Quote:
I don't know where you're getting your information from. The only thing that comes to mind is a dark legend in the audio community, known as "The Advanced Audiophile". Whatever he's into is wayyy over my head, but there was something about foils I recall. Not magic foils, though. So like I said, there are no such thing as "magic" foils. It's clear that you made that up.

Ahh, so not prancing audiophile, or mincing audiophile (which was my next guess). Thanks for the clarification.

That guy is a dark legend eh?, bet you'd like to meet him? Sorry that I got the magic bit wrong, it was probably something I mistakenly added in. I will admit that it is over my head too, so much so that I sometimes get a headache.

I tried to look that site up, but it seems down at the moment. I do recall in there the use of an aspirin, but then I had a dilemna, use the only aspirin I have to cure my headache or to get better sound??

Darn it!! Why cannot it do both?? life is so unfair at times.

Quote:
You know. Same place you pull the idea of "magic foils" from, and the idea that if an audio tweak isn't used and approved by NASA, it's snake oil. Your banana hole.

Banana hole? you mean you been watching in the window whilst I've been pleasuring myself?? (bananas are a bit too, hmm not rigid. Moved on to carrots)

Quote:
But I really don't know where you learned that there's no such thing as conspiracies in the health or energy industry, and you can casually dismiss everything you don't know about in both industries because, well, you obviously don't know anything about it. Welcome to the world of pseudoscientific belief systems. j_j, Ethan, Krabapple, Axon, Arny and a few others are waiting for you in the next room to hand you some pamphlets and kool aid.

Yummm, kool aid. isn't that some fancy schamncy drink? makes you reaaal relaxed?

Can you start a new thread on these conspiracies? I love the whole topic, and no not from a 'randi' viewpoint, anyways, it's a fun area.

Quote:
Which reminds me, I've been meaning to ask you... what's with you calling everyone "birds"? Is this some weird Ringo Starr thing you have going? Far as I know, "birds" has always been British slang for females, in this context. Do you know a lot of female quantum physicists?

No I don't know any, can you set me up with some? (sorry ethan) I'd much prefer that than meeting Ethan which you've lined up. I will admit I don't get the Ringo Starr reference, if it won't spoil the joke can you explain?

Quote:
That's because he's British. They're known to be polite. (Not to be confused with Aussies, who I assure you, are all quite mad). I hope you are not dismissing swearing and crude putdowns. When done right, it's an art form. And yes, you are correct. "Stereoeditor" wouldn't last a minute here. This place would eat him alive, I fear.

I've met a few aussies, afraid I gotta agree with you, mad as cut snakes they are.

An art form eh? Can't say that I've noticed any artists on this forum, can you point me to some?

I saw you helped May out in another thread with 'internet/forum' stuff, can you tell me how to expand this little window I'm typing in? Is it possible?

Also, how do you get multiple quotes on this forum, maybe just cut and paste and add the quotes etc??

Anyways Michigan, serious question now. Hope we can discuss it without tirades from either of us, it seems to me that the biggest sticking point between the two sides is the utility of blind testing.

Is there any form of blind testing that you would find acceptable?? Let's say you had absolute and complete control over every aspect of it, are you able to come up with a methodology that would work for you?

(I don't need to hear what it is right now, it's a theoretical thing)

Or is it that the mere fact of it being blinded that is the sticking point?

Eg, (I think) sas has a question about 'exhaustion' (don't recall his exact words), so presumably he could design a test that avoids that particular bugbear. another might be quick switching or short snippets, again easy enough to design out or around.

Is it the methodolgy used in the past that leads to results you dispute, or blind testing itself?

Quote:

Quote:
I don't know where you're getting your information from. The only thing that comes to mind is a dark legend in the audio community, known as "The Advanced Audiophile". Whatever he's into is wayyy over my head, but there was something about foils I recall. Not magic foils, though. So like I said, there are no such thing as "magic" foils. It's clear that you made that up.

Ahh, so not prancing audiophile, or mincing audiophile (which was my next guess). Thanks for the clarification.

Isn't the magic foil tweak an emanation from the Belts (not the asteroid or Kuiper, but Peter/May)?

Ah, yes, here it is. It's not MAGIC foil. It's RAINBOW ELECTRET Foil.
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/ref/ref.html

That guy is a dark legend eh?, bet you'd like to meet him?

Huh! I've already met him. He's even more awesome in person. I saw him use rainwater once, to improve the sound of my system. It was starting to rain outside, and he stuck his hand out the window. I thought he was just checking to see if it was starting to rain. But no, he just shook the excess water off his hand, and then lightly stroked his finger along my audio gear. The edge, the nameplate, the LCD display window, etc. Needless to say, I was no longer the same after that....

Sorry that I got the magic bit wrong, it was probably something I mistakenly added in.

Yes, probably. A lot of members in the OAC (objectivist audio cult) make that very same "mistake", after reading on page 71 of their indoctrination manual that they have to add "magic" as a prefix to any audio product or idea that they don't understand, and that doesn't fall within the confines of conventional science.

I will admit that it is over my head too, so much so that I sometimes get a headache.

That's normal. It's from your mind trying to expand, but your ego continually pushing it back.

I tried to look that site up, but it seems down at the moment.

Well, the dark legend is also lazy, I admit.

I do recall in there the use of an aspirin, but then I had a dilemna, use the only aspirin I have to cure my headache or to get better sound?? Darn it!! Why cannot it do both?? life is so unfair at times.

Did you ever think that maybe if your poor ears were finally treated to better sound, you would get rid of the headache you are encumbering them with?

Can you start a new thread on these conspiracies? I love the whole topic, and no not from a 'randi' viewpoint, anyways, it's a fun area.

Again, I'm quite sure there's a forum out there that will meet your needs.

Quote:

Which reminds me, I've been meaning to ask you... what's with you calling everyone "birds"? Is this some weird Ringo Starr thing you have going? Far as I know, "birds" has always been British slang for females, in this context. Do you know a lot of female quantum physicists?

No I don't know any, can you set me up with some? (sorry ethan) I'd much prefer that than meeting Ethan which you've lined up. I will admit I don't get the Ringo Starr reference, if it won't spoil the joke can you explain?

Ringo Starr liked to call the ladies "birds". Liverpudlians would do that. But I've never heard of aussies, or anyone, calling men "birds", as slang. Hence I figured you were trying to impersonate Ringo Starr. So if you don't get the reference, then I still don't get why you are doing that.

An art form eh? Can't say that I've noticed any artists on this forum, can you point me to some?

Have you met this "j_j" fellow? Apparently, besides having authored 560 peer-reviewed papers on audio science, and winning the Le Mans race three years in a row, not to mention starring opposite Tallulah Bankhead and desiging the original plans for the Falling Water residence, he's currently in Prague, to personally attend the opening of his 55th art exhibition. Some of which will be featured in next month's copy of "Art Geniuses Quarterly". But don't ask him to give you his full name. He gets REAL testy about that. Oh, I believe he also claims to have found a cure for cancer. But then lost it on the way to submitting the paper, on the 5:15 bus. When he got back home to fetch his original research papers, he found they were eaten by his dog. I'm just mentioning this because if you ever happen to find a scientific paper on cancer authored by something called "j_j", please notify the "j_j" on this board. The world will be awaiting that.

I saw you helped May out in another thread with 'internet/forum' stuff, can you tell me how to expand this little window I'm typing in? Is it possible?

Sure thing, chief. Try pressing Ctrl-X (both keys at the same time), to expand the editing window. If that doesn't do it, then hit Ctrl-F4 combination. Sometimes its necessary to press the Esc key a few times, because the Stereophile editing window is a bit fussy about expanding itself. If that doesn't work, you should definitely get it to work by pressing the Ctrl and Alt keys (at the same time), then the Del key. Some computers are less compatible with our forum. So if this is the case with yours, have another option that remains, which will definitely work: Open the MyComputer icon on your desktop. Find the icon named "Local Disk c:". Right click on Local Disk c:, then select the "Format" option. Press OK after that and wait for the process to end. Then you should be ok to expand the editing window to full size. If you still can't resolve the issue after that, it's probably due to a dirty computer. Sometimes dust gets into the power supply, mucks up the Thurman in the voltage regulator, and this affects the resizing of the forum editing window. The solution is not that difficult though. Fill up your tub with warm water, and let your entire computer system soak in the water for about 15-22 minutes (don't worry, this procedure is safe, so long as you don't go well past 22 minutes). I guarantee the editing window will resize after that. If not, you'll have to edit in a separate editor and copy your text to the forum's editing window. But that's probably not going to work as well as a thorough computer cleaning.

Also, how do you get multiple quotes on this forum, maybe just cut and paste and add the quotes etc??

Hit the "Quote" key when you reply.

Is there any form of blind testing that you would find acceptable??

I assume you mean for the audio cult objectivists, since subjectivists have no use for "blind testing". In which case, yes. I would find it acceptable if they would rinse their eyes first in a bath of hydrogen peroxide (for 5-10min.), before testing is to begin. It's the only true "blind test" you can make, and the only honest way to go about this, if you are really the objectivist audio pseudoscientist you claim to be.

Let's say you had absolute and complete control over every aspect of it, are you able to come up with a methodology that would work for you?

I already have. Listening.

(I don't need to hear what it is right now, it's a theoretical thing)

Yes, well I'm still working on the "theory of listening". I'm not certain listening is going to work, with an audio system. I still have some mathematical calculations to do to work that out.

Or is it that the mere fact of it being blinded that is the sticking point?

That's more it, yeah.

Eg, (I think) sas has a question about 'exhaustion' (don't recall his exact words), so presumably he could design a test that avoids that particular bugbear. another might be quick switching or short snippets, again easy enough to design out or around.
Is it the methodolgy used in the past that leads to results you dispute, or blind testing itself?

Yes. Anyone who has ever "designed" a test to remove variables in subjective audio evaluation, in order to pretend their test has more meaning than a sighted one, has failed. And failed for the same reasons many fail in their well-meaning endeavours: stupid ignorance. Because for one, they don't know what all the variables are to begin with (it takes a far more advanced knowledge of the perception of sound, to begin to understand what all those variables are. And none of these pseudoscientific clowns have anything remotely near this kind of knowledge, or listening skill). So all they can do is make assumptions of accuracy. In fact, that is all that "objectivist" audio freaks do. Make assumptions about everything, and pretend to themselves they are following "rules" of logic and science, and are therefore are more accurate in their conclusions than anyone who isn't following their "rules" (aka "belief system"). We even saw this very clearly in the recent Kunchur debate. And if 50 million people hear things different than what their conclusions have said? Well, that's easy.... you have the old "placebo theory" to explain that.

One assumption these audio failures make, is in believing that the only variable being changed in a blind test, is the act of removing your ability to see the name on the gear. Proof has been shown, again and again, that it changes far more than just that. The test itself makes it more difficult for a listener to hear changes, regardless of the issues of personal bias. Which is exactly why where there once was significant differences, they get reduced to such a small quantity, they can no longer be discerned from random statistics of chance. Those differences didn't just up and walk away, when the blind test came in the room. Due to how the test changes how you listen, they were no longer perceived. And perception is EVERYTHING in audio. IT DOES NOT MATTER what the science is, behind an audio idea. Even if the audio-objectivist fools who argue all day long about DBT's agree with the more rational rest of the audiophile community, that speakers can be scientifically validated as predictably producing a different sound, some may not hear differences in loudspeakers. Does that mean loudspeakers are ALSO "snake oil"? No, it simply means some can't perceive it (I know, I've tested people blind on loudspeakers, who failed to find differences between different sets of speakers). If you're a serious audio enthusiast, then what should matter to you is your perception. Yours, and only yours. If you're a narrow-minded misguided ideologue control freak, then it's clear that theories matter more than real-world perception. After all, theories remain the same, while perception can change. For the intellectually insecure anal-retentive types, the world is safer that way. The rest of us will always enjoy better sound, end of story.

Quote:
One assumption these audio failures make, is in believing that the only variable being changed in a blind test, is the act of removing your ability to see the name on the gear. Proof has been shown, again and again, that it changes far more than just that. The test itself makes it more difficult for a listener to hear changes, regardless of the issues of personal bias.

Quite odd, then, that DBTs are used often in academic research into audio perception. This 'proof' shown 'again and again' seems not to have percolated into actual scientific circles. (Which are not like 'crop circles'...I know you much you like to link to things like that.) Someone needs to alert psychocoacousticians, experimental psychologists, and others in academia using DBTs to test audio perception -- not to mention the international boards of professional that create things like the ITU standards (see ITU-R BS.1116 in particular), or companies like Harman that conduct DBTs for developing audio gear -- that they are 'audio failures'.

Also there is no 'the test'. There are multiple DBT protocols, suitable for different situations and questions...but what they have in common is that the identity of the DUT (device under test) is unknown to the listener or the researcher, while being auditioned. That's key. And it hasn't been shown to be detrimental to sensitivity.

Really, it needs saying: you're just an ignorant, crap-spouting blowhard, MJ Frog.

Quote:
Huh! I've already met him. He's even more awesome in person.

You've met him!! OMFG awesome! How did he stroke your gear (nyuck nycuk), vertically or horizontally? I have heard that everything affects audio performance, so those type of details could be vewwy important you know.

Quote:
Yes, probably. A lot of members in the OAC (objectivist audio cult) make that very same "mistake", after reading on page 71 of their indoctrination manual that they have to add "magic" as a prefix to any audio product or idea that they don't understand, and that doesn't fall within the confines of conventional science.

Look, I told you this stuff gives me a headache, so I never even got to page 71! that means that I'm quite proud of myself that I got it right on me little lonesome!

Quote:
Well, the dark legend is also lazy, I admit.

The Dark Legend, cool moniker (works better with capitols). But, he was in Harry Potter wasn't he? 'He whose name should not be mentioned'? Or was that the dark lord, hmm can't remember.

But you don't mention your name either, ....no it can't be can it?

Quote:
Did you ever think that maybe if your poor ears were finally treated to better sound, you would get rid of the headache you are encumbering them with?

doggone it, you went and confused me again! (oooh, getting a headache)

I thought I got the headaches cause my brain was expanding, now it's from my shitty stereo. Can you not be consistent please?

Quote:
Have you met this "j_j" fellow?

I am starting to get the idea of what you do for a day job, you run an online dating agency? I mean you keep lining me up with all these people! Curious, does it pay well? Must do, cause you don't seem to get headaches, ergo you have a very good stereo.

I'm beginning to see how useful and easy your viewpoint is, it's all coming together! It's starting to make sense now, and I can tell, by applying your principles to others, facts about their lives that are unattainable by lesser methods. thanks for that!!

That is how you managed to glean jj's life in art (cause I did not see it on his page), man this tool of yours is powerful stuff!

Quote:
But don't ask him to give you his full name. He gets REAL testy about that.

Oh well, I thought I knew his name, maybe he was lying. But, I understand your annoyance when people don't answer questions on forums.

MJF, can you tell me what your system consists of? I now know mine is subpar, I want to admire yours

Quote:
Sure thing, chief. Try pressing Ctrl-X (both keys at the same time), to expand the editing window. If that doesn't do it, then hit Ctrl-F4 combination. Sometimes its necessary to press the Esc key a few times, because the Stereophile editing window is a bit fussy about expanding itself. If that doesn't work, you should definitely get it to work by pressing the Ctrl and Alt keys (at the same time), then the Del key.

C'mon michigan (can I call you mitch? or is that being presumptuous in this early stage of our friendship), I tried them (I did actually), and no that didn't help. I hope you weren't pulling my leg, that would hurt me:( (EDIT, hmm didn't work try again)

(I've decided to just type square brackets quote backslash quote etc, makes it easier in the long run. Just tried the colon bracket to make a smiley face, hope it works.

anyway, doing it as you type I realised would help you if you ever wanted to make your own website, get to learn what to put where etc. That's when I worked out a few of your mysteries michigan!!

I think you have a website!! Whats more, I think there may be more to your relationship the the dark legend than you've been letting on!!

You have set up your own dating website haven't you! AND, you were personally tutored by the Dark Lord weren't you!!)(just tried italics typing on the run, will be cool if it works, we'll see)

Quote:
Open the MyComputer icon on your desktop. Find the icon named "Local Disk c:". Right click on Local Disk c:, then select the "Format" option. Press OK after that and wait for the process to end. Then you should be ok to expand the editing window to full size.

Now I did not try this, I'm afraid by now my suspicions (hopefully unfounded) have been aroused, plus I'm pretty bad with computers and that is a bit over my head (tho I'm getting to be a gun hand with this formatting thing whilst typing, will try another now

Quote:
Hit the "Quote" key when you reply.

c'mon Michigan, I already knew that, I have been quoting you remember? (or do you only remember 'birds'?) When you do that, it takes you straight to the reply page. What I'd like to know is how do I quote you, AND another and maybe yet another, all in the same reply window??

I assume you mean for the audio cult objectivists, since subjectivists have no use for "blind testing".

(trying yet another trick in my rapidly expanding arsenal by quoting you in bold this time)

Let's face it, May has started a thread very much along these lines, or at least discussion has been heading this way. the question is, what can be done to close the gap between the two camps?

If what is controversial has been heard under proper test conditions (undefined yet I want to know what you'd like those conditions to be), then that gap would be closed no?

Admittedly, for a budding artist like yourself that may not be a good thing, you would not have an reason to try your insult material (dunno if it's the material or the delivery, but keep practicing is my only advice) but it would start to close the gap.

Quote:
Yes. Anyone who has ever "designed" a test to remove variables in subjective audio evaluation, in order to pretend their test has more meaning than a sighted one, has failed.

Thanks for that, I think you are getting a bit serious from here (I hope) Even those that have found a difference have failed?? Seems a sweeping statement then. But, as you responded honestly I won't 'piss' on it, but as you weren't there for these tests, how do you know they actually failed? surely some were successful?

The trouble is, a response like that could lead some to conclude that the only reason you *know* they failed was that they come to conclusions you disagree with?

And did not JA say a few times that he was 'blind' to the use of the futuretech? Yet you accept that one implicitly don't you? Yet it was 'blinded'.

So, is it possible that you only accept what you want?, that you cherry pick results?

I DO get that you are open to new experiences (sometimes), are willing to try things that most wouldn't, yet that 'spirit of adventure' and quest for knowledge seems at odds with the above few observations.

Quote:
One assumption these audio failures make, is in believing that the only variable being changed in a blind test, is the act of removing your ability to see the name on the gear. Proof has been shown, again and again, that it changes far more than just that.

I recall you were willing to undertake a test, where without your knowledge of whether or not it was present, you would be able to tell if a bottle of blue water was in the room or not? (if I got some of the specifics wrong, ignore that. Those specifics are not the point) Then you do acknowledge that blind tests do not necessarily destroy results in every case?

Remember, YOU have total control over the test protocol, sounds like we are making progress!! So you do acknowledge that you can design a proper test, excellent, thanks.

all that remains is for one to take place.

Quote:
The test itself makes it more difficult for a listener to hear changes, regardless of the issues of personal bias. Which is exactly why where there once was significant differences, they get reduced to such a small quantity, they can no longer be discerned from random statistics of chance. Those differences didn't just up and walk away, when the blind test came in the room.

see above, you are able to tell when a blue bottle of water is present or not, or at least that was your claim. I don't know whether you claim it's presence is a significant one or not, but nonetheless it would surely be less of a difference than an amp?

Quote:
Due to how the test changes how you listen, they were no longer perceived.

you keep forgetting, YOU are in total control of this test. that means you can design out the 'stress' of the test (or whatever it is that skews results)

What IS it that skews the results? You need to pin that down so we can have a test with it absent. the *label* of test, is it as simple as that? Ok, call it something else.

I mean, when you make a change you ARE actually 'testing' that change are you not? (even if you call it something else, 'measuring' the result with your ears, it's still a measurement even if test instruments are not used)

So you DO do audio tests regularly I'd say, so we know it can be done.

Whether or not you would ever participate is another question, but that's ok as this is a theoretical, giving you the power to overcome the inadequacies of every blind test done to date (well, only those you disagree with of course, the others were by definition done correctly)

Maybe, if you ask nicely, your friend the Dark Lord would be willing to take the test? (sounds like the name for a rock band, "Your friend the dark lord"..wait, there was a band like that? "My friend's a fruit cake" or something??)

Quote:
So if this is the case with yours, have another option that remains, which will definitely work: Open the MyComputer icon on your desktop. Find the icon named "Local Disk c:". Right click on Local Disk c:, then select the "Format" option. Press OK after that and wait for the process to end.

I've been thinking...I am now glad I didn't try this. You were being horrible, I think that would mean I would format my computer (you know sectors and all that jazz).

C'mon mate, I didn't know frogs could bite, thought they'd gum you to death or something, or flick you with their long tongue, but bite?

Hmm, makes me now wonder what you wanted to happen when I pressed alt etc etc (which I did try ha ha, that'll teach me) luckily nothing happened.

I remember the story about the scorpion and the frog crossing the river, I'm now confused which is the frog and which is the scorpion.

You've met him!! OMFG awesome! How did he stroke your gear (nyuck nycuk), vertically or horizontally? I have heard that everything affects audio performance, so those type of details could be vewwy important you know.

When it comes to good sound, every detail is important.

MJF: But don't ask him to give you his full name. He gets REAL testy about that.

Oh well, I thought I knew his name, maybe he was lying.

Yes, I think the person who posts here under the name "j_j" is lying as well. Anyone who refuses to say what their real name is when you ask them 52 times, is definitely lying about something. It occurred to me that if you've stolen someone's identity on the net, the last thing you want to do is state their name in your public messages, because forums record IP addresses and the times of visit, and they can use that information against you in court.

But, I understand your annoyance when people don't answer questions on forums.

I don't mind so much that they don't answer questions. It's when I can clearly see they are avoiding certain questions for certain, or unknown reasons, that it raises red flags for me. You know, like you and the "bird" question you keep "ducking".

MJF, can you tell me what your system consists of? I now know mine is subpar, I want to admire yours

Well, it's a modest bit of kit consisting of a TWENTY F'IN FOOT HIGH MARSHALL STACK THAT COULD BLOW A JET PLANE OFF ITS TRAJECTORY JUST FROM THE AIR IT PUMPS OUT. Needless to say, I couldn't drive the Marshalls with any old off-the-shelf amp. To get the kind of wattage I needed, I had to have one custom made, because everything I tried just wimped out on me. The amp had to be built in my listening room, because otherwise, it would have been too large to fit through the door. I had to have the floor underneath reinforced with concrete pillars (located just where the amp was situated), because of the weight involved. It takes six people just to lift off the battery cover (no, it doesn't run on batteries. That's just as a backup for the VU meters). What makes this custom model especially special, is that it goes to "11". See, most amps go to "10" on the volume dial. This one goes to "11". Needless to say, I'm no more popular with my neighbours, than I am with the Hydrogen crowd. They think they're all that, with their "community meetings" about me, and their "city ordinances" and something my lawyer calls "reactionary by-laws". Over the years I've developed a philosophy about my neighbour's jealousy over my awesome sound system, which I have reduced to this simple phrase: "Screw 'em". Hey, life is short, you know?

anyway, doing it as you type I realised would help you if you ever wanted to make your own website, get to learn what to put where etc. That's when I worked out a few of your mysteries michigan!!
I think you have a website!! Whats more, I think there may be more to your relationship the the dark legend than you've been letting on!!

Ok, one and the same. But don't tell anyone kid, you'll blow my cover. I'm trying to pretend that I'm just an ignorant narrow-minded yutz with zero critical thinking skills, in order to fit in with my new friends in the Hydrogen Audio clique. They're where the fun's at.

c'mon Michigan, I already knew that, I have been quoting you remember? (or do you only remember 'birds'?)

Yes. I also remember asking you twice, and you never responded to say why you use that British slang term to refer to males.

When you do that, it takes you straight to the reply page. What I'd like to know is how do I quote you, AND another and maybe yet another, all in the same reply window??

I recently wrote a primer for Scott on just this, in the "But it does not end by merely closing a thread." thread.

Let's face it, May has started a thread very much along these lines, or at least discussion has been heading this way. the question is, what can be done to close the gap between the two camps?

Nothing. Okay fine, I'll forget everything I know about the objectivist tools, and say: "listening." Subjective listening to the products "objectivists" find controversial, and a hell of a lot of it. Not just the controversial products either, but not just loudspeakers either. Simple sighted a-b tests, long term and relatively short term. These are people that need to learn how to listen, and I mean in more ways than one, since they are as arrogant as the day is long. Simple truth is, the better your listening skills, the more stupid and ignorant these people sound, in their pseudoscientific rage. This is one reason why I don't even begin to take these lunatic fringe "krabapples and curmudgeon" trolls seriously. By even responding, I'm only humouring them, really (in my way). Once these ignorant clowns have done literally thousands of listening tests, as I have (and as I have described), and I -know- that to be true, then I might begin to take their ranting seriously. As it stands, these people simply don't have the experience to know what they're talking about, or to even realize that.

If what is controversial has been heard under proper test conditions (undefined yet I want to know what you'd like those conditions to be), then that gap would be closed no?

No. There is no such thing as "proper test conditions" in audio. For everyone has (and should have) their own judgement of what proper test conditions are. The only "proper test conditions" are the conditions that come closest to the way you will be using your system. Anything else is not applicable. Needless to say, any test done by other people, to determine whether an audio device is discernable or not, has absolutely no value to me.

Thanks for that, I think you are getting a bit serious from here (I hope) Even those that have found a difference have failed?? Seems a sweeping statement then. But, as you responded honestly I won't 'piss' on it, but as you weren't there for these tests, how do you know they actually failed? surely some were successful?

Yes, and yes. Find a difference or not, does not mean you are aware of all the variables that can occur, that can change the way we perceive things, from one moment to the next. I was talking about controlling variables, remember. If you think you have done this in a subjective listening test, then you have failed to do this.

The trouble is, a response like that could lead some to conclude that the only reason you *know* they failed was that they come to conclusions you disagree with?

Then that's their problem. People can and actually will conclude whatever they want, and convince themselves they're correct and "thinking rationally". This of course does not mean they're correct.

BTW, sometimes when I have performed SBT's on people, or simply asked them to tell me if they hear a difference between two DUT's that have not been identified, I might reject their entire answer and the test as worthless, regardless of whether they identified a difference, and whether their preference was for the affected trial. This is when I query them afterward, and find that they are simply not able to listen well enough to the trials, to produce an accurate, consistent response. Like I said earlier, listening for differences is a skill. Not everyone can do this, or do this adequately at all times.

And did not JA say a few times that he was 'blind' to the use of the futuretech? Yet you accept that one implicitly don't you? Yet it was 'blinded'. So, is it possible that you only accept what you want?, that you cherry pick results?

I don't know where you're getting this. I don't care what JA heard. I believe what he heard, but that doesn't mean it means anything to me beyond that. What matters to me is that *I* heard the Furutech, and so did others I know. Both in person, and on digital samples, that were randomly renamed by a partner. Note that JA's experience was not a "blind test", acceptable to any of the lunatic fringe objectivists. In fact, NO test of a controversial product like the Furutech, has ever been acceptable to these anti-audiophiles. And never will be.

I DO get that you are open to new experiences (sometimes), are willing to try things that most wouldn't, yet that 'spirit of adventure' and quest for knowledge seems at odds with the above few observations.

You don't get me at all. That Furutech LP demagnetizer that all this hoopla was over? That to me is say, cables to you. (And cables to me, are loudspeakers to you). I'm the "advanced audiophile", not the "slightly ahead of the orthodoxyphile". So anything from Furutech is hardly what I would consider a "quest for knowledge". It's more like "feh!". It may make for a "rousing debate", but the product itself is actually boring to me. I've already experimented years ago with related concepts, on CD's.

I recall you were willing to undertake a test, where without your knowledge of whether or not it was present, you would be able to tell if a bottle of blue water was in the room or not? (if I got some of the specifics wrong, ignore that. Those specifics are not the point) Then you do acknowledge that blind tests do not necessarily destroy results in every case?

Yes. If by destroy, you mean "destroy completely, until it's unrecognizable to itself". But it's not that there's no "destroying" going on. They make results less accurate, not more accurate, by making it harder for people to discern differences, when this is already hard for most people to do under test conditions. Blind tests are least like casual non-test conditions, and require a different type of skill than even sighted tests do. Which even most blind test advocates don't have (and don't realize they need), because they don't take blind tests often enough. And btw, the test in question was a simple SBT. Hardly good enough for the DBT advocates, such as those that have recently invaded this place. Any merit given to blind tests would have to depend on a number of factors, most importantly, who's engaging in it.

Perhaps there is not one member of this audio forum, who could hear the difference that bottle made in a sighted test, as I did in my blind test. For me, it doesn't matter how many trials I did, because I could reliably (if not always) identify the difference the bottle's presence had, on my sound. Anyone else without my experience would likely be guessing. This is why ultimately, I can't trust any blind test performed by anyone else to be valid for me. And the irony of that is, when it comes to me, I don't have the insecurities shared by "objectivist" audio skeptics to have any need for blind tests.

Remember, YOU have total control over the test protocol, sounds like we are making progress!! So you do acknowledge that you can design a proper test, excellent, thanks.

all that remains is for one to take place.

Yes, well, if you followed all of that bullshit that Ethan the Whiner put me through, you'd realize that I went to a lot of trouble to design a fair and proper test for the both of us, that was cheat-proof, and a lot of unncessary and one-sided "negotiations" to get that damn troll to honor his agreement. Only to find out after weeks of this, Ethan was dishonestly jerking me around just to try to find out my address, and had no intention of ever showing up. So no thanks, I'm not going to put myself through that again, on your goading.

see above, you are able to tell when a blue bottle of water is present or not, or at least that was your claim. I don't know whether you claim it's presence is a significant one or not, but nonetheless it would surely be less of a difference than an amp?

Yes, I'd say it is. But you keep forgetting... I'm the one that was doing that test. And even I can't say how well I'd do if I tried it again. Remember, it isn't just about hearing a difference between two conditions. It's being able to define the difference, remember the difference, and compare it to every trial that came before, in order to identify which is which. It's more about how good you are at playing Concentration, the card game, than it is about sound quality.

you keep forgetting, YOU are in total control of this test. that means you can design out the 'stress' of the test (or whatever it is that skews results)

You're the one who keeps forgetting, you CAN'T design the "stress" out of a blind test, or whatever it is that skews results. You would simply be kidding yourself to think you can.

What IS it that skews the results? You need to pin that down so we can have a test with it absent. the *label* of test, is it as simple as that? Ok, call it something else.

The mind appears to be the problem. If you can find a way to eliminate the conscious and unconscious mind from the listening process, then you could hope to have your unskewed, non-variabled, blind test. I wish you the best of luck.

I mean, when you make a change you ARE actually 'testing' that change are you not? (even if you call it something else, 'measuring' the result with your ears, it's still a measurement even if test instruments are not used)

So you DO do audio tests regularly I'd say, so we know it can be done.

As this comment (and your folllowing ones) follows my quote on blind testing, and you are now bringing up the "regular" tests I do, you appear to be confusing blind tests with sighted tests.

Whether or not you would ever participate is another question, but that's ok as this is a theoretical, giving you the power to overcome the inadequacies of every blind test done to date (well, only those you disagree with of course, the others were by definition done correctly)

You shouldn't assume that every blind test you agree with was done correctly. But then, I don't assume I know what "correctly" even means to you. To me, no blind test can be "done correctly".

Maybe, if you ask nicely, your friend the Dark Lord would be willing to take the test? (sounds like the name for a rock band, "Your friend the dark lord"..wait, there was a band like that? "My friend's a fruit cake" or something??)

Let me get this straight... you want me to ask Satan to do a blind test for you? All right, fine. Whatever! If you know Krueger's phone number, I'll see if he's game. Can't hurt, I guess.

I've been thinking...I am now glad I didn't try this. You were being horrible, I think that would mean I would format my computer (you know sectors and all that jazz).

Oh sorry, it appears I got mixed up. When you said you wanted help with your formatting, I thought you meant the hard drive.

C'mon mate, I didn't know frogs could bite, thought they'd gum you to death or something, or flick you with their long tongue, but bite?

I'm not your ordinary frog, ol' chap.