Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 02:05:52 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 06:04:34 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sure they did - the R32. May not have been available in the US, but
>>that's the car for which that engine was created, along with the TT.
>
>You mean the TT, which in 2004 had 250HP while in 2004, the Golf R32
>only had 241? Is this another marketing dodge, only this time internal
>to VAG? Are they lying to you just like Porsche is?

Personally, and given that production engines typically vary in actual
output by 5% or so, i.e. by about 12 HP for the 3.2 VR6, I've never
been convinced by the claimed 250 HP from the TT installation against
247 in the A3, and varying outputs claimed for the R32 at different
times, all the way from 237 to 247, but who really knows?

Mind you, given that you can get another 12-15 HP just by remapping
the engine management system, i.e. 'chipping', you can pretty much
dial in anything from 240 to 260 at will, so it's all very moot.

>You mean that the TT, which in 2006 will have 255HP just as the Golf
>gets to 250? Another marketing lie?

Nobody knows what the TT will have until it's actually launched. The
new 2-litre Turbo FSI engine has already been chipped to 274 HP in the
A3 and A4 by the aftermarket tuners in Germany, so I guess Audi will
give it whatever the marketing department says it needs to beat the
competition, even without the twin-turbo 'RS' version due in 2007,
which has been mooted at anywhere from 280 to 350 HP. The VR6 version
may be 3.2, more likely 3.6, probably with FSI, but nobody *knows*,
and Audi sure aren't saying for definite.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:19:09 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 02:05:52 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 06:04:34 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Sure they did - the R32. May not have been available in the US, but
>>>that's the car for which that engine was created, along with the TT.
>>
>>You mean the TT, which in 2004 had 250HP while in 2004, the Golf R32
>>only had 241? Is this another marketing dodge, only this time internal
>>to VAG? Are they lying to you just like Porsche is?
>
>Personally, and given that production engines typically vary in actual
>output by 5% or so, i.e. by about 12 HP for the 3.2 VR6, I've never
>been convinced by the claimed 250 HP from the TT installation against
>247 in the A3, and varying outputs claimed for the R32 at different
>times, all the way from 237 to 247, but who really knows?

Dodging the issue I see. Who cares WHAT you've been convinced of? All
you need to do is offer some CONCRETE PROOF to support yourself. You
haven't offered ANYTHING but supposition. These are certified results
(at least here in the states, there are legal requirements for posting
stats like this).

>Mind you, given that you can get another 12-15 HP just by remapping
>the engine management system, i.e. 'chipping', you can pretty much
>dial in anything from 240 to 260 at will, so it's all very moot.

Who cares? That's not part of the issue. But you're right, THIS point
of yours is MOOT. I could easily compare a chipped Cayenne to an
unchipped Touareg to create an artificial larger gap, but that
wouldn't be cricket.
>
>>You mean that the TT, which in 2006 will have 255HP just as the Golf
>>gets to 250? Another marketing lie?
>
>Nobody knows what the TT will have until it's actually launched.

Oh, so you can talk about Cayenne diesel models that aren't even going
to be made, but I can't talk about things that are almost a sure
thing? Wouldn't it be choice if that 255HP motor ended up in the A3 as
well? <g> (it's probably NOT, of course, but it would be funny.
Obviously marque protection extends to INTERNAL MODEL protection as
well).

> The
>new 2-litre Turbo FSI engine has already been chipped to 274 HP in the
>A3 and A4 by the aftermarket tuners in Germany, so I guess Audi will
>give it whatever the marketing department says it needs to beat the
>competition, even without the twin-turbo 'RS' version due in 2007,
>which has been mooted at anywhere from 280 to 350 HP. The VR6 version
>may be 3.2, more likely 3.6, probably with FSI, but nobody *knows*,
>and Audi sure aren't saying for definite.

I have deliberately avoided talking about aftermarket stuff, because
it's irrelevant. The fact that you introduce it shows how desperate
you are to deny reality and to avoid saying the simle words, "I was
wrong about that". And, BTW, VW IS competition to Audi. This works to
protect both Audi's and VW's marketing. they are going to maintain as
many differences as they can (even though they don't necessarily have
to make it 100%). It's hard to promote Audi as VW's upscale sporty and
luxury brother if the *only* difference is skin. Spec advantages, even
when minor, help define the niches that VAG has chosen to provide.

Thanks for obliquely supporting MY argument.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:59:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>news:431c4c23.11540549@news.iprimus.com.au
>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:32:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:431c2f6b.4187194@news.iprimus.com.au
>>>
>>>> Indeed. Arnie may deny it but if so he'd have to deny
>>>> being human. Another point: what was Arnie's philosophy
>>>> when he first came up with ABX? Was it a totally
>>>> open-minded project, or was he trying to confirm a
>>>> pre-existing idea?
>>>
>>> I was trying to confirm the pre-existing idea that
>>> amplifiers sounded different.
>>
>> Did it ever occur to you that you may not have come up
>> with the best method?
>
>Yes. It's actually quite remarkable that I came up with
>something so good, the first time I tried.
>
>>That indeed there ARE differences,
>> but what you came up with simply didn't serve to
>> demonstrate them?
>
>Yes.
>
>However, thusfar no known legitimate subjective testing
>procedure is known to be more sensitive than ABX.
>
>There are other blind and semi-blind procedures, but they
>produce similar or less-sensitive results.

Not quite true - ABChr seems to be the current preference by the
professionals working on new codecs and the like.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sc3ph19nerlgi52lelkoanc5rtmcsl8pg3@4ax.com
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:59:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:431c4c23.11540549@news.iprimus.com.au
>>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:32:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:431c2f6b.4187194@news.iprimus.com.au
>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. Arnie may deny it but if so he'd have to deny
>>>>> being human. Another point: what was Arnie's
>>>>> philosophy when he first came up with ABX? Was it a
>>>>> totally open-minded project, or was he trying to
>>>>> confirm a pre-existing idea?
>>>>
>>>> I was trying to confirm the pre-existing idea that
>>>> amplifiers sounded different.
>>>
>>> Did it ever occur to you that you may not have come up
>>> with the best method?
>>
>> Yes. It's actually quite remarkable that I came up with
>> something so good, the first time I tried.
>>
>>> That indeed there ARE differences,
>>> but what you came up with simply didn't serve to
>>> demonstrate them?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> However, thusfar no known legitimate subjective testing
>> procedure is known to be more sensitive than ABX.
>>
>> There are other blind and semi-blind procedures, but they
>> produce similar or less-sensitive results.

> Not quite true - ABChr seems to be the current preference
> by the professionals working on new codecs and the like.

ABC/hr does something potentially worthwhile that ABX
doesn't even pretend to do - and that is quantify the
difference between the two alternatives. That's a completely
different issue than raw sensitivity, which is what I was
speaking of.

To be precisely correct, ABC/hr is about which of the two
alternatives is more impaired as compared to a reference,
which is one of the two alternatives. This provides a
self-test - if the listeners rate the unknown as being
unimpaired as compared to itself, then there's some proven
element of accuracy in their results.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:47:38 GMT, packer@iprimus.com.au (paul packer)
wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:32:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:431c2f6b.4187194@news.iprimus.com.au
>>
>>> Indeed. Arnie may deny it but if so he'd have to deny
>>> being human. Another point: what was Arnie's philosophy
>>> when he first came up with ABX? Was it a totally
>>> open-minded project, or was he trying to confirm a
>>> pre-existing idea?
>>
>>I was trying to confirm the pre-existing idea that
>>amplifiers sounded different.
>
>Did it ever occur to you that you may not have come up with the best
>method? That indeed there ARE differences, but what you came up with
>simply didn't serve to demonstrate them?

Such is always possible, but no one else seems to have come up with
anything significantly better in the past twenty years, if you include
ABChr as a variant of ABX. Certainly, no serious professional would
countenance *any* test protocol which did not include level-matching
and double-blinding as minimal pre-requisites.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

In article <ne3ph1ta989hpm18vdh19kcna2i4atuf4i@4ax.com>,
Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> Certainly, no serious professional would
> countenance *any* test protocol which did not include level-matching
> and double-blinding as minimal pre-requisites.

Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient for design purposes.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-CAC505.13520105092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
> In article <ne3ph1ta989hpm18vdh19kcna2i4atuf4i@4ax.com>,
> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Certainly, no serious professional would
>> countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
>> level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
>> pre-requisites.
>
> Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient for
> design purposes.

Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:54:09 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:19:09 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 02:05:52 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 06:04:34 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sure they did - the R32. May not have been available in the US, but
>>>>that's the car for which that engine was created, along with the TT.
>>>
>>>You mean the TT, which in 2004 had 250HP while in 2004, the Golf R32
>>>only had 241? Is this another marketing dodge, only this time internal
>>>to VAG? Are they lying to you just like Porsche is?
>>
>>Personally, and given that production engines typically vary in actual
>>output by 5% or so, i.e. by about 12 HP for the 3.2 VR6, I've never
>>been convinced by the claimed 250 HP from the TT installation against
>>247 in the A3, and varying outputs claimed for the R32 at different
>>times, all the way from 237 to 247, but who really knows?
>
>Dodging the issue I see. Who cares WHAT you've been convinced of? All
>you need to do is offer some CONCRETE PROOF to support yourself. You
>haven't offered ANYTHING but supposition. These are certified results
>(at least here in the states, there are legal requirements for posting
>stats like this).

Sure they're certified stats, but production engines still vary by the
amount I stated, which exceeds the reported variations in power claims
for that same engine in various installations, so it's perfectly
possible for you to buy a Cayenne with *less* power than a Touareg.
BTW, the stats invariably assume a quite unrealistic 0% atmospheric
humidity - unless you live in Tucson, of course!

>>Mind you, given that you can get another 12-15 HP just by remapping
>>the engine management system, i.e. 'chipping', you can pretty much
>>dial in anything from 240 to 260 at will, so it's all very moot.
>
>Who cares? That's not part of the issue. But you're right, THIS point
>of yours is MOOT. I could easily compare a chipped Cayenne to an
>unchipped Touareg to create an artificial larger gap, but that
>wouldn't be cricket.

See above for the other awful truth about such a comparison in
totally unmodified stock cars.

>>>You mean that the TT, which in 2006 will have 255HP just as the Golf
>>>gets to 250? Another marketing lie?
>>
>>Nobody knows what the TT will have until it's actually launched.
>
>Oh, so you can talk about Cayenne diesel models that aren't even going
>to be made, but I can't talk about things that are almost a sure
>thing?

You can talk all you like, but you're still guessing.

>Wouldn't it be choice if that 255HP motor ended up in the A3 as
>well? <g> (it's probably NOT, of course, but it would be funny.
>Obviously marque protection extends to INTERNAL MODEL protection as
>well).

It will end up in the A3 - it's Audi policy to spread the use of FSI
to every VAG petrol engine above base models in each range. Indeed,
this even applies to the Skoda Octavia right now.

>> The
>>new 2-litre Turbo FSI engine has already been chipped to 274 HP in the
>>A3 and A4 by the aftermarket tuners in Germany, so I guess Audi will
>>give it whatever the marketing department says it needs to beat the
>>competition, even without the twin-turbo 'RS' version due in 2007,
>>which has been mooted at anywhere from 280 to 350 HP. The VR6 version
>>may be 3.2, more likely 3.6, probably with FSI, but nobody *knows*,
>>and Audi sure aren't saying for definite.
>
>I have deliberately avoided talking about aftermarket stuff, because
>it's irrelevant. The fact that you introduce it shows how desperate
>you are to deny reality and to avoid saying the simle words, "I was
>wrong about that".

Typical Vile bullshit - I was simply pointing out that VAG can give
that engine pretty much any power output they like up to 250 HP or so,
with no physical modifications whatever.

>And, BTW, VW IS competition to Audi. This works to
>protect both Audi's and VW's marketing. they are going to maintain as
>many differences as they can (even though they don't necessarily have
>to make it 100%). It's hard to promote Audi as VW's upscale sporty and
>luxury brother if the *only* difference is skin. Spec advantages, even
>when minor, help define the niches that VAG has chosen to provide.

Shame that you don't know much about cars. The new Passat is *totally*
different from the new A6, and is based on a stretched Mk V Golf
platform - hence the transverse VR6 engine in the Passat.

Oh, one last thought - all the power figures quoted up to now have
been based on 98 octane fuel. Use regular 87 octane US sludge and
you'll be *well* down.......................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

In article <mZ6dnZr3dPSTP4HeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:smcatut-CAC505.13520105092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
> > In article <ne3ph1ta989hpm18vdh19kcna2i4atuf4i@4ax.com>,
> > Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Certainly, no serious professional would
> >> countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
> >> level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
> >> pre-requisites.
> >
> > Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient for
> > design purposes.
>
> Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
> designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

Anecdotes. The second part of your comment doesn't follow.

> A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-8CC012.15590305092005@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com
> In article <mZ6dnZr3dPSTP4HeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> news:smcatut-CAC505.13520105092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
>>> In article <ne3ph1ta989hpm18vdh19kcna2i4atuf4i@4ax.com>,
>>> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Certainly, no serious professional would
>>>> countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
>>>> level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
>>>> pre-requisites.
>>>
>>> Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient for
>>> design purposes.

>> Got a reference for that claim?

> Anecdotes.

Why not upgrade that to "reliable sources"? LOL!

>> I've never heard of a
>> designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

>The second part of your comment doesn't follow.

Sure it does if you put it together with the explanation
that followed it:

>> A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

IOW, why would a designer knowingly use a test procedure
that was broken? Would it be that he didn't want the best
possible results?

> Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Wrong. The role of the blind test adminsitrator is filled by
a piece of software.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:39:24 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Note how you even got it wrong about the current production, as VW
>>have in fact released an interim Mk V R32, with a 250 HP FSI-headed
>>version on the existing engine block. So, VW don't only make a
>>comparable version to my Audi A3, it's actually got a slightly
>>*superior* engine.
>
>Your *old* car, that is. It's not going to be superior to the 06 A3. I
>note that you neglect to note that.

I see no suggestion anywhere that the 2006 A3 V6 will have FSI, in any
world market. So once again, this is just Vile bullshit.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:09:37 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:39:24 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Note how you even got it wrong about the current production, as VW
>>>have in fact released an interim Mk V R32, with a 250 HP FSI-headed
>>>version on the existing engine block. So, VW don't only make a
>>>comparable version to my Audi A3, it's actually got a slightly
>>>*superior* engine.
>>
>>Your *old* car, that is. It's not going to be superior to the 06 A3. I
>>note that you neglect to note that.
>
>I see no suggestion anywhere that the 2006 A3 V6 will have FSI, in any
>world market. So once again, this is just Vile bullshit.

250HP is 250HP. But if you're enamored with FSI, then just sell the
inferior Audi that you own and get the superior VW. You don't want to
be left behind, do you? It will look good right next to that Cayenne
diesel that you have on order.

BTW, it's good that VW has caught the Golf up with the HP rating of
the A3. I won't be surprised when Audi ups the ante again.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

In article <s6ednVzz5Nc6VIHeRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:smcatut-8CC012.15590305092005@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com
> > In article <mZ6dnZr3dPSTP4HeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:smcatut-CAC505.13520105092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
> >>> In article <ne3ph1ta989hpm18vdh19kcna2i4atuf4i@4ax.com>,
> >>> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Certainly, no serious professional would
> >>>> countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
> >>>> level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
> >>>> pre-requisites.
> >>>
> >>> Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient for
> >>> design purposes.
>
> >> Got a reference for that claim?
>
> > Anecdotes.
>
> Why not upgrade that to "reliable sources"? LOL!

Some magazines talk to designers regularly. Some discuss this kind of
thing.

> >> I've never heard of a
> >> designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.
>
> >The second part of your comment doesn't follow.
>
> Sure it does if you put it together with the explanation
> that followed it:

> >> A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

Assuming facts not in evidence.

> IOW, why would a designer knowingly use a test procedure
> that was broken? Would it be that he didn't want the best
> possible results?

Single blind can be good enough. After all, most gear sounds the same
despite being designed with little or no listening at all.

> > Technically, PCABX is single-blind.
>
> Wrong. The role of the blind test adminsitrator is filled by
> a piece of software.

Who isn't a person.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:58:48 GMT, MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu>
wrote:

>In article <mZ6dnZr3dPSTP4HeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> news:smcatut-CAC505.13520105092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
>> > In article <ne3ph1ta989hpm18vdh19kcna2i4atuf4i@4ax.com>,
>> > Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Certainly, no serious professional would
>> >> countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
>> >> level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
>> >> pre-requisites.
>> >
>> > Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient for
>> > design purposes.
>>
>> Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
>> designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.
>
>Anecdotes. The second part of your comment doesn't follow.
>
>> A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.
>
>Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Given adequate precautions to avoid obvious cues, IME single-blinding
can be adequate in many cases. However, no *professional* would stake
his reputation on publishing results of SBTs.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-B02119.22182805092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
> In article <s6ednVzz5Nc6VIHeRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> news:smcatut-8CC012.15590305092005@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com
>>> In article <mZ6dnZr3dPSTP4HeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>>>> news:smcatut-CAC505.13520105092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <ne3ph1ta989hpm18vdh19kcna2i4atuf4i@4ax.com>, Stewart
>>>>> Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly, no serious professional would
>>>>>> countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
>>>>>> level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
>>>>>> pre-requisites.
>>>>>
>>>>> Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient
>>>>> for design purposes.
>>
>>>> Got a reference for that claim?
>>
>>> Anecdotes.
>>
>> Why not upgrade that to "reliable sources"? LOL!
>
> Some magazines talk to designers regularly. Some discuss
> this kind of thing.

More anecdotes, with name dropping.

>>>> I've never heard of a
>>>> designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.
>>
>>> The second part of your comment doesn't follow.
>>
>> Sure it does if you put it together with the explanation
>> that followed it:
>
>>>> A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.
>
> Assuming facts not in evidence.

Assuming knowlege that your typical RAO troll wouldn't
admit, even if they knew it.

>> IOW, why would a designer knowingly use a test procedure
>> that was broken? Would it be that he didn't want the
>> best possible results?

> Single blind can be good enough.

For what? Impression visiting firemen?

>After all, most gear
> sounds the same despite being designed with little or no
> listening at all.


Assuming facts not in evidence.


>>> Technically, PCABX is single-blind.
>>
>> Wrong. The role of the blind test adminsitrator is
>> filled by a piece of software.

> Who isn't a person.

Right, which makes him far more predictable, and/or
unpredictable as required.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

In article <3faqh1pq3juqef8ll9fahos2i2ju8fah8v@4ax.com>,
Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:58:48 GMT, MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <mZ6dnZr3dPSTP4HeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:smcatut-CAC505.13520105092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
> >> > In article <ne3ph1ta989hpm18vdh19kcna2i4atuf4i@4ax.com>,
> >> > Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Certainly, no serious professional would
> >> >> countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
> >> >> level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
> >> >> pre-requisites.
> >> >
> >> > Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient for
> >> > design purposes.
> >>
> >> Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
> >> designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.
> >
> >Anecdotes. The second part of your comment doesn't follow.
> >
> >> A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.
> >
> >Technically, PCABX is single-blind.
>
> Given adequate precautions to avoid obvious cues, IME single-blinding
> can be adequate in many cases. However, no *professional* would stake
> his reputation on publishing results of SBTs.

Hence my reference to anecdotes.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-34F5C8.06501806092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
> In article <3faqh1pq3juqef8ll9fahos2i2ju8fah8v@4ax.com>,
> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:58:48 GMT, MINe 109
>> <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <mZ6dnZr3dPSTP4HeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>>>> news:smcatut-CAC505.13520105092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <ne3ph1ta989hpm18vdh19kcna2i4atuf4i@4ax.com>, Stewart
>>>>> Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly, no serious professional would
>>>>>> countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
>>>>>> level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
>>>>>> pre-requisites.
>>>>>
>>>>> Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient
>>>>> for design purposes.
>>>>
>>>> Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
>>>> designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.
>>>
>>> Anecdotes. The second part of your comment doesn't
>>> follow.
>>>
>>>> A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.
>>>
>>> Technically, PCABX is single-blind.
>>
>> Given adequate precautions to avoid obvious cues, IME
>> single-blinding can be adequate in many cases. However,
>> no *professional* would stake his reputation on
>> publishing results of SBTs.
>
> Hence my reference to anecdotes.

But you said some of them would be published.

Bzzzzzzzzzzt!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

In article <CoGdnSI8XvDZPoDeRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:smcatut-34F5C8.06501806092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
> > In article <3faqh1pq3juqef8ll9fahos2i2ju8fah8v@4ax.com>,
> > Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:58:48 GMT, MINe 109
> >> <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <mZ6dnZr3dPSTP4HeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> >>>> news:smcatut-CAC505.13520105092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <ne3ph1ta989hpm18vdh19kcna2i4atuf4i@4ax.com>, Stewart
> >>>>> Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Certainly, no serious professional would
> >>>>>> countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
> >>>>>> level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
> >>>>>> pre-requisites.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient
> >>>>> for design purposes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
> >>>> designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.
> >>>
> >>> Anecdotes. The second part of your comment doesn't
> >>> follow.
> >>>
> >>>> A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.
> >>>
> >>> Technically, PCABX is single-blind.
> >>
> >> Given adequate precautions to avoid obvious cues, IME
> >> single-blinding can be adequate in many cases. However,
> >> no *professional* would stake his reputation on
> >> publishing results of SBTs.
> >
> > Hence my reference to anecdotes.
>
> But you said some of them would be published.
>
> Bzzzzzzzzzzt!

I believe Stewart meant publishing a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed
journal, the distinction made with his reference to "professional"
"reputation" and "results."

There's no downside to anecdotes about properly done single-blind tests
published in non-professional media.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-DD5D63.10501706092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
> In article <CoGdnSI8XvDZPoDeRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> news:smcatut-34F5C8.06501806092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
>>> In article <3faqh1pq3juqef8ll9fahos2i2ju8fah8v@4ax.com>,
>>> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:58:48 GMT, MINe 109
>>>> <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <mZ6dnZr3dPSTP4HeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:smcatut-CAC505.13520105092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <ne3ph1ta989hpm18vdh19kcna2i4atuf4i@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Certainly, no serious professional would
>>>>>>>> countenance *any* test protocol which did not
>>>>>>>> include level-matching and double-blinding as
>>>>>>>> minimal pre-requisites.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient
>>>>>>> for design purposes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
>>>>>> designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anecdotes. The second part of your comment doesn't
>>>>> follow.
>>>>>
>>>>>> A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically, PCABX is single-blind.
>>>>
>>>> Given adequate precautions to avoid obvious cues, IME
>>>> single-blinding can be adequate in many cases. However,
>>>> no *professional* would stake his reputation on
>>>> publishing results of SBTs.
>>>
>>> Hence my reference to anecdotes.
>>
>> But you said some of them would be published.
>>
>> Bzzzzzzzzzzt!
>
> I believe Stewart meant publishing a scientific paper in
> a peer-reviewed journal, the distinction made with his
> reference to "professional" "reputation" and "results."

Hair-splitting in service of Atkinson noted.

> There's no downside to anecdotes about properly done
> single-blind tests published in non-professional media.

Spin on, dude.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

In article <29udnSN8bYx_P4DeRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:smcatut-B02119.22182805092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
> > In article <s6ednVzz5Nc6VIHeRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:smcatut-8CC012.15590305092005@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com
> >>> In article <mZ6dnZr3dPSTP4HeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> >>>> news:smcatut-CAC505.13520105092005@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <ne3ph1ta989hpm18vdh19kcna2i4atuf4i@4ax.com>, Stewart
> >>>>> Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Certainly, no serious professional would
> >>>>>> countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
> >>>>>> level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
> >>>>>> pre-requisites.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient
> >>>>> for design purposes.
> >>
> >>>> Got a reference for that claim?
> >>
> >>> Anecdotes.
> >>
> >> Why not upgrade that to "reliable sources"? LOL!
> >
> > Some magazines talk to designers regularly. Some discuss
> > this kind of thing.
>
> More anecdotes, with name dropping.

Yes, and, no.

> >>>> I've never heard of a
> >>>> designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.
> >>
> >>> The second part of your comment doesn't follow.
> >>
> >> Sure it does if you put it together with the explanation
> >> that followed it:
> >
> >>>> A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.
> >
> > Assuming facts not in evidence.
>
> Assuming knowlege that your typical RAO troll wouldn't
> admit, even if they knew it.

SBTs can be properly designed. DBTs can be improperly designed.

> >> IOW, why would a designer knowingly use a test procedure
> >> that was broken? Would it be that he didn't want the
> >> best possible results?
>
> > Single blind can be good enough.
>
> For what? Impression visiting firemen?

Huh?

> > After all, most gear
> > sounds the same despite being designed with little or no
> > listening at all.
>
>
> Assuming facts not in evidence.

Doesn't most gear sound the same?

> >>> Technically, PCABX is single-blind.
> >>
> >> Wrong. The role of the blind test adminsitrator is
> >> filled by a piece of software.
>
> > Who isn't a person.
>
> Right, which makes him far more predictable, and/or
> unpredictable as required.

But he's not blind. This would be a case in which a technically
single-blind procedure might still be useful.

Stephen