Tom said

And
we've had a couple+ positive experiments that have confirmed lack of
nominal
competence.


I said


Competence is a matter of opinion in this case.


Tom said


Not true. A frequency response measurement made at the speaker terminals
would
have verified one element of competence.

I said


No, it would varify the frequency response. Competence is in the eye of the
beholder. Or do you think one forces incomptence on an amplifier if one uses
an
equilizer?

Tom said


If the amplifier is not transparent by itself then an equalizer could remedy
that incompetence.

Not an answer to the question. I never placed any such condition you chose to
add to the question.

Tom said


The best use of an equalizer is to enhance competence but like any tool is
could be inappropriately used.

It seems you aren't getting the point still. Flat frequency response is a sign
of competence if that is what the designer set out to do. If a designer sets
out to build an amp that does not have a flat frequency response and succeeds
then there is no incompetence. It is, as i said before subjective.

Tom said


Let me turn this question around. Say that you have a tubed amplifier with a
3-ohm output impedance that introduces 2-3 dB frequency response changes when
this device is used to drive a given speaker.

If the end result is prefered sound then one has a hard time claiming
incompetence. Again, it is subjective. If it is what the designer sets out to
do and he likes it then it isn't a case of incompetence.

Tom said


And that you noticed differences in the sound of this device compared to
another device with a low output impedance and no deviations measured at the
speaker terminals.


Now; you put a series resistor in the speaker line for the 2nd device and
they
now cannot be distinguished sonically and you, personally preferred the sound
of the devices when response matched.

So who has EQ'd what and what difference does any of that make?

I'd day your
preference is just fine but if you want me to believe that high output
impedance devices that introduce response deviations is somehow improving the
delivered performance I would argue the point.


Argue all you want. It is subjective.

Tom said


It's no different from just cranking up the bass and treble controls on your
preamp because you 'like' the sound that way.


That is subjective as well. that was why I asked the question does an equilizer
make an amp incompetent? Competence has to do with ability to do something. I
am quite confident that the designers and builders of amps you would label as
incompetently designed and built are quite capable of designing and building
amps you would consider competent. It has nothing to do with ability and
everything to do with subjective choices.


Tom said

Why should we give this experiment more weight that the remaining
evidence?



I said


Who said it should get *more* weight? Why should it get less weight? In
your
case you seem to be giving it zero weight. It looks like your criteria is
the
result and only the result. That is bad science 101.


Tom said


I give it the weight it deserves in light of the other experiments most of
which have verified level matching and frequency response and supplied a
full
set of statistical data and results.


I said


The reports you sent me didn't contain any info on frequency response.

Tom said


You only read my brief summary of those reports so you don't know what was
completely reported.

Nonsense. you sent me copies of published articles. Are you saying they were
incomplete? They looked like complete articles to me.

Tom said

Why not obtain some of these.

Why would you have deleted the information from the articles you sent me?

I said


I'm
pretty sure Stewert said he level matched. I don't know what kind of data
you
need beyond a 20 out of 20 score.


Tom said


Well Steve Zipser told me that he regularly scored 19/20 and 20/20 in blind
tests; but when I put him to the test he scored 3/10.

So?

Tom said


Not that I'm suggesting anything irregular about Stewart's methods. I'm just
saying that he's the ONLY one who has ever reported these results with this
type of device.

So?

Tom said


And given the results it seems unusual that he didn't verify the usual
conditions that produce similar results.

The results should not cause one to have to do anything different than what is
normally expected to be done in varifiable tests. I don't see what was
unvarified about the conditions of Stewert's tests. He seems to spell out the
conditions of his tests pretty well.

Tom said


Stewart's test verified only level-matching at a single frequency. It is
what
it is; BUT it is NOT your smoking gun.


I said


I never said it was a smoking gun. I simply said I see no reason to give it
more or less weight than the tests you choose to give wieght to.


Tom said


Given equal weighting those results are still two dozen to 1 and haven't been
replicated.


24 to 1 in tests done over twenty years that you acknowledge (actually you
still seem to be denying Stewert's) none of which have been through peer
review. If this is convincing to you fine. Any claims of scientific fact are
farfetched at best.


Tom said

If
you have a good reason, other than you are uncomfortable with the other
evidence, please tell us.



I said


Reason for what? You are the one picking and choosing your anecdotal
evidence.

Tom said


It's interesting that you seem to completely lack an interest in the
available
evidence on the subject and a complete reluctance to acquire any evidence on
your own.

Once again you have successfully mischaracterized my thoughts.


Tom said


Anecdotes?

I said


Scientifically speaking yes. They are all anecdotal just as Stewert's tests
were. You may have your personal boundaries of what is and is not anecdotal
and
the scientific community has theirs.

Tom said


And YOU speak for the scientific community?

Do you think what I said is incorrect? Do you think the scientific community
would embrase these tests you use as scientifically valid or as anecdotal?


Tom said

I'll bet you haven't bothered to acquire copies of the Audio Amateur
experiment published in 1980 have you?

I said


I have not so far.

Tom said


Do you consider the Masters piece an 'anecdote?' How about "To Tweak..."?

I said


Scientifically speaking, yep.


Tom said


And you are qualified to comment on them 'scientifically?'


Do you think that they are scientifically valid tests that would be embraced by
scientists as such or do you think scientists would consider them anecdotal?


I said


I don't see much reason to give Stewert's tests more or less weight than
the
ones you like.


Tom said


But of that work has an inside loop on the real truth why hasn't someone
duplicated that?

I said


Sounds like you are attacking the test based on the results again. Maybe you
should replicate his tests before drawing conclusions.

Tom said


I HAVE replicated his test and many others with differing results.


Oh, where did you get the Apogees?

I said

No matter how you
dress
it, in the end, you are picking and choosing tests based on results if you
choose to reject Stewert's tests. So far you have offered nothing to show a
flaw in his tests that make them inferior to the ones you accept
other than
the
results.

Tom said


Let's put it this way; Shanefield, Masters/Toole, Masters/Clark, Pererson,
Jackson et al, Shanefield et al have duplicated this test with different
conclusions from those reported by Stewart. And with a greater description of
the data.

That's nice. It isn't what i would consider a basis for claims of scientific
facts though.

Tom said


Why am I required to reject all the other extant evidence just because it's
viewed favorably by YOU?


Never said you were. You are the one who seems unable to deal with different
result from different tests. As if with all the variables in these tests that
should be a surprise.

Tom said


I don't mean that they have to use the same devices but only
that those results haven't been obtained by anyone else? Why not?

I said


What are you saying? That you don't know what to do with conflicting data?


Tom said


No. That seems to be your problem.

In a way yes, since I don't toss out data just because it conflicts with other
data. you don't have a problem with conflicting data as long as you toss out
all the data you don't like.

Tom said

I'm saying that this single report has never
been duplicated by anyone else among the couple dozen published experiments.
Why not?

Given the many variables, many of which wer foolishly allowed in some of these
tests IMO, it is not the least bit surprising to me that the various tests have
yielded different results.

Tom said


And in the last analysis if I said to you that a certain medicine had a great
effect in one experiment but not in two dozen others how are you going to
'weight' the results?


If you are comparing these anecdotal tests to legitimate medical studies you
are on shaky ground to say the least.

Tom said


I'm guessing for the same reason that no one has duplicated the Cold Fusion
experiment

I said


IOW you are guessing that Stewert's tests yeilded wrong results based on the
fact that you don't agree with them. Very unscientific.

Tom said


Like your rejection of published experiments that didn't have the results you
wanted?


Since I have made no such rejection of published experiments I would have to
say no. You are alone on this one.