Anyone who can prove otherwise in a blind test, can collect
£1,000 from me personally. That should buy some decent cable!

I wonder what odds Stevie Boy would give?

I'd be more than happy to give him good odds, if he'd like to lay down
some money, and put his ears where his gob is! :-)


Well Mr. Pinkerton you've obviously forgotten that in the last cable row
(well there seems to be many.. I been away a while from the group) on here I
did actually offer :-)

However there was some reason why I declined. Perhaps you should
re-enlighten me on the test set-up.

Steve

Stevie Boy wrote in uk.rec.audio


Anyone who can prove otherwise in a blind test, can collect
£1,000 from me personally. That should buy some decent cable!

I wonder what odds Stevie Boy would give?

I'd be more than happy to give him good odds, if he'd like to lay
down some money, and put his ears where his gob is! :-)

However, the above offer is actually a prize rather than a bet.

I wonder if Steve'd try for the prize, he's got nothing to loose but
reputation.

I remember a similar prize being ofered a few years back on a US site. As
far as I know it is yet to be won, despite a few claims. Of course, it was
the test's fault they couldn't tell the difference.

Well Mr. Pinkerton you've obviously forgotten that in the last cable
row (well there seems to be many.. I been away a while from the group)
on here I did actually offer :-)

So what DID you offer? I'd be up for a wager, so long as its double blind
and repeated several times (to rule out the fact that anyone can be right
in an A/B test 50% of the time). On any system, with any music, comparing
49p/m maplin heavy duty cable against whatever your curent preference is.
I'm sure a few people here would be discharitable enough to take you up on
this!

--
Jim H

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:08:14 +0100, "Stevie Boy"
wrote:


Anyone who can prove otherwise in a blind test, can collect
£1,000 from me personally. That should buy some decent cable!

I wonder what odds Stevie Boy would give?

I'd be more than happy to give him good odds, if he'd like to lay down
some money, and put his ears where his gob is! :-)


Well Mr. Pinkerton you've obviously forgotten that in the last cable row
(well there seems to be many.. I been away a while from the group) on here I
did actually offer :-)

However there was some reason why I declined. Perhaps you should
re-enlighten me on the test set-up.

Cables must be level-matched to +/-0.1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz at the
speaker terminals (pretty much a given for any halfway normal
interconnect or speaker cable, regardless of price). Otherwise, choice
of music, source, amplifier and speaker is free, while test protocol
is double-blind ABX, with 15 correct results out of 20 trials being
taken as a successful identification.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:11:12 +0000 (UTC), Jim H
wrote:

Stevie Boy wrote in uk.rec.audio


Anyone who can prove otherwise in a blind test, can collect
£1,000 from me personally. That should buy some decent cable!

I wonder what odds Stevie Boy would give?

I'd be more than happy to give him good odds, if he'd like to lay
down some money, and put his ears where his gob is! :-)

However, the above offer is actually a prize rather than a bet.

I wonder if Steve'd try for the prize, he's got nothing to loose but
reputation.

I remember a similar prize being ofered a few years back on a US site. As
far as I know it is yet to be won, despite a few claims.

No one has even *attempted* to claim that pool, which last stood at
around $4,000 from a half-dozen contributors, of which I am one.

Of course, it was
the test's fault they couldn't tell the difference.

Yeah, riiiight..... :-)

Well Mr. Pinkerton you've obviously forgotten that in the last cable
row (well there seems to be many.. I been away a while from the group)
on here I did actually offer :-)

So what DID you offer? I'd be up for a wager, so long as its double blind
and repeated several times (to rule out the fact that anyone can be right
in an A/B test 50% of the time). On any system, with any music, comparing
49p/m maplin heavy duty cable against whatever your curent preference is.
I'm sure a few people here would be discharitable enough to take you up on
this!

See my other post in this thread for 'the rules'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , Stevie Boy
wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message ...

Well there is a Hi-Fi mag that uses this standard (or used to) and
the panel that sat in on these tests could not agree on what they
heard from each product. So scientific or not it's a mockery.

Am I reading this right?

You KNOW there MUST be a difference?

Given the amount of gear that under went review and the different
conclusions reached by many members of the review then yes. If you think
everything sounds the same then you might as well go out and buy a
crystal set.

I am not sure I know which set of magazine tests you are referring to. I
recall more than one series run by 'Hi Fi News' some years ago. My
recollection is the results being that those who entered the tests feeling
they could easily tell one amplifier from another were surprised to find
that they generally could not. (In the sense that the results showed no
statistical significance according to the standard statistical methods.)

However I don't think it would have been fair to describe any of the units
included as having a sound indistinguishable from a crystal set! :-)

Hence the point of the tests I recall was based upon using amplifiers of a
level of performance most of those involved would have said was reasonably
satisfactory.

PJW is often mis-quoted as having said something to the effect that all
amplifiers sound the same. In fact what he said was more carefully
qualified in terms of the amps being well designed and used within their
performance limitations.

So tests that reveal no difference are a mockery?

I did not say that. Entirely depends whats under test. There are many
similiar sounding products on the market weather speaker cables,
interconnects or CD players or whatever (which could include anything
you have in mind).

Yes. Many products may be similar enough to be indistinguishable. This may,
of course, mean they are all 'wrong'... but may mean they are all pretty
good.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

I am not sure I know which set of magazine tests you are referring to. I
recall more than one series run by 'Hi Fi News' some years ago. My
recollection is the results being that those who entered the tests feeling
they could easily tell one amplifier from another were surprised to find
that they generally could not. (In the sense that the results showed no
statistical significance according to the standard statistical methods.)

Ok another evening of replies ahead. Gee gaz wacks this group takes up yer
time :-)

For your & Arny's attn it was Hi-Fi choice.
The point of the review was not to determin weather they could distinguish
between known amplifiers. The point was a review of amplifiers for inclusion
in the magazine through a double blind test.
However as I pointed out the conclusion from most listners was they felt
each piece of equipment had different merits. Which I have to say is okay as
everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

However it was also agreed that some virtues of some amplifiers had certain
merits amoung most of the listners.

Statistically the outcome here was different to the Hi-Fi News outcome. It
may be because they had no preconceptions of what their lug holes were about
to be fist upon them or the amps were sufficiently different. Unfortunatly
(this is not a get out clause) it was some years back and I doubt I have (or
ever had) the said article since the amount of Hi-Fi choice mags I bought
were in general of low volume.


However I don't think it would have been fair to describe any of the units
included as having a sound indistinguishable from a crystal set! :-)

I can fight back too :-)

Hence the point of the tests I recall was based upon using amplifiers of a
level of performance most of those involved would have said was reasonably
satisfactory.

Satisfactory in that each person agreed upon inclusion in the test before
or after?

PJW is often mis-quoted as having said something to the effect that all
amplifiers sound the same. In fact what he said was more carefully
qualified in terms of the amps being well designed and used within their
performance limitations.

Maybe something you can enlighten us on as well designed? Perhaps mention a
few that meet this criteria.

Yes. Many products may be similar enough to be indistinguishable. This
may,
of course, mean they are all 'wrong'... but may mean they are all pretty
good.

It may also mean they follow certain design rules and therefore sound this
way.

Steve

In article , Stevie Boy
wrote:

I am not sure I know which set of magazine tests you are referring to.
I recall more than one series run by 'Hi Fi News' some years ago. My
recollection is the results being that those who entered the tests
feeling they could easily tell one amplifier from another were
surprised to find that they generally could not. (In the sense that
the results showed no statistical significance according to the
standard statistical methods.)

Ok another evening of replies ahead. Gee gaz wacks this group takes up
yer time :-)

Supposed to be enjoyable and interesting/educational to take part in some
of these discussions. :-) That's how I feel, anyway.

For your & Arny's attn it was Hi-Fi choice.

OK, thanks. Can you tell me the issue or date? I may have a copy. If so, I
can look up the tests. I seem to recall reading tests in an old (c1980's
IIRC) mag that wasn't HFN, but I can't recall any details.


The point of the review was not to determin weather they could
distinguish between known amplifiers. The point was a review of
amplifiers for inclusion in the magazine through a double blind test.

I am not quite clear what distinction you are making apart from their
end-intention. If they could hear differences in a double-blind comparison
then (given suitable level matching, etc) this implies they could
distinguish between the same amps when they were 'known'. If they could not
hear differences it implies they might not.

However as I pointed out the conclusion from most listners was they felt
each piece of equipment had different merits. Which I have to say is
okay as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Happy to agree. In cases where differences are audible, people are clearly
entitled to choose what they prefer on that basis.

However it was also agreed that some virtues of some amplifiers had
certain merits amoung most of the listners.

Can't comment on the specific test at this point, but happy to accept this
given that differences were audible in a test as you describe above.

Statistically the outcome here was different to the Hi-Fi News outcome.
It may be because they had no preconceptions of what their lug holes
were about to be fist upon them or the amps were sufficiently different.
Unfortunatly (this is not a get out clause) it was some years back and I
doubt I have (or ever had) the said article since the amount of Hi-Fi
choice mags I bought were in general of low volume.

Ah. OK. Can you recall - even roughly - when this was? If I get a chance I
can search my back-issues to see if I can find it. Unfortunately I have no
indexing for non-HFN domestic mags, and only have a small number of issues,
but I might strike lucky.


Hence the point of the tests I recall was based upon using amplifiers
of a level of performance most of those involved would have said was
reasonably satisfactory.

Satisfactory in that each person agreed upon inclusion in the test
before or after?

My recollection of the HFN tests is that those involved agreed the methods
and protocol and the choice of units, etc. I'd need to check the details to
know what amps wee used, etc. I think there was more than one series of
tests as some of those involved in the first test were upset to have failed
to be able to tell differences which they expected to hear. I also think
that a Quad amp and a valve amp were included at some point, but my memory
may be unreliable here.

PJW is often mis-quoted as having said something to the effect that
all amplifiers sound the same. In fact what he said was more carefully
qualified in terms of the amps being well designed and used within
their performance limitations.

Maybe something you can enlighten us on as well designed? Perhaps
mention a few that meet this criteria.

I can't recall what PJW specified, but can see if I can find a relevant
article. Or were you asking my own personal opinion? If so, I can give my
own views, but am quite happy to agree that other may have ideas that
differ from mine. In the end people use what they prefer. Although I have
an interest in defining "well designed" in terms of engineering and
physics, I'd agree that in the end people choose what they like on the
basis of it being what they prefer.

Yes. Many products may be similar enough to be indistinguishable. This
may,
of course, mean they are all 'wrong'... but may mean they are all
pretty good.

It may also mean they follow certain design rules and therefore sound
this way.

Yes. Agreed. However with audio amps we can debate the idea that an amp
where the input and output signal patterns approach being identical (apart
from scale) might be an appropriate design goal. How this is approached,
and when it may be desirable (or not) may be matters of circumstances of
use, and what may be appropriate, though.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Supposed to be enjoyable and interesting/educational to take part in some
of these discussions. :-) That's how I feel, anyway.

Oh it is very interesting what you say. It's great to get a 'hands on'
experience from engineers and how they see the audio world's capability's.
Even tho I get some rather abrubt abusive replies it does get the oll brain
cells ticking over(tough for the few I have!).

I just wish I had more time to get stuck right into it.

For your & Arny's attn it was Hi-Fi choice.

OK, thanks. Can you tell me the issue or date? I may have a copy. If so, I
can look up the tests. I seem to recall reading tests in an old (c1980's
IIRC) mag that wasn't HFN, but I can't recall any details.


Er no sorry :-(


Ah. OK. Can you recall - even roughly - when this was? If I get a chance I
can search my back-issues to see if I can find it. Unfortunately I have no
indexing for non-HFN domestic mags, and only have a small number of
issues,
but I might strike lucky.

Err Umm???? Time moves on quickly. Altho I have to say it's been some years
since I seriously looked at a Hi-Fi choice mag and if it was in the last
5-6-7 years ( I have no idea!) it is more likely to be through a general
peruse in a store.
However I do have many back-issues from years previous stacked up and as
such I may strike lucky too!
I would hesitate a guess tho it was in a mag from the 90's!

With that I finalise my replies for tonight :-)

Steve

In article , Stevie Boy
wrote:



Ah. OK. Can you recall - even roughly - when this was? If I get a
chance I can search my back-issues to see if I can find it.
Unfortunately I have no indexing for non-HFN domestic mags, and only
have a small number of issues, but I might strike lucky.

Err Umm???? Time moves on quickly. Altho I have to say it's been some
years since I seriously looked at a Hi-Fi choice mag and if it was in
the last 5-6-7 years ( I have no idea!) it is more likely to be through
a general peruse in a store. However I do have many back-issues from
years previous stacked up and as such I may strike lucky too! I would
hesitate a guess tho it was in a mag from the 90's!

If it was in HFC during the last 10 years I almost certainly didn't see it
and don't have a copy. If anyone else knows the tests in question can they
let me know as I'd be interested to read them?

In general, the blind, level matched tests of amps I have seen in mags
tended to produce null results. That said, I think there were exceptions
when an amp had a distinguishing feature like very high output impedance.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:

I am not sure I know which set of magazine tests you are referring to. I
recall more than one series run by 'Hi Fi News' some years ago.

There's a reference to a HFN & RR article from May 1986 in this article
(as well as a familiar name):

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm

--
John Phillips