I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[malcontent]

In other words, when doing it for himself he really wasnt experiencing what it would be like to do "for keeps" or to be reported to such a large audience.

This is a semi-salient point.

I personally don't consider this particular test to be the definitive answer. But, not because the testee is under sress. Because we would need serious numbers of participants to get a "significant" result.

While many do fail under pressure, many excel. For every guy who can't perform as good in competition as in practice, there is another who sets new records, while competing. (I regularly get my *** handed to me in billiards. But on tournament nights, I usually come in 3rd or 4th, beating most of them. I assume it is because I don't expect to win.)

[AJinFLA]

Originally Posted by champ04

Psychology can be and is beneficial but cannot explain everything in all circumstances.

Try Googling "Logical Fallacy"

Originally Posted by champ04

The conditions are many and varied but all could easily be defined by a consistency in relaxed state of musical enjoyment. Certainly not laboratory or testing conditions.
I've already posted on specifics many many pages back. But, like the other gent. You'll just have to go find them yourself.

I did:
I am a believer
There was no variation. The only consistency was a lack of any controls whatsoever. Or as you said "Certainly not laboratory or testing conditions."
The psychological component of "hearing" was not addressed in the slightest.

Originally Posted by champ04

Psychology was "eliminated" in a variety of ways depending on the situation at hand.

You previous statements completely contradict this. I would strongly suggest you look up what a blind test is...and why they are performed.

Originally Posted by champ04

Once again, if you dont read the posts with comprehension you'll miss the point. So, in case you missed it, my whole point is the testing conditions and possible hurdles that may arise based on performance anxiety. Which, as I've stated, could be greater than anticipated in this situation. In other words, when doing it for himself he really wasnt experiencing what it would be like to do "for keeps" or to be reported to such a large audience.

We are well aware of your pre-excuses as to why Tom may fail, but you have not made us aware of what excuse there was for him passing the original test "under pressure".
You also claim to be willing to subject yourself to testing as well. How will you train yourself to avoid the reporting/large audience pressure excuse?

[dBe]

Originally Posted by AJinFLA

Try Googling "Logical Fallacy"

Such an error is due to an error in reasoning. Ergo, if you cannot understand why others can and do hear differences between x or y then it cannot be true. The logical fallacy is yours. There are wayyyyyyy too many people that have (pay very close attention here, because it is salient) taken the time to ACTUALLY do the comparisons that know that you, who has not done so, is simply wrong.

AJ, you are just as wrong here as everywhere else you have tried to spread your dogma. Accept it. There are those of us that have beaten A/B and A/B/X testing often enough to know that you have an axe to grind.

Before you start on your usual "prove it" roll, I don't have to do so. Nobody but you cares. Trying to denigrate and humiliate others get old, doesn't it... no, I guess that it doesn't.

Happy to see me?



Hugs and kisses,

Dave

[john curl]

Don't worry, no matter what, the hear-nothings will not believe it, and the hear-somethings will never get any acceptance. It is a set-up from the get go.

[dBe]

Originally Posted by john curl

Don't worry, no matter what, the hear-nothings will not believe it, and the hear-somethings will never get any acceptance. It is a set-up from the get go.

John, the biggest problem is that the hear nothings are also the "try nothings". If you have no honest curiosity, why worry about what others actually hear? I don't get it.

Dave

[Steve Eddy]

Originally Posted by john curl

Don't worry, no matter what, the hear-nothings will not believe it, and the hear-somethings will never get any acceptance. It is a set-up from the get go.

Do we really have to keep putting up with this crap?

If you honestly think that he was being anything but a
****-stirrer 9 times out of 10, I'd take your opinion
seriously. I've got no animus toward him (quite the
opposite, I quite like the guy), I'm just trying to do
the right thing for the community.

Said by a moderator regarding someone else who because he didn't have the good fortune of having a certain celebrity name was banned from here for two years.

se

[malcontent]

It is a set-up from the get go.

Why test?

Because, "Condemnation (or commendation) without Examination is Prejudice".

[john curl]

Look, I did blind testing 30 years ago, and even wrote it up. You don't have to compare wires, just compare preamps. Can't hear those either. This test is a set-up to make people who actually hear differences, not be able to, and therefore dent their credibility.
Now, I am almost 68 years old, I usually could care less about wire direction, although others, over the years, have found it important, and I don't even have a favorite connecting wire that I can recommend. Why would I do this test?
The problem with blind testing like this, is that you lose what you are listening to with the changes in the music. This has been proven by the numerous failures to be able to get successful positives in the test over the last 30 years.
What happens is that the differences seem to disappear, then they come back with knowing what you are listening to, just like magic. Well, if you believe in magic, this would be a good example, but I believe it is the test, itself, that is the problem.
I am not against testing, just this kind of testing.

[rdf]

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy

I'm just trying to do the right thing for the community.

Sounds like the mods did the right thing for the community.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally Posted by rdf

Sounds like the mods did the right thing for the community.

Perhaps so. But it can be rather selective.

I can't think of anyone else who has behaved as John has over the years who would not or has not been banned by now.

se