I said



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


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.


Jusr another example of you wishing to write the rules of audio for the world.
All amplifiers distort the signal, some amps do not have a flat frequency
response. They are still amps. Why do you now want to play humpty dumpty and
change the meanings of words? It won't make your points any better.

Tom said


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.'


OSAF see above for the same exact comment.

Tom said


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


Believe what you want , prefer what you want. Realize that they are only that.



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.


I said


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


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


You got it part right.

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.


I said


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


Tom said


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.

No I haven't been an any easter egg hunts lately. Again, I saw no measurements
of frequency response in the ones you sent me but I'll dig them out and look
again.

Tom said


Why not obtain some of these.


I said


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


Tom said


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

I wonder if this is an adequate response to a peer review group asking for
proof of a definitive claim of fact that is allegedly scientifically valid. "I
say it's so now you go out and prove it." That isn't going to change many
minds.

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.

I said


So?



Tom said


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


I said


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


Frequency response differences were not verified.


Well, I guess one has to ask at this point, were the amps that Stewert said
were "*******" not amps but "equilizers" and how would one know one way or
another when one is a mere consumer? People running around believing all amps
sound the same except SETs and some OTLs may not be as well informed as
objectivists would assume. If those amps sounded different they sounded
different. at least to Stewert on his system.

I said


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.

Tom said



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?



Obviously. don't you remeber i said it was anecdotal scientifically speaking as
well as the tests you have cited?

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.


Stewert said


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?


Gosh, i found it in numerous text books in my science classes in high school
and at my university. I also like to ask my friends who also happen to be
working research scientists. I am much kinder towards your favorite tests on
amplifier sound then they are. I showed them the reports you sent me and they
said they were absolute garbage.

Tom said


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


We are obviously talking to different scientists.

Tom said


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

Julian Hirsch was a scientist? Mr. Clark's report was scoffed at by my
scientist freinds. Is he considered a research scientist?

Tom said


I'm accepting their opinion over yours.


That's fine. I never set myself up as an authroity. You respect the opinions of
some in audio and I respect the opinion of some others. But didn't Julian
Hirsch come out and say the old 14 bit CD players playing the old undithered
CDs were sonically superior and audibally free of distortion? You are free to
take his word on things if you wish.

I said


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?


Because it is irrelevant. Why not answer the question I asked you? It is
relevant. I think what i do know about the scientific method qualifies me. I am
quite confident that my friends who happen to be actual research scientists are
quite qualified to comment. They called them anecdotal. The word garbage was
also thrown around. The problem is my "qualifications" are not at issue. My
comment that they are anecodtal tests scientifically speaking is not right or
wrong because of my qualifications or lack there of. So can you answer the
relevant question i asked you? I'm betting you don't answer the question and
instead focus on me and my qualifications. we'll see.

Tom said


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


I said



Oh, where did you get the Apogees?


Tom said

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

Then you didn't replicate Stewert's tests.

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.


I said


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

Tom said


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


I guess you missed the part about tests being anecdotal scientifically
speaking.



Tom said


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



I said


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


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


I said


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


Tom said


I know exactly what to do with all data.

Here's a hint. Tossing data you don't like isn't it.

Tom said

You are the person that seems to have
that difficulty.


Why? Because I am not picking and choosing data? OK........

Tom said


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

I said



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


Tom said



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 !!!

I accept those tests for what they are. i don't suspect fraud. i just don't
share your interpretation of the results of those tests. I don't draw global
conclusions and claim they are definitive and scientifically valid from a few
anecdotal tests. We part ways there in a big way.