Comparative Listening Tests

[KlausR.]

Peter,

Does your remote control the amount of resolution that your three systems produce?

My main system is the one indicated in my signature. Kitchen is a single Genelec 1029A connected to the preamp (30 m of balanced interconnect), study is 2 Genelec 8020 connected to the desktop computer.

The K+H’s EQ allows to set in each of the 10 bands

- type of filter (shelving, peak = low pass/high pass)
- Q
- centre frequency at which shelve filter operates
- upper and lower limits of peak filter
- gain

All settings are done in IIR mode and can then externally be converted to FIR and downloaded into the speakers. Would you know what of the above has an impact on the speakers’ resolution? I don’t.

I would be very interested to see measurements indicating how your various systems sound different from each other and can you share with us the frequency measurements of the favorite system in your house?

In-room response of the main system I don't have, all anechoic measurements are available on K+H's website. Genelec also provides some measurements I believe.

I used to own the SME 309 tonearm but after comparing it to the SME V by sighted listening tests, I preferred the latter. I then upgraded the 9" V to the 12" V-12 arm. It sounded better during my sighted evaluation, but I have also seen published measurements indicating a reduction in tracking error with the longer arm. Many people think the SME arms are flawed, based on subjective listening. Do you have objective measurements showing why you chose this arm over others?

When I bought my current analog gear back in 1998/1999 I read all AES papers I could find relating to vinyl, and all equipment reviews of Audio Magazine. I had to consider what was available at the local dealership at the time and my budget. Lipshitz’ “Great Debate” papers seriously raised my doubts concerning the usefulness of sighted testing, so I just went through the technical parts of E.E. Longs tone arm reviews and the 309 was just fine. And I liked the idea of a removable headshell which allows to safely mount the cartridge at the kitchen table. I should have Long’s reviews of both the 309 and the V, so if you’re interested, drop me a mail.

The tracking error of a 12” arm obviously is smaller than that of a 9”, but in view of Tollerton’s listening tests, in which I participated (him blind via earbuds, me sighted over my system), there’s no need whatsoever to worry about lateral tracking error:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15119

Distortion sums up geometrically, not arithmetically, which is good. Perception thresholds for music are 5-10 %, SS amps produce virtually no distortion, my speakers about 1% at 105 dB/1m, tracking distortion maybe 1-2%, leaves a lot of headroom. Of course with tube amps and small bookshelf speakers the story might have a different ending.

 

[Gregadd]

Flat on axis response is preferred by whom? The members of his panel. Absolutely no evidence was produced that they represented a random sample of the general population. Once again pseudo -sceince tears it's ugly head. By people who know better no-less.

 

[microstrip]

Flat on axis response is preferred by whom? The members of his panel. Absolutely no evidence was produced that they represented a random sample of the general population. Once again pseudo -sceince tears it's ugly head. By people who know better no-less.

Greg,

The Toole / Harman studies and analysis of data are correct, they are really science. What is pseudo-science is their abusive use by marketing departments and the conclusions drawn by a few audio enthusiasts, almost fanatic, that consider it as religion, ignoring statistics and the scope and application of these studies. Most of these people do not understand what is stereo, its limitations and its possibilities when pushed to the limit, and the existing divergence between knowledgeable scientists and experts on this subject.

IMHO the association of Toole studies with brands and marketing was a disservice to science, as it created a lot of animosity and noise. But in practice high-end manufacturers incorporate knowledge coming form his studies in their speakers and even the "science" groups, such as Harman, are incorporating empirical, non scientific knowledge to improve the performance of their speakers. All IMHO, YMMV.

 

[Gregadd]

Micro you have Toole stars in your eyes. In order to make such a generalization your sample must be a random sample from the general population. No such claim was made.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,



My main system is the one indicated in my signature. Kitchen is a single Genelec 1029A connected to the preamp (30 m of balanced interconnect), study is 2 Genelec 8020 connected to the desktop computer.

The K+H’s EQ allows to set in each of the 10 bands

- type of filter (shelving, peak = low pass/high pass)
- Q
- centre frequency at which shelve filter operates
- upper and lower limits of peak filter
- gain

All settings are done in IIR mode and can then externally be converted to FIR and downloaded into the speakers. Would you know what of the above has an impact on the speakers’ resolution? I don’t.




In-room response of the main system I don't have, all anechoic measurements are available on K+H's website. Genelec also provides some measurements I believe.



When I bought my current analog gear back in 1998/1999 I read all AES papers I could find relating to vinyl, and all equipment reviews of Audio Magazine. I had to consider what was available at the local dealership at the time and my budget. Lipshitz’ “Great Debate” papers seriously raised my doubts concerning the usefulness of sighted testing, so I just went through the technical parts of E.E. Longs tone arm reviews and the 309 was just fine. And I liked the idea of a removable headshell which allows to safely mount the cartridge at the kitchen table. I should have Long’s reviews of both the 309 and the V, so if you’re interested, drop me a mail.

The tracking error of a 12” arm obviously is smaller than that of a 9”, but in view of Tollerton’s listening tests, in which I participated (him blind via earbuds, me sighted over my system), there’s no need whatsoever to worry about lateral tracking error:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15119

Distortion sums up geometrically, not arithmetically, which is good. Perception thresholds for music are 5-10 %, SS amps produce virtually no distortion, my speakers about 1% at 105 dB/1m, tracking distortion maybe 1-2%, leaves a lot of headroom. Of course with tube amps and small bookshelf speakers the story might have a different ending.

Thanks, Klaus. So, from your first response, the answer to my question about your remote being able to control levels of your system's resolution, is NO.

Then anechoic measurements may be extremely good. I am more curious about the in room response at your listening seat.

Yes, the tracking error of the longer arm is obviously less, however, that lower distortion manifests itself in other ways, and so the performance of the SME V-12 is considerably better in quite a few areas, including a more relaxed, solid, and natural sound. I am glad the technical parts in Long's review of your 309 were "just fine." Sometimes that is all one needs to make a purchase decision and be satisfied long term.

 

[microstrip]

Micro you have Toole stars in your eyes. In order to make such a generalization your sample must be a random sample from the general population. No such claim was made.

Surely - but I do not consider that the studies of Toole are universal. They only apply to a population typically represented by the sample used in the conditions the studies were carried.

 

[KlausR.]

So nobody but Harman has ever done useful testing? Wow...

Useful in my book, no. But I’m certainly not aware of all peer-reviewed listening tests, so should there be more, just tell me.

If you can't find some major issues with some of Harman's testing, like comparing ML speakers vs conventional...

So you’ve actually read one of the papers? Naughty boy!

... in exactly the same position ...

Maybe they do that for a reason? Room modes, distances to boundaries, early reflections, interaural cross-correlation come to mind. Why introduce another variable which subsequently has to be filtered out?

... using the same amps ...

Why should the same amp for all speakers to be tested be an issue, as long as it’s capable of driving all those speakers without any problem?

... not accounting for acclimation in preference testing ...

Maybe a group of trained and experienced listeners does not need to acclimate. I’m no real expert in this particular field, neither are you, so did you ever communicate your concerns to experts in the field of audio listening tests?

Your posted measurements do not convey what your system sounds like, it could easily be very good or very bad.

Toole’s and Olive’s trained listeners and Stereophile’s reviewing community tell you that flat is good. In my personal case these measurements are the factory settings, subject to change if one doesn’t like them, just grab the remote.

 

[KlausR.]

Then anechoic measurements may be extremely good. I am more curious about the in room response at your listening seat.

You put the best loudspeaker in the world into a room and hell breaks loose, sorta. The acoustic ceiling we had installed in the room does quite a bit to tame the room modes, but with sine tones they can be easily perceived, less so with actual music. It could well be that stuff like Deqx, Acourate or source-to-sink subwoofers provide real improvement but as it is the bass is very tight and controlled already, the occasional exciting of a single mode is something I can live with, so for the time being I don't feel the need to explore these possibilities.

Actually my speakers do include the hardware for doing the corrections themselves, and Neuman provides that service of coming to the place with their gear, do the measurements, compute the necessary inverse filter in FIR mode and download it to the speakers, so I even would not need to buy anything. Maybe one day, when they happen to be on the AES convention further down the block...

 

[KlausR.]

Flat on axis response is preferred by whom? The members of his panel. Absolutely no evidence was produced that they represented a random sample of the general population.

The members of Harman’s listening panel, a larger group of untrained listeners, Stereophile’s reviewing community.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12206

The first category (AR) was comprised of 215 audio equipment retailers, ranging from small privately owned boutiques to large audio retail chains located across North America. This group represented by a wide margin the largest percentage of the total listeners (80.2%).

The second group (S) consisted of 14 university students from two California universities. One group (CALP) consisted of undergraduate electrical/mechanical engineering students with an interest in audio engineering. The other student group (UC) was enrolled in programs preparing them for careers in music and recording industries. Based on personal observations it would be safe to say that the student group was the youngest group in this study and had the least amount of experience judging the sound quality of loudspeakers. As a group they represent 5.2% of the total sample size.

The third group (MS) consisted of field marketing and sales people within Harman Consumer Group (HCG) and JBL Professional (JBL). This group had relatively more professional audio experience in evaluating sound quality compared to the students. However, none were members of the Harman-trained listening panel, and they had little experience in controlled listening tests. This group consisted of 21 listeners, or 7.8% of the sample size.

The fourth group (PR) consisted of six professional audio reviewers who review products for some of the most popular audio and home theater trade magazines. These members had considerable experience evaluating the sound quality of audio products but not necessarily under controlled listening test conditions.

The final group (T) included 12 members of the Harman-trained listening panel.

One of the most significant findings is that the loudspeaker preferences of these nominally untrained listeners were very similar to those of the panel of trained listeners. The results may finally validate the use of trained listeners on the basis that their preferences can be extrapolated to a larger population of untrained listeners. The notion that the loudspeaker preferences of trained listeners are somehow biased can cannot be used to predict those of reviewers, audio retailers, and the intended (untrained) customer is not supported by scientific data.

 

[DaveC]

Useful in my book, no. But I’m certainly not aware of all peer-reviewed listening tests, so should there be more, just tell me.



So you’ve actually read one of the papers? Naughty boy!



Maybe they do that for a reason? Room modes, distances to boundaries, early reflections, interaural cross-correlation come to mind. Why introduce another variable which subsequently has to be filtered out?



Why should the same amp for all speakers to be tested be an issue, as long as it’s capable of driving all those speakers without any problem?



Maybe a group of trained and experienced listeners does not need to acclimate. I’m no real expert in this particular field, neither are you, so did you ever communicate your concerns to experts in the field of audio listening tests?



Toole’s and Olive’s trained listeners and Stereophile’s reviewing community tell you that flat is good. In my personal case these measurements are the factory settings, subject to change if one doesn’t like them, just grab the remote.

I'll be releasing a speaker soon so I'm familiar with a lot of different designer's theories and tests.

Setup and amplification of dipole/ES hybrid speakers are often much different from conventional speakers to get best results. I don't think the electronics/systems in the testing were adequate either, especially for the MLs.

Training and experience does reduce the time it takes to acclimate to different speakers with different dispersion patterns for sure but it often still sounds odd to many to switch from cone 'n' dome to horn/WG type speakers, with a clear preference for whatever was heard previously. AFAIK, Harman's testing included inexperienced and untrained listeners as well.

I've done my own preference testing and can say that what people mention and prefer is only partially defined by typical measurements. What people do consistently prefer is a 3-D immersive soundstage that sounds like you are at the venue. To achieve this takes more than getting measurements right... it takes getting electronics right, cables, AC power, etc. In fact IC cables are a critical component if you're looking for this level of performance. I can demonstrate this and how inserting a typical "pro" cable will flatten the soundstage and smooth out the spatial details that create a 3-D soundstage. In the right system it's a night and day difference, but I think most that simply look to achieve good measurements are pretty far away from this kind of performance so you won't notice much difference.

I've heard a top end component manufacturer with a $1M system in a dedicated room tell us the soundstage is bounded by the listening room, this is 100% wrong... in a good system the listening room should "disappear." But simply achieving good measurements won't fully get you there and this is one of the differences between an ordinary system and an exceptional system. However, factors necessary to achieve this are not part of typical audio measurements and aren't fully understood. And you probably won't "get it" until you hear it.

 

[amirm]

Yes. Your bias negates your pretensions to scientific credibility. There you go... one line. That better?

For those reading past the first line, Nassim Nicholas Taleb put it thus: "The (zealot) pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited (...) their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them".

For further reading on pseudo-science (scientism) and pseudo-intellectualism as a counterfeit for robust statistically-defined thinking, more here (warning: content covers politics, Ivy league experts and low-carb diets): https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577

Blah blah blah,

853guy

P.S. You can skip past these posts as often as you wish, it won't stop your scientism being what it is, nor dissuade me from pointing it out.

There is nothing in the OP from forum co-owner, Ron, about me or anyone in my group of audiophiles. His message and question was about subjectivists, asking whether a measure of caution was in order when making audio assessments. Here it is again the hopes that this time you answer or say something about it:

I am not suggesting we stop auditioning components, stop pursuing tweaks or stop listening for significant or subtle differences. I am suggesting that perhaps we should be more realistic and circumspect -- and more skeptical -- about our expressed conclusions. We should attempt to do the best we can do, and to try to remain as intellectually honest as possible, but perhaps we should acknowledge that we may be fooling ourselves about some of our listening conclusions.

Is it that difficult to agree with that statement that you wish to avoid and discuss me instead?

 

[amirm]

No but I think their marketing material went to his head a bit much. Seems like he doesn't realize that even the Harman engineers know measurements aren't everything. Likely why he vanished after Mike brought up the specs of the Mark Levinson amp. Looks like Mark Levinson is breaking every rule in the book with measured specs worse than even some gear on Ali Express. Yet it's what he runs in his personal rig, and what he sells at his store.

Why do I get the feeling I am still talking to Mike.

Let me make sure everyone understands what you have been promoting. A post was made with a video from TI (chip maker) saying there is a high performance clock circuit. He put forward that video -- created by TI application engineers to promote their product -- as prima facie evidence that said device must sound good. For good measure, a single testimonial was put forward as proof.

Here is the thing: I don't mind some selling on measurements. It at least shows engineering excellence. But he has no measurements. The only the thing he has is that the TI component, on a test bench, has excellent performance in entire different application than audio. Despite me repeatedly asking him, he would NOT post any measurements of his DAC. He doesn't even have measurements of the above clock oscillator in his DAC. All he has that says is proper collateral to buy his DAC is that video from TI.

He then talks about low frequency random jitter (which the above TI chip can reduce) as a problem even though it is at astonishingly low level (half of the rightmost bit in a 24-bit DAC). To put things in context, if a guy next door passed gas, that rightmost bit could change in DAC. I provided the psychoacoustics and published listening tests that show what he said is completely wrong. The threshold of hearing is orders of magnitude higher. He is not even in the same planet with what he is saying. And of course he has no listening test results, papers, or anything to show for it.

And no, I did not want the thread closed as I was just about to explain the issues he brings up in what equipment/test is good for measuring DAC performance. Thomas wisely though recognized our combined failing to aspire to higher standard if interchange and closed the thread. Discussion has since focused on the measurements and continues: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/close-in-jitter.1621/

What Mike is attempting to do is what I call measurebating. It is the tactic of throwing measurements out there that give us no insight into audibility of said system. In this case he is saying, "let's look at this clock measurement and then make the massive leap that it means a DAC performs better." That is like someone refusing to give you the horsepower of an engine by insisting that you should instead go by the specification of the engine block as being the determinant. Not any test of how fast it goes from 0 to 60. But just because he used this and that clock that the DIY crowd is praising as the next chip to worship, he must have a DAC that is as good as state of art DACs. "OH, I have the same output stage, clock, etc." and therefore you should buy my gear.

Well, hell no. You want to make a technical argument on ASR Forum, you better damn well know your stuff. If you make claims of audibility of low frequency jitter, then you better be willing to take such test, having read the literature and understand psychoacoustics. Having access to parts from online vendors in breadboards bought from China or wherever is not it.

For those of you who love him, great. Let Mike post here again and not have to use this alias to hide behind. Good luck to you all.

 

[amirm]

Sounds good. I will be at the LA show.

Great. I have booked my hotel and assuming nothing comes up, I will be there to make trouble. Will send you a PM as we get closer. And thanks for the constructive posts.

 

[Lee]

Great. I have booked my hotel and assuming nothing comes up, I will be there to make trouble. Will send you a PM as we get closer. And thanks for the constructive posts.

Look forward to it Amir.

 

[stehno]

Can’t resist to tease you once more, so here goes.

Where exactly did I make such a claim?

So far I did not see any controlled listening test that shows the cables sound different, so this is all I know and until I see such evidence I don’t believe in cables making a difference.


You’re glad you asked? Then ask again because the answer is plain wrong!

What is performance?


If you need to know more about the relevance of these measurements I recommend JA’s AES paper:

as well as the many papers relating to loudspeakers by Toole and the Harman team.


You see, my pro gear is installed in our living room, in the kitchen, in the study, and not moved around at all. Cables are plugged in once and stay in place. How does it sound? Just in case I don’t like what I hear, I simply grab the remote

and use the 10-band parametric EQ built into each speaker (having both IIR and FIR filters) with a few million adjustment points to fine-tune to whatever sound is desired. THAT is performance. BTW., I'm running the speakers on the red line in the group delay graph, i.e. zero delay throughout the operating range. The filter generates a delay of 2 video frames hence the position of that line further up on the vertical scale.

Klaus, why is it that dillusional pseudo science types like yourself, in addtion to being little more than hacks and bush-leaguers in the science community, always live in denial of their own statements?

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?22972-Comparative-Listening-Tests/page19

There you said of you and your bush-league EE buddy, "We never had the ambition to do a serious test anyway, since my colleague, just like me, does not believe in cables sounding different."

Make no mistake, your being a closed-minded arrogant hack and bush-league science type is directly to be blamed for your naive and bush-league approach to high-end audio. If you have a career somewhere in the science community, I suspect it's for all the wrong reasons.

BTW, you don't tease me. But guys like you and Amir and Ethan do annoy me and others because your approach to this hobby that some take seriously is really no different than you bringing your mini-van and that performance-level mindset to compete at an NHRA Top Fuel dragster event because all internal-combustion vehicles perform the same. And instead of hacks like you looking inwardly to rise to the challenge to legitimately compete and enjoy the pleasures of some others, you hacks would much rather spend your entire adult lives looking outwardly trying to drag everybody down to your mini-van's lowest performance common denominator. Fundamentally, it's really no different than if you were dogmatically committed to the belief that 2+2=5.

Seriously, where does one even begin with your type? More importantly, who really has the time or desire to instill quality into your vocabulary and mindset? It's not a tease when guys like you've committed yourself to a deceptive lifestyle thinking you've something valid to offer even if you can deceive some people sometimes. This is supposed to be a high-end audio forum where those who seek to discuss issues about high-end audio shouldn't have to always return not to science 101 but to psychology 101 when your type intervenes.

Like I said before, the mind is a terrible thing to waste - especially on others.

 

[stehno]

....

I've heard a top end component manufacturer with a $1M system in a dedicated room tell us the soundstage is bounded by the listening room, this is 100% wrong... in a good system the listening room should "disappear." But simply achieving good measurements won't fully get you there and this is one of the differences between an ordinary system and an exceptional system. However, factors necessary to achieve this are not part of typical audio measurements and aren't fully understood. And you probably won't "get it" until you hear it.

DaveC, your top-end manufacturer is right. At least to a point.

For example. No matter how revealing a system and how much of the recording hall's ambient information remains audible at the speakers, a room too narrow and/or too short will limit the speakers' potential dispersion of sound into the room. Speakers require at least a minimum amount of phsyical breathing room in the listening room for the most believable soundstage presentation.

The same is even more true for attaining a superior bass response and speaker placement. I'm not aware of any amount of information embedded in the recording that remains audible at the speaker that can compensate or overcome a speaker's less than ideal placement for producing a potentially fabulously musical bass response.

 

[DaveC]

DaveC, your top-end manufacturer is right. At least to a point.

For example. No matter how revealing a system and how much of the recording hall's ambient information remains audible at the speakers, a room too narrow and/or too short will limit the speakers' potential dispersion of sound into the room. Speakers require at least a minimum amount of phsyical breathing room in the listening room for the most believable soundstage presentation.

The same is even more true for attaining a superior bass response and speaker placement. I'm not aware of any amount of information embedded in the recording that remains audible at the speaker that can compensate or overcome a speaker's ideal placemenet for producoing a potentially fabulously musical bass response.

Sure... Assuming a proper setup though, it's definitely possible to perceive the recording venue without it being bounded by the listening room. I routinely get a soundstage depth past my front wall and the sense of being in a larger space than my listening room. This takes resolution you generally won't get with a measurement based system built to specs using generic cables, noisy AC power, no regard given to grounding.... My point is you can have a "perfect" system that sounds boring, flat, 2-D, homogenous... measurements are certainly important, at least some of them, if they're interpreted correctly, but it's no guarantee of a great system. That, imo, is a major shortcoming of audio science.

 

[cjfrbw]

The Krakens of subjectivity vs. the Great White Whales of objectivity. What fun. Guess it will never end.

 

[853guy]

There is nothing in the OP from forum co-owner, Ron, about me or anyone in my group of audiophiles. His message and question was about subjectivists, asking whether a measure of caution was in order when making audio assessments. Here it is again the hopes that this time you answer or say something about it:

I am not suggesting we stop auditioning components, stop pursuing tweaks or stop listening for significant or subtle differences. I am suggesting that perhaps we should be more realistic and circumspect -- and more skeptical -- about our expressed conclusions. We should attempt to do the best we can do, and to try to remain as intellectually honest as possible, but perhaps we should acknowledge that we may be fooling ourselves about some of our listening conclusions.

Is it that difficult to agree with that statement that you wish to avoid and discuss me instead?

Hello Amir,

No. That’s your edit of Ron’s OP.

The full text is this:

I think it is important to attempt to be intellectually honest. I want to commend Peter for being intellectually honest about a confusing situation in which he found himself with the A/B and A/B/X testing of Al’s interconnect cables.

While I have never met Peter in person, we have corresponded via e-mail and talked on the telephone extensively and frequently for several years now. I know Peter to be an extremely thoughtful, detailed-oriented, careful and conscientious listener. Also, importantly, Peter (unlike me) regularly listens to live music. I am confident Peter's ears are better, and more accurate, than mine. So, after reading Peter’s post, I ask myself: “If Peter gets confused in a test like this, what do we, individually and collectively, even think we are doing when we compare products and listen for changes in our systems?”

I have no answers, only questions. There are a lot of opinions about the merits and problems of A/B and A/B/X testing, and about the pros and cons of short-duration A/B and A/B/X comparisons versus long duration, spend-weeks-with-a-product listening with no back-and-forth comparison.

I think Peter’s experience inclines me to view even more skeptically long-duration "comparisons." As Peter wrote, the comparison, even in the short-duration time-frame of an A/B/X test, became a test of “recall ability,” not “listening for differences.” So what realistic hope does an audiophile have trying to remember how his system used to sound after he has been listening to a new component for weeks or even months?

Are we partially, or even completely, deluding ourselves when an audiophile visits a friend’s house to listen to music, and then returns weeks later to see if the audiophile can hear a difference wrought by some change the friend made in his system? (Let's not even think about the audiophile's differences in mood, restfulness, alcohol consumption, hunger level, stress, etc., between the two listening sessions.) After listening again weeks later, the audiophile reports hearing a significant difference in response to a minor tweak in his friend’s system (“the soundstage opened up significantly,” “the midrange glare is much less evident,” the noise floor is much lower,” "the highs are more extended," etc.). But if we can't even make reliable comparisons during the course of a single day how can we be possibly think that we can remember accurately what our friend’s system sounded like weeks ago? (Of course, critics of A/B and A/B/X tests argue there are problems and inherently confusing issues with short-term comparison tests which are solved by long-duration auditioning.)

I am not suggesting we stop auditioning components, stop pursuing tweaks or stop listening for significant or subtle differences. I am suggesting that perhaps we should be more realistic and circumspect -- and more skeptical -- about our expressed conclusions. We should attempt to do the best we can do, and to try to remain as intellectually honest as possible, but perhaps we should acknowledge that we may be fooling ourselves about some of our listening conclusions.

Notice the bolded parts of Ron's post?

“I think it is important to attempt to be intellectually honest.”

This is actually really simple, Amir. Following the thread, you write this (Post #231):

Personally I am open minded even to a fault. (…) Sitting here I have next to me a $300 AC outlet that I am confident will do zero to improve audio performance.

I (and others) challenged your lack of intellectual honesty and pretensions to objective credibility in evaluating a product you A) plan to submit to a sighted test; B) paid for yourself; C) do not sell though your high-end installation business; D) claim even before the test has started will do “zero” to improve audio performance; and then proceed to write (Post 274):

I am begging for people in the other camp to do a bit of objective testing. (…) But no matter how much I ask, no one will go there.

Despite the fact your testing methodology is anything but objective, I did go there, took the test and, then, questioned your selective exposure in research; use of yourself as the subject for tests you yourself also design and conduct; (therefore) cannot eliminate bias in either the subject, the experimental design, its conduct nor analysis of the results; your overconfidence in the results and overestimation of the effects of any experiment due to low statistical power; your use of arbitrary inference to draw (false) conclusions; and your over-generalisation of the outcome across domains not within the scope of the original experiment (Post #286) - none of which you've been willing to acknowledge.

This thread is discussing intellectual honesty.

Yours is being found wanting. Still.

Is it that difficult to see I fully agree with Ron’s statement, and that yes, we do wish to discuss your explicit bias and deficiency of intellectual honesty?

Ball's in your court, Sport.

853guy

P.S. Great use of deflection, re-framing of the argument, selective exposure in quoting the bits of Ron's post that reinforce your pre-existing world-view, and falling into a minimal group paradigm and assigning yourself in the outgroup, because, of course, it's everyone else who needs to change their thinking.

 

[PeterA]

Boy 853guy, you show remarkable patience and ability to cut through the BS. It is also rewarding to follow your clear thinking and logic. You seem to have subjective sensibilities and the ability to think objectively.
Bravo.