If double blind testing does not reveal a statistically significant difference between component A and component B it does not prove that a difference does not exist. It only indicates that the double blind test being used was not able to reveal the differences (if they exist).

Have any of you read Blink? Has an interesting discussion of the coke v. pepsi taste tests in the 80s. Pepsi won, but the sales of Pepsi didn't rise as much as they thought. Coke saw Pepsi was coming and made New Coke. What they later discovered was that they didn't love the sweet taste of Pepsi for a whole can, just the sips at the beginning. So the double blind isn's always accurate.

Shawn

But why does my car seem to run better/faster after a good wash and detailing?

It's the magic of Armor All [again].

Please remember that statistical analysis is not intended to prove anything, just to provide evidence for something. Of course double-blind testing doesn't establish whether or not a difference exists, especially when the situation in point is only a case study, and a very VERY small sampling in the study as well.

Regarding:
Originally posted by tekdredger:
But why does my car seem to run better/faster after a good wash and detailing?

Answer: I always wondered if it due to decreased wind resistance (dirt etc off)

As a musician I've always been able to listen "through" the medium to the underlying musical content even if was a scratchy 78 rpm record. (Anyone else old enough to remember them?)
I also believe in the law of diminishing returns. To gain commensurate improvement in performance as one approaches the limits takes more and more capital. Any car sold nowadays can hit 125 mph. To drive at 150 mph costs +$50K.

I'm listening through five Mackie powered monitors and the lfm-1 and am very content. I really like the accuracy and flat response. I can relax and really listen to the music.

Jay

I would believe that #1 is more accurate. I don't own either at the moment, and I am still on the fence as to if I will try and get a used 950 or a brand new 990. There are processing enhancements in the 990 which make a difference to some ears (Newer design (everyone makes and learns from mistakes) , PCM upsampling/ newer, more capable DACs / different processing algorithms etc) Mind you the "difference" may simply be that-- a difference. Not better, not worse, just different... right up until someone decides they like one sound better than the other. The great thing about a Market economy, is that no one has to spend their money on something they don't want, and as long as they feel good about it, why rain on their parade? We can't even assume those who spend big $$$ buy for the sonics- there are other factors like ergonomics, processing modes, inputs/outputs etc.. Maybe they just buy to see the looks of envy on their friends faces. I don't personally think that is a good use of my money, but others may derive significant satisfaction from it, and well, they are spending their money, not mine.

One thing I am sure of, even a $99 Reciever will sound better than my completely dead, no sound through it at all, Rotel.

I think we have a couple different debates going here.

First, there is the original "double blind test" concept - which is a very interesting issue that is something of a "holy grail" among many in the hobby (as a way to try to prove either the value of highly exotic cables or the lack of difference between mid-priced and high-priced gear). It is often considered the most effective way to debunk extreme audio tweaks, although (as has been mentioned several times) the tests that have actually been conducted are often disregarded by the very people they were meant to disprove. Double-blind testing, the methods for implementing it, the results it can yield, the statistical meaning of those results, and the reactions those results have produced in the past are all extremely interesting, and there's some good general stuff in this thread.

Then there is the debate about whether there is (or should be) any audible difference between surround processors at different price points, and that debate seems to be trying to focus on the benefits (or lack thereof) in the 990 as compared to a less expensive product such as the 950. In my reading of this thread, I still don't see anyone claiming that you have to spend a specific amount of money to achieve satisfactory performance. The suggestion that a piece of equipment available below a particular price is automatically going to be cheap junk should clearly be recognizable as a flawed over-generalization (especially around here, since so many of us came to Outlaw looking for as much bang for our buck as we could get). There have been numerous Model 950 owners over the last few years (myself included) who have greatly enjoyed the 950 - the availability of a new product does not in any way invalidate that enjoyment. It certainly doesn't relegate the 950 to the level of "cr*p" or push it into the same class of product as $99 receivers that are going to be riddled with cost-imposed compromises. How will the 990 compare to the 950? In theory, improvements should be incremental - new processing modes that offer benefits, superior DAC's that may yield benefits in overall sound, and similar changes. The sonic advantages of the 990 may (depending on how the unit performs once we actually have them in our hands) be enough for some people to justify an upgrade - for them, the cost involved is worth the incremental improvement. Others may find the sonic advantages (whatever they may be) to not justify the cost, but the added features and capabilities may lead them to make a purchase. Many will simply pat the faceplate of their 950 (or their Rotel 1068, or their Yamaha receiver, or whatever they have) and decide that any benefits that might exist aren't enough to justify changing anything - that what they have now is just as good for their needs and their ears.