James Randi vs. Anjou Pear - once and for all

Shadorne, I certainly have known people who buy equipment given its manufacturer's name or because of bells and whistles, but most I know are indifferent to this, at least as I judge the appearance of their gear.

I have no objections whatsoever to people comparing gear behind a curtain, but I think DBT's 30 sec. exposures are invalid.

Finally, very little medical research deals with placebos. That there is centers on evaluating new drugs. Most medical research is simple statistical analyses looking focusing on what contributes to those having a disease.

Mr tennis. Actually that is not true it takes multiple tests subject to statistical significance as someone can can produce a random guess that gets better than the pure chance odds correct. You have to look at the distribution of results, the number of tests and subjects etc to determine if a conclusion is significant.

TBG. But what you like - but you cant claim it exists without proof. Otherwise it is belief and not fact.

The main point = even if cables did make a difference (unlikely) then it is so small that spending the difference elsewhere will make orders of magnitude more difference regardless of system cost. Especially when room treatment is often completely neglected in these systems!

Brizonbiovizier, I buy on belief as do you. Beware that it is not just significance, it is statistical significance as in is it possible that our random sample came from a population where there was no relationship between variables. What you are talking about is that it is very improbable, not that it is statistically significant, much less meaningfully significant.

I agree with you that room treatment is often neglected, but I certainly would not include digital correction for the room in what needs to be done.

Why do you use expensive connectors on you cables? How do you know they make a difference? You use cables because they were provided and claim cables make no difference without any observations to backup that conviction. This is quite contrary to the scientific method. One seeks a theory that accounts for the observations rather than avoiding observations because they are contrary to the theory.

hi tbg:

we are all subject to two types of errors, namely perceiving what isn't there and failing to perceive what is present. it is difficult to determine when an error is made.

the point is to assume that mistakes will be made and not worry whether a difference that is perceived is true or not.
one makes decisions on the basis of confidence, usually as result of induction. sometimes the confidence is not justified.

risk is the name of the game and unfortunately the occasional dissatisfaction from a component purchase.

hi brizonbovizier:

you are correct on the need for multiple tests. if we were not separated by the atlantic ocean, we could design an experiment to be performed , say 50 times. that way, i could clean your pocket of most of your waging money.

you also raise the question of reliability of perception. the notion that one can be confident of one's perceptions may be open to question. anytime we hear a difference based upon sense perception, we may not always perceive such a difference over multiple repititions. so you could apply your logic to other components as well.

as a practical manner, there is a risk when purchasing components. we may deicde we don't like its presentation after some period of time, evn though we may have auditioned the component for 30 days prior to purchase.

one cannot be certain of one's perceptions. they are a lot like opinions. they are probably true and probably false, and it is difficult to test them.