like for journal 'Nature'. It's impolite to do
so.

> > Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
> > out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
> > try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
> > CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
> > mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
> > they were inferior to what I had.
>
> Well, there's the thing...you don't know 'in fact' if they were
> inferior in any objective sense.

Says who? And why do you care? It's none of your business.

> I'm afraid you don't even know
> if they really sounded different.

It does not matter. It's MY money.

> > I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography.
> > I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and
> > enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also
> > compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These
> > comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable
> > for my use.
>
> > I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
> > own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of
> > the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at
> > first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are
> > pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in
> > future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism
> > in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not
> > there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On
> > the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I
> > presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that
> > you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I
> > suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs
> > of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and
> > amplifiers.
>
> Many things *are* of course really different. But it is also the
> case that not everything we *perceive* as different, really is.

It does not matter. The time and expense necessary to determine whether
or not it is or isn't, is not warranted in the context under
discussion. In any case, no harm is done to anyone, as no-one is
required to buy expensive cables or amplifiers.

> > I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
> > audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
> > 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.
>
> Quite possibly so. But that doesn't mean you have become immune
> to psychological bias.

It does not matter. I have been happy with my purchase of every audio
product I have made (for a while, at least). I have made the purchases
based on comparisons in my home, and I feel strongly that each purchase
decision is more than fully justified given the performance levels
achieved with the new product, AND that the procedure used to perform
the comparison was objective and sensitive. I cannot be sure that the
people who have been subjected to DBT or ABX tests are as good at
listening in THAT environment as I am in MY environment, and therefore
their ability or inability to identify cables or amplifiers under those
conditions is of absolutely no validity or applicability in MY
environment. I have no interest in indulging those who insist that I be
subjected to such a test, when I all I am going to do is to listen in
MY environment. In other words, all that matters is what the product
'sounds like' in MY environment.
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 6:52:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 8 Sep 2005 02:18:02 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>'Bias' isn't creative, and it requires a detailed explanation, to
>account for peculiarly consistent results.

You'll find that explanation in any psy texbook. We are hardwired to
detect difference - even when it is not present. Better to jump out of
the way of a tiger that isn't there, than to sit still when one leaps
at you.

> In other words, you have to
>give an account that explains how 'bias' can produce consistent
>effects, when it appears at first blush to be incapable of such.

You will find detailed explanations of the effect known as
'reinforcement' in any psy textbook.

>After
>all, if our brains are so easily fooled by 'bias' that they can produce
>these interesting effects, what is to constrain them from time to time?

Not much. Some people hear voices. Some people even act on the
instructions of those voices.

>What makes them produce the SAME sound on an amplifier last heard heard
>MONTHS ago?

Reinforcement. No magic, just very basic psychology.

> EVERY time that I listened to a given amp (several trials,
>months apart) it sounded the same, and different from my then-current
>amp. I also had a friend come over and listen with me. The expression
>on his face told me that I was not imagining things, when I hooked up
>the Sony TA-N88B, which, by the way, is a very ordinary-looking amp.

This is a standard variation on the 'even my wife heard it from the
kitchen' tale. Your friend of course, just like you, *expected* to
hear a difference. That you don't seem to understand (or simply refuse
to accept) these very real effects, makes you a target for every basic
sales technique ever taught. Ask a Linn dealer about the 'toe-tapping'
reinforcement they've all been taught.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 6:55:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
> > >
> > > Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise.
> > >
> > > > It is pointless to
> > > > try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
> > > > products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
> > > > full scientific protocol be carried our.
> > >
> > > Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand.
> > >
> > > > If the prospective purchaser
> > > > hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
> > > > difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
> > > > criticisms.
> > >
> > > Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you
> > > start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better
> > > to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't
> > > be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated
> > > newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about
> > > how things sound to them.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that
> > > isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements
> > > about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open
> > > the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical
> > > assessments and claims.
> > >
> > > For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only
> > > describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a
> > > statement like:
> > >
> > > >> The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
> > > >> themselves are responsible for these phenomena.
> > >
> > > (Post:
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/3...)
> > >
> > > When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it
> > > here.
> > >
> > > bob
>
> > Hello,
>
> > The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was
>
> > "I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a
> > consistent lack of difference between products.
>
> > The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
> > themselves are responsible for these phenomena."
>
> > I agree with his statement.
>
> > The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
> > stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest
> > explanation for this is that products have sonic differences.
>
> It depends entirely upon other circumstances. What were the products?
> What were the listening conditions? And does the 'reality' stand up
> to investigation at the *objective* level?
>
>
>
> > Otherwise
> > you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really
> > an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything
> > you like.
>
> You're ignoring, of course, the distinct possibility of self-reinforcing
> perception. And the fact that various forms of perceptual bias are
> a *given*.
>
> What made you decide , a priori that these are *less* likely than real
> difference?

I haven't decided a priori. I've taken this theory, that what I hear is
influenced by non-sonic factors and put it against the evidence. I
track my expectations and, later, my experiences of the sound. They
usually don't match.

But let's take me as an example. Lets say I've had N listening sessions
in my life. Let's say that I had taken notes on all my reactions, so
call the set of my reactions R (which contain R_i for i <= N). Let's
also say we could somehow quantify and qualify the context of each
listening session-- that is, we could somehow write down all the
non-audible factors that influenced me, such as my expectations, the
appearance of the equipment, my knowledge of its design, what my
friends had said to me on the way over, etc. Let's call the set of
contexts C (which contains C_i for i <= N).

Now let us suppose ALL of the equipment in my N listening sessions was
identical in sound, according to psycho-acoustics.

So where do all my reactions R come from? Are they in any way
correlated to C?

There are some experiments that can correlate some things. For example,
we know that if you let someone listen briefly, then throw a fake
switch and tell them how much better it will sound, and let them listen
again, very likely they will report it sounds better. So that part of
the context C-- the "fake switch"/short session context-- can be
correlated with R.

However, there's a heck of a lot in R that you haven't said anything
about, since most of my experience is not the "fake switch" nor short
session kind. It would seem to me that you should either make a stab at
explaining it quantitatively, or admit that R is random and
meaningless.

The problem with deciding that R is random and meaningless, is that
you've removed all responsibility for explaining anything in R. Then
there's no way of checking your psycho-acoustic theories again real
listening experiences.

Mike
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 6:56:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 8 Sep 2005 02:19:24 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My
>choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
>scientific organization.

Unless you built it yourself (including the engine), it has in fact
been sanctioned by upwards of a dozen scientific organisations, who
won't let you choose one which does not meet their standards.

>People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
>not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.
>("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
>octane gas gives better performance.") Why do you fixate on audio?
>What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
>sort of response?

Propably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves
performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK..........

>If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
>that I'm wasting my money?

I use 97. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers
the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem
unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising.

>It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
>are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
>constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
>rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
>should be.

So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear.

>They need be only as rigorous as I need.
>
>Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
>out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
>try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
>CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
>mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
>they were inferior to what I had.

As it happens, I also use a mid-fi Sony, The CDP-715E from 1995, which
has stood up against all-comers to date. Not of course by beiong
'better', but by being *the same* as other good players.

>I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography.
>I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and
>enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also
>compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These
>comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable
>for my use.

I use Zeiss, and you wouldn't win. This argument is of course *much*
older than anything in audio! :-)

>I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
>own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of
>the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at
>first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are
>pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in
>future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism
>in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not
>there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On
>the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I
>presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that
>you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I
>suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs
>of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and
>amplifiers.

OTOH, I have about 7,000 Kodachrome 25 slides in my archive, and
perhaps a dozen of them have images whose quality is limited by lens
resolution and geometry.

OTGH, I have yet to encounter *anyone* who can hear differences among
cables, despite many baseless assertions to the contrary.

>I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
>audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
>'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.

I am sure that's true - but you still can't hear differences among
cables.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 7:02:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:

> > > Sufficient for WHOM? And what qualifies as 'scientific'? That in itelf
> > > is controversial.
> >
> > Not at all. By scientific standards, a sighted claim of
> > audible difference, absent any independent support, is simply
> > inadequate as proof of real difference.

> You use the term 'scientific' when the term itself is undefined, and
> when exactly what constitutes a 'scientific' audio/listening test is
> itself controversial.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of researchers in the field of psychoacoustics
apparently have managed to agree on the basics -- like the use
of controls.

> But I think we must agree that such a comparison
> must be 'objective' and 'sensitive'. This means that the same
> (familiar) conditions used to listen to Product A must be used to
> listen to Product B, and that the system's other components must be of
> high overall quality. To listen in an unfamiliar environment is a
> recipe for disaster.

Then listen in your own environment. WHATEVER. Do you realize that
a DBT involves first reporting a heard difference? If you can't hear a
difference during the sighted part of the test, there is nothing to
test.

ALL reported DBTS that I know of involve people who thought they could hear
a difference during the sighted part of the test.

This, of course, is different from a test that is *intended* to
determine the sensitivity of the listener, or to 'train' them to
hear sublte differences. There, the listener
would be exposed to ever-decreasing amounts of measurable
difference under DBT conditions.


> > > I listen under conditions that meet MY criteria. That includes a rather
> > > quiet, late-night environment, no illumination, and excellent,
> > > familiar, recordings. If any differences are there to be heard, they
> > > will be heard under those conditions or else they're too subtle to be
> > > worthwhile.
> >
> > How would you verify this? Or do you believe that error is impossible
> > under these circumstances?

> I don't believe error is impossible, but I believe that taking the
> precautions I did take were sufficient to assure a high degree of
> reliability in the results.

What is the basis for this belief of yours? How have you ruled out
typical bias effects beyond a reasonable doubt?

> I listened in the dark and repeated the
> comparisons over several evenings. The results were consistent and
> unmistakable.

But imaginary differences can also be 'consistent and unmistakable'.
That's why controls are so important.


> > > > Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely
> > > > uncontroversial fact, to a scientist.
> >
> > > That's irrelevant, because we're not acting as scientists, nor are we
> > > claiming to. What scientists think here is irrelevant to our purposes.
> >
> > But when audiophiles start talking about *why* they heard what they
> > heard, they move directly into the realm of science.

> There is a difference between forming an hypothesis and conducting a
> full-blown examination of that hypothesis on the one hand, and
> performing a 'casual' comparison for evaluating a potential purchase on
> the other. Such a comparison does not warrant a full-blown 'scientific'
> protocol (whatever that is). It merely needs to be 'objective' and
> 'sensitive'. The hypothesis police are not needed or wanted.

There is a difference between offering a *hypothesis* -- which is by
scientific definition something that could be wrong, and requires verification --
and making a *claim* that 'I heard a difference and it's because A and B really
sound different'. And worse, denying the possibility that you are
wrong, because what you heard was 'consistent and unmistakeable'. That's
simply inadequate for reality-testing.

If you are upset that people don't accept your evidence for your claim,
then perhaps you should couch your claims in more equivocal -- and
doubtless more accurate -- terms.


> > > Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My
> > > choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
> > > scientific organization.
> >
> > Of course not. But the reasons you publicly provide for that
> > choice can either be make scientific sense, or not.

> That is a matter of some controversy in itself. We all know that even
> the most rigorous research is not always conclusive and without error.

Of course not -- *all* scientific facts are contingent on evidence.
That's what MAKES THEM scientific. There are no scientific facts that
are incapable of refutation. All it requires is a body of countervaling
evidence that explains the observations better.

Your evidence does not even come close to constituting a corpus that
could reasonably rule out other explanations for what you heard --
you'd need ot apply some elementary controls like level matching and
blinding first.

This is *elementary* science. It's not in the least controversial.

> But, even if someone happens to be wrong about a whether a particular
> product (cables or amplifiers) 'REALLY' is better, what difference does
> it make to YOU? Making a purchase is not the same sort of thing as
> submitting a research paper to a peer-reviewed journal, now is it?
> You're applying a standard where it has no place. It's quite literally
> none of your business.

I could of course ask why you are expending the energy to debate me.

I am posting on a newsgroup devoted to high end audio. The question of
which *apparent* differences make a real *sonic* difference seems rather
central to the topic, to me. Why are *you* posting here?


> > Buying a red car because you like red more than other colors,
> > is utterly unobjectionable from a scientific standpoint.
> > Buying a red car because you think red makes a car go
> > faster, is quite objectionable from a scientific standpoint.

> No, it is not. People are permitted to believe anything they want,
> however nonsensical it may appear to you or me.

True, but that doesn't make them scientifically nonobjectionable.
Some people, for example, seem to believe that the earth was
created 6,000 years ago. They are *permitted* to believe that,
but their beliefs have no special protection from
public challenge. And if they began posting such beliefs
to a forum devoted to rock-collecting, it is reasonable to
predict they'd be challenged vigorously on scientific grounds.

> If, however, they want
> to publish such a claim in 'Nature', then you certainly have a valid
> point, and there are mechanisms in place to weed out such foolishness.
> It's all a matter of context.

There are no 'contexts' under which you are free to assert any
claim about reality that you like without challenge. Not in
our country, at least. Your'e also free to try to publish your
claims in Nature, btw (even though it's a British magazine).

> > Audiophile claims tend to be of the latter type, alas.

> They are not 'claims' in the same sense as a submission to 'Nature'.
> There are different levels of 'seriousness' in claims.

I would guess that when teh matter is equipment costing hundred, thousands,
or even tens of thousands of dollars, reviewed in national publications
that also publish bench-tests, that there is an element of seriousness to it.

> I play tennis,
> and I string my racquets with natural beef gut. There are players I run
> into who swear it makes no difference, or 'is not worth the cost' and I
> politely ignore them. They are mistaken: Cheap, and mistaken.

Actually, *maybe* they are, but *maybe* you are.

> I do not
> believe it is my solemn duty to harangue them every time I see them at
> the courts and tie up their time arguing about the superiority of gut,
> and how cheap they are. It's impolite.

Speakkng of which, don't you fear you might have offended some beef-gut
skeptics here with your definitive claim about who'se right and wrong, above?

> The same applies here. People come here to discuss high-end audio.
> Constantly haranguing them about 'DBT protocol' and the like is frankly
> impolite. It is NOT educative.

Hmmm...this isn't a church, you know. At least, I don't think it is.
Audio is a highly technology- and science-dependent field. Pesky
old facts and objective truth actually matter, unfortunately. Otherwise
the hobby wouldn't even exist.

What's 'education' about when whether a claim is logical or true,
doesn't matter?

What is the educational value of posts that say 'I listened
to A and B and A sounded better' and then provide a dubious
rationale for that claim?


> > > People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
> > > not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.
> > > ("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
> > > octane gas gives better performance.")
> >
> > All of those are verifiable scientifically, so the could certainly
> > cause concern among those who care. And I expect that they do.

> But that's not the point. These claims are not being made in a research
> paper being submitted to 'Nature', are they? They are 'informal'
> claims. They are in principle, refutable. So are claims about audio
> amplifiers and cables, but the process is inherently subjective and not
> without controversy. It involves an observer whose only way of making
> the determination is by listening.

Then perhaps a listener like yourself might temper his claims, guided
by that knowledge. Or do you care about the accuracy of your claims?


> > > Why do you fixate on audio?
> >
> > On rec.audio.high-end? It seems to make a certain sense.

> HUH?

Oh dear. I fear I have a lot more work to do here to edumacate you.


> > > What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
> > > sort of response?
> >
> > Probably the same thing that brings out this sort of response
> > when quack medical claims are made on other forums.
> >
> > > If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
> > > that I'm wasting my money?
> >
> > Depends on your stated reason for using 94 octane.

> No, it does not.

Yes, it does too. If you bother to tell people that you've done this at all,
and *then* accompany it with a reason why, of course you have opened your
reasoning to comment. If your reasoning is really flawed, readers might
refrain from pointing it out, out of politelness... or embarrassment for you.
Or lack of caring. Or they might find a polite way to point it out to you,
in the hope that you won't waste more money. Or they might point it out
simply to educate others reading the thread. Or they might point it out because
bad reasoning irritates them. Or out of caprice. Or any number of other
possible reasons.


> > If you happen to simply like the number '94', I certainly won't
> > tell you you're wasting your money. But if you claim to
> > use 94 octane because it makes your car perform better, and
> > there is good reason to believe it doesn't, then I'll be happy
> > to inform you of that.

> I didn't ask you.

But you aren't the boss of me. If you post in a public forum, expect
scrutiny, and the possibliity, terrifying though it may be, of
disagreement.

> > But more likely, I'd leave that sort of education to Stewart P.
> > He knows loads more about cars than I do.
> >
> > > It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
> > > are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
> > > constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
> > > rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
> > > should be.
> >
> > ;>
> >
> > And who are you to tell me what my place is?

> The one making the purchase. This seems, shall we say, obvious, nicht
> wahr?

Again, who are you, posting here, to tell me, also posting here, that
I may not comment on a post? Particularly if I disagree with its
claims?

Only the gods, I mean moderators, may do that.

> > > They need be only as rigorous as I need.
> >
> > If you are upset when people question your
> > claims on a public forum
> > and the logic behind them, might I suggest you either refrain
> > from making such claims, or else ensuring that they are
> > unobjectionable?

> No, that's not the problem. This is a discussion group whose purpose is
> to serve those who wish to discuss high-end audio products. It was
> never intended to serve those who want to turn such discussions into a
> peer-reviewed process like for journal 'Nature'. It's impolite to do
> so.

No, the discussion is of high-end audio. That certainly involves
products, but it also involves concepts and theory. It can't help
but involve science and technology as well...and how we know what
we claim to know. Even the floobiest high-end magazines recognize that.

It is entirely on-topic to discuss the technical performance
characteristics of an amp, here, for example. Or the theory
behind digital audio. And implicitly or explicitly , those discussions
will make claims about what can be heard.


> > > Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
> > > out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
> > > try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
> > > CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
> > > mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
> > > they were inferior to what I had.
> >
> > Well, there's the thing...you don't know 'in fact' if they were
> > inferior in any objective sense.

> Says who? And why do you care? It's none of your business.

When you post here, it's my business...if I choose to make it so.

> > I'm afraid you don't even know
> > if they really sounded different.

> It does not matter. It's MY money.

It *was* your money. Once you've spent it....

And if it doesn't matter to you, that's fine by me. It won't stop me
from posting about it if I feel like doing so, though. Pursuant to
the rules of RAHE, of course. ;>

> > > you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I
> > > suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs
> > > of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and
> > > amplifiers.
> >
> > Many things *are* of course really different. But it is also the
> > case that not everything we *perceive* as different, really is.

> It does not matter. The time and expense necessary to determine whether
> or not it is or isn't, is not warranted in the context under
> discussion. In any case, no harm is done to anyone, as no-one is
> required to buy expensive cables or amplifiers.

True, thank heavens.

But I might still feel like posting about it. Or not.

Conceivably, too, someone might be looking here for the facts that have
the best support, as part of their buying strategy. *They* might think
it matters.

> > > I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
> > > audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
> > > 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.
> >
> > Quite possibly so. But that doesn't mean you have become immune
> > to psychological bias.

> It does not matter. I have been happy with my purchase of every audio
> product I have made (for a while, at least). I have made the purchases
> based on comparisons in my home, and I feel strongly that each purchase
> decision is more than fully justified given the performance levels
> achieved with the new product, AND that the procedure used to perform
> the comparison was objective and sensitive. I cannot be sure that the
> people who have been subjected to DBT or ABX tests are as good at
> listening in THAT environment as I am in MY environment, and therefore
> their ability or inability to identify cables or amplifiers under those
> conditions is of absolutely no validity or applicability in MY
> environment.

Then again, why do you accept the experiences of scientists who
report their findings? Might not your own senses be superior to theirs?
Or do you only ever accept the authority of your own senses?

> I have no interest in indulging those who insist that I be
> subjected to such a test, when I all I am going to do is to listen in
> MY environment.

No one insists that you be subjected to tests. No one can *make*
your conclusions follow logically from your premises -- no one
here can *make* you do anything.
But no one's forbidden to point out when your conclusions *don't*
follow logically from your premises.

> In other words, all that matters is what the product
> 'sounds like' in MY environment.

<shrug>
That's not *all* that matters to me.
Although I'm content to live with the uncertainty of my perceptions re: my
own gear -- at least to the extent of not buying an ABX comparator to perform
more rigorous comparisons -- I'm still quite interested in how and why
I hear what I hear, and in the field of perceptual psychology generally.
As well as int he nuts and bolts of audio gear. And of course in music
generally -- i'm a musician myself, as well as a scientist.

Personally, I prefer to make claims that are consistent with
the evidence, and try not to go further than that.



--

-S
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 7:22:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2005 02:18:02 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >'Bias' isn't creative, and it requires a detailed explanation, to
> >account for peculiarly consistent results.
>
> You'll find that explanation in any psy texbook. We are hardwired to
> detect difference - even when it is not present. Better to jump out of
> the way of a tiger that isn't there, than to sit still when one leaps
> at you.
>

What's curious is that you are describing a quick reaction. Someone
gets a sudden feeling that a tiger is there. The audio "fake switch"
experiment also involves brief listening and a quick reaction (as I've
always seen it described).

For that matter, the placebo effect in medicine reveals itself in
relatively short studies (compared to the long time that people with
chronic illness take medicines).

My experience is that I can get I variety of brief reactions to
equipment. I can think momentarily that the sound is one way or
another. But living with a component leads to a more stable sense of
its sound.

I understand that humans are hard-wired to detect differences. However,
in living with a component, I'm not comparing it to anything. I'm not
detecting its difference from anything. I'm detecting what it sounds
like, taken on its own and not compared to something else.

Do me a favor and point me to the dozens or hundreds of blind tests
involving people who lived with equipment for several days during each
trial. Since you claim to understand very well how the ear behaves in
such situations, and since you find it important to support beliefs
with evidence, surely you must know of dozens (at least, to claim we
have really looked at what's going on) of blind tests that involved the
participants living with a component for, say, two days during each
trial.

Mike
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 7:28:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com writes:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
> > But when audiophiles start talking about *why* they heard what they
> > heard, they move directly into the realm of science.
>
> There is a difference between forming an hypothesis and conducting a
> full-blown examination of that hypothesis on the one hand, and
> performing a 'casual' comparison for evaluating a potential purchase on
> the other. Such a comparison does not warrant a full-blown 'scientific'
> protocol (whatever that is). It merely needs to be 'objective' and
> 'sensitive'.

Right. That's all anyone has been saying. Objective and sensitive.

> The hypothesis police are not needed or wanted.
>
> > Buying a red car because you like red more than other colors,
> > is utterly unobjectionable from a scientific standpoint.
> > Buying a red car because you think red makes a car go
> > faster, is quite objectionable from a scientific standpoint.
>
> No, it is not. People are permitted to believe anything they want,
> however nonsensical it may appear to you or me. If, however, they want
> to publish such a claim in 'Nature', then you certainly have a valid
> point, and there are mechanisms in place to weed out such foolishness.
> It's all a matter of context.
>
> > Audiophile claims tend to be of the latter type, alas.
>
> They are not 'claims' in the same sense as a submission to 'Nature'.
> There are different levels of 'seriousness' in claims. I play tennis,
> and I string my racquets with natural beef gut. There are players I run
> into who swear it makes no difference, or 'is not worth the cost' and I
> politely ignore them. They are mistaken: Cheap, and mistaken. I do not
> believe it is my solemn duty to harangue them every time I see them at
> the courts and tie up their time arguing about the superiority of gut,
> and how cheap they are. It's impolite.

Post an opinion on any forum about how gut strings are better than
synthetic on a newsgroup and you'll get challenged. Quite right, too.

> The same applies here. People come here to discuss high-end audio.
> Constantly haranguing them about 'DBT protocol' and the like is frankly
> impolite. It is NOT educative.

It certainly is. If it were not for this newsgroup, I would have much
less of an idea of just how dubious many of the claims made by hi-fi
manufacturers are. I have benefited enormously from the free exchange
of opinions here, as I'm sure have many others.

> > If you are upset when people question your claims on a public
> > forum and the logic behind them, might I suggest you either
> > refrain from making such claims, or else ensuring that they are
> > unobjectionable?
>
> No, that's not the problem. This is a discussion group whose purpose is
> to serve those who wish to discuss high-end audio products.

Right. And one of the key questions is "does A sound better than B?"

> It was never intended to serve those who want to turn such
> discussions into a peer-reviewed process like for journal
> 'Nature'.

> > > Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
> > > out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
> > > try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
> > > CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
> > > mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
> > > they were inferior to what I had.
> >
> > Well, there's the thing...you don't know 'in fact' if they were
> > inferior in any objective sense.
>
> Says who? And why do you care? It's none of your business.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of this newsgroup. It's
for discussion of hight-end audio, and that means the claimed
performance of high-end components is very much on-topic for
discussion, as are ways of determining whether such high-end
components really do what people claim they do.

Everything that anyone posts is open to challenge. You, me, everyone.

This is a real free debate that goes to the very heart of the hi-end
audio industry. It does none of us any good to let that industry's
products and practices go unchallenged. Compared with the breathless
enthusiasm of most of the hi-fi magazines, I find this group quite
refreshing,

Finally, remember this: everyone who reads this group is able to read
your posts and those of your interlocutors and decide who is the most
convincing.

Andrew.
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 7:34:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D fg8qj02r1@news2.newsguy.com...
> Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.

But listening for differences can be.

It is pointless to
> try to insist that they are.

It is pointless to try and refute that they are, especially since so many
people who do research in the area of audio, rely on them. How do you think
cel phones or hearing aids got better?

When someone is listening to different
> products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
> full scientific protocol be carried our.

Please cite a quote from someone who has said that should happen.

If the prospective purchaser
> hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
> difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
> criticisms.
>

Unless they make the extraordinary claim that things that should sound the
same, don't.

> If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so
> on your time and your dime.
>
The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in the
filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound perception.
They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they
know they can't get them from sighted lsitening.
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 7:36:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2005 02:19:24 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My
> >choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
> >scientific organization.
>
> Unless you built it yourself (including the engine), it has in fact
> been sanctioned by upwards of a dozen scientific organisations, who
> won't let you choose one which does not meet their standards.

You miss the point. You ALWAYS miss the point.

> >People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
> >not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.
> >("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
> >octane gas gives better performance.") Why do you fixate on audio?
> >What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
> >sort of response?
>
> Propably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves
> performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK..........

Really?
>
> >If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
> >that I'm wasting my money?
>
> I use 97. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers
> the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem
> unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising.

Snide remark? Who said I was unaware of that? I am indeed aware of
that.

> >It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
> >are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
> >constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
> >rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
> >should be.
>
> So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear.

I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'.

> >They need be only as rigorous as I need.
> >
> >Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
> >out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
> >try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
> >CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
> >mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
> >they were inferior to what I had.
>
> As it happens, I also use a mid-fi Sony, The CDP-715E from 1995, which
> has stood up against all-comers to date. Not of course by beiong
> 'better', but by being *the same* as other good players.

We agree on Sony, then?

> >I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography.
> >I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and
> >enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also
> >compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These
> >comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable
> >for my use.
>
> I use Zeiss, and you wouldn't win. This argument is of course *much*
> older than anything in audio! :-)

This is so funny I can't control myself....over the years, Leitz had
Zeiss do some designs for them, which had to be reworked to meet the
(higher) Leitz quality standards. The new 15mm Super-Elmarit-R f2,8,
designed by Schneider with input from Leica (Leica rejected the first
design attempts), replaces an older f/3,5 Zeiss design in the Leica
line-up.

http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/puts...

"The Super-Elmarit-R is an original Schneider design. It is
worth stressing that Leica did not accept the design as
Schneider provided initially but commented on the quality
and wanted a performance that is in line with the Leica
philosophy. I have studied the original design and the major
change is in the shape and curvature of the second lens
element. Whoever designed and manufactures the lens is of
minor importance, compared to the required performance
parameters. The imagery is as Leica wants it to be, given
their own goals and aspirations."

Zeiss makes good lenses, but Leitz makes the best....

> >I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
> >own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of
> >the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at
> >first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are
> >pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in
> >future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism
> >in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not
> >there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On
> >the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I
> >presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that
> >you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I
> >suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs
> >of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and
> >amplifiers.
>
> OTOH, I have about 7,000 Kodachrome 25 slides in my archive, and
> perhaps a dozen of them have images whose quality is limited by lens
> resolution and geometry.

I don't follow you. EVERY image is limited by the lens quality, even if
the camera is jerked during exposure. The contrast and brilliance of
superior optics is always available regardless of the circumstances.
This is why I laugh at people who believe that using a tripod with
their cheap lens makes it as good as a more expensive lens used without
a tripod.

> OTGH, I have yet to encounter *anyone* who can hear differences among
> cables, despite many baseless assertions to the contrary.

You're talking to him. Now.

> >I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
> >audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
> >'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.
>
> I am sure that's true - but you still can't hear differences among
> cables.

False. I can and have done so.
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 8:49:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:D ftk890vsi@news2.newsguy.com...

>snip<


>> If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so
>> on your time and your dime.
>>
> The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in
> the
> filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound perception.
> They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they
> know they can't get them from sighted lsitening.
>

Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists
specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and
telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological
comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and
have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet
test resulted in a "null".
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 8:55:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10 Sep 2005 03:22:07 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 8 Sep 2005 02:18:02 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >'Bias' isn't creative, and it requires a detailed explanation, to
>> >account for peculiarly consistent results.
>>
>> You'll find that explanation in any psy texbook. We are hardwired to
>> detect difference - even when it is not present. Better to jump out of
>> the way of a tiger that isn't there, than to sit still when one leaps
>> at you.
>>
>What's curious is that you are describing a quick reaction. Someone
>gets a sudden feeling that a tiger is there. The audio "fake switch"
>experiment also involves brief listening and a quick reaction (as I've
>always seen it described).

It need not. Part of my own 'Damascene revelation' was the discovery
that for several hours I had been relaxing to the smooth clean sound
of my new Krell - but actually it was my old Audiolab that was
connected! I only realised this when I tracked down the hot smell to
the Audiolab heatsinks....................

>For that matter, the placebo effect in medicine reveals itself in
>relatively short studies (compared to the long time that people with
>chronic illness take medicines).

'Relatively short' generally being weeks or months, so you're hardly
making a good case here. BTW, current studies indicate that 'holistic'
medicine is bunk, but hopefully we already knew that.........

>My experience is that I can get I variety of brief reactions to
>equipment. I can think momentarily that the sound is one way or
>another. But living with a component leads to a more stable sense of
>its sound.

But not necessarily one that is more accurate.........

>I understand that humans are hard-wired to detect differences. However,
>in living with a component, I'm not comparing it to anything. I'm not
>detecting its difference from anything. I'm detecting what it sounds
>like, taken on its own and not compared to something else.

Ah yes, Harry's favourite 'monadic' testing. Fine, do that - but do it
*blind*.

>Do me a favor and point me to the dozens or hundreds of blind tests
>involving people who lived with equipment for several days during each
>trial.

If you're so curious, and since this requires no extraneous equipment,
why don't don't you just *do* one?

>Since you claim to understand very well how the ear behaves in
>such situations, and since you find it important to support beliefs
>with evidence, surely you must know of dozens (at least, to claim we
>have really looked at what's going on) of blind tests that involved the
>participants living with a component for, say, two days during each
>trial.

Why so? Where is *your* evidence to support your own assertion?
Youy're the one making the extraordinary claim here, as it is standard
knowledge that quick-switched 'snippet' tests are more sensitive than
longer tests, especially ones with pauses between listening sessions.
That's why quick-switching is used by acoustic researchers and the
audio industry.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 8:58:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 8 Sep 2005 02:19:24 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My
>> >choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
>> >scientific organization.
>>
>> Unless you built it yourself (including the engine), it has in fact
>> been sanctioned by upwards of a dozen scientific organisations, who
>> won't let you choose one which does not meet their standards.
>
>You miss the point. You ALWAYS miss the point.

So far as I can see, you have yet to *make* a valid point.

>> >People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
>> >not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.
>> >("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
>> >octane gas gives better performance.") Why do you fixate on audio?
>> >What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
>> >sort of response?
>>
>> Probably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves
>> performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK..........
>
>Really?

Yes. Your 'regular' 87 octane fuel is the equivalent of about 92 RON
in Europe. UK 'regular' fuel is 95 RON, with 98 RON (the equivalent of
your 93) being available for high-performance engines. Note that most
European engines have their power ratings quoted for 98 RON fuel - it
*does* make a difference.

>> >If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
>> >that I'm wasting my money?
>>
>> I use 98. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers
>> the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem
>> unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising.
>
>Snide remark? Who said I was unaware of that? I am indeed aware of
>that.

So why imply that it is only snake oil - like 'high-end' audio cables,
which definitely *are* a waste of money?

>> >It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
>> >are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
>> >constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
>> >rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
>> >should be.
>>
>> So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear.
>
>I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'.

You do *not* hear anything which exists in the physical sound field.
This is a mere assertion, and will not become true no matter how often
you repeat it.

>> >They need be only as rigorous as I need.
>> >
>> >Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
>> >out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
>> >try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
>> >CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
>> >mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
>> >they were inferior to what I had.

It's extremely unlikely that they sounded different, despite what you
might *think* in sighted listening.

>> As it happens, I also use a mid-fi Sony, The CDP-715E from 1995, which
>> has stood up against all-comers to date. Not of course by beiong
>> 'better', but by being *the same* as other good players.
>
>We agree on Sony, then?

And all other decently-designed modern players. It's pretty hard to
find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end'
player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary
errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream'
players.

>> >I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography.
>> >I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and
>> >enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also
>> >compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These
>> >comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable
>> >for my use.
>>
>> I use Zeiss, and you wouldn't win. This argument is of course *much*
>> older than anything in audio! :-)
>
>This is so funny I can't control myself....over the years, Leitz had
>Zeiss do some designs for them, which had to be reworked to meet the
>(higher) Leitz quality standards. The new 15mm Super-Elmarit-R f2,8,
>designed by Schneider with input from Leica (Leica rejected the first
>design attempts), replaces an older f/3,5 Zeiss design in the Leica
>line-up.

You really do just swallow everything you read in marketing
literature, don't you? Ever stop to consider *why* Leitz had to buy in
lens designs from Zeiss and Schneider?



>http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/puts...
>
>"The Super-Elmarit-R is an original Schneider design. It is
>worth stressing that Leica did not accept the design as
>Schneider provided initially but commented on the quality
>and wanted a performance that is in line with the Leica
>philosophy. I have studied the original design and the major
>change is in the shape and curvature of the second lens
>element. Whoever designed and manufactures the lens is of
>minor importance, compared to the required performance
>parameters. The imagery is as Leica wants it to be, given
>their own goals and aspirations."
>
>Zeiss makes good lenses, but Leitz makes the best....
>
>> >I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
>> >own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of
>> >the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at
>> >first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are
>> >pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in
>> >future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism
>> >in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not
>> >there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On
>> >the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I
>> >presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that
>> >you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I
>> >suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs
>> >of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and
>> >amplifiers.
>>
>> OTOH, I have about 7,000 Kodachrome 25 slides in my archive, and
>> perhaps a dozen of them have images whose quality is limited by lens
>> resolution and geometry.
>
>I don't follow you. EVERY image is limited by the lens quality, even if
>the camera is jerked during exposure.

No, it may be limited by grain, or by wrong focussing, or by camera
shake, or by flare. Flare is often a problem with cheap lenses, but
resolution is seldom the limit on real photographs.

> The contrast and brilliance of
>superior optics is always available regardless of the circumstances.

Depends on the subject, and 'brilliance' is not a standard term. BTW,
conrtrast and resolution are *compromises* that are played off against
each other in lens design, as are centre and edge resolution. I have
yet to see much evidence that the best photographs are taken with the
scientifically best lenses.

Of course, we are now well aware of your dogged determination that
expensive is best, regardless of the reality of the situation.

>This is why I laugh at people who believe that using a tripod with
>their cheap lens makes it as good as a more expensive lens used without
>a tripod.

Serious photographers laugh at anyone who uses a ridiculously tiny
format like 35mm.................. :-)

>> OTGH, I have yet to encounter *anyone* who can hear differences among
>> cables, despite many baseless assertions to the contrary.
>
>You're talking to him. Now.

No, just to another hand-waver who ducks out of blind testing.

>> >I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
>> >audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
>> >'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.
>>
>> I am sure that's true - but you still can't hear differences among
>> cables.
>
>False. I can and have done so.

No, you can't, but you do cling firmly to your baseless *belief* that
you can. You could of course prove your claim quite easily, but like
all the others, you seem strangely reluctant to do so.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 9:46:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Because science turns from a path of research when basic claims about some
notion can't be established, there have been no such as you propose. The
thing that comes closest is one who claims that long experience with some
gear leads them to say they can spot it with great certainty, which makes
long exposure to another bit of gear unnecessary. One example discussed
here at length is the hifi dealer whose experience with a top of the line
pass labs amp led him to the above view. Using an older integrated yamaha
amp he was unable to spot his amp in his system using his music sources at
a level above that of chance. With results such as this the cry to do as
suggested tends to become a strawman and the potential that the path
suggested has even less possible fruit to bear increases greatly. At the
same time the burden to the contrary increases in proportion to show
results otherwise.

"Do me a favor and point me to the dozens or hundreds of blind tests
involving people who lived with equipment for several days during each
trial. Since you claim to understand very well how the ear behaves in such
situations, and since you find it important to support beliefs with
evidence, surely you must know of dozens (at least, to claim we have
really
looked at what's going on) of blind tests that involved the participants
living with a component for, say, two days during each trial."
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 5:58:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 8 Sep 2005 02:19:24 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My
> >> >choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
> >> >scientific organization.
> >>
> >> Unless you built it yourself (including the engine), it has in fact
> >> been sanctioned by upwards of a dozen scientific organisations, who
> >> won't let you choose one which does not meet their standards.
> >
> >You miss the point. You ALWAYS miss the point.
>
> So far as I can see, you have yet to *make* a valid point.

Assumes facts not yet in evidence.

>
> >> >People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
> >> >not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.
> >> >("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
> >> >octane gas gives better performance.") Why do you fixate on audio?
> >> >What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
> >> >sort of response?
> >>
> >> Probably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves
> >> performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK..........
> >
> >Really?
>
> Yes. Your 'regular' 87 octane fuel is the equivalent of about 92 RON
> in Europe. UK 'regular' fuel is 95 RON, with 98 RON (the equivalent of
> your 93) being available for high-performance engines. Note that most
> European engines have their power ratings quoted for 98 RON fuel - it
> *does* make a difference.

Of course, I use the better fuel, and it does make a difference.

>
> >> >If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
> >> >that I'm wasting my money?
> >>
> >> I use 98. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers
> >> the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem
> >> unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising.
> >
> >Snide remark? Who said I was unaware of that? I am indeed aware of
> >that.
>
> So why imply that it is only snake oil - like 'high-end' audio cables,
> which definitely *are* a waste of money?

According to whom? On whose authority? YOURS?

> >> >It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
> >> >are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
> >> >constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
> >> >rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
> >> >should be.
> >>
> >> So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear.
> >
> >I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'.
>
> You do *not* hear anything which exists in the physical sound field.
> This is a mere assertion, and will not become true no matter how often
> you repeat it.

Proof?

> >> >They need be only as rigorous as I need.
> >> >
> >> >Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
> >> >out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
> >> >try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
> >> >CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
> >> >mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
> >> >they were inferior to what I had.
>
> It's extremely unlikely that they sounded different, despite what you
> might *think* in sighted listening.

Proof?

> >> As it happens, I also use a mid-fi Sony, The CDP-715E from 1995, which
> >> has stood up against all-comers to date. Not of course by beiong
> >> 'better', but by being *the same* as other good players.
> >
> >We agree on Sony, then?
>
> And all other decently-designed modern players.

Hogwash. I have listened to many mid-price ($600-800) players over trhe
years, and they all sounded inferior to my Sony 1988 model.


> It's pretty hard to
> find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end'
> player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary
> errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream'
> players.

Mark Levinson?

> >> >I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography.
> >> >I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and
> >> >enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also
> >> >compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These
> >> >comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable
> >> >for my use.
> >>
> >> I use Zeiss, and you wouldn't win. This argument is of course *much*
> >> older than anything in audio! :-)
> >
> >This is so funny I can't control myself....over the years, Leitz had
> >Zeiss do some designs for them, which had to be reworked to meet the
> >(higher) Leitz quality standards. The new 15mm Super-Elmarit-R f2,8,
> >designed by Schneider with input from Leica (Leica rejected the first
> >design attempts), replaces an older f/3,5 Zeiss design in the Leica
> >line-up.
>
> You really do just swallow everything you read in marketing
> literature, don't you?

Nope, I believe my eyes.

> Ever stop to consider *why* Leitz had to buy in
> lens designs from Zeiss and Schneider?

Yes, because Leitz is a small company. In order to offer a wider range
of lenses they sometimes out-source design work for low-volume lenses.
It uis difficult to design a whole bunch of lenses at once. Leitz did
take the Zeiss, Schneider, and other designs and tweak them. The Leitz
criteria are so strict, however, that the original designs are often
modified. The point is tghat the final product bears the "Leitz" name
and meets the "Leitz" quality standrdas, which are the best in the
industry.

>
> >http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/puts...
> >
> >"The Super-Elmarit-R is an original Schneider design. It is
> >worth stressing that Leica did not accept the design as
> >Schneider provided initially but commented on the quality
> >and wanted a performance that is in line with the Leica
> >philosophy. I have studied the original design and the major
> >change is in the shape and curvature of the second lens
> >element. Whoever designed and manufactures the lens is of
> >minor importance, compared to the required performance
> >parameters. The imagery is as Leica wants it to be, given
> >their own goals and aspirations."
> >
> >Zeiss makes good lenses, but Leitz makes the best....
> >
> >> >I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
> >> >own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of
> >> >the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at
> >> >first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are
> >> >pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in
> >> >future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism
> >> >in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not
> >> >there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On
> >> >the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I
> >> >presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that
> >> >you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I
> >> >suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs
> >> >of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and
> >> >amplifiers.
> >>
> >> OTOH, I have about 7,000 Kodachrome 25 slides in my archive, and
> >> perhaps a dozen of them have images whose quality is limited by lens
> >> resolution and geometry.
> >
> >I don't follow you. EVERY image is limited by the lens quality, even if
> >the camera is jerked during exposure.
>
> No, it may be limited by grain, or by wrong focussing, or by camera
> shake, or by flare. Flare is often a problem with cheap lenses, but
> resolution is seldom the limit on real photographs.

It is always a factor. ALL lenses have flare.

> > The contrast and brilliance of
> >superior optics is always available regardless of the circumstances.
>
> Depends on the subject, and 'brilliance' is not a standard term.

It is a term used to describe the freedom from flare. 'Contrast' is
also used, and is equivalent.

> BTW,
> conrtrast and resolution are *compromises* that are played off against
> each other in lens design, as are centre and edge resolution.

Yes, of course. Do you think I was unaware of that?

> I have
> yet to see much evidence that the best photographs are taken with the
> scientifically best lenses.

What are you talking about?

> Of course, we are now well aware of your dogged determination that
> expensive is best, regardless of the reality of the situation.

No, I mean to argue that Leitz/Leica generally speaking make the best
optics on the planet.

>
> >This is why I laugh at people who believe that using a tripod with
> >their cheap lens makes it as good as a more expensive lens used without
> >a tripod.
>
> Serious photographers laugh at anyone who uses a ridiculously tiny
> format like 35mm.................. :-)

Oh, yeah. right. Large-format snob? Take this with your 8x10 camera:

http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~ruiz/Lessons/Photojournalism/A...

>
> >> OTGH, I have yet to encounter *anyone* who can hear differences among
> >> cables, despite many baseless assertions to the contrary.
> >
> >You're talking to him. Now.
>
> No, just to another hand-waver who ducks out of blind testing.

I have no interest in blind testing. I am interested in comparing
products in the same way I listen to them.

>
> >> >I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
> >> >audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
> >> >'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.
> >>
> >> I am sure that's true - but you still can't hear differences among
> >> cables.
> >
> >False. I can and have done so.
>
> No, you can't, but you do cling firmly to your baseless *belief* that
> you can.

I have no 'beliefs'. I simply report what I hear.

> You could of course prove your claim quite easily, but like
> all the others, you seem strangely reluctant to do so.

You're being impolite. May I interest you in some gut string?
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 6:09:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2005 03:22:07 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:

> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 8 Sep 2005 02:18:02 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >'Bias' isn't creative, and it requires a detailed explanation, to
> >> >account for peculiarly consistent results.
> >>
> >> You'll find that explanation in any psy texbook. We are hardwired to
> >> detect difference - even when it is not present. Better to jump out of
> >> the way of a tiger that isn't there, than to sit still when one leaps
> >> at you.
> >>
> >What's curious is that you are describing a quick reaction. Someone
> >gets a sudden feeling that a tiger is there. The audio "fake switch"
> >experiment also involves brief listening and a quick reaction (as I've
> >always seen it described).

> It need not. Part of my own 'Damascene revelation' was the discovery
> that for several hours I had been relaxing to the smooth clean sound
> of my new Krell - but actually it was my old Audiolab that was
> connected! I only realised this when I tracked down the hot smell to
> the Audiolab heatsinks....................

Me own recent self-demosntration: I was listening to what I thought was
a 'remastered' version of an tape-to-digital transfer I'd done, and
delighting in the results of my remastering work, which I'd spent
hours on a few days previously.
Imagine my chagrin to find after the listening session that
I'd actually loaded the 'unremastered' safety copy.




--

-S
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 6:10:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D fv2q402vuj@news2.newsguy.com...
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:D ftk890vsi@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>>snip<
>
>
>>> If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so
>>> on your time and your dime.
>>>
>> The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in
>> the
>> filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound
>> perception.
>> They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they
>> know they can't get them from sighted lsitening.
>>
>
> Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists
> specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and
> telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological
> comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and
> have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet
> test resulted in a "null".
>
>
Please list them.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 6:15:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D fo73c01k34@news1.newsguy.com...
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
>>
>> Well, they can be performed with scientific controls
>> for bias in place, as is done in marketing research
>> and product development. The rationale for this is
>> the the same as it is for basic scientific research.
>>
>> > It is pointless to
>> > try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
>> > products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
>> > full scientific protocol be carried our.
>>
>> Indeed. And I haven't in fact seen anyone insist that.
>>
>> I have seen loads of audiophiles concluding that two things sound
>> different, simply because they did a nonscientific product comparison.
>> Often this isn't sufficient evidence for such a claim.
>
> Sufficient for WHOM? And what qualifies as 'scientific'? That in itelf
> is controversial.
>
There's nothing controversial about controlling bias, and listening blind.


> I listen under conditions that meet MY criteria.

Which have been repeatedly pointed out as being completely unreliable.

That includes a rather
> quiet, late-night environment, no illumination, and excellent,
> familiar, recordings. If any differences are there to be heard, they
> will be heard under those conditions or else they're too subtle to be
> worthwhile.
>
Again, repeatedly you have been informed of the unreliablity ofsuch
comparisons.

>> Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely
>> uncontroversial fact, to a scientist.
>
> That's irrelevant, because we're not acting as scientists, nor are we
> claiming to. What scientists think here is irrelevant to our purposes.
>
It sholdn't be, at least if you're trying to obtain the best sound.

> Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification.

Claims of difference where no known mechanism exists for them, do.

My
> choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
> scientific organization.
>
They already have been, usually by a government agency.

> People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
> not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.

That probably depends on the person(s) hearing the claim.

> ("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
> octane gas gives better performance.")

Easily testable claims.

Why do you fixate on audio?

Perhaps becuase so many audiophiles set themselves up to be challenged, by
making claims that don't hold water.

> What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
> sort of response?
>

So many of them are not in line with reality, such as claims about cables.

> If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
> that I'm wasting my money?
>
> It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
> are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
> constant badgering.

And there wouldn't be, if they'd just not shout them on a NG populated with
people who know them to be specious.

Listening comparisons are not intended to be
> rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
> should be.
>
> They need be only as rigorous as I need.
>

I don't understand why you don't think you should have the best, most
accurate information.

> Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
> out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
> try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
> CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
> mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
> they were inferior to what I had.
>

Opinion unsupported by facts. The stores let you take stuff becuase they
know the odds are in their favor you'll buy something.

> I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography.
> I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and
> enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also
> compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These
> comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable
> for my use.
>
AFAIK good camera equipment doesn't have the wide variety in price that
audio equipment does, especially for equipment that is identical in
performance.

> I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
> own satisfaction and that of others.

You have picked a preference where actual differences exist. Most of the
claimed audio differences don't meet that criteria, they are sonically
indistinguishable when one uses only one's ears.

> I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
> audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
> 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.
>
And yet there is no basis for your claim.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 8:58:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10 Sep 2005 16:49:08 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news:D ftk890vsi@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>>snip<

>>> If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so
>>> on your time and your dime.
>>>
>> The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in the
>> filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound perception.
>> They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they
>> know they can't get them from sighted lsitening.
>>
>Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists
>specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and
>telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological
>comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and
>have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet
>test resulted in a "null".

Name one.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 9:00:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 11 Sep 2005 01:58:22 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip reams of bluster>

>> >You miss the point. You ALWAYS miss the point.
>>
>> So far as I can see, you have yet to *make* a valid point.
>
>Assumes facts not yet in evidence.

We're still waiting for *any* facts from you.

>> So why imply that it is only snake oil - like 'high-end' audio cables,
>> which definitely *are* a waste of money?
>
>According to whom? On whose authority? YOURS?

No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.

>> >> >It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
>> >> >are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
>> >> >constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
>> >> >rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
>> >> >should be.
>> >>
>> >> So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear.
>> >
>> >I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'.
>>
>> You do *not* hear anything which exists in the physical sound field.
>> This is a mere assertion, and will not become true no matter how often
>> you repeat it.
>
>Proof?

You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.

>> >> >They need be only as rigorous as I need.
>> >> >
>> >> >Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
>> >> >out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
>> >> >try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
>> >> >CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
>> >> >mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
>> >> >they were inferior to what I had.
>>
>> It's extremely unlikely that they sounded different, despite what you
>> might *think* in sighted listening.
>
>Proof?

You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.

>> >> As it happens, I also use a mid-fi Sony, The CDP-715E from 1995, which
>> >> has stood up against all-comers to date. Not of course by beiong
>> >> 'better', but by being *the same* as other good players.
>> >
>> >We agree on Sony, then?
>>
>> And all other decently-designed modern players.
>
>Hogwash. I have listened to many mid-price ($600-800) players over trhe
>years, and they all sounded inferior to my Sony 1988 model.

Hogwash yourself, this goes in the same trash can as your claim that
you can hear differences among cables.

>> It's pretty hard to
>> find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end'
>> player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary
>> errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream'
>> players.
>
>Mark Levinson?

Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege
of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity
from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear
differences among transports with that dog! Moving back to the world
of properly engineered audio gear, the Benchmark DAC-1, at less than
$1,000, provides SOTA performance with absolutely no chance of hearing
differences among transports, as it fully reclocks the incoming data
stream.

>> Ever stop to consider *why* Leitz had to buy in
>> lens designs from Zeiss and Schneider?
>
>Yes, because Leitz is a small company. In order to offer a wider range
>of lenses they sometimes out-source design work for low-volume lenses.
>It uis difficult to design a whole bunch of lenses at once. Leitz did
>take the Zeiss, Schneider, and other designs and tweak them. The Leitz
>criteria are so strict, however, that the original designs are often
>modified. The point is tghat the final product bears the "Leitz" name
>and meets the "Leitz" quality standrdas, which are the best in the
>industry.

Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits
of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream'
Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'.....................

BTW, do you know of any professionals, say in the advertising industry
where technical demands are very high, who use Leica gear?


>> Serious photographers laugh at anyone who uses a ridiculously tiny
>> format like 35mm.................. :-)
>
>Oh, yeah. right. Large-format snob? Take this with your 8x10 camera:
>
>http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~ruiz/Lessons/Photojournalism/A...

Reportage work never had high technical requirements, as your example
illustrates.

>> >> OTGH, I have yet to encounter *anyone* who can hear differences among
>> >> cables, despite many baseless assertions to the contrary.
>> >
>> >You're talking to him. Now.
>>
>> No, just to another hand-waver who ducks out of blind testing.
>
>I have no interest in blind testing. I am interested in comparing
>products in the same way I listen to them.

Yes, we've all heard that old strawman before. Bascically, you know
that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
Why do you not trust your ears alone?

>> >> >I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
>> >> >audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
>> >> >'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.
>> >>
>> >> I am sure that's true - but you still can't hear differences among
>> >> cables.
>> >
>> >False. I can and have done so.
>>
>> No, you can't, but you do cling firmly to your baseless *belief* that
>> you can.
>
>I have no 'beliefs'. I simply report what I hear.

No, that is definitely *not* what you report.

>> You could of course prove your claim quite easily, but like
>> all the others, you seem strangely reluctant to do so.
>
>You're being impolite. May I interest you in some gut string?

Lack of response noted. I use synthetic, because I need an excuse for
my lack of ability on the tennis court....... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 2:18:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
(Irrelevancies snipped)

> >
> AFAIK good camera equipment doesn't have the wide variety in price that
> audio equipment does, especially for equipment that is identical in
> performance.

Most of the Japanese equipment is fairly close in performance and
price, because the prices asked do not support the kind of engineering
and manufacturing quality that a company like Leica strives for.

> > I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
> > own satisfaction and that of others.
>
> You have picked a preference where actual differences exist. Most of the
> claimed audio differences don't meet that criteria, they are sonically
> indistinguishable when one uses only one's ears.

You mean ALL CD players and ALL ampls sound the same? Hogwash.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 2:29:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D fv3ba030om@news2.newsguy.com...
> On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
<snip>

>>> Probably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves
>>> performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK..........
>>
>>Really?
>
> Yes. Your 'regular' 87 octane fuel is the equivalent of about 92 RON
> in Europe. UK 'regular' fuel is 95 RON, with 98 RON (the equivalent of
> your 93) being available for high-performance engines. Note that most
> European engines have their power ratings quoted for 98 RON fuel - it
> *does* make a difference.
>
>>> >If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
>>> >that I'm wasting my money?
>>>
>>> I use 98. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers
>>> the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem
>>> unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising.

I'm unaware and skeptical of your 'scientific facts' about high octane
petrol.
http://www.answers.com/topic/petrol
http://www.fact-sheets.com/cars/high_octane_gas/





..
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:58:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:D g03m90q7k@news1.newsguy.com...
> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:D fv2q402vuj@news2.newsguy.com...
>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>> news:D ftk890vsi@news2.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>snip<
>>
>>
>>>> If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so
>>>> on your time and your dime.
>>>>
>>> The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in
>>> the
>>> filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound
>>> perception.
>>> They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they
>>> know they can't get them from sighted lsitening.
>>>
>>
>> Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists
>> specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs
>> and
>> telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and
>> psychological
>> comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic,
>> and
>> have found they can validate differences when a conventional
>> short-snippet
>> test resulted in a "null".
>>
>>
> Please list them.

Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yoshitaka
Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama,
and Hiroshi Shibasaki
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:59:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D g1nmt0g4k@news2.newsguy.com...
> On 10 Sep 2005 16:49:08 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>news:D ftk890vsi@news2.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>snip<
>
>>>> If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so
>>>> on your time and your dime.
>>>>
>>> The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in
>>> the
>>> filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound
>>> perception.
>>> They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they
>>> know they can't get them from sighted lsitening.
>>>
>>Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists
>>specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and
>>telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological
>>comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and
>>have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet
>>test resulted in a "null".
>
> Name one.


See my reply to NYOB
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 7:37:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D g2agb084l@news1.newsguy.com...
> nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
> (Irrelevancies snipped)
>
>> >
>> AFAIK good camera equipment doesn't have the wide variety in price that
>> audio equipment does, especially for equipment that is identical in
>> performance.
>
> Most of the Japanese equipment is fairly close in performance and
> price, because the prices asked do not support the kind of engineering
> and manufacturing quality that a company like Leica strives for.
>
>> > I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
>> > own satisfaction and that of others.
>>
>> You have picked a preference where actual differences exist. Most of the
>> claimed audio differences don't meet that criteria, they are sonically
>> indistinguishable when one uses only one's ears.
>
> You mean ALL CD players and ALL ampls sound the same? Hogwash.
>
Not all, just most of them. The ones designed to be accurate, which being
trivially easy, and cheap, is done routinely.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 7:43:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> >> So why imply that it is only snake oil - like 'high-end' audio cables,
> >> which definitely *are* a waste of money?
> >
> >According to whom? On whose authority? YOURS?
>
> No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
> tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
> connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
> extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.

I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
possibility of halucination is remote. It is possible to induce
halucinations through sleep deprivation:

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=seti&Nu...

> >> >> >It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
> >> >> >are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
> >> >> >constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
> >> >> >rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
> >> >> >should be.
> >> >>
> >> >> So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear.
> >> >
> >> >I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'.
> >>
> >> You do *not* hear anything which exists in the physical sound field.
> >> This is a mere assertion, and will not become true no matter how often
> >> you repeat it.
> >
> >Proof?
>
> You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
> that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.

Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'. We have gone over
this before. No-one in philosophy or any science would call listening
to cables and reporting audible differences 'making an extraordinary
claim'. I am not claiming that the cables violate any laws of nature.
The class of all things natural exceeds the class of all things
measurable. An 'extraordinary claim' violates some commonly-accepted
truth of nature (e.g., once men die, they don't come back to life), or
invokes some wild explanation (aliens from outer space) that assumes
facts not in evidence. Aliens cannot be used to explain your
'abduction' because the existence of aliens is itself unsupported and
remotely unlikely. You cannot use something even less-well established
to prove something that is highly dubious itself. Claiming to hear
differences in aduo cables, amps, or CD players is not by any stretch
of the imagination 'making an extraordinary claim'.

http://www.rednova.com/news/science/133130/do_extraordi...
>
> >> >> >They need be only as rigorous as I need.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
> >> >> >out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
> >> >> >try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
> >> >> >CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
> >> >> >mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
> >> >> >they were inferior to what I had.
> >>
> >> It's extremely unlikely that they sounded different, despite what you
> >> might *think* in sighted listening.
> >
> >Proof?
>
> You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
> that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.

False on its face. I am not the only one who makes such a claim, and
you know it. Even if others have not, since I don't know what kind of
equipment they are using, how am I to treat such a negative result?
Using a high-resolution system such as I did (with Stax electrostatic
headphones and Rogers Studio One speakers) whose components are of
recognized quality enables me to hear certain aspects of the
performance that others may miss. Their negative results are therefore
irrelevant.

> >> >> As it happens, I also use a mid-fi Sony, The CDP-715E from 1995, which
> >> >> has stood up against all-comers to date. Not of course by beiong
> >> >> 'better', but by being *the same* as other good players.
> >> >
> >> >We agree on Sony, then?
> >>
> >> And all other decently-designed modern players.
> >
> >Hogwash. I have listened to many mid-price ($600-800) players over trhe
> >years, and they all sounded inferior to my Sony 1988 model.
>
> Hogwash yourself, this goes in the same trash can as your claim that
> you can hear differences among cables.

I DID. There is no way for you to argue my experience out of existence.
This is not subject to debate. The only question is WHY, not WHETHER, I
heard differences. I DID.

> >> It's pretty hard to
> >> find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end'
> >> player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary
> >> errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream'
> >> players.
> >
> >Mark Levinson?
>
> Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege
> of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity
> from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear
> differences among transports with that dog!

I heard the whole set-up (transport and DAC) and the combo sounded
quite beautiful.

> Moving back to the world
> of properly engineered audio gear, the Benchmark DAC-1, at less than
> $1,000, provides SOTA performance with absolutely no chance of hearing
> differences among transports, as it fully reclocks the incoming data
> stream.
>
> >> Ever stop to consider *why* Leitz had to buy in
> >> lens designs from Zeiss and Schneider?
> >
> >Yes, because Leitz is a small company. In order to offer a wider range
> >of lenses they sometimes out-source design work for low-volume lenses.
> >It uis difficult to design a whole bunch of lenses at once. Leitz did
> >take the Zeiss, Schneider, and other designs and tweak them. The Leitz
> >criteria are so strict, however, that the original designs are often
> >modified. The point is tghat the final product bears the "Leitz" name
> >and meets the "Leitz" quality standrdas, which are the best in the
> >industry.
>
> Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits
> of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream'
> Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'.....................

Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original
designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance,
and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but
redesigns.

> BTW, do you know of any professionals, say in the advertising industry
> where technical demands are very high, who use Leica gear?

Very little advertising work is shot on 35mm, and you know it. Most is
done with larger formats: 120 and 4x5 or larger.

> >> Serious photographers laugh at anyone who uses a ridiculously tiny
> >> format like 35mm.................. :-)
> >
> >Oh, yeah. right. Large-format snob? Take this with your 8x10 camera:
> >
> >http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~ruiz/Lessons/Photojournalism/A...
>
> Reportage work never had high technical requirements, as your example
> illustrates.

That's right. The ability to capture a spotaneous moment is more
important in reportage. I doubt that Dr Goebbels would have allowed
this rat-like expression to show through if he had to sit still for a
formal photograph. It was possible only with a Leica or similar
inconspicuous camera.

> >> >> OTGH, I have yet to encounter *anyone* who can hear differences among
> >> >> cables, despite many baseless assertions to the contrary.
> >> >
> >> >You're talking to him. Now.
> >>
> >> No, just to another hand-waver who ducks out of blind testing.
> >
> >I have no interest in blind testing. I am interested in comparing
> >products in the same way I listen to them.
>
> Yes, we've all heard that old strawman before.

You don't even know what a straw-man is. It is a caricature of an
argument made by one's opponent, which is so absurd that no-one would
accept it.

> Bascically, you know
> that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
> there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
> each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
> Why do you not trust your ears alone?

I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was
convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
conducted.

> >> >> >I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
> >> >> >audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
> >> >> >'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am sure that's true - but you still can't hear differences among
> >> >> cables.
> >> >
> >> >False. I can and have done so.
> >>
> >> No, you can't, but you do cling firmly to your baseless *belief* that
> >> you can.
> >
> >I have no 'beliefs'. I simply report what I hear.
>
> No, that is definitely *not* what you report.

I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what
I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the
change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any
kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told.

> >> You could of course prove your claim quite easily, but like
> >> all the others, you seem strangely reluctant to do so.
> >
> >You're being impolite. May I interest you in some gut string?
>
> Lack of response noted. I use synthetic, because I need an excuse for
> my lack of ability on the tennis court....... :-)

Why am I not surprised....

I'm sure you believe that: 'All string plays the same...'
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 7:45:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 11 Sep 2005 22:18:51 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
>(Irrelevancies snipped)
>
>> >
>> AFAIK good camera equipment doesn't have the wide variety in price that
>> audio equipment does, especially for equipment that is identical in
>> performance.
>
>Most of the Japanese equipment is fairly close in performance and
>price, because the prices asked do not support the kind of engineering
>and manufacturing quality that a company like Leica strives for.

Typical Leica snob attitude, ignoring the basic fact that the serious
players, Nikon and Canon, have massive R&D departments, and turn out
lenses which are far beyond the capability of a tiny 'garden shed'
operation like Leitz. Unless of course you count the 'Leica' lenses
used on Panasonic digital cameras....................

Indeed, a quite recent AP test noted that the new Canon 60mm f2.8
macro lens was essentially perfect, and was the best lens that the
reviewer had ever tested.

>> > I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
>> > own satisfaction and that of others.
>>
>> You have picked a preference where actual differences exist. Most of the
>> claimed audio differences don't meet that criteria, they are sonically
>> indistinguishable when one uses only one's ears.
>
>You mean ALL CD players and ALL ampls sound the same? Hogwash.

How would you know? Your audio comparisons are analogous to comparing
lenses which have been smeared with vaseline.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 7:46:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 11 Sep 2005 22:29:13 GMT, "Gary Vander Schel" <vanderschel@isp.com>
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:D fv3ba030om@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>>>> Probably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves
>>>> performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK..........
>>>
>>>Really?
>>
>> Yes. Your 'regular' 87 octane fuel is the equivalent of about 92 RON
>> in Europe. UK 'regular' fuel is 95 RON, with 98 RON (the equivalent of
>> your 93) being available for high-performance engines. Note that most
>> European engines have their power ratings quoted for 98 RON fuel - it
>> *does* make a difference.
>>
>>>> >If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
>>>> >that I'm wasting my money?
>>>>
>>>> I use 98. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers
>>>> the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem
>>>> unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising.
>
>I'm unaware and skeptical of your 'scientific facts' about high octane
>petrol.
>http://www.answers.com/topic/petrol
>http://www.fact-sheets.com/cars/high_octane_gas/

Perhaps you should try reading some modern literature on the subject.
Most European cars have their power outputs quoted for 98RON fuel, the
equivalent of your 93, and certainly do produce less power with lower
octane fuel. Basically, the modern engine management system sets up
the engine to give best results with whatever fuel is in the tank. My
own car (Audi A3 3.2) has a compression ratio of 11.3:1, and
definitely does benefit from the best fuel I can find. Similarly,
turbocharged engines like that In my wife's TT will adjust boost
levels to suit the available fuel and atmospheric conditions.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 7:46:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news:D g03m90q7k@news1.newsguy.com...
>> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:D fv2q402vuj@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:D ftk890vsi@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>>snip<
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so
>>>>> on your time and your dime.
>>>>>
>>>> The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in
>>>> the
>>>> filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound
>>>> perception.
>>>> They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they
>>>> know they can't get them from sighted lsitening.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists
>>> specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs
>>> and
>>> telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and
>>> psychological
>>> comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic,
>>> and
>>> have found they can validate differences when a conventional
>>> short-snippet
>>> test resulted in a "null".
>>>
>>>
>> Please list them.
>
>Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yoshitaka
>Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama,
>and Hiroshi Shibasaki

Ah yes, the notorious Pioneer-backed attempt to prove that we really
need 100kHz bandwidth. Got any Europeans or Americans?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 7:55:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2005 01:58:22 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>

> >I have no interest in blind testing. I am interested in comparing
> >products in the same way I listen to them.
>
> Yes, we've all heard that old strawman before. Bascically, you know
> that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
> there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
> each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
> Why do you not trust your ears alone?

Just as a note, speaking of myself, I do wish to trust my ears alone,
and if I lived with somebody or had a good audiophile buddy or the
dealers would let me borrow equipment long term, I would have my buddy
hook up everything behind a screen and do all my evaluative listening
blind.

I also think Stereophile/Absolute Sound reviews should be done on
"black boxes" or equipment behind screens.

Stewart, you often characterize this argument as though it were about
listening blind versus listening sighted.. i.e., whether you know what
you are hearing or whether you don't. Let me state, for the record,
that this distinction isn't directly relevant to my own theories. It's
not the blindness of blind tests I object to, but rather how the method
of comparing sound affects sensitivity.

I won't bother to restate these opinions since we have been over this
ground enough times already. I expect you will say the ear is most
sensitive to differences under quick-switch, and that all the available
evidence supports that. Fine.

Mike

P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials:
that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:53:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D g5i2u01k6h@news2.newsguy.com...
> On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>news:D g03m90q7k@news1.newsguy.com...
>>> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:D fv2q402vuj@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:D ftk890vsi@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>>>snip<
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> on your time and your dime.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers
>>>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>> filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound
>>>>> perception.
>>>>> They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and
>>>>> they
>>>>> know they can't get them from sighted lsitening.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists
>>>> specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs
>>>> and
>>>> telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and
>>>> psychological
>>>> comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic,
>>>> and
>>>> have found they can validate differences when a conventional
>>>> short-snippet
>>>> test resulted in a "null".
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Please list them.
>>
>>Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yoshitaka
>>Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama,
>>and Hiroshi Shibasaki
>
> Ah yes, the notorious Pioneer-backed attempt to prove that we really
> need 100kHz bandwidth. Got any Europeans or Americans?

Actually, Stewart, if you looked further you would find that Oohashi and
many of his team have been doing work in psychoacoustics and neurophysiology
for many years and are well published. Put you chauvinism aside, why don't
you.

Moreover, your assertion that Pioneer funded the research is just that, an
assertion. No proof has ever been offered or cited. It may or may not have
been funded by a consortium...but if so, that is common practice in many
contries, including Great Britain and the United States. Was JJ's work at
AT&T invalid because it was privately funded? The validity depends on how
well the study was done and the results, peer-reviewed.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:55:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D g5ijt01ksp@news2.newsguy.com...
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 11 Sep 2005 01:58:22 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>
>> >I have no interest in blind testing. I am interested in comparing
>> >products in the same way I listen to them.
>>
>> Yes, we've all heard that old strawman before. Bascically, you know
>> that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
>> there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
>> each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
>> Why do you not trust your ears alone?
>
> Just as a note, speaking of myself, I do wish to trust my ears alone,
> and if I lived with somebody or had a good audiophile buddy or the
> dealers would let me borrow equipment long term, I would have my buddy
> hook up everything behind a screen and do all my evaluative listening
> blind.
>
> I also think Stereophile/Absolute Sound reviews should be done on
> "black boxes" or equipment behind screens.
>
> Stewart, you often characterize this argument as though it were about
> listening blind versus listening sighted.. i.e., whether you know what
> you are hearing or whether you don't. Let me state, for the record,
> that this distinction isn't directly relevant to my own theories. It's
> not the blindness of blind tests I object to, but rather how the method
> of comparing sound affects sensitivity.
>
> I won't bother to restate these opinions since we have been over this
> ground enough times already. I expect you will say the ear is most
> sensitive to differences under quick-switch, and that all the available
> evidence supports that. Fine.
>
> Mike
>
> P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
> days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials:
> that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?

Mike, not to the best of my knowledge.

But you are right about us being beat over the head as being against blind
testing (because it is a useful bogeyman) while the real objection has been
that short-snippet, quick-switching, comparative testing a la abx are
potentially and inherently anti-musical. The objectivists here and on other
newsgroups have no real answer to the potential problem that you, I, Mark,
and others have raised...their world can only make sense if such
complicating factors (that just happend to scream out for a validation test)
are completely ignored.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:57:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2005 22:18:51 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
> >(Irrelevancies snipped)
> >
> >> >
> >> AFAIK good camera equipment doesn't have the wide variety in price that
> >> audio equipment does, especially for equipment that is identical in
> >> performance.
> >
> >Most of the Japanese equipment is fairly close in performance and
> >price, because the prices asked do not support the kind of engineering
> >and manufacturing quality that a company like Leica strives for.
>
> Typical Leica snob attitude, ignoring the basic fact that the serious
> players, Nikon and Canon, have massive R&D departments, and turn out
> lenses which are far beyond the capability of a tiny 'garden shed'
> operation like Leitz. Unless of course you count the 'Leica' lenses
> used on Panasonic digital cameras....................

But the lenses they COULD make are not the lenses they DO make. It's
simply not possible to make a lens that sells for $400 equal to one
that sells for $2400, when the glass itself of the higher-priced lens
costs $1000! Leica's glass and mechanical perfection cannot be matched
at a lower price point. It's not physically possible. Canon or Nikon
could not sell their lenses at Leica price points.

Anybody COULD make Leica-quality lenses IF they used Leica-quality
materials and designs, but...they DON'T. If they did, they'd cost about
the same. Considering what a lot of high-end audio gear costs, Leica
stuff is a bargain.

> Indeed, a quite recent AP test noted that the new Canon 60mm f2.8
> macro lens was essentially perfect, and was the best lens that the
> reviewer had ever tested.

Check out the 100mm APO-Marco-Elmarit-R. It's essentially perfect
(diffraction-limited).

http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/puts...

>
> >> > I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
> >> > own satisfaction and that of others.
> >>
> >> You have picked a preference where actual differences exist. Most of the
> >> claimed audio differences don't meet that criteria, they are sonically
> >> indistinguishable when one uses only one's ears.
> >
> >You mean ALL CD players and ALL ampls sound the same? Hogwash.
>
> How would you know? Your audio comparisons are analogous to comparing
> lenses which have been smeared with vaseline.

Do I detect an insult there?

>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:59:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>> No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
>> tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
>> connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
>> extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.
>
>I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
>the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
>my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
>possibility of halucination is remote.

The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
possibility.


>> You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
>> that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.
>
>Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'.

It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human
hearing. *Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued
denial will not alter this most obvious fact.


>> You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
>> that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.
>
>False on its face. I am not the only one who makes such a claim, and
>you know it.

Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*.
Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually
stepped up to the plate.


>> >> It's pretty hard to
>> >> find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end'
>> >> player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary
>> >> errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream'
>> >> players.
>> >
>> >Mark Levinson?
>>
>> Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege
>> of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity
>> from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear
>> differences among transports with that dog!
>
>I heard the whole set-up (transport and DAC) and the combo sounded
>quite beautiful.

So what? Any decent CD player sounds quite beautiful - depending on
the CD, of course! To pay more than $20,000 for such a device is a
pretty foolish indulgence, unless you already own the world's best
speakers and have them installed in an acoustically perfect room.

>> Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits
>> of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream'
>> Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'.....................
>
>Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original
>designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance,
>and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but
>redesigns.

Hogwash - they were simply tweaks. Your logic is fatally flawed, since
Leitz would not have needed to buy in the designs from Zeiss and
Schneider if they had been capable of designing them in-house.


>> Bascically, you know
>> that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
>> there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
>> each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
>> Why do you not trust your ears alone?
>
>I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
>because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
>blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was
>convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
>conducted.

Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori.

>I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what
>I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the
>change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any
>kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told.

You believe that you heard a difference, but there is no evidence that
this 'difference' has any physical existence - hence it's simply your
belief.

>> >> You could of course prove your claim quite easily, but like
>> >> all the others, you seem strangely reluctant to do so.
>> >
>> >You're being impolite. May I interest you in some gut string?
>>
>> Lack of response noted. I use synthetic, because I need an excuse for
>> my lack of ability on the tennis court....... :-)
>
>Why am I not surprised....
>
>I'm sure you believe that: 'All string plays the same...'

Had you actually read what I wrote, you would not have made such a
foolish statement.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 7:03:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's
160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?"

How often has it been done standing on the right foot while the left hand
is embedded up to the wrist in cheese doodles?

Seriously, the only question is not knowing,ie. blind testing, and all
this other mental tap dancing irrelevant because no restraints otherwise
are required. As mentioned, testing has been done with the only control
being a cloth placed over connections to implement blindness, the results
were obvious.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 7:06:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:

> P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
> days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials:
> that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?

No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on
such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test). But
if you think it would break new ground, it's incumbent on you to do the
test, and stop complaining about every other test whose results you
don't like.

bob
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 6:55:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D g5i2a01k5i@news2.newsguy.com...
> On 11 Sep 2005 22:29:13 GMT, "Gary Vander Schel" <vanderschel@isp.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:D fv3ba030om@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>> Probably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves
>>>>> performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK..........
>>>>
>>>>Really?
>>>
>>> Yes. Your 'regular' 87 octane fuel is the equivalent of about 92 RON
>>> in Europe. UK 'regular' fuel is 95 RON, with 98 RON (the equivalent of
>>> your 93) being available for high-performance engines. Note that most
>>> European engines have their power ratings quoted for 98 RON fuel - it
>>> *does* make a difference.
>>>
>>>>> >If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell
>>>>> >me
>>>>> >that I'm wasting my money?
>>>>>
>>>>> I use 98. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers
>>>>> the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem
>>>>> unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising.
>>
>>I'm unaware and skeptical of your 'scientific facts' about high octane
>>petrol.
>>http://www.answers.com/topic/petrol
>>http://www.fact-sheets.com/cars/high_octane_gas/
>
> Perhaps you should try reading some modern literature on the subject.
> Most European cars have their power outputs quoted for 98RON fuel, the
> equivalent of your 93, and certainly do produce less power with lower
> octane fuel. Basically, the modern engine management system sets up
> the engine to give best results with whatever fuel is in the tank. My
> own car (Audi A3 3.2) has a compression ratio of 11.3:1, and
> definitely does benefit from the best fuel I can find. Similarly,
> turbocharged engines like that In my wife's TT will adjust boost
> levels to suit the available fuel and atmospheric conditions.
> --
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that using fuel with the octane
rating that meets (not exceeds) the manufacturer's recommendation is
appropriate. The variable timing capabilities of modern engine management
systems will allow it to run on lower octane w/ no knock (which apparently
you've done). Have you tried using fuel w/ an octane rating exceeding 98
RON?

OTOH, my wife's '97 MX-5 had a 15-20% drop in kpl/mpg when using higher
octane fuel than recommended by the manufacturer (probably due to the lower
volatility of high octane fuels).


..
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 6:59:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> >> No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
> >> tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
> >> connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
> >> extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.
> >
> >I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
> >the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
> >my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
> >possibility of halucination is remote.
>
> The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
> in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
> case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
> possibility.

There has to be something to reinforce, no?

> >> You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
> >> that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.
> >
> >Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'.
>
> It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human
> hearing.

"We"? What do you mean, "we"?

> *Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued
> denial will not alter this most obvious fact.

What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart
Pinkerton. We have many good philosophers and scientists who have
discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to
hear differences among ampas, CD players, and cables, is not an
'extraordinary claim'. I have posted links to discussions of what an
'extraordinary claim' is, and you have ignored them.

(Moderator: how does this post get through?)

[Moderator note: The same way yours do. -- deb ]

> >> You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
> >> that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.
> >
> >False on its face. I am not the only one who makes such a claim, and
> >you know it.
>
> Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*.
> Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually
> stepped up to the plate.

You're beginning to bore me.

> >> >> It's pretty hard to
> >> >> find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end'
> >> >> player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary
> >> >> errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream'
> >> >> players.
> >> >
> >> >Mark Levinson?
> >>
> >> Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege
> >> of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity
> >> from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear
> >> differences among transports with that dog!
> >
> >I heard the whole set-up (transport and DAC) and the combo sounded
> >quite beautiful.
>
> So what? Any decent CD player sounds quite beautiful - depending on
> the CD, of course! To pay more than $20,000 for such a device is a
> pretty foolish indulgence, unless you already own the world's best
> speakers and have them installed in an acoustically perfect room.

So, whose business is it? Who are you to tell people how much they are
permitted to spend on their equipment?

>
> >> Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits
> >> of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream'
> >> Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'.....................
> >
> >Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original
> >designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance,
> >and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but
> >redesigns.
>
> Hogwash - they were simply tweaks. Your logic is fatally flawed, since
> Leitz would not have needed to buy in the designs from Zeiss and
> Schneider if they had been capable of designing them in-house.

They were not capable of designing them in-house until they had more
time to study the various problems of retro-focus wide-angle designs.
Remember, this was 1968! Leitz's experience did not include retro-focus
lens design. In the meantime, they needed product to sell. Lots of
companies do this. I remember testing the 21mm Super-Angulon-R f/4
(Leitz-made, Scheider design) against the 20mm Nikkor f/3,5. There was
no contest. The SA trounced the Nikkor. Seven years later, in about
1975, Leitz Canada came out with a 19mm f/2,8 design that represented
an advance over the 21mm SA. It was one stop faster and had higher
contrast. Fifteen years later (1990) and improved second-generation
19mm was introduced. It is superb and represents state-of-the-art
performance in the 18-21mm focal length range. There is no equal made
by anyone.

But all this took time.

>
>
> >> Bascically, you know
> >> that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
> >> there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
> >> each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
> >> Why do you not trust your ears alone?
> >
> >I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
> >because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
> >blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was
> >convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
> >conducted.
>
> Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori.

I don't remember you...sitting next to me.

>
> >I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what
> >I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the
> >change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any
> >kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told.
>
> You believe that you heard a difference, but there is no evidence that
> this 'difference' has any physical existence - hence it's simply your
> belief.

Oh, is that so?
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:14:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

outsor@city-net.com wrote:
> "P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
> days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's
> 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?"

> How often has it been done standing on the right foot while the left hand
> is embedded up to the wrist in cheese doodles?

Tom Nousaine has conducted at least one 'long term' DBT, but IIRC this was
comparing sound files.



--

-S
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:18:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D g5htb01jt0@news2.newsguy.com...
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> >> So why imply that it is only snake oil - like 'high-end' audio cables,
>> >> which definitely *are* a waste of money?
>> >
>> >According to whom? On whose authority? YOURS?
>>
>> No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
>> tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
>> connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
>> extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.
>
> I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
> the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
> my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
> possibility of halucination is remote. It is possible to induce
> halucinations through sleep deprivation:
>
> http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=seti&Nu...
>
>> >> >> >It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening
>> >> >> >comparisons
>> >> >> >are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need
>> >> >> >for
>> >> >> >constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
>> >> >> >rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that
>> >> >> >they
>> >> >> >should be.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear.
>> >> >
>> >> >I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'.
>> >>
>> >> You do *not* hear anything which exists in the physical sound field.
>> >> This is a mere assertion, and will not become true no matter how often
>> >> you repeat it.
>> >
>> >Proof?
>>
>> You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
>> that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.
>
> Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'. We have gone over
> this before. No-one in philosophy or any science would call listening
> to cables and reporting audible differences 'making an extraordinary
> claim'.

They would if they knew the science behind cables and that such a result is
impossible for very well understood reasons.

I am not claiming that the cables violate any laws of nature.


Yes you are.

> The class of all things natural exceeds the class of all things
> measurable. An 'extraordinary claim' violates some commonly-accepted
> truth of nature (e.g., once men die, they don't come back to life), or
> invokes some wild explanation (aliens from outer space) that assumes
> facts not in evidence. Aliens cannot be used to explain your
> 'abduction' because the existence of aliens is itself unsupported and
> remotely unlikely. You cannot use something even less-well established
> to prove something that is highly dubious itself. Claiming to hear
> differences in aduo cables, amps, or CD players is not by any stretch
> of the imagination 'making an extraordinary claim'.
>
Claiming that something impossible happened is an extraordinary claim, to
reasonable people.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:19:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 14 Sep 2005 02:53:36 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:D g5i2u01k6h@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>>>>> Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists
>>>>> specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs
>>>>> and
>>>>> telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and
>>>>> psychological
>>>>> comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic,
>>>>> and
>>>>> have found they can validate differences when a conventional
>>>>> short-snippet
>>>>> test resulted in a "null".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Please list them.
>>>
>>>Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yoshitaka
>>>Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama,
>>>and Hiroshi Shibasaki
>>
>> Ah yes, the notorious Pioneer-backed attempt to prove that we really
>> need 100kHz bandwidth. Got any Europeans or Americans?
>
>Actually, Stewart, if you looked further you would find that Oohashi and
>many of his team have been doing work in psychoacoustics and neurophysiology
>for many years and are well published. Put you chauvinism aside, why don't
>you.

Not chauvinism, simply that you are reeling off one single team whose
commecially sponsored work remains uncorroborated. Hardly 'movers and
shakers'.

>Moreover, your assertion that Pioneer funded the research is just that, an
>assertion. No proof has ever been offered or cited. It may or may not have
>been funded by a consortium...but if so, that is common practice in many
>contries, including Great Britain and the United States.

Nice sidestep, Harry...........

>Was JJ's work at
>AT&T invalid because it was privately funded? The validity depends on how
>well the study was done and the results, peer-reviewed.

Quite so - and the Oohashi results remain uncorroborated.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
!