Weber functions (AliI in dB) for gated 250-Hz tones were studied for monaural and several binaural stimulus configurations (homophasic, and antiphasic with varying phase angle for addition of signal to masker). The various cues for discrimination of signal plus masker from masker alone are functions of intensity increments at one or both ears, an intensity increment at one ear coupled with a decrement at the other, or the introduction of a phase difference between the ears. The decline of the Weber fraction with increasing masker level (the "near miss" to Weber's law) was confirmed for monaural discrimination over the entire 40-dB range, and a similar rate of decline was found for various binaural stimuli over the lower half of that range. The data also confirm the individual differences found in other studies for sensitivity favoring either interaural amplitude or interaural phase shifts. The Weber function for monaural intensity discrimination of tone bursts provides an interesting and important deviation from Weber's law. McGill and Goldberg (1968a, 1968b) have highlighted the problem, calling it the "near miss" to Weber's law, and have shown how it may reflect the compression role of the transduction of stimulus energy (E) to neural counts (fi) by the transform n: == aEP. Using I for stimulus intensity and M for the magnitude of its just discriminable (energy) increment, the fact that empirical plots of AI in dB against I in dB are well fitted by linear functions with slopes of about .90 (the near miss), rather than 1.00 (Weber's law), means that the exponent of the power transform (p) is about .20 rather than unity. Given our understanding of monaural and bin-aural processes, Schacknow and Raab (1973), reporting confirmation of the monaural near miss for several test frequencies, and Yost (1972), reporting confirmation of Weber's law for hornophasic and anti phasic binaural tones, appear to contradict each other. With homophasic tones, the listener receives identical inputs at the two ears, and it is commonly assumed that detection or discrimination mechanisms for that configuration are the same as for monaural listening. Indeed, careful examination of the two papers shows that they did use stimulus parameters that were almost identical, except for duration and range of I. Schack now and Raab include data for 250-Hz tones of 250 msec duration with lO-msec rise/fall times. The Weber function slope of about .90 was confirmed for a 40-dB range of I. Yost studied 250-Hz tones of 128 msec duration with lO-msec rise/fall times. Weber's law was apparently confirmed for a 12-dB range of I. (Yost did not raise the question of the near miss.) The results of Schacknow and Raab were presented as AI/I in dB SL, while Yost's results were presented as (I + M)/I in dB SPL. Adjusting for absolute threshold would place the Yost data well within the intensity range studied by Schacknow and Raab. Yost may have missed the near miss because his range for I was too small. (Indeed, for one of the two subjects of Schacknow and Raab...