In Reply to: Gotta hand it to ya Pat. you never have been one to let facts get in your way posted by Analog Scott on July 31, 2010 at 19:54:14:
You maintain a number of things about the 1987 test but have not established any of them. You haven't shown why we would expect the Futterman amp to sound different--though from what I have seen somewhere, it should sound different under some common circumtstances.
Also, we have only your word that is a high profile article.
META-ANALYSIS?
Since I have shown that Stereo Review published an article in 1991 by E. Brad Meyer showing that a tube and a SS amplifier were audibly different with a speaker load. I should also point out that Stereophile did a very poorly set up mass blind test between a tube and a SS amplifier with barely positive results which readers showed were somewhat ambiguous, but Banks and Krajicek ran a smaller but much better set up blind test using the same two amplifiers and achieved a much less ambiguous positive result. Since the results reported in the 1987 SR article have been superseded, one wonders why you think it is so important. You give no reason whatever why subsequent testers would want to reexamine that old article except for historical purposes.
METHODOLOGY
You complain that:
"4. The methodologies were a mess."
But you do nothing to establish that. The results could have simply statistical fluke for all you have told us.
Since you maintain that "the methodologies were a mess," you should be able to tell us what they should have done better, but you aren't saying. Until you do, your complaints about the methodologies are simply your unsupported opinion.
-Why do you think the result of part of the test comparing the tube amp to the SS amps achieved a null result?
-What should the testers have done to make the test more sensitive?
I'm only trying to teach you something about how to support your positions.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- When you have to hurl personal accusations to prove your point, youve already lost the argument. - Pat D 20:29:55 08/03/10 (13)
- Let me know when that happens. - Analog Scott 17:15:39 08/04/10 (11)
- Well, you may have points, but no real arguments for them. - Pat D 17:37:08 08/05/10 (10)
- You have no arguments that I have no argument - Analog Scott 13:42:52 08/06/10 (9)
- I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 08:31:19 08/08/10 (8)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Analog Scott 17:48:03 08/08/10 (4)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 06:27:37 08/09/10 (3)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Analog Scott 02:43:37 08/11/10 (2)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 05:39:56 08/11/10 (1)
- Now I have the rightmost post in "classic view". nt - kurt s 07:19:31 08/12/10 (0)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Tony Lauck 09:51:28 08/08/10 (2)
- I got to the part about... - kerr 06:28:49 08/09/10 (1)
- RE: I got to the part about... - Tony Lauck 10:48:47 08/09/10 (0)
- I missed the connection between the title of your post and the content. nt - Tony Lauck 09:27:39 08/04/10 (0)