In rec.audio.opinion dave weil wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
roups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.


Because 'Stereophile' is a consumer with limited access
to gear for comparison, nor the equipment for proper level matching
and ABX switching?

I seriously doubt *that's* the reason. Then again, *reason* doesn't
seem to be your strong suit, does it?




--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson
wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once
again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand
I
too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question
you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous
"slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going
to
cause me to ose any sleep.


By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts
would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping
with
his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you
with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny
it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.


Except for all those JAES articles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here he goes again referring to "all those JAES articles". Unless there
is something very, very wrong surely he should know by now that we're
discussing the role of ABX in differentiating audio components while
reproducing music and that JAES NEVER but NEVER published articles
about component comparison.

I anticipate this multiple choice possible responses:
1 ) No quotes. Not one sentence from any article
.
You mean you haven't read any of them?

2) Names of any articles ( no quotes) on any subject- except of course
audio component comparison because there aren't any- that ever
mentioned ABX-.
, Even if they said that they did not use it. .

There are plenty of refernces to ABX though, have you read any of them?


.3) Names of any articles (no quotes of course) on any subject that
ever mention DBTs, or ABChr- even if ABX is not mentioned there at all.

So you admit you've not read any of them.

Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
Ludovic Mirabel

I called you a ****bag? I don't think so.
The one who needs pity is you with your crusade against an accepted and
widely used protocl that for some reason you refuse to accept and that
you
refuse to do your own research on and offer up an alternative or show
some
validity to whatever method you use for evaluating audio equipment.

Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine and see
how many articles from JAES you get.

Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at
Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
116-128,
(March 1997)

These are also included in the ABX bibliography.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predictably "slight forger" plumps for the option b (see my text
predicting his choices)
" Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine
and see
how many articles from JAES you get.

Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at
Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
116-128,
(March 1997)

I should not and I will not. Contrariwise to you Prof.
McKelvy I'm not in esoteric researchn "resonances" or anything else.

Thank you for that admission. You're also not interested in why ABX can and
does work for evaluating audio equipment.

I am interested in selecting audio components for their fidelity to my
image of the live musical performance. and the only question I have is:
is ABX any use in that task.

And the answer is that it can be, but it may not always be the best choice.

It is different for researchers like you Prof. No wonder you
publish your findings in this noted research journal RAO.
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. I've done enough wild goose chases on your web-sourced , unread by
you fool references. I wonder if these two as much as mention ABX as
Olive's research method for this task. Quote?

That you don't understand the relevance is not my problem.
That you don't seem to understand that there are thresholds of audibility is
your problem.
That you don't understand that it is pretty easy to build audio equipment
that has no audible signature of it's own is another of your problems.

That you don't seem to be able to understand much about what is audible is
another problem for you.

Why you can't grasp that ABX is what it is, a relaible way to check for
subtle differences, and that once those differences are above a certain
point, they will be heard in an ABX comparison, is another problem.

I asked you before "Is it possible that audio devices that measure within .1
db across the
audible bandwidth would sound alike?"

And you dodged with: "No personal experimental evidence but at a guess some
would , some
would not. Just like pianos, flutes, violins etc." Indicating you don't
understand that audio equipment is not a musical instrument and that any
piece of equipment that met the above criteria would sound like any other
piece of equipment that measured the same.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
groups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are, looney.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson
wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.

However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.
It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and other
forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people can hear
things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are there when
listening in non-bias controlled situations.

Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
listen for pleasure.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".

Not likely. That's audiophool kind of science. Start with a conviction and
then ignore any evidence to the contrary.

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
egroups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
looney.

Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.


I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and other
forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people can
hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are there
when listening in non-bias controlled situations.


We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for pleasure.

wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".

Not likely. That's audiophool kind of science. Start with a conviction
and then ignore any evidence to the contrary.


See what I mean, folks!!!!
If killers ironed.

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once
again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand
I
too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question
you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous
"slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going
to
cause me to ose any sleep.


By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts
would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping
with
his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you
with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny
it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.


Except for all those JAES articles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here he goes again referring to "all those JAES articles". Unless there
is something very, very wrong surely he should know by now that we're
discussing the role of ABX in differentiating audio components while
reproducing music and that JAES NEVER but NEVER published articles
about component comparison.

I anticipate this multiple choice possible responses:
1 ) No quotes. Not one sentence from any article
.
You mean you haven't read any of them?

2) Names of any articles ( no quotes) on any subject- except of course
audio component comparison because there aren't any- that ever
mentioned ABX-.
, Even if they said that they did not use it. .

There are plenty of refernces to ABX though, have you read any of them?


.3) Names of any articles (no quotes of course) on any subject that
ever mention DBTs, or ABChr- even if ABX is not mentioned there at all.

So you admit you've not read any of them.

Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
Ludovic Mirabel

I called you a ****bag? I don't think so.
The one who needs pity is you with your crusade against an accepted and
widely used protocl that for some reason you refuse to accept and that
you
refuse to do your own research on and offer up an alternative or show
some
validity to whatever method you use for evaluating audio equipment.

Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine and see
how many articles from JAES you get.

Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at
Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
116-128,
(March 1997)

These are also included in the ABX bibliography.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predictably "slight forger" plumps for the option b (see my text
predicting his choices)
" Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine
and see
how many articles from JAES you get.

Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at
Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
116-128,
(March 1997)

I should not and I will not. Contrariwise to you Prof.
McKelvy I'm not in esoteric researchn "resonances" or anything else.

Thank you for that admission. You're also not interested in why ABX can and
does work for evaluating audio equipment.

I am interested in selecting audio components for their fidelity to my
image of the live musical performance. and the only question I have is:
is ABX any use in that task.

And the answer is that it can be, but it may not always be the best choice.

It is different for researchers like you Prof. No wonder you
publish your findings in this noted research journal RAO.
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. I've done enough wild goose chases on your web-sourced , unread by
you fool references. I wonder if these two as much as mention ABX as
Olive's research method for this task. Quote?

That you don't understand the relevance is not my problem.
That you don't seem to understand that there are thresholds of audibility is
your problem.
That you don't understand that it is pretty easy to build audio equipment
that has no audible signature of it's own is another of your problems.

That you don't seem to be able to understand much about what is audible is
another problem for you.

Why you can't grasp that ABX is what it is, a relaible way to check for
subtle differences, and that once those differences are above a certain
point, they will be heard in an ABX comparison, is another problem.

I asked you before "Is it possible that audio devices that measure within .1
db across the
audible bandwidth would sound alike?"

And you dodged with: "No personal experimental evidence but at a guess some
would , some
would not. Just like pianos, flutes, violins etc." Indicating you don't
understand that audio equipment is not a musical instrument and that any
piece of equipment that met the above criteria would sound like any other
piece of equipment that measured the same.

Dear slight forger Prof McKelvy. You convinced me. I know nothing
about "accuracy", "audibility" and other such topics that are life
blood to you. As long as the world of audio has scientists like you and
Sullivan we are all audio-safe.
Make your joint recommendations for the ideal system and we will all
be in audio heaven for good. Or is it enough to just look up "Consumer
Reports"?.
With impatient anticipation Ludovic Mirabel

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once
again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own
terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of
DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say.
Offhand
I
too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question
you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous
"slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly
going
to
cause me to ose any sleep.


By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain
2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts
would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping
with
his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented
you
with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still
deny
it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under
idolatry.
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.


Except for all those JAES articles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear slight forger Prof McKelvy. You convinced me. I know nothing
about "accuracy", "audibility" and other such topics that are life
blood to you. As long as the world of audio has scientists like you and
Sullivan we are all audio-safe.

And as long as there are people like you trying to dumb down the science of
audio, the hobby will be populated with nutballs.

Make your joint recommendations for the ideal system and we will all
be in audio heaven for good. Or is it enough to just look up "Consumer
Reports"?.
With impatient anticipation Ludovic Mirabel

I don't read CR.

I'd probabably start by getting some bench test info on teh Behringer A500
amps to see if they actually cut the mustard in terms of advertised
performance vs. actual perofrmance.

Assuming they live up to their claims, I'd have at least 3 of them, one to
power a subwoofer, and 2 in bridged mode to power the Dynaudio speakers I'd
pick.

If this is to be an ideal sound system, it would have to include a top of
the line turntable which would require me to learn ore about them sinc I
haven't paid attention to them for about 20 years, but I understand VPI is
still considered good along with Koetsu and a few other phono cartridges.

Lexicon preamp, since they do tihngs that others don't.

Sony universal CD player, or some other well built brand.

The subwoofer would likley be a DIY project using Sonotube due to the
smaller footprint, and the fact that it's a tube.so no problem with cabinet
resonances. The driers would be from Adire Audio most likely but there are a
couple other lines that I would chenck out first.

Of course there is a possibility that I might wish to consider an Infinite
Baffle sub, but I'd probably consult with Tom Nousaine on that since he
seems to have a pretty good idea about how to get good bass.

Assuming the Behringers worked out, the most expensive parts wold be the
speakers and the turntable although once I had all the LP's transferred to
CD, there would be little use in having one, so it would no doubt be sold
off fairly soon.

Not outrageous but easily capable of delivering first rate sound with plenty
of clean power and lots of headroom to spare.

What's yours?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".

Not likely. That's audiophool kind of science. Start with a conviction
and then ignore any evidence to the contrary.


See what I mean, folks!!!!
If killers ironed.

George would be well dressed.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
legroups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them because their house of cards would come
crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
looney.

Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.
Why because I know what bad sound will come from equipment that measures
horribly?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.


I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and other
forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people can
hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are there
when listening in non-bias controlled situations.


We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
pleasure.
Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most people
aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a device is
going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation from
flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
glegroups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show
why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them because their house of cards would come
crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
looney.

Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.
Why because I know what bad sound will come from equipment that measures
horribly?


You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
comparisons,
at all.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.


I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people
can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are
there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.


We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
pleasure.
Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
people aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a
device is going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any
deviation from flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you,
then so be it.


Your defense is "I know, because I read it somewhere that
simple FR amd distortion specs tell me exactly how a unit sounds, so I
don't have to do DBT and I don't have to even listen to the unit.'
Talk about religion!!!!

The Bug Eater explains why he's terrified of submitting to aBxism torture
rituals.

... I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get.

By your own admission, that "information" includes neither aBxism "tests" nor an
actual audition.

Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting you have no idea what a good stereo sounds
like.


..
..

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:44:34 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most people
aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a device is
going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation from
flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.

It IS, because I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

dave weil said:

... I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

That's fine for you and us other Normals, but Mickey is handicapped by not being
able to distinguish good sound from bad using only his own brain. That's why he
has to resort to specs.

This seems to be a pattern with the 'borgs. Their class envy is reinforced by
their inability to hear the finer points of audio reproduction. So They react to
Their own failure by attempting to drag all the Normals down to Their level of
deafness. Sad, really.



..
..

dave "deaf" weil wrote :


I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it.

Why do you waste your time, deaf-man ? ;-)



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
people aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a
device is going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any
deviation from flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you,
then so be it.


Your defense is "I know, because I read it somewhere that
simple FR amd distortion specs tell me exactly how a unit sounds, so I
don't have to do DBT and I don't have to even listen to the unit.'
Talk about religion!!!!


You are also suffering from reading comprehension problems, since I said
nothing of the kind. My choices are based on being able to get information
from techs who work on audio equipment and test it to see if it performs up
to spec. Knowing what is audible is also a part of my choices. Since it is
a fact that differences that are small enough can't be reliably detected, I
also incorporate that into my decisions. I also listen and do some blind
comparisons although not as rigorous as a full blown DBT, since after a few
tries and not being able to hear a difference, I stop.

This is still a much more reliable way to choose equipment than simply
listening and letting any and all outside influences interfere with what I
hear.

Since you can't demonstrate that sighted listening is in any way reliable
for subtle differences, and that it can and does lead to hearing things that
aren't there, you have to dis any reliable method or else you are admitting
that every decision you made could have been completely and utterly without
merit.

Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the same.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:44:34 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
people
aren't. I get informationt hat is real world and tells me how a device is
going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation
from
flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.

It IS, because I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

So you DON'T understand that doouble digit distortion is a problem and that
it is gross enough that a DBT of any sort would be unneccessary.

BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except CD
players.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.


I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that
people can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things
that are there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.


We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
pleasure.
Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.

How is how humans hear, irrelevant?
How is what we are able to hear irrelevant?
How is the psychology of hearing irrelevant?

What is irrelevant is sighted listening. It opens you up to all sorts of
non-existent sounds.

wrote in message
link.net...



Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the same.


most mass market amps sounds vaguely similar to each other, sharing a few
basic faults
in some combination of amounts.

High end ss amps can sound fairly different, and there are many, many
disappointing
ones, expecially considering the prices. Usually, bipolar amps sound
different to me
than MOSFET amps. The few ss amps I liked were bipolar.

I have never heard a SET ss amp.

I find much more variation is sound with ss cd players/DACS.
High end and mid fi cd players sound a lot
better than they used to.

wrote in message
ink.net...



BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except
CD players.

Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.


I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that
people can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things
that are there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.


We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way,
then listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
pleasure.
Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.

How is how humans hear, irrelevant?
How is what we are able to hear irrelevant?
How is the psychology of hearing irrelevant?


Its not relevant to my selection of equipment.
Waht is relevant to my selection is if I like the music that comes out of
it.

What is irrelevant is sighted listening. It opens you up to all sorts of
non-existent sounds.


Which I will invariably begin hearing again, once the DBT is over.

Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:

BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except
CD players.

Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?

Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oglegroups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show
why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them because their house of cards would come
crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
looney.

Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.
Why because I know what bad sound will come from equipment that measures
horribly?


You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
comparisons,
at all.

And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and that
sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?

The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind comparisons
is because I know what I know about aduio equipment.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
link.net...



Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the
same.


most mass market amps sounds vaguely similar to each other, sharing a few
basic faults
in some combination of amounts.

High end ss amps can sound fairly different, and there are many, many
disappointing
ones, expecially considering the prices. Usually, bipolar amps sound
different to me
than MOSFET amps. The few ss amps I liked were bipolar.

I have never heard a SET ss amp.

I don't think there is such a thing as a Single Ended Triode Solid State
amp, but I could be wrong. I can't understand why anyone would want to make
such a thing, but then there are tubed Cd players.

I find much more variation is sound with ss cd players/DACS.

TAC online has a review of a DAC that is very complimentary and that says it
is an improvement over other DACs.

High end and mid fi cd players sound a lot
better than they used to.
Even sighted, I can't tell one CD player from another, nor from a DVD player
playing a CD.

Those are your unsupported beliefs and you are welcome to them. Is there
any data that you can provide other than anecdotes to back them up.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...



BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except
CD players.

Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?
I listen to them AFTER I buy them, nit picker.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson
wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.

How can you prefer the sound of something that doesn't sound different from
what you have?

This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

But it is, you just don't recognize it. The science of psychology is at
work during sighted comparisons. It's also at work when listening blind but
in a different way.

However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.
Of course it's relevant, wthout the science there's no audio equipment.
Without scinece there's no knowledge of what is audible in the forst place
and how wide the bandwidth should be.

Without science, there's no improvement in speaker technology, stylus
technology, tube technology or any other aspect of audio. It's no surprise
that science is applied to what influences how we hear.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.


I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that
people can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things
that are there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.


We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way,
then listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
pleasure.
Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.

How is how humans hear, irrelevant?
How is what we are able to hear irrelevant?
How is the psychology of hearing irrelevant?


Its not relevant to my selection of equipment.
Waht is relevant to my selection is if I like the music that comes out of
it.

What is irrelevant is sighted listening. It opens you up to all sorts of
non-existent sounds.


Which I will invariably begin hearing again, once the DBT is over.
Fine, let them, that's part of the fun of audio, but if yo don't know what
you have at the point of purchase, it just might show up in your daily
listening when it's too late.

I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get it
home.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:

BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy,
except
CD players.

Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?

Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.



Come closer, I see one on your forehead.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
comparisons,
at all.

And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?


For one thing, tests using other people's ears
does not tell you wht YOU will experience.


The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
comparisons is because I know what I know about aduio equipment.

Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
link.net...



Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the
same.


most mass market amps sounds vaguely similar to each other, sharing a few
basic faults
in some combination of amounts.

High end ss amps can sound fairly different, and there are many, many
disappointing
ones, expecially considering the prices. Usually, bipolar amps sound
different to me
than MOSFET amps. The few ss amps I liked were bipolar.

I have never heard a SET ss amp.

I don't think there is such a thing as a Single Ended Triode Solid State
amp, but I could be wrong. I can't understand why anyone would want to
make such a thing, but then there are tubed Cd players.

I find much more variation is sound with ss cd players/DACS.

TAC online has a review of a DAC that is very complimentary and that says
it is an improvement over other DACs.


What improvement? For them, price is all that matters.


High end and mid fi cd players sound a lot
better than they used to.
Even sighted, I can't tell one CD player from another, nor from a DVD
player playing a CD.

That helps keep yourt costs down.
No sense paying for improvements you are unable to hear.


Those are your unsupported beliefs and you are welcome to them. Is there
any data that you can provide other than anecdotes to back them up.


Its all I need, for my purposes.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson
wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.

How can you prefer the sound of something that doesn't sound different
from what you have?

This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

But it is, you just don't recognize it. The science of psychology is at
work during sighted comparisons. It's also at work when listening blind
but in a different way.

However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.
Of course it's relevant, wthout the science there's no audio equipment.

The discussion is regarding consumer choices.

Without scinece there's no knowledge of what is audible in the forst place
and how wide the bandwidth should be.

Without science, there's no improvement in speaker technology, stylus
technology, tube technology or any other aspect of audio. It's no
surprise that science is applied to what influences how we hear.


Not by the consumer, in making purchasing decisions.

wrote in message
nk.net...



I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get
it home.


I think its better to know if you like it, under the conditions you will be
using it.