Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

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

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125515649.113439.122200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> 81 % of 90

His first reference that I can find says:

" P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
obstacle race.
So much for "anyone,ever" "

Now this may not be the OP but there is no mention of 90 ... so If you
care to point out an ealier post with clarification... do it.


>
>
> > Anyway 73 out of 90 IS NOT ONE RUN
> >
>
> It was you that said it was one run

Damn Art... your quote I'm referring to is still present at the
top of this post.

You need to be careful or Morein will be declaring you inadequate.

ScottW

 

[Guest]

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

elmir2m@pacificcoast.net wrote:
> 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.

Enough said... I'm no longer interested after hearing the details of
this test from other parties.

No wonder you chose to provide an inaccessible reference. What a
joke.

ScottW

 

[Guest]

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

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> 82/90 is 91% BTW

I'm surprised only one participant did this well after hearing the
test was 24 AWG vs 16 AWG over 30 feet. How meaningless can one get?

ScottW

 

[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...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:t70Re.4685$FW1.3657@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "George Middius" <George_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:devrrk02vle@drn.newsguy.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>
You haven't met me, idiot.

Thanks for showing us you now defend NAMBLA as well as scum like Middius.

 

[Guest]

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

duh-Mikey rattles the bars on his crib.

>Since he (and you) like to make things up, I just did the same thing.

Sorry, Mikey, but we don't need hard evidence to know you eat bugs.

 

[Guest]

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

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125442034_8269@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:9Q1Re.4720$FW1.2319@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> <elmir2m@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.
>>
>> 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 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>> Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
>>> "test" work?
>>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>> P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
>>> for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
>>> cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
>>> Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
>>> 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
>>> obstacle race.
>>> So much for "anyone,ever"
>>>
>> You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that while it
>> might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to insure they
>> weren't just lucky guesses.
>>
>
> You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"
>
>
No one has.

 

[Guest]

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

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125441635_8253@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:x90Re.4687$FW1.3544@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125410609_379@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4eadnR32hYohoYneRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>>>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1125358027_153@spool6-east.superfeed.net
>>>>> "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:qn3iush2g4pa.1kga5a9z1knu5$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
>>>>>> cables.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.
>>>>
>>>> It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of lying, mindless
>>>> posts, Art stumbles into cogency.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Duh, what else is is a consumer magazine for and about,
>>> buying things related to the hobby. You seem to have
>>> a problem with that.
>>>
>>>
>> No problem with discussing things related to the hobby, it's the outright
>> fraud that they promote, that's the problem.
>>
>
> Well, go out and buy some of that fraudulently recommended
> equipment, and sue SP for damages for recommending it.
> Do you have the balls?
>
>
>
The'd just claim ignorance.

 

[Guest]

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

On 31 Aug 2005 15:13:20 -0700, "ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail.com> wrote:

> No wonder you chose to provide an inaccessible reference. What a
>joke.

You don't have libraries in San Diego?

 

[Guest]

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

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125506602_2025@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:_FkRe.4569$_84.2029@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>
> That you say that "no one has ever heard a difference.....81% is within
> probablitity",
> that probability for it being chance is very small indeed. You are
> claiming only
> 5% of the ground. Your knees must be wobbling.
>
> My understanding is that there were 15 trials for that person, in each of
> six runs, and that he had an 81% or 83% correct score (73 or 75 out of
> 90).
> I don't know the confidence level of that result, but I would think it is
> in the
> 85 to 95% range, which indicates it is MUCH more likely that he heard
> a difference than that the result was by chance
>
> But, I know that you won't except that.

u r kerect, i wont except that.

Even if the confidence level were
> 80%, it is four times more likely that the result indicates the ability to
> discern a diference, than the result coming up by chance.
>
>
>
Note, wire is wire. If you want to challenge the idea, take up the $5000.00
challenge being discussed on RAHE. So far the magic wire people have let it
sit for years, obviously their confidence level is somewhat lower than 95%.

 

[Guest]

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

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125505407_1981@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:ZzkRe.4671$9i4.2280@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125442034_8269@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9Q1Re.4720$FW1.2319@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> <elmir2m@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.
>>>>
>>>> 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 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
>>>>> "test" work?
>>>>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>>>> P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
>>>>> for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
>>>>> cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
>>>>> Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
>>>>> 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
>>>>> obstacle race.
>>>>> So much for "anyone,ever"
>>>>>
>>>> You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that while
>>>> it might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to insure they
>>>> weren't just lucky guesses.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"
>>>
>>>
>> No one has.
>>
>
> We just showed you, SOMEONE HAD. 90 trials, 81%
>
>
What you showed was that people can sometimes guess well.

 

[Guest]

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

<elmir2m@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
news:1125469644.662121.163990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Mr Le Gal (Google message 86, Aug 30) quotes Greenhill's final comments
> on his cable test as a rejoinder to my text in my reply to Mr. NYOB:
> "P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
> for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
> cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
>> Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had 81%
>> positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
>> obstacle race.
> So much for "anyone,ever" (Mr.NYOB said that no one ever heard
> difference between cables under ABX)
> For Greenhill's comments refer to mr. Le Gal's message.
>
>
> So what else is knew Mr Le Gal? Greenhill, a good 'objectivist"
> that he was provided a nice, objectivist comment to suit the nice,
> objectivist mag. "The Stereo Review". Indeed the *majority*of
> his panel had 50% or less corrects- under ABX/DBT it all sounded the
> same to them. Just as happened in all the other trials of amps,
> preamps, cdplayers and dacs up to and including a very, properly
> designed loudspeaker trial by Sean Olive (JAES,vol.51, No.9, p.806).
> You ignored however the interesting part
> Greenhill found one consistently accurate panellist scoring 81%, in 5
> out of 6 trials, of 15 tests ech, called him the "golden ear" and
> observed: "Obviously certain listeners whether through talent,
> training or experience can hear small differences between components.
> But the majority_ etc" He had two others who came very close to that
> high score but said nothing about it. Instead, like all the other
> proctors in similar trials, he created through a "mix them all
> together" statistical sleight of hand a fictional Mr Average, who did
> not hear much.
> The fact though was that SOME could overcome the handicap of the DBT
> protocol and did well. Better than I would have done because every time
> I tried DBTiing with an ABX model I found that after four trials I no
> longer knew if it was Rimski Korsakoff or his cockerel that composed
> the snippet. But even if only one panelist hears a difference with
> statistically significant consistency then the difference is out there,
> real to him. That it may not be audible to a thousand others is not of
> the slightest relevance to an individual making his high-end choices.
> A virtuoso doesn't care if anyone else hears the difference between
> his Strad and a music store violin. (I wonder if he'd pass an ABX or
> if one of our "scientists" could provide measured specs. for the two?)
> In his conclusions Greenhill did not comment about this
> contradiction between his results and his "golden ear" comments.
> One year ago in the RAHE he was invited by his editor Mr. Atkinson to
> elucidate but he chose discreet silence.
> I can already hear the parrot cry (I do not mean you Mr. Le Gal):
> "I do not like this result. I want a repeat, and then a repeat again
> and again till Mr. Golden Ear gives in and signs up to my revealed
> faith."
> Funnily enough the same people
> are perfectly happy with Greenhill's very scrupulous statistical
> protocol- as long as it gives them the results they desire and wish
> for.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
Some people are not smart enough to know that the tests you cite are in line
with good guesses.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 02:14:03 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
<artsackman@comcast.net> 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.
>
>> 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.
>Just cause differences are there, doesn't mean that everyone
>has the capacity to recognize them.
>
>chances are one out of fifty that any one person has at least a 132 IQ.
>
>chances are pretty good that at least one person in a group of fifty has
>an IQ of 132.
>
>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.

Actually, if you weren't a braindead clown, Sad Sack, you'd realise
that with a panel of 15, odds are about *even* that it was random
chance.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:36:26 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

> 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.

Bored now.

Out

d

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:58:44 +0100, Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com>
wrote:

>
>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:36:26 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Bored now.

Ahhh, a fellow Buffy fan.

All is forgiven.

Well, not all...but...

 

[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.

>Bored now.

I suppose you know how this looks, right? You don't? Well, maybe I should tell
you. We removed several layers of bluster surrounding your fear and loathing of
expensive cables and we got to the nub: Supposedly you know people who paid a
lot of money for cables and later regretted it. If you could produce details
about these alleged individuals, you would undermine my suspicion that your
complaint is really a class-warfare argument. But instead of that, your
"evidence" conveniently disappears because you're "bored".

To recap: You've admitted you're not involved in the cable business in any way,
and you don't plan to be. You yourself have never paid a lot for cables, so you
don't have any personal involvement to defend or avenge. All you were left with
was the supposed "evidence" that some unnamed and unsummonable individuals got
taken and presumably were chagrined as a result. But you can't tell us a thing
about these individuals. So the only motivation left is the 'borg one: If it's
expensive, it's bad. Period.

 

[Guest]

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

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:77oRe.4777$9i4.1666@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1125517687_105@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> >>
> >> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> >> news:SPmRe.4731$9i4.4663@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:1125506602_2025@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> >>>>
> >>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:_FkRe.4569$_84.2029@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That you say that "no one has ever heard a difference.....81% is within
> >>>> probablitity",
> >>>> that probability for it being chance is very small indeed. You are
> >>>> claiming only
> >>>> 5% of the ground. Your knees must be wobbling.
> >>>>
> >>>> My understanding is that there were 15 trials for that person, in each
> >>>> of
> >>>> six runs, and that he had an 81% or 83% correct score (73 or 75 out of
> >>>> 90).
> >>>> I don't know the confidence level of that result, but I would think it
> >>>> is in the
> >>>> 85 to 95% range, which indicates it is MUCH more likely that he heard
> >>>> a difference than that the result was by chance
> >>>>
> >>>> But, I know that you won't except that.
> >>>
> >>> u r kerect, i wont except that.
> >>>
> >>> Even if the confidence level were
> >>>> 80%, it is four times more likely that the result indicates the ability
> >>>> to
> >>>> discern a diference, than the result coming up by chance.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Note, wire is wire. If you want to challenge the idea, take up the
> >>> $5000.00 challenge being discussed on RAHE. So far the magic wire
> >>> people have let it sit for years, obviously their confidence level is
> >>> somewhat lower than 95%.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The results of the six tests on the subject were
> >> reportedly 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 12/15, and 10/15.
> >> Scott W. accepted that as statistically significant.
> >> Do you?
> >>
> >>
> > Yes, but I'd want to know more about the wire being compared, since no one
> > is arguing that wire can't affect the sound, only that 2 different wires
> > of simialr construction can't.
> >
> > There are still people claiming that there is a problem with skin effect
> > in audio cables, do you think they have a case?
> >
>
> High end wire is not of similar construction to mass market wire.
>
>
Aside from possible differences in durability, if they are audibly
identical, who cares?

 

[Guest]

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

"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?

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:06:21 +0200, Sander deWaal <nospam@wanadoo.nl>
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?

Lucky and unlucky are heads and tails of the same coin.

That's why drug testing uses DBTs - they are *reliable*.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

dizzy wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:46:56 -0500, Dan <dan@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Well, I understand that "Middius" can smell a Vaseline/feces mixture
> from a mile off, which is pretty impressive.
>
>
But only on the days when Sackman isn't using perfume. ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

paul packer a écrit :
> 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.

I would appreciate that he shows, sometime, other talents...
;-)