AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)

(S888Wheel) wrote:

..large snips ....

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.

If an amplifier is not capable of transporting a signal from its input
terminals to its output terminals without doing anything excpet amplifying it
that its not an amplifier but is an equalizer.

If it has no adjustable controls allowing it to pass the signal without
alteration than its a fixed equalizer. If its not labeled as such than it
doesn't hold the primary competence of an 'ampliifer.'

OH if that's what you want. I prefer my equalizers to have more flexibility.

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.

You're right; it's a case of a weak design tool set or craziness.

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.

Frequency response at the loudspeaker termianls was confirmed in all
the full experiments I sent you. I was referring to those listed in "The Great
Debate....?" none of which you've seemingly acquired since then.

Why not obtain some of these.

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

Please. Expand your horizons and gather some information on your own.

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.

Frequency response differences were not verified.

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.

Stewart's is the 1. And since his hasn't been either published or subject to
peer review doesn't it fail you "scientific" criteria?

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.

So where do we find this list of scientific criteria. If you aren't qualified
to pass judgement how can you say one way or another?

But the scientists and engineers I know fully accept these experiments as
having failed to confirm the existance of amp/wire sound.

I'll list a few of them again: Shanefield, Geddes, Rich, Lip****z, Vanderkooy,
Toole, Olive, Clark, Eargle, Breithaupt, Ranada, Hirsch, Davis, Gibeau....

I'm accepting their opinion over yours.

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?

Why not answer the question. Are YOU qualified to comment?

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

Oh, where did you get the Apogees?

I and others have replicated this experiment a couple dozen times with
differing results with other speakers and other amplification devices.

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.

Why not? There's no other confirming data of amp sound is there?

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?

I know exactly what to do with all data. You are the person that seems to have
that difficulty.

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.

OK then you accept "The Great Chicago Cable Caper" and "To Tweak or Not to
Tweak" and "Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" Great!!! Amps is Amps and Wire
is Wire !!!