Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:57:52 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>Does it make you crie ?

I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:20:12 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

> Don Pearce said:
>
>
>>>>> I do resist science being harnessed to the yoke of ideology. But my background
>>>>> may be different from yours.
>
>>>> What ideology did you have in mind?
>
>>> Yours:
>
>> I wasn't even aware I had an ideology. But then I don't speak with an
>> accent either.
>
> I just cited it and you glided right by. Here it is again:
>
>>>>>You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
>>>>>journal you work for), and apologise for all the bullshit you printed in
>>>>>the past.
>
> That's your ideology: Conclusion reached before research is done.
>

Oh, you mean my *joke*

>
>>>>> Why don't you devote your efforts to a real charity that benefits people with
>>>>> real problems?
>>>
>>>> You think audiophiles aren't people with real problems?
>>>
>>> As a group, of course not. At least not nearly as bad problems as the
>>> 'borgs suffer.
>>
>> DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?
>
> Not as far as I know. You might want to ask them rather than reaching a
> decision in vitro, so to speak.

I have - and my decision was reached that way.

d

 

[Guest]

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

Robert Morein said to the Bug Eater:

>> > Oh dear. The Krooborg is rampaging and my raincoat is at the cleaner.

>> Probably needed to get the stains out after your trip to the elementary
>> school, or was it the NAMBLA meeting?

>Mikey, you have the lowest IQ of anyone I've met on this group.
>Every village has an idiot, and you are the idiot of our village.

Robert, instead of pounding poor Mikey with the low-IQ hammer again, how about
we praise him for posting a message that was almost free of language errors? I
only count 2 -- the missing subject in the first clause and the improper joining
of two independent clauses with a comma. That's much better than duh-Mikey's
average.

 

[Guest]

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

Don Pearce said:

> >> DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?

> > Not as far as I know. You might want to ask them rather than reaching a
> > decision in vitro, so to speak.

> I have - and my decision was reached that way.

Do elaborate about this. I'm sure it will end up proving the homily about
a fool and his money, but tell us some details anyway.

 

[Guest]

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

paul packer said:

> I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling.

Lionella has finally admitted that her fellow travelers in anti-E.H.E.E.
slander are 'borgs. That was quite a breakthrough.

 

[Guest]

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

"Robert Morein" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Jr6dnZ2dnZ1FT7jznZ2dnUyviN6dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@giganews.com

> Mikey, you have the lowest IQ of anyone I've met on this
> group. Every village has an idiot, and you are the idiot
> of our village.

If irony killed.

 

[Guest]

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

Mr. Pearce quotes me (Aug. 30, Google message 78):
"On 30 Aug 2005 11:29:16 -0700, elmi...@pacificcoast.net wrote:
> Robert Gault says: Aug. 30
> "And not just audio. Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste
> comparisons of soda uses DBT"
> The only thing medical drug research DBT tests have in common with
> audio component comparison is the name.
> The medical tests' subjects subjective responses are always compared
> with and validated by FACTS: outcome of the disease, laboratory and
> Xray results.
> Otherwise the positive responses (" I feel better") to a placebo, or
> quack mumbo jumbo would have equal validity with objective outcomes.
> Compare!
> Ludovic Mirabel "
Mr Pearce answers:
"There arew plenty of medicines whose sole effect is to make people
able to
say "I feel better". They are still tested with DBT."
They certainly are, Mr. Pearce. What else
is new?
The revolutionary concept behind the double blind testing in medical
therapeutics IS to discern the placebo effect of suggestion etc. from
genuine bodily change (Measurable function improvement as in coronary
bypass, improved mortality rates as with antibiotics etc.) Placebos
make 30 to 40% of the patients feel better but show nil objective
improvement- (outside of the brain pathways at any rate- and so far we
cannot measure that)
I am at a loss to understand what your point is. Would suggest
some reading about modern medical therapeutics before jumping to
keyboard.
Ludovic Mirabel

 

[Guest]

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

elmir2m@pacificcoast.net wrote:
> Scott W says: (Google message 95, Aug. 30
> Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants
>
> over 50%.
> One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the
> expected distribution for random responses of 15 participants.
> If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but
> reality is...
> one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct
> And comments: "Elmirs almost BS'ing as bad as Stereophile "
>
> Mr. Scott W.
> You're mailing your elegant prose to the wrong address. I did not
> invent Greenhill's "Golden Ear" or Greenhill's statistics. I
> *quoted* from that impeccably objectivist writer who moderated and
> reported the Stereo Review cable test.

What you did was cherry pick a small slice of data and provide a
reference that comes up empty with a google search.

My search results

Your search - L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge cable,
ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83 - did not match any documents.

So I don't have access to the original data.

Now you're stating there were repeat trials for the subject golden ear
which is EXACTLY what I said was required to confirm the results.

Try to be explicit in your original post or provide accessible
references and we won't have this problem.


> You are also taking him for a
> village moron and insulting his statistics' protocol which for an
> objectivist, with an axe to grind, was quite scrupulous (read it!!!). I
> suspect that he forgot more statistics than you had ever known. I
> learnt mine as an employee of the Med. Research Ccil. of U.K. where
> double blind tests were *first ever* used.
> I must acknowledge that I admire your temerity in- how shall I put it?-
> shooting your mouth off without first looking up the source (I gave
> clear reference to it)

Like I'm sitting on a stack of 20 year old Stereo Reviews.


> Greenhill's "Golden Ear" did not "come at 81% one time" Mr,
> Scott W. There were six different cable comparison tests consisting of
> 15 trials each. The "Golden Ear" got 15 out of 15 in four of them,
> 12 in one, and 10 in one. Hence 83%-get it?

That is definitely statistically significant.

I'd be interested in further details of the test.
Can you provide a link to the complete article?

ScottW

 

[Guest]

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

NYOB quotes me:
<elmi...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
news:1125425689.386705.286020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29)
> "But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables
> where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal >cables. In short wire is wire."
> But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
> (his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything >and anything else in audio.
NYOB comments:
"I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to
knowledge
but you can't make him think.
Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some other

method is better or even as good?"
He quotes me again:
> He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
> report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
> the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only
> to reemerge after a suitable interval.
And answers:
"Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my

personal preference.
It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the
non-existence
of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX is the standard
and
that is relaible. You simply deny. "

Quotes again:
>Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
> "test" work?
________________________________________
Mr McKelvy, do you realize how ridiculous you sound when YOU pompously
"point (me) in the right direction?"
How about cutting out the chit- chatting and "pointing out"
some references to the ABX helping to recognise differences between
anything and anything else in audio. If I "hair-split and deny",
never mind me- the world is waiting with bated breath. Your grateful
readers will be able to tell the grain from jaw jaw chaff.
Ludovic Mirabel

 

[Guest]

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

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:YqbRe.99627$Ep.64584@lakeread02...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1125463223_8687@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> >>
> >> "ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:EdaRe.99623$Ep.5498@lakeread02...
> >>>
> >>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:1125442034_8269@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"
> >>>
> >>> Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants
> >>> over 50%.
> >>> One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the
> >>> expected
> >>> distribution for random responses of 15 participants.
> >>
> >> Bad work, you fiind one person who can hear, and fourteen
> >> who can't, test them, then disregard the result of that one, for
> >> the deficiencies of the other fourteen.
> >
> > Back to school you ole fart. Enroll in probability 101
> >
> > Look at it this way. Test the same guy 15 times.
> > He just might do very well one of those 15 times.
> > Was his hearing better that one time than all the others?
>
> That is not the way to look at it.
> That is one person, he is unique.
> The question is whether he heard differences.

Exactly. And now Ludovic has clarified that there were repeat trials
and his 83% number is a composite from all the trials...not just one
trial.

In the end... he has indicated they did EXACTLY what I said was
necessary to provide proof. Although 10 responses per trial is a bit
low...being able to
respond accurately in repeat trials is definitely significant.
Being able to respond accurately in one trial is not.

>
> > Its really just a matter of binary probability.
> > Give someone enough tries and they will get a decent
> > percentage right. Most tests are done to 90%
> > or 95% confidence. That still means that 1 of 10
> > or 1 of 20 times the results will be a false positive.
> > So you can see 1 positive subject out of 15 subjects
> > could very well be due to chance.
>
> sure, but chances are very substantial that one person heard differences and
> fourteen did not.

the initial 83% number was insufficient data to make that claim and I
still
can't access the original article.

> Just cause differences are there, doesn't mean that everyone
> has the capacity to recognize them.

Agreed.

>
> chances are one out of fifty that any one person has at least a 132 IQ.

Yes... but a single IQ test of 10 questions won't guarantee you found
him.

>
> chances are pretty good that at least one person in a group of fifty has
> an IQ of 132.

Sure...and probably 3 in 50 will ace a 10 question IQ test. Now what?

>
> but those are two different issues.
>
>
> > He must be tested again and the odds
> > of him succeeding again due to chance go to 1 in 100
> > or 1 in 400.
> > Now thats proof.
> >
> >>
> >> Not everyone is equal.
> >
> > Never said they were.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but
> >>> reality is...
> >>> one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct.
> >>
> >>
> >> It proves it for that one person.
> >
> > Not true. We can actually expect one or even 2 persons to get
> > lucky in a group of 15 with a 90% confidence test. Its the odds.
> > Let him repeat the test. If he is truly gifted he should
> > be able to repeat. If not... then it was probably random chance or
> > luck.
> >
>
> even with one run of tests the odds are very substantial
> that it was not chance.


Maybe for 100% correct or even 9 of 10. But for 8 of 10 the numbers
don't bear you out. In fact... in one test run... say 10 responses...
you have ~4.3% chance of getting 8 of 10 just due to chance. So with
15 subjects we would expect that 64% of the time (more than half) one
of the 15 is gonna get 8 right.
I'm sorry but you have less than 1 chance in 2 that the 1 person with
8 right (of 15 who were tested) is truly golden eared after a one run
of tests.

Heres a good tutorial.

http/www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/statistics.html

ScottW

 

[Dan]

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

On 8/29/2005 7:06 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
> <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:1125315999.689227.164780@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
>>Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory
>>is posted today at <A
>>HREF="http/www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable</A>.
>
>
> That's just raw HTML from a web page. The correct URL is:
>
> http/www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/
>
>

Why have a fundamental EM theory explanation to say "what if"? Yes,
Maxwell was a genius; he predicted the existence of EM waves. The
question still is can human ears tell the difference. No if humans
could hear as well as dogs can sniff, there might be something to
pursue. But last I checked, the only sense that humans excel in is vision.

Dan

 

[Guest]

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

Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >> even with one run of tests the odds are very substantial
> >> that it was not chance.
> >
> >
> > Maybe for 100% correct or even 9 of 10. But for 8 of 10 the numbers
> > don't bear you out. In fact... in one test run... say 10 responses...
> > you have ~4.3% chance of getting 8 of 10 just due to chance. So with
> > 15 subjects we would expect that 64% of the time (more than half) one
> > of the 15 is gonna get 8 right.
> > I'm sorry but you have less than 1 chance in 2 that the 1 person with
> > 8 right (of 15 who were tested) is truly golden eared after a one run
> > of tests.
> >
>
> It was 73 out of 90

Where did you see this? Can you access the original article? All I
had was Luds original 81% number until he clarified.

Anyway 73 out of 90 IS NOT ONE RUN

So who's playing debating trade now?

> not 8 out of 10
>
>
> And I don't care about the others. They can't hear. We know that.
> The question is whether that one can hear.
> All people are not designed with equal facilities.
>
> Bad analysis, Scott

One promising run by 1 individual out of many doesn't mean squat.
That was my point and that was my analysis... 73 out of 90 is
irrelevant to that point.

I guess you're more interested in disagreeing than understanding and
that's disappointing.

ScottW

 

[Guest]

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

Sander deWaal wrote:
> "ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail.com> said:
>
> > Look at it this way. Test the same guy 15 times.
> >He just might do very well one of those 15 times.
> >Was his hearing better that one time than all the others?
> >Its really just a matter of binary probability.
> >Give someone enough tries and they will get a decent
> >percentage right. Most tests are done to 90%
> >or 95% confidence. That still means that 1 of 10
> >or 1 of 20 times the results will be a false positive.
> >So you can see 1 positive subject out of 15 subjects
> >could very well be due to chance.
> >He must be tested again and the odds
> >of him succeeding again due to chance go to 1 in 100
> >or 1 in 400.
> >Now thats proof.
>
>
> >>> If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but
> >>> reality is...
> >>> one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct.
>
>
> >> It proves it for that one person.
>
>
> > Not true. We can actually expect one or even 2 persons to get
> >lucky in a group of 15 with a 90% confidence test. Its the odds.
> >Let him repeat the test. If he is truly gifted he should
> >be able to repeat. If not... then it was probably random chance or
> >luck.
>
>
> Suppose a new drug is tested on 15 persons.
> One of them dies.
>
> Do you still maintain your position?

Yes.... pending the autopsy.


ScottW

 

[Guest]

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

ScottW. says: (Aug.31):
You said:
"What you did was cherry pick a small slice of data and provide a
reference that comes up empty with a google search."
Yes you're quite right. I had to be very diligent to find a positive
result for abxing component comparison. What it shows is that only
exceptionally gifted individuals can surmount the barrier that ABXing
poses to recognition of differences. Yes, I had to cherry pick. Can you
do any better and quote one single published ABX comparison of ANY
audio components whatsoever where MAJORITY of panelists recognized the
difference. Not the web spoutings please but printed, published
articles as is the practice in any reputable research (Journal,
author(s), vol, year, month, pages)
You said:
"Your search - L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge cable,
ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83 - did not match any documents.
So I don't have access to the original data".
I'll try to restrain my impatience, be nice and polite, and teach you
elementaries of research before you assume again that your opponent is
an idiot spouting idiotic arguments- an assumption which
1) reflects on the way you yourself think
2) gives you licence for filthy, offensive language.
It is a mystery to me why you would assume that my very clear reference
("The Stereo Review" '03, August and pages) was to a website and
not to a magazine. Familiarise yourself with the references listed at
the end of any article in any professional journal- or at least look at
your undergrad textbook at the end of the chapters. (have you still got
it?) They are not to the web, sir.
You said:
"Now you're stating there were repeat trials for the subject golden
ear
which is EXACTLY what I said was required to confirm the results.
Try to be explicit in your original post or provide accessible
references and we won't have this problem."
If you think I have nothing better to do but to retype for your
convenience an article that I myself had to find and to which I gave
you clear directions you obviously have no clue about the normal
professional mag. practice. You have another think coming; and then
consult a friend.
I said:
> I must acknowledge that I admire your temerity in- how shall I put it?-
> shooting your mouth off without first looking up the source (I gave
> clear reference to it)
You answered: "Like I'm sitting on a
stack of 20 year old Stereo Reviews".

3 years ago I was on holidays in a very small town. The local Public
Library got a copy of this article for me from the major Library in a
bigger town. You want to voice opinions then learn how to search
sources. Your undergrad. textbook is not enough.
It is not my fault that except for Sean Olive the DBT component
comparisons stopped appearing in printed publications since 1989.
Complain to the usenet objectivists, not to me
Ludovic Mirabel

 

[Guest]

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

George Minus Middius tries a pitiful diversion :
>
> paul packer said:
>
>
>>I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling.
>
>
> Lionella has finally admitted that her fellow travelers in anti-E.H.E.E.
> slander are 'borgs. That was quite a breakthrough.

Nothing like that George, I just obliged you to eat your own
excrements... ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:17:48 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>George Minus Middius tries a pitiful diversion :
>>
>> paul packer said:
>>
>>
>>>I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling.
>>
>>
>> Lionella has finally admitted that her fellow travelers in anti-E.H.E.E.
>> slander are 'borgs. That was quite a breakthrough.
>
>Nothing like that George, I just obliged you to eat your own
>excrements... ;-)

Sounds tasty.

 

[Guest]

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

paul packer a écrit :
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:57:52 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Does it make you crie ?
>
>
> I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling.

Absolutely true this is even the only thing that provide him
some "emotions".
George is the RAO's spelling-borg.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:27:45 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>paul packer a écrit :
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:57:52 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Does it make you crie ?
>>
>>
>> I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling.
>
>Absolutely true this is even the only thing that provide him
>some "emotions".
>George is the RAO's spelling-borg.

Well, it's useful work. And much needed.

 

[Guest]

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

On 31 Aug 2005 07:12:15 -0700, George Middius
<George_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

>
>
>Robert Morein said to the Bug Eater:
>
>>> > Oh dear. The Krooborg is rampaging and my raincoat is at the cleaner.
>
>>> Probably needed to get the stains out after your trip to the elementary
>>> school, or was it the NAMBLA meeting?
>
>>Mikey, you have the lowest IQ of anyone I've met on this group.
>>Every village has an idiot, and you are the idiot of our village.
>
>Robert, instead of pounding poor Mikey with the low-IQ hammer again, how about
>we praise him for posting a message that was almost free of language errors? I
>only count 2 -- the missing subject in the first clause and the improper joining
>of two independent clauses with a comma. That's much better than duh-Mikey's
>average.

I wonder why your compliments never feel very complimentary, George.

 

[Guest]

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

paul packer said:

>>Robert, instead of pounding poor Mikey with the low-IQ hammer again, how about
>>we praise him for posting a message that was almost free of language errors? I
>>only count 2 -- the missing subject in the first clause and the improper
>>joining of two independent clauses with a comma. That's much better than duh-
>>Mikey's average.

>I wonder why your compliments never feel very complimentary, George.
>

I encourage Mickey to use a spell-checker and a grammar-checker to compensate
for his limited language skill. Unfortunately, he usually forgets to do that
because of his special problems.