That is GREAT!

Fantastic!

For your "what to test" question, test whatever each other are willing to test!

"Magic juice," cables, whatever you want to try.

As to the "honesty" of the event. I would categorically trust either of you.

If that's not good enough, have Ethan's "second" place the changes for Michigan's trials, and Michigan's "second" place for Ethan. Also, you can each have your assistants observe the trial while the listener remains "blind."

Ethan, test anything.

I am knocked out at how this is actually going to occur!

We insist on some photojournalism taking place, though!

Man, I am more jealous about missing this than I was about the NYC music and pub crawl!

Hey, how about a webcast!?

Kudos to all involved, this is "eleven out of ten" great.

What city?

Wonderfully cool!

Both of you are passionate about both music and its reproduction. This can't help but be a great experience.

Even without any testing involved, I would really enjoy meeting either/both of you.

I don't know of a completely "safe" way to set up the tests. However my impression is that both of you are trustworthy - yet a lot is on the line, including objectively entitled smak-talk.

Quote:
For example, the sort of things that seem reasonable to me to test are changing wires, adding isolation pads under gear, and so forth. If I read Mr. Frog's email correctly he has some mighty strange things in mind to test. Such as detecting the presence of a small vial of magic juice in the room.

What are you trying to prove? What Frog can hear or what you cannot?

Quote:
We should also determine what the winner actually wins. A public apology from the loser, with a promise to STFU in the future?

Yeah, that's a start.

Quote:
The biggest obstacle I see is collusion between The Frog and his friend's at whose home we'd meet. If they agree ahead of time on a particular sequence of magic bottle present, no bottle, of course he'll "guess" correctly every time. And if I bring my friend along to tell his friend when to switch, that could give me the same advantage.

There are some simple ways around this. Both your friends flip a coin each time. If the coins show the same face (whichever it is) you insert the tweak, if they show different faces you don't. This method should provide a random sequence and be immune to most trivial/obvious methods of manipulation. The pair of them could do the flipping beforehand and write down the sequence to avoid unnecessary flippancy during the actual test.

If there is any risk for collusion between the test subject and a test moderator or observer it would be equally important to as far as possible remove the scope for visual or aural cues such as a certain hand gesture, wording, or coughing (as in the famous case of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire", although in that case the stakes were obviously not as high as here ).

Probably the most important aspect would be to repeat each test enough times to make the result statistically significant, since even pure guesswork should result in a 50% hitrate.

I think Michigan has the greater burden here.

In theory, Ethan could just do a Seargent Schultz and "hear nothing," thereby proving his hypothesis. Not that I think he would, just sayin', it's tough to be the one who has to 'prove' the affirmative, as Michigan is doing.

To add for additional coolness, it would be interesting to establish some things that Ethan CAN hear, like different volume settings, speakers out of phase with each other, altered balance settings, and then include them in some of the test runs to make sure Ethan is really trying.

Quote:

Quote:
Both your friends flip a coin each time. If the coins show the same face (whichever it is) you insert the tweak, if they show different faces you don't.

Excellent, thanks.

Quote:
Probably the most important aspect would be to repeat each test enough times to make the result statistically significant, since even pure guesswork should result in a 50% hitrate.

Fer sher. Guessing one time out of one, or even three out of three, proves nothing.

--Ethan

But something like 7 out of 9 tends to be fairly conclusive. It's not perfect, but chance begins to be eliminated.

Howdy,

Our illustrious Michigan J. Frog and I have been emailing to plan a possible get-together to assess various tweaks. With his approval I'm posting this publicly to establish some agreeable guidelines. To my way of thinking, a test of tweaks means we both take turns listening and try to identify when a third person puts the tweak in place, unseen to the person being tested.

Absolutely, that's what I had in mind.

For example, the sort of things that seem reasonable to me to test are changing wires, adding isolation pads under gear, and so forth. If I read Mr. Frog's email correctly he has some mighty strange things in mind to test. Such as detecting the presence of a small vial of magic juice in the room.

Here's the magic juice in question: One Drop

I did a single blind test on the presence of the bottle when I first got this thing, and before I'd even opened it. I got 7 out of 8 correct.

I'm posting this publicly so we can all discuss how such tests might be performed. The biggest obstacle I see is collusion between The Frog and his friend's at whose home we'd meet. If they agree ahead of time on a particular sequence of magic bottle present, no bottle, of course he'll "guess" correctly every time. And if I bring my friend along to tell his friend when to switch, that could give me the same advantage.

No, actually it could give you more of an advantage, if your friend told you in advance, the sequence he would ask my friend to use. I've got a better idea that would give neither of us an advantage. Read on!

Not that I need to cheat on a test like this.

For me, it's not even a question of "need". I see it as a learning excercise either way, and so there would be no point in cheating. If I had to cheat, it means I didn't believe in what I was saying in the first place. Nevertheless, I know all about the hysteria that occurs on audio forums, whenever a such a test between forumers occurs, so I already gave a bit of thought to how to set things up, so no one could be accused of cheating after the fact.

My first idea, was to actually have the sequence planned in advance. It would be written on a piece of paper. The paper would be placed in an sealed envelope. The envelope would be signed twice across the flap by you and me, with our signatures (and we would inspect the envelope after the test, before opening it up. The two signatures would be impossible to reproduce, and I could take a photo of the envelope before the test begins and then after, in case anyone might say otherwise). Finally, for good measure, the envelope would be taped to the wall of the listening room. This means both of us could see it at all times (we'd always be in the room together, as we are taking the test at the same time).

My friend would work out the sequence just before the test, and I could ask him to email it to you then. This way, you have a copy of the original numbers, and the time it was sent. The next step, would both ensure I could not know the sequence of numbers in advance, and that a 4th party would not be needed here. I dont know how many trials we will be doing, but let's say for example its 12, then you would be asked to write down the numbers 1-12 in a random sequence, determined by you, which I would not be able to look at. Then, whatever sequence was pre-determined by the tester (and emailed to you for later confirmation), would be changed on the spot, in the order that you decided. You would keep your revision of the original sequence with you, for later confirmation that it was followed as you determined. So not only would neither of us know the condition for each trial, but we wouldn't know the exact sequence either.

During the test, the tester comes into the room, and either leaves the device in the room or removes it. (I'm picturing the device placed on top of the stereo). We wouldn't know whether it was there or not, because it would be hidden behind an opened CD case, for example. You and me would be together at all times during the test, and neither of us would be in the room when the switch was being made. If you wish, I could ask the tester to avoid looking at us or speaking to us (except to say when we could go in to the room), and not be present in the room during the tests. This way no one could say a cue was being given, from hand gestures, coughing, etc.

We'd each have a piece of paper with the number of trials listed, and we would write down our guess beside each number, after each test. We would leave the papers in a record sleeve, leaving them in the room when we leave the room for the tester to make the switch. At the end, we compare the results we got with the original order the tester drew up, changing that order by the numbers that you drew up, to get the real and final result.

Also, Michigan, please start a list here of all the things you can think of that you believe you can identify blind, that I will likely consider preposterous and thus worthy of this test.

I don't know, because I don't usually do blind tests on tweaks, as you might already know, I don't find them particularly meaningful. But you and many here do, and that's what counts. That said, the last blind test I did was on the CCU safety pin. Got 6 out of 7 trials correct. Hence I suggested that as a possibility. If you tell me how many different devices you want to test, I'll come up with a list. Keep in mind, we're going to need to do many trials on a single item, in order to get on the good side of statistical probability. And you can then multiply that by 2 (A/B), if we take the same test at the same time.

We should also determine what the winner actually wins. A public apology from the loser, with a promise to STFU in the future?

I think you're being ridiculous again. Or rather, your ego is, and I can see this obviously means something different to you than it does to me! My intention with this was to have a friendly test, in which we will be able to see how our listening experiences transfer to the blind protocol, and whether listening skill is an all-important factor, in discerning audio tweaks. I say it is, and I will say that no matter what the outcome of this test. But my intention was not to re-create the JREF experience. Otherwise, I would have contacted that living joke they call "James Randi", and told him I would like to be the next pigeon to apply for his scam sweepstakes.

But to entertain your idea, I will ask: apology for what exactly, and STFU about what, exactly? I mean, if you lose the test, and it's not like there's any doubt in my mind that you won't, does this mean you are willing to "apologize" for every ignorant thing you said about room acoustics (ie. small items can't make a difference), or the perception-based Belt tweaks (ie. they're placebos), and does it mean any time thereafter that someone talks about hearing a tweak you don't understand and can't imagine how it could work, you'll be in perfect agreement that it might? Even if appears the tweak involves nothing more than the "manufacturer" banging a tin pie plate at the other end of the telephone, for $60 bucks?

Because as much as I doubt a a single test session would change your MO completely around like that, I'll admit, it could be interesting.

Hey, how about a webcast!?

Oh geez, I should have anticipated this....

In theory, Ethan could just do a Seargent Schultz and "hear nothing," thereby proving his hypothesis.

First off, let me explain that nothing is yet confirmed with this test, we still have to work out details between him, me and my friend. Assuming it all goes to plan, my answer to your concern is "no". If that were true, then you've misunderstood the principle behind this test. It isn't whether or not the tweaks work, its about whether or not either of us can actually hear a change. There may not be a difference to anyone else here, but there is a distinction to be had, for me! The idea is to test our listening skill, relative to each other, since that's what this thing was about. We would both have to get correct guesses, so if Ethan wants to play Seargent Schultz and simply "hear nothing" every time, then I would win the test, if I guess whether the tweak is in effect or not. On the other hand! If the tweak really does nothing, and Ethan becomes Schultzie, and I cite hearing differences and they don't match with the (pre-determined) test results, then I don't win the test.

If anything, Ethan is at a disadvantage, because I dont think his listening skills are anything near what he says they are. But maybe he'll be able to say that about me, I dont know yet. I will say that I admire and respect Ethan more so just for being so agreeable to do this! That could only mean he's very confident in his abilities, and I admire his confidence. Of course, if he isn't able to make out when the device is in the room and when it isn't as well as I am, then you'll probably say its because "he was already hearing whatever changes I was hearing". And of course, I won't accept that interpretation of these tests!

To avoid future criticism, at Ethan's request, he will be given the chance to listen to or test anything he wants, for as long as he wants, before we set about doing our main mutual blind test.

To add for additional coolness, it would be interesting to establish some things that Ethan CAN hear, like different volume settings, speakers out of phase with each other, altered balance settings, and then include them in some of the test runs to make sure Ethan is really trying.

Hypothetically speaking.... how would that ensure he's "really trying" to hear the perception-based tweaks, when the real test gets underway? (Tweaking something and then testing people without telling them that you're testing them usually doesn't work). What I thought might be an interesting possibility after the main test, is for Ethan to do small informal single blind A/B tests on me on some conventional stuff that he might not think made a difference, like power cables or interconnects. But the main test and all would take so long, I don't know if there would be time for that.

Jan / Buddha / To whom it may concern:

Just to make things perfectly clear, again, there's no "Michigan's or Ethan's trials". We're both doing the same trial each time, with the same equipment, so on equal footing. The only thing different is our ears, and perceptions. As to whether we're testing my listening or Ethan's, in the main trial, I'd say we're testing both. But anyone can have their own interpretation of that.

Quote:
Here's the magic juice in question: One Drop

It almost sound unfair, letting an amphibian test a liquid.

As I trust both of you, I don't need a format or a "test". I just like the idea of the two of you getting together and listening to audio equipment and checking out ways to make the sound/experience better.

The reports of what you learned and experienced is going to be cool.

Quote:
Probably the most important aspect would be to repeat each test enough times to make the result statistically significant, since even pure guesswork should result in a 50% hitrate.

Quote:
But something like 7 out of 9 tends to be fairly conclusive. It's not perfect, but chance begins to be eliminated.

Does anyone know for certain what kind of percentages are required to be considered "statistically significant" by the scientific community? I recall seeing some results of double-blind testing that I thought were quite convincing, but were deemed not statistically significant by whatever rules of statistical analysis were applied to the situation. It would be nice to know ahead of time that, as a hypothetical example, 4 out of 5 isn't significant, it takes 9 out of 10. Any statisticians out there?

Awesome. But let's do this showdown properly. There should be an undercard fight. I propose a hot dog eating contest between me and Stephen M.

Quote:
Awesome. But let's do this showdown properly. There should be an undercard fight. I propose a hot dog eating contest between me and Stephen M.

Do you each start at different ends of the hot dog?

I heard Stephen's been saving it up for Nathan's event on July 4. He's trying to break "two."

Quote:

Quote:
Awesome. But let's do this showdown properly. There should be an undercard fight. I propose a hot dog eating contest between me and Stephen M.

Do each start at different ends of the hot dog?

Only if it's Halloween and we're dressed as Lady & the Tramp. Gross, man. Can't believe you went there, Buddha.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Awesome. But let's do this showdown properly. There should be an undercard fight. I propose a hot dog eating contest between me and Stephen M.

Do each start at different ends of the hot dog?

Only if it's Halloween and we're dressed as Lady & the Tramp. Gross, man. Can't believe you went there, Buddha.

I was exactly thinking of the Lady and the Tramp scene!

I'll leave it to you guys to sort out which is which!

I really wish I was on your coast, this would be a great event to celebrate.

Quote:
Awesome. But let's do this showdown properly. There should be an undercard fight. I propose a hot dog eating contest between me and Stephen M.

Mmm... Win-win situation.

I think you should first start by demonstrating your ability to identify changes
in the first place. You needn't use audio stuff, you could attempt to identify Coke
vs Pepsi, Maker's Mark vs Jack Daniels, Budweiser vs Spaten and so on.

If you find you are unable to identify known differences in beverages, you can nix
the audio test and leave more time for consuming adult beverages, which just so happen
to be readily available.

Oh, grab a bag of ice too.

Father Ted: "Drink!!"

Hey, guys!

Still thinking of you and hoping you get to hook up and establish some objectivist/subjectivist detente.

I guess if Ethan can't make it, he could always send a microphone and oscilloscope in his stead!

Hahahahahahaha....me so funny.

Seriously, though, keep us posted, I know I'm rooting for both of ya.

Buddha wrote:
Quote:
Still thinking of you and hoping you get to hook up and establish some objectivist/subjectivist detente.

Ethan wrote:

I agree, and it's not out of the question. Problems I see are:

It's not out of the question?? I thought our test was already a done deal? At what point between "Been super busy lately. I'll chime in again soon." and now did it get "not out of the question"?

* Either is too far to ask my friend to travel for this. I'm willing to swing by the frog's place first on my way to Ottawa, but I don't see my friend attending.

Nor do I, and while I didn't voice an objection to the idea, that wasn't part of the initial proposition. I prefer to keep things simple, but believe me, I have as much interest in making sure there's no chance of impropriety as you do. Which is why I find it odd that neither you nor anyone else has responded to my proposal in this thread, posted on the 20th of June. You know, the one that would make it unnecessary for there to be a 4th party involved?

* I'm much less interested in testing if the frog can detect the presence of magic potions in bottles than testing something audible like very low-level artifacts.

(Once again from the top)... this is not about testing me. This is a test for both of us, as we will both be taking the very same test at the very same time. So way I see it, I'm testing you as much as you're testing me. And the One Drop isn't a "magic potion". Not anymore than a cigarette lighter is a "magic fire box that makes fire like magic!!". I don't believe in magic, and nor do I believe that anything I don't understand the workings of, to operate by way of "magic". If that were true, believe me, we'd ALL be in trouble. Since I already mentioned 7 out of 8 trials correct on a blind test of One Drop, and 6 out of 7 on the CCU pin IIRC, I don't know why you would now state it works by "magic" and isn't audible. What, that isn't statistically significant enough to you to not call something "magic"? You would probably get no better on a blind test of different speakers. If this were the case, should we also assume speakers aren't audible and work by "magic"? Furthermore, I think these products would be "very low level artifacts" to you, so by definition, they're right up your alley!

Plus, I already said that once the main test of the Belt devices is over, if I feel up to it and there's enough time left before you have to move on, I'm not against having you conduct an SBT on me on something like power cables, or interconnects; which I presume you would fit into "low level artifacts".

The frog still has not told me his name, and no way am I driving all the way up to Canada without even knowing who the hell I'm visiting.

Again with the name obsession paranoia! How many times do I have to tell you, you already know my name? Look to your left, just above the frog, there it is, black and white, can't miss it. If you still have problems with that, talk to my mother. Or a psychiatrist. And if what you told me is correct, you said you were driving "all the way up to Canada" to visit your friend in Ottawa. I was supposed to be a little detour en route more or less, since Rigaud is not that far from Ottawa, remember? So if you have no idea who the hell your friend is, again, I can't help you with that. Either way, I suggest you get off the name-obsession thing, because its neither here nor there.

Now let's try to stay grounded and be realistic here! I think we can all agree that there has to be some basic degree of trust for this to work, as for anyone, coming together on anything. How do I know, for example, that you'll not come in wearing a flower on your lapel, that will shoot out a poision gas in my face, anytime anyone says the word "whoops!"? I don't. I simply have a basic degree of trust that you'll not do that. I have a basic trust that you're a reasonable person, more or less, otherwise I'd never invite you over, and I think I am too (more so, but lets not split hares...). So too should you have a basic degree of trust that if I go to all this trouble to set up a blind test with you, that I'll actually be there and show up for it!

Why don't you check the phone book for a "Frog, Michigan J." if you don't wish to believe what you are being told? Frog's name sounds no more implausible than "E. Winer" given your constant function on this and other threads.

Why don't the two of you call off this "test" and just agree to a knife fight instead? Ethan, you seem intent on making this a competition and finding some problem with the results, "The tests are invalid because he is named after a cartoon character", when all you can do is say you cannot hear anything. I thought this was supposed to be a friendly meeting not a duel to the death preceded by stipulations and sentiments of mistrust registered by one of the participants.

If you're down to the point of "testing" interconnects, what's the point?

Quote:
Why don't you check the phone book for a "Frog, Michigan J." if you don't wish to believe what you are being told? Frog's name sounds no more implausible than "E. Winer" given your constant function on this and other threads.
Why don't the two of you call off this "test" and just agree to a knife fight instead? Ethan, you seem intent on making this a competition and finding some problem with the results, "The tests are invalid because he is named after a cartoon character", when all you can do is say you cannot hear anything. I thought this was supposed to be a friendly meeting not a duel to the death preceded by stipulations and sentiments of mistrust registered by one of the participants.
If you're down to the point of "testing" interconnects, what's the point?

Well, that's helpful. Thanks.

Quote:
"The tests are invalid because he is named after a cartoon character"

I think cartoon frogs have a pretty decent reputation for possessing good character.

Ethan wrote:

blah...blah...blah... yourname...yourname... yourname... yourname... yourname... yourname... blah blah....

I can not believe that as I come back to this thread, this is your response! After all that I've written on the topic of our test, all you're prepared to do now is whine about my name and even go so far as to insult me over it?! You're the one who said you were dying to do this!! And forgive me for pointing out the bleeding obvious, but you knew my name when you said you were dying to do this!! And you never said anything to me in email or on the boards about how my name was to be a condition of this test, even though I have not changed it since you started attacking me for my name when I first came to this forum! So don't B.S. me Ethan, this isn't about names.

Furthermore, I told you a long time ago on this forum, around the first time you started on your paranoid whining rants about my name, that I'll gladly debate you on the subject. That was about the only time I ever saw you shut up, actually. And on a subject you felt so strongly about, apparently! So if you had insurmountable paranoia regarding the fact that you don't like my name, or any lingering early childhood fears you may still have as an adult about a cartoon character who happens to have a similar name, you should have discussed it back then when you were given the opportunity. This is not the thread for that. This is the thread to confirm the details that are on the table, concerning the tests you said you would be dying to participate in with me.

If you're not fooling anyone else with this newest and lamest excuse I've EVER seen for backing out of a challenge, then you can be doubly sure that you're not fooling me, Ethan. If that is your real name (Jan's right, it does sound "cartoony" to me as well). But of course, I don't care if that is your real name. I don't care if you don't go to church every Sunday, I don't care if you lie to your priest, I don't care if you've embezzled funds from work, I don't even care if you're a card-carrying Republican. Nor am I going to ask you if you've ever lied about anything in your life, because that would be the ultimate stupid question. If you were a liar, you'd simply lie to me about not having ever lied in your life. Look, I'm not even bothered by your bigotry and prejudice over people's names, that's how "not caring" I am.

And the reason none of the above matters is simple: I already outlined it in my proposition this discussion, which after 2 weeks you have YET to respond to! In that proposition, and in light of what had started to be discussed here, I designed the test so that no one could say you or I can cheat on it. In case that isn't clear enough, you don't need to trust me and I don't need to trust you. So now, the only reason my name could be relevant to you, is if you can't think of a better smokescreen to use to back out of a challenge you're now starting to have doubts about being so gung-ho to agreeing to.

Now go read and respond to my proposal like you should have done 2 weeks ago, stop making excuses, and let's do this thing. If you should have any objections to the test design proposal, make sure they are intelligent objections, before you post them. And save the B.S. paranoia about my name for your psychiatrist, please. Don't try to foist it on rational, intelligent human beings, 'cos that flag's not gonna fly, my friend.

I can where someone may be reluctant to travel however many miles across an international border for an audio "test" without some knowledge about who I'm going to see - beyond a cartoon name.

Not that I don't trust Michigan, I'm just thinking that it may give Ethan reasonable pause.

I'd think this would be easily worked with in order to get an actual address and name as Ethan and Michigan set this up - and it can/should remain confidential between the two parties.

I don't need to know Michigan's true identity to enjoy knowing him, but I wouldn't travel to Canada to meet him without knowing a little more than "Michigan J Frog."

Jan, would you have delivered/shipped a stereo across international lines for a COD order from "Rocket J Squirrel" back in your days of retail - with no further information?

Quote:
Jan, would you have delivered/shipped a stereo across international lines for a COD order from "Rocket J Squirrel" back in your days of retail - with no further information?

I don't see that as a particularly relevant issue. But, no, I would not have released goods without "further explanation". (There seems to have already been quite a bit of "explanation" between Frog and Winer so I am missing your point here, Buddha.) I would have at least expected some sort of an explanation and certainly would have received remuneration before I shipped anything. I would, however, ship goods to any name (Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, George W. Bush, etc.) after I had cashed their check and I knew I was not participating in an illegal act. If they hadn't supplied the correct shipping address because they were trying to deceive me, then I would have their cash and getting their product is their problem. Unless I thought their motives to be illegal or immoral there is a shared responsibility for factual reality. (Does Winer feel Frog is trying to draw him into some illegal or immoral act such as detecting a bottle of fluid within the home? Other than a "magic potion" what could Ethan expect to be in that bottle?)

However, none of that seems to be the case here. Ethan is not shipping anything to Frog and I sense nothing illegal - not that that will make any difference to Winer. Either party would be a fool to engage in anything shady when it could be reported to this forum. Without knowing what has transpired between Ethan and Frog in private correspondence this appears to be a get together not unlike Alex's trip to dup's place only without the equalizer and with a far better system in place. From what I gather Ethan has a friend in the general area (remember I live in Texas and all of Canada, as small as it is, is in the same general direction from me) so at worst he gets to see a friend. If Ethan would treat this as something other than a steel cage match, he might actually get to make a friend.

Ethan is not giving up anything in this trip that he hasn't already agreed to on this forum. So what's the problem? I would not have shipped gear to someone without some degree of certainty I had CMA but I would have demonstrated equipment to anyone no matter the name they provided and I can assure you I have demonstrated equipment to some fairly odd individuals. (How would you like to demonstrate a system to a jazz drummer [who owns a particular speaker because it "fits" alongside his fireplace; or someone whose body odor drives you from the room on a regular schedule] who keeps time to your demonstration by jingling the change in his pocket?) From where I sit (Texas) Frog has made an offer to Ethan to provide a fresh listening experience - with no competition involved and no strings attached. Ethan on the other hand has already insulted Frog with his comments regarding "magic" potions and now wants to welch on the deal by turning this into a one sided battle. A battle Frog had no intention of entering.

Is there anyone here who can't predict what the results would be with Frog and Ethan "testing" cables? And what are "very low level artifacts" anyway? Just what is being "tested" in Ethan's plan? This still all comes down to Ethan wanting the results to be "no difference" when it comes to anything other than "comb filtering".

It's too bad Ethan has to turn this into a contest and even worse that he doesn't want to have fun with it no matter the form it takes. As usual Frog had seemed to be content with whatever might have happend while Ethan must destroy the competition or find a way out of it if he can't avoid embarrassment.

C'mon, Ethan, just go listen to someone's hifi and have some fun for a change. You might learn something you don't know. Frog's identity for instance. Maybe he'll show you a utility bill to prove he is who he says he is.

I can where someone may be reluctant to travel however many miles across an international border for an audio "test" without some knowledge about who I'm going to see - beyond a cartoon name.

Oh Geez Louise, as cj would say. Did Ethan put you up to this?! If he didn't, PLEASE don't encourage his inane paranoia over people's names, if you have any interest whatsoever in seeing this test happen! He's B.S.ing you. This isn't about my name, it's about him having second thoughts about meeting the challenge. He's the person who started this thread, don't forget! Two weeks later, before he has even exchanged a single word with me on the subject (and no words in email since he started this thread), he's telling you "well, it's not out of the question....". In the next line he says "I'm willing to swing by the frog's place first on my way to Ottawa" and two lines later, he says "no way am I driving all the way up to Canada without even knowing who the hell I'm visiting." That sounds like someone who's either one visit short of a multiple personality disorder certification, or being fed advice from John McCain. So I'm not going to play the game and dignify his newly-minted name-obsession roadblock as being worthy of serious consideration, or that it's anything but the smokescreen it so obviously is.

I don't have any knowledge of "Ethan Winer", beyond a cartoony name and cartoon character, and I have to travel about as far out of my way as he would have to, to get to the test location. Plus I have to go to a hell of a lot more trouble that he doesn't have to go to, part of which includes getting a 3rd party to donate hours of his time, not to mention his residence, on the day of the test. Am I complaining about any of it? HELL NO. Do I care to know personal details of this "Ethan Winer"'s life or character? That's another hell no. I have as much knowledge of Ethan from the Stereophile forums and his web site, as I need to invite him over in the first place (which btw is equal to the amount of knowledge I want to have about Ethan Winer). Which is also the same amount of knowledge as he has of me, and as much knowledge as he needs to drop by on his way to Ottawa (apart from the address). Furthermore, you merely repeated Ethan's lame argument about travelling "however many miles across an international border", ignoring the fact that it was already addressed in the very post you're responding to. He's not travelling "however many miles across an international border" to see me, he's travelling to Canada to see his friend. I'm just a small detour on the way there, see?

Not that I don't trust Michigan, I'm just thinking that it may give Ethan reasonable pause.

NO. There's nothing "reasonable" about his objection, it's a cop-out, and nothing more. Again, you're ignoring all the evidence I gave against it, in the very post you're responding to. Which includes:

MJF wrote: "And forgive me for pointing out the bleeding obvious, but you knew my name when you said you were dying to do this!! "

If you start throwing out stupid excuses like "I'm sorry I've decided I can't go any further with this because your name reminds me too much of a cartoon character with a similar name, and see, I went and gathered for you 3 links of the cartoon character with the similar name to prove I'm not just being crazy again!", then you might as well just say "Look, I'm sh**ting in my pants here at the very thought of going through with this challenge, because I don't have an ounce of confidence that I will prove to be a better listener than my opponent, and whooops, there goes my self-built reputation as a superb critical listener!" Of course, that's assuming you ever intended to go through with it in the first place.

My point is, if all of a sudden my name is for whatever reason no longer good enough for Ethan to agree to do what he said he would do, then there's no end to it. I could show him my passport, my mother, 3 notary publics all holding sworn affidavits that testify to my identity, and my 2nd grade teacher present to confirm its really me, he'd just pass on to the next excuse for pretending there's an issue of trust that somehow would make the testing invalid. Just look at what he wrote to you! Citing new and sudden "problems" he now has in going ahead with this (none of which have anything to do with the actual test I proposed, mind you), he already changed his mind on 3 different issues that were previously established between us, before he even got to the whine about my name!

We knew from the beginning of this that we had to have a basic trust in each other in order to come together on this,
and we felt we did, as it was spoken about. If we didn't feel we could trust each other to a "reasonable" degree, we would not have started this! So he can can the bullshit about trust being an issue now because he suddenly realized my name is similar to someone else's. (n.b. And if he ever shows the courage to debate me on this last point, in a separate thread, I will hand his ass to him on a plate). Neither him nor you, who've made my name an issue in going forward with this challenge, have bothered to respond to (or read?!) my proposal 2 weeks ago in this thread. Which makes issues of having to put all our trust and faith in the other completely irrelevant. I'm not asking him to trust me, and I trust him even less now, after this latest smokescreen stunt to divert attention away from the fact that he wants to back out of the challenge. But the beauty of my proposal is none of that matters. The way I designed it, I couldn't fix the test if I wanted to, and I already have no reason to want to (and if its possible, even less of a need to cheat against an Ethan!).

FACT: You don't completely ignore someone's test proposal in a thread you started to discuss this very thing with him, then 3 weeks later after you're feeling queasy about standing up to the challenge, start complaining in said thread to other people (aka "grandstanding") about how his name resembles a cartoon character, and that you won't go any further until he proves he's not a cartoon frog! At least you don't if you were ever serious about participating in the test in the first place! I'm sorry, but it simply doesn't get more bleeding obvious than that. So realize that Ethan is choking, and you should administer a Heimlich or something; help him out! Else all these words and feelings on the issue will all be for naught.

I'd think this would be easily worked with in order to get an actual address and name as Ethan and Michigan set this up - and it can/should remain confidential between the two parties.

Well he already has a name, and did you think I would not give Ethan the "actual address" of where the test will take place?? Come on! This is going from ridiculous to nut factory fodder!

I don't need to know Michigan's true identity to enjoy knowing him, but I wouldn't travel to Canada to meet him without knowing a little more than "Michigan J Frog."

Why ever not?? If I wanted to travel to Vegas to see you at an audio exhibit, I don't need to know more than "Buddha" and your "identity" online. And that you'll be there, but I can't know that, so I have to have basic faith that you will. Did you ask for a personal background check of everyone you invited to see you at the NFS booth at T.H.E. show? I don't recall you doing that. You expected them to travel perhaps hundreds of miles to visit your demo room. Which is in fact perfectly reasonable. The reason its reasonable, Mr. Buddha, is because you're not asking them to get married to you, or even to do business with you (otherwise your org wouldn't be called "NotForSale"). You're simply asking them to listen to your stereo system, and maybe knock back a few with you. I don't think listening to your stereo or knocking back a few requires that they know more than "Buddha" to do that. In fact, they don't even need to know "Buddha", to have a meaningful interaction with you! **

** (Don't mind me, I'm just getting warmed up for the upcoming "identity debate"! Fun!)

Jan, would you have delivered/shipped a stereo across international lines for a COD order from "Rocket J Squirrel" back in your days of retail - with no further information?

Logical fallacy: red herring. You should know better! Trying to make a comparison between Jan risking his money, his liberty and his business by ordering goods across the border from an unknown source, one that can not be contacted if problems with Customs or Visa or the product arises, and Ethan shifting his long driving itinerary a bit to knock on my door, is about as relevant as saying you need to know Ethan's underwear size before you can sell him a pair of tie clips.

I'll tell you what bro. I'll debate you on this name issue, after I get finished debating Ethan on it! (I mean a proper debate, in its own thread. As opposed to harping on it to subvert this one). I would love to have a logical debate with you or Ethan on this personal belief you both have about "names, identity, character and trust" of forum members. Because it'll be the easiest and quickest debate I've ever won! And the funnest too, no doubt (if not the funniest!). That is, on the condition that "Ethan Winer" agrees to drop this most stupid of stupid lame excuses to back out of our challenge, and continues to advance this thread in a reasonable manner, and discuss the test in good faith. At which point, I'll agree to debate the issue of names with you immediately, in a separate thread. In fact, scratch that, I'll take both of you on at the same time, so it'll be 2 on 1, no waiting, you get home team advantage! I've even got a title for it already: "The Identity Debate: Michigan J. Frog v. Ethan / Buddha.". Not terribly inventive, but at least its clear!

Oh yeah, before I forget, sorry for the long rant!

(Does Winer feel Frog is trying to draw him into some illegal or immoral act such as detecting a bottle of fluid within the home? Other than a "magic potion" what could Ethan expect to be in that bottle?)

Hmmm.... truth serum? Well, it's the only thing I can think of offhand, that Ethan would be most afraid of.

From what I gather Ethan has a friend in the general area... so at worst he gets to see a friend.

Correct.

A battle Frog had no intention of entering.

Exactly. This was supposed to be a friendly, informal test, to see which of us (if any), could better support our claims to critical listening skills. Let me remind you, it started out as wishful thinking on my part, but Ethan's the one who pushed to make it possible, by saying he'd be coming to Canada this summer to visit a friend. I had no intention of a "steel cage match", as some regulars have been describing things, or an excercise in kindergarten level BSing, aka obvious lying deflections that insult my intelligence. Otherwise, I'd have contacted James Randi. I knew I had to have a certain degree of trust that Ethan was a reasonable fellow, because I was inviting him into the home of a friend, and if he was anything but, I'd be responsible for his behaviour. Now with all these manouevres of irrelevance, I'm not just starting to question his true intentions behind all this, but his sanity as well! I'm wondering what I should expect as an outcome, if ever he does show up. I mean for example, if he undergoes the tests with me, and fails at identifying differences, is he going to say later that the reason is because of my name? Like, I don't know, he's so obsessed with my name that all he could think about during the tests was a dancing frog, and it threw his focus off during the entire procedure? I'm sure you can see the importance of each party at least assuming that the other is a reasonable, sane person, and will proceed in good faith. I thought we already had that at the beginning of this.

Is there anyone here who can't predict what the results would be with Frog and Ethan "testing" cables? And what are "very low level artifacts" anyway?

You tell me and we'll both know. I was wondering that myself.

Just what is being "tested" in Ethan's plan?

I was wondering that too, because he keeps saying he's coming to "test me". That was not the plan.

This still all comes down to Ethan wanting the results to be "no difference" when it comes to anything other than "comb filtering".

Maybe so, but you understand, that if my test results show a significant difference on whatever we're testing, and his show "no difference", simply put, I win. And I prove Ethan wrong on several counts. Yes, including his omnipotent "comb filtering" theories.

C'mon, Ethan, just go listen to someone's hifi and have some fun for a change.

That's not bad advice, because that's the reason I agreed to it, and if it isn't a fun n' friendly affair, then I'm not interested in it either. I'm certainly not motivated to do it because I have a dying need to prove anything to anybody.

Maybe he'll show you a utility bill to prove he is who he says he is.

No, I will not be entertaining his silly paranoid prejudices. I have nothing to prove to Ethan, other than that I'm a better listener than he is. A deaf horse is likely to hear the differences in sound between the presence or absence, or even varying design of acoustic panels or loudspeakers, which is where Ethan has most of his experience in (I presume as much, since he seems to believe in not much else!). Hearing the differences in sound between one side of a leaf, and the other side of a leaf, well that's quite another matter. And quite another skill.

Quote:
A deaf horse is likely to hear the differences in sound between the presence or absence, or even varying design of acoustic panels or loudspeakers, . . .

Another critter! I love this place!

Seriously, I wish you were close by - I would enjoy visiting the Frog's pad (lily pad?) and experiencing the tweaks you have set up.

Quote:
A deaf horse is likely to hear the differences in sound between the presence or absence, or even varying design of acoustic panels or loudspeakers, which is where Ethan has most of his experience in (I presume as much, since he seems to believe in not much else!). Hearing the differences in sound between one side of a leaf, and the other side of a leaf, well that's quite another matter. And quite another skill.

I can see where you're going with this, you've turned the leaf into a very, very tiny but highly effective Hemholtz resonator just to screw with Winer. Good job!

So, which one is the Amazing Randy and which one is Fremer?

This sounds like it's dying on the vine.

Too bad, it would have been cool no matter what.

I hope Ethan and Anonymous can work it out.

And this means what? That you rely on an address book hosted by a cartoon mouse? That you trust a cartoon mouse but not someone with an odd name?

Does this mean you can't listen? Do you have an address? If so, then you can listen and two people with odd names can have a pleasant afternoon.

You know, Ethan, this is just a meeting between two forum members. You are the one making this into something it was never intended to be. You are the one who came up with the consequences of this "test". You stipulated the looser would shut up for ever more. What difference does it make if Frog is not Frog? Or if Frog is Frog? Maybe Frog is actually a frog with extraordinary powers. That would be worth seeing.

Just what is your point with his name? What difference does a name make as to whether you can hear anything? Would you travel to meet "Buddha" or "Elk"? I bet you would without a moment's hestiation. You've already said you would travel to "dup's" house. What is the difference between someone who calls themself "dup" and someone who calls himself "Frog" other than one cannot hear or think and the other can do both quite well?

Are "very low level artifacts" affected by someone's name? I can't tell since I don't know what you consider low level or artifacts or why "Frog" is an odd name but "dup" is not.

This whole thing stinks more and more every time I read one of your posts. Ever since you told us this would happen and what you expected the results would be you've done nothing but whine and moan and bitch. Whine #1; you accuse Frog of possessing "magic potions" which you will not describe. Whine #2; you want him to listen for your so called artifacts which you will not detail or name. Whine #3; you insist upon a second to ensure Frog's truthfulness. Whine #4; you were the one who announced this "test" and defined the ramifications of the results but now you are less than enthusiastic about its happening and the impending consequences of hearing - or not - some sort of undefined low level artifacts such as the type associated with changing cables! Whine #5, you cannot drive anywhere knowing there will be a Frog waiting at the end of your journey. And so on and so on and so on with ever more reasons why your loss will eventually be explained away by claiming comb filtering's effects. And, as I see this, there was never supposed to be a winner or a loser. Maybe this is one of the reasons you were never picked for the games on the playground.

Just what do you imagine will happen that has you backstepping all the way out the door? I wouldn't want you anywhere near my place if this is the attitude you are bringing with you. If you are so afraid Frog will take advantage of you, call this off now and stop your paranoid little game. Since you have turned this into a test of superiors, Frog, having broken your nerve, will win and you can shut up.

It seems Jan is reaching for smaller and smaller sources to ignite his outrage.

Jan, Ethan is going to be travelling a significant distance. Is it asking to much to actually know who he's visiting?

I know the people who visited with DUP knew his real name. And DUP had a track record of previous "existence" when the Stereophile crew went to visit.

When Ethan goes to Canada and tries to get directions if he gets lost, does he ask 411 for the number of Michigan J Frog?

If they meet in person, does Ethan address him as "Mr Frog, " or just "Michigan?"

I wonder if Ethan will have to be blinfolded the whole time - or do you think he'd be allowed to see Michigan.

Maybe this would be a good poll topic:

"Would you travel to Canada to visit a fellow board member, and all you'd be allowed to know in advance is his board name?"

I would be dubious, and would not head out until I knew who I was visiting. If Michigan is too private to even allow Ethan to know his name, that does strike me as odd, in this circumstance.

Buddha, for such a smart guy you sure can post some dumb stuff. Let's start with, "If they meet in person, does Ethan address him as 'Mr Frog', or just 'Michigan'?"

Is there a reason you have accepted Ethan's claim that Frog is not Frog? Do you have any proof that Frog is hiding under an assumed name? Maybe I'm too trusting here, but I take MJF at his word. If you were to meet someone who told you their name was "Moon Zappa", would you believe them?

Unless you have specific proof that Frog is not being truthful it seems at best unkind, if not downright insulting, of you to assume Frog is not who he claims to be simply by taking Ethan's word on the issue and not Frog's. How do you know that everyone in the territory - Canada is just a spot in the road afterall - doesn't know MJF? If Ethan gets lost (oh, the puns that could be made), he simply stops and asks for directions to Frog's place. "You go down past Harry Cheeks place and turn right at Bupkiss's new house."

Please, Buddha, if that is your real name, stick to facts rather than making things up and then placing blame with someone else. Ever since the "size" thread, your conjectures have been the basis for your arguments whether you have any factual proof or not. Since your conjectures remain unproven, I can only assume they are just that - conjectures meant to influence a sagging argument.

Quote:
I wonder if Ethan will have to be blinfolded the whole time - or do you think he'd be allowed to see Michigan.

Really? You wonder that, do you? How many "Ethan is blindfolded" jokes can you think of here?

Quote:
When Ethan goes to Canada and tries to get directions if he gets lost, does he ask 411 for the number of Michigan J Frog?

Maybe he could ask that nice mouse fellow he introduced us to in the previous post. Wha'ja think?

Quote:
It seems Jan is reaching for smaller and smaller sources to ignite his outrage.

Maybe you need to lay off watching "West Side Story" late at night or whatever it is that's got you in this mood. Give it a rest, Buddha.

Wow, you really are scraping, now.

In order to satisfy your Jones for argumentativeness you have to stoop to faux outrage that I or Ethan question the veracity of the name Michigan J Frog?

How freakin' desperate are you for controversy?

I like this gem:

From Jan: "Frog's name sounds no more implausible than "E. Winer"...

You really thinks so, eh, Jan?

I like this one, too:

"Do you have any proof that Frog is hiding under an assumed name? Maybe I'm too trusting here, but I take MJF at his word."

And this one:

"Unless you have specific proof that Frog is not being truthful it seems at best unkind, if not downright insulting, of you to assume Frog is not who he claims to be simply by taking Ethan's word on the issue and not Frog's."

Jan, you sound pretty nuts on this issue.

If you think his name really is Michigan J Frog, then that explains alot of other things you'll buy into as well.

You are an aumisingly and amazingly belligerent person, assuming I believe your claim that you are a person.

I guess you also believe that Elk is some sort of antlered denizen of the northern forest?

Buddha inquired:

Quote:
Jan, Ethan is going to be traveling a significant distance. Is it asking too much to actually know who he's visiting?

Translating the above post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The answer is "yes", it is asking too much.

Quote:
You are an aumisingly and amazingly belligerent person, assuming I believe your claim that you are a person.

Yes, Buddha, it's plain to see that I am the belligerent entity on this forum. However, that would make you a plain old ass. Get over yourself, Buddha, are you going to walk around with this grudge forever? Take a pill, talk to your shrink, if you must punch a hole in the wall or do whatever is necessary but stop with the BS. You don't make points of logic any longer you just take swipes to see what blood you will draw. You have become a cartoon character in that regard. Fortunately for you that will keep Ethan from your door.

We are all just names on a forum here. To insult someone simply because you find their name unusual is just more BS. Present your proof of Frog's identity or you have no reason to question what the man has said. It's that simple. Or maybe you can explain why it is dangerous for Ethan to set off to see Frog. What danger do you envision - I'm sure it can be added to Winer's list of "how this could go bad for me". Do you share Ethan's innate distrust of the Canadian people?

Quote:

Yes, Buddha, it's plain to see that I am the belligerent entity on this forum.

Glad you are at least a little self aware.

Quote:
We are all just names on a forum here. To insult someone simply because you find their name unusual is just more BS. Present your proof of Frog's identity or you have no reason to question what the man has said. It's that simple.

Oh, Jan, at this point, it is not a matter of whether or not you are an idiot, but what type.

I did not insult Michigan's name, please quote me where I did.

I did say that it seems that if someone is willing to travel outside the country for a listening session with "Michigan," that I did not find it unreasonable of Ethan to want to know his real name. Pull your head out for a minute and re-read the posts about the "name" issue.

You are getting belligerent over people not thinking "Michigan J Frog" is someone's real name?

So, you think he really is "Michigan J Frog," and that belief is worth you continuing to look for ways to be disagreeable?

You are so wrapped up in finding ways to take shots at Ethan, or anyone who doesn't agree with you, that you'll go so far as to start a fight over whether or not Michigan's real name is Michigan J Frog?

You are astoundingly bellicose, but I can't help but laugh at your desperation.

Quote:
Or maybe you can explain why it is dangerous for Ethan to set off to see Frog. What danger do you envision - I'm sure it can be added to Winer's list of "how this could go bad for me". Do you share Ethan's innate distrust of the Canadian people?

Oh, brother.

Nothing to do with Canadians. Please stop inventing more things - the transcriptionists were enough.

I would see Ethan's main concern being "invited" to Canada for a listening session with Michigan J Frog...and there being nobody home after Ethan travels all that way.

Your point about these names we use being mere internet "avatars" is true. So, I found it reasonable for Ethan to have an expectation of corresponding in an honest manner from person to person, not person to "avatar."

After your face turns less red, go and look at the first posts about Michigan's name and find the insults.

I think you're just trying to be a putz again.

The best part from you - "If you can't prove his name isn't really Michigan..."

Des-per-ate, Jan.

Quote:
I would see Ethan's main concern being "invited" to Canada for a listening session with Michigan J Frog...and there being nobody home after Ethan travels all that way.

Goodnight, Buddha. I can see you're well on your way through the second fifth.

Ah, you can do better than that.

Maybe you're just more comfortable with (or used to) the notion of hanging out with people who won't tell you their names.

If we could get Michigan into it, I'd be prepared to make a bet as to whether or not "Michigan J Frog" is his legal name.

On a lighter note, when I was young and "Randy" (think that's my real name, too?) I went out with a kind of crazy (party crazy, not "Jan" crazy) girl who said her name was Summer. I asked her if that was her real name and she said, "No, my real name is Spring, but then I got hotter."

~*groan*~

Quote:
~*groan*~

She said that, later.

(Man, I really slay me.)

Help!

Make him stop!

Quote:
Ah, you can do better than that.

Better at what? Tossing insults? No, you have that down and you are far better at insults than I could ever hope to be. In fact you are just as insulting when you are drunk as you have become when sober. It's remarkable that you are doing all this just because I can hear something and you cannot. Oh, I know, you'll say it's not that but we both know it is. How tall are you, Buddha? I'm guessing about 4'11".

All this angst and turmoil over a tweak test? Seems soooo silly when a simple telephone call would suffice and save all the hassle...if you know what I mean. Not saying hostile missile attacks can't be a lot of fun...

~ Cheerio