http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=djemITP

Some food for thought.

Pretty silly if you ask me. His sample sizes are way too small to draw valid conclusions. So the power conditioner guy picked it 2 out of 3 times? Big deal. That's like concluding that a quarter will come up heads 75% of the time because you flipped it 4 times and it came up heads 3 of those times. 20-odd people in a wire test is not a big enough test to conclude anything.

I love his over-exaggerated definitions of an audiophile. It's another example of a journalist writing about a subject he knows nothing about, furthering the spread of misinformation among the wide readership of WSJ.

It's probably like the testing of psychic abilities. The experiments generally show that people score a little better than they should if there actually is no extra-sensory perception. But only a little. And the psychic effects diminish in proportion to how carefully the experiments are controlled.

The journalistic knowledge and integrity has sunk so low these days....

hehe

sample size of course is a problem, but you could pretty much assume those people ventured to the test are either audiophiles or people working in the hifi industry. Venetian is pretty damn far away from either Sands or the Las Vegas Convention Center if you ask me.

The problem I see with sample size though, is if anyone increases the sample size to some massive numbers, say 1500 samples, then people will start questioning the quality of the samples and uses the 'my ears are better than yours' argument again.

Fun little article if you ask me. :)

Well, sounds like this guy doesn't know enough about how to conduct a listening test to produce valid results--and doesn't understand the concept of statistical significance. Kind of a waste, really.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=djemITP

Some food for thought.

A fun read, thanks.

For his ipod test, I'm gonna suggest his 'high quality' mp3 wasn't as high quality as he thought, if people tended to prefer the CD. However, these are essentially n=1 trials for each person, so any particular person had just one 50/50 chance of getting it 'right'. I'll try to get the REAL stats on that...

I love his over-exaggerated definitions of an audiophile. It's another example of a journalist writing about a subject he knows nothing about, furthering the spread of misinformation among the wide readership of WSJ.

Other than the use of the word 'crazy', in what was clearly a humorous context, I didn't see any exaggeration of the 'definitions of an audiophile'.
Who else, after all, buys $2000 cables?

The journalistic knowledge and integrity has sunk so low these days....


Aren't you overreacting *just a bit*? Gomes noted some caveats and qualifications in his results, and overall doesn't seem to have taken the whole thing TOO seriously. I don't see either journalistic 'knowledge' or 'integrity' taking a hit here.

Ok, probably on the integrity part but not the knowledge part. If you are going to use "statistical" trials in your article to make points, then you damn well better understand basic statistics. Just another example of the overall lowering of standards in our society. Or maybe I'm just feeling really bitter today.

Other than the use of the word 'crazy', in what was clearly a humorous context, I didn't see any exaggeration of the 'definitions of an audiophile'.
Who else, after all, buys $2000 cables?

He tried to define an audiophile twice:

"Audiophiles, as you probably know, are the hi-fi zealots who think nothing of spending $50,000 on a turntable."

" Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."

By definition?? ANY burden? ANY price? Here's Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition:

au·dio·phile
Pronunciation: \ˈȯ-dē-ō-ˌfī(-ə)l\
Function: noun
Date: 1951
: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

In other words, his descriptions are ridiculous exaggerations.

The amazing thing is, you people are defending $3,000 powerline conditioners.

The amazing thing is, you people are defending $3,000 powerline conditioners.

I can't speak for the others who have posted, but I am only defending proper testing procedures and responsible journalism. Neither of those, in my opinion, are represented in the article.

I believe average consumers who read that article are likely to conclude:

1. MP3 sounds better than CD.
2. Expensive cables sound better than cheap ones to anyone with a good ear.
3. All audiophiles own $50k turntables and are mentally unbalanced.

He tried to define an audiophile twice:

"Audiophiles, as you probably know, are the hi-fi zealots who think nothing of spending $50,000 on a turntable."

" Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound."

The first is not a definition, but rather an observation about audiophiles (so the first statement quoted could be false). Both the first quote and the second could be true, without any contradiction. The first is extensional, while the second is intensional.

I think everyone is mostly taking the article far too seriously

I can't speak for the others who have posted, but I am only defending proper testing procedures and responsible journalism. Neither of those, in my opinion, are represented in the article.

I believe average consumers who read that article are likely to conclude:

1. MP3 sounds better than CD.

Why on earth would they conclude that? The article claimed that CD was preferred over mp3 by 18 out of 24 people.

2. Expensive cables sound better than cheap ones to anyone with a good ear.
3. All audiophiles own $50k turntables and are mentally unbalanced.


I think it's funny you're taking this so personally/seriously, that you don't see the contradiction between claiming #2 and #3. And he didn't even write #3!