Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[Wes]

There were those Swedish AES tests done in series and blind which found amps sounding different when powering an actual speaker load.

The one noted on here with ~~1% clipping?

or something else, with no clipping?

 

[SIY]

This was the decision of the organizers. Everyone took 5 tests, including Michael Fremer.


Let's say there were 10 participants in these tests. Only one of them got 5 correct answers out of 5 and it was not some random guy, but Michael Fremer, who was claiming he can pass this test in the first place. What is the mathematical chance of this happening randomly? 1/320?

Besides noting that this is unconfirmed self reporting by a professional bullshit artist, so maybe true, maybe not, he IS a random guy as far as statistics go. I understand that he has declined to try to repeat this under controlled conditions.

 

[ahofer]

This was the decision of the organizers. Everyone took 5 tests, including Michael Fremer.


Let's say there were 10 participants in these tests. Only one of them got 5 correct answers out of 5 and it was not some random guy, but Michael Fremer, who was claiming he can pass this test in the first place. What is the mathematical chance of this happening randomly? 1/320?

No, the chance of one person stepping up and getting 5/5 (assuming randomness) is 1/32. Running ten independent trials *improves* the chance that one of them will do it by 10X, so the probability of one of the ten people getting 5/5 is nearly 1/3. If you attach some importance to Fremer such that the trials are not statistically independent, it might be different. In fact, given that they all took the test together, I would suggest that would skew the results slightly to a) be more uniform across the individuals and b) perhaps be more accurate, if there were indeed an audible difference.

HOWEVER, given that he turned in his results after knowing the answer (see post 1450), the chances were actually 100% that Fremer would report 5/5. He took the test sighted, effectively.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The one noted on here with ~~1% clipping?

or something else, with no clipping?

No clipping in these tests.

 

[ahofer]

Not this test? https://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html

It was pretty funny to watch Stereophile mess themselves with statistics on this one, while failing to acknowledge that the results make it impossible to claim "Night and Day" differences.

 

[Raindog123]

Let's say there were 10 participants in these tests. Only one of them got 5 correct answers out of 5 and it was not some random guy, but Michael Fremer,...

No, the chance of one person stepping up and getting 5/5 (assuming randomness) is 1/32. Running ten independent trials *improves* the chance that one of them will do it by 10X, so the probability of one of the ten people getting 5/5 is nearly 1/3

The question - as I read it - is: "What is the probability of one and only one person (Fremer) out of ten to get all five right?”

This is simple multiplication of probabilities - of Framer "getting all five" right (1/32) and everyone else (nine of them) getting "anything but all five" right (32-1)/32.

So, the result is 1/32 x (31/32)^9, 0.031 x 0.75 = 0.023 or 2.3% (One particular dude out of ten guessing it right, while all others guessing it wrong... Him guessing it five times right just by himself is a bit higher - 3.1%)

@ahofer Out of curiosity, what "your" probability (of at least one person guessing all five right) would be if there are not 10 but 100 folks in the test?

EDIT: Actually, meant to say this (so, the point is lost ):

@ahofer Out of curiosity, what "your" probability (of any one person guessing all five right) would be if there are not 10 but 100 folks in the test? (I hope it’s not “1/32 x 100” )

 

[MarkS]

Your math is correct if we identify Fremer, at the start, as the person who will be 5/5.

The probability that exactly one of the ten will be 5/5 and exactly nine will be worse than 5/5, and we don't care which of the ten is the one that got 5/5, is ten times higher, 23%.

The probability that any one or more of the ten will be 5/5 is higher still, 1-(31/32)^10 = 27%.

 

[Raindog123]

Your math is correct if we identify Fremer, at the start, as the person who will be 5/5.

"...and it was not some random guy, but Michael Fremer "

(My understanding that's the butt of the joke - this Fremer is the [self-proclaimed] one-and-the-only golden-eared one in the test... Who knows, maybe he is/was... )

 

[ahofer]

@ahofer Out of curiosity, what "your" probability (of at least one person guessing all five right) would be if there are not 10 but 100 folks in the test? [/QUOTE]

Thanks for the clarification - that’s right, if you stipulate that *only one* person gets them all right, not that *at least* one gets it right. And, yes, I was approximating with 10X, apologies.

There’s just under a 96% chance *somebody* gets all 5 right, assuming randomness and 100 trials. You would *expect* about 3 people to come out all correct, though.

 

[Harmonie]

Nope it only says 1445 in your post. You just claim it is post 1445 while it is 1446. The number of your post is actually #1446.
@liquidman101 actually had the pleasure to make post #1445.
My post is actually #1447 and is just below yours but higher in number. We all know a higher SINAD is better so my post is objectively better as it has a higher number. You could make post #1448 which trumps my post number but so be it. We can't all have the the highest post # all of the time.
And what's worse is that while you can edit it to 1446 you cannot make it 1445 unless a post before you is deleted.
My reply quotes your post it is saying 1445 and you cannot edit my post but of course you can always claim you wrote 1146 and I edited your reply to 1445 but readers would have to trust me on this.
The screenshot below is further objective proof of what I perceived using my (flawed) eyesight.
View attachment 124941

I figure the same thing happens in audio. Some claim they read 1445 and others 1446. Who was right and why ? Can it be proven in a blind test ?

I just contributed and devoted to cancel my post #1367 to put everything in order

And the #1445 post winner is .... @Frgirard

Ouupsss, I just noticed @solderdude 's smart screenshot and the moral behind.
You can't cheat them all ...

 

[Jimbob54]

I just contributed and devoted to cancel my post #1367 to put everything in order

And the #1445 post winner is .... @Frgirard

Ouupsss, I just noticed @solderdude 's smart screenshot and the moral behind.
You can't cheat them all ...

Nope ;-)

 

[Harmonie]

Nope ;-)

That's a good reason for another 1500 posts to come ...

 

[Frgirard]

Il

That's a good reason for another 1500 posts to come ...

With new arguments?
It's a great challenge.

 

[welsh]

There's likely no convincing someone that their $20,000 amp or $10,000 DAC sounds no better than a $1,000 or $200 equivalent. Even a blind test in their own room would fail. He'd still find some excuse as to why he should trust his sighted evaluations more.

For me, convincing them is a lost cause. The expectation bias is just too strong. I also take no joy in telling people that they wasted money on an electronic component that makes no difference. I'd really much rather them continue enjoying all that juicy placebo . I only somewhat debate those folks for the sake of the other - less well informed - folk who may be reading.

I fell victim to these subjective folk early in my audio journey, though luckily it didn't cost me huge money.

I have no problem at all with the ’high end’ (formerly known as ‘hi fi’) industry selling magic wires, absurdly-priced dacs etc to people with the required disposable income. But I have known people who save up for audio woo, even going without holidays... these people are the true victims of a dishonest, systematic con - whose success depends upon the marks conning themselves.

 

[welsh]

Yeah, really bugs the crap out of me when people talk about the sound from cables, amps, DACs, etc. like they're regarding wine. I have seen zero actual evidence to suggest that an amp can improve things like soundstage. Even less evidence that cables can improve audio, they can only degrade it. The day I replaced all my MIT and Monster Cable crap with bluejeanscable.com stuff was one of the happiest of my life.

Just show an audiophile a circuit schematic of an amplifier or DAC and ask him to point out the area or areas most concerned with soundstage, or, for that matter, pace, rhythm and timing...

 

[welsh]

I would very much like to get some informed opinions here on this question;
Do hyper-expensive high end CD players like the Marantz SA 10 ($6999) or the Ayre D-1 xe ( $8000 ) "sound better" than mainstream CD players?

It’s unlikely. The quality of the transport mechanism may affect reliability. And you’ll usually get a nice case if you spend the big money.

 

[welsh]

I don't believe I'm a Golden Ear but I listen for hours at a time for the last 20 years, since I invested in Home Audio. There is divide between mid-fi and hi-fi. Now how should I say this, there was a time where I could not distinguish a difference between a 320 mp3 and a cd. As my equipment improved over the years from progressive upgrades. I can hear the difference.

To say John Doe's mid-fi system is equal to my $40K system is a laugh. Each and every equipment purchase I have made over the years elevated the sound to a higher level. If this were not so I would have been content, without having spent mega bucks for better equipment.

Yes I'm fortunate to have the system I have and not everyone can divert their budget to Home Audio. You can enjoy what you have, I did for years. If you desire to upgrade there is always another level or improvement to audio sound that can be achieved.

Apparently there are, for instance, thousands of these pesky VEILS, and the more one spends, the more get ‘lifted’! Think how much better your system would sound if you’d spent proper money, say $100,000, on it!

 

[welsh]

I


I can't and don't drive, so I can't compare either. That makes me not most people. My question is: why would you make an irrelevant comparison?

If you can’t drive, it’s a good thing that you don’t drive.

 

[welsh]

I was just a lurker. I had to respond to the thread about Break- in, someone made a comment that I objected to.

I'm finished upgrading my stereo, IMO it bettered a more expensive system I listened to a the Dealer. So I asked myself, how good does it have to be? And I'm also preparing for my retirement years, mainly how to deal with it mentally.

‘I’m finished upgrading my stereo’. Since you’ve claimed elsewhere that EVERY upgrade you’ve made has improved the sound quality, I somehow doubt this. What if you hear about a new component that is somehow better (and not MUCH more expensive) than one you have already?

 

[MarkS]

I have no problem at all with the ’high end’ (formerly known as ‘hi fi’) industry selling magic wires, absurdly-priced dacs etc to people with the required disposable income.

I agree.

But I have known people who save up for audio woo, even going without holidays... these people are the true victims of a dishonest, systematic con - whose success depends upon the marks conning themselves.

It's the last part that is so true, and why I have no real problem with the "dishonest" system.

It's not hard to test whether a particular component improves the sound: listen to your system without knowing whether or not that component has been installed. The time between swaps can/should be days. Admittedly, this requires the help of a friend to do the swapping and hiding for you, and can't be done if the component is something you need to interact with (eg a CD transport).

It's astonishing to me that 99.99% of audiophiles do not do this, and yet spend many thousands of dollars on cables, amplifiers, etc etc.

I guess I just like my money (and what else it can do for me) too much not to do that.