| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
On 31 Aug 2005 00:09:39 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... In fact, due to my nominally 84dB/w/m speakers being dipoles, and my '50 watt' Krell pumping out a max of 27.4 volts rms into my speakers, that's just about exactly what I get from my own system, and I don't get many complaints that it won't play loudly enough. -- Many years ago an audio and concert going friend of mine was very careful about high volumes damaging the ribbons in the his original Apogee. Do you have such concerns with your system? No, since I'm using about a quarter of the power which others would use on these speakers. A KSA-250 might cause more anxiety than my KSA-50! I didn't enjoy watching those ribbons jumping all around during music listening, even at ordinary normal listening levels. Doesn't bother me at all, and that only happens noticeably under very particular conditions. Ever noticed how cone speakers flap about? :-) The ribbons in my Maggies don't attract any such similar attention, why is that? The ribbon tweeter in the better Maggies, although one of the very best sonically, is in fact notoriously fragile, and seldom survived a hi-fi show without becoming overstretched. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Maki wrote:
Start a new thread once anyone actually organizes and creates a bona fide challenge fund. Then post it to a website set up for that purpose, at least. Until then, I call upon everyone to cease, desist and stop claiming that such a fund or challenge exists except as a concept or nice idea. I don't call that an "even pace". Randy, it wouldn't take a whole lot to get us (well, me at least) to the "funding" stage. The scenario I see for this is for someone (like you for instance, but I don't mean this as a personal challege to you) to offer up a proposal, stating what units they would like to compare, and a brief description of the method they'd like to use to prove that they can differentiate by sound alone. With all due respect, this so-called "red herring challenge" had been bandied about by certain vociferous posters here for several years without any codification or action. You must be new to this? I called for action something like TWO years back. (check the archives on Google?) I now call for either DROPPING THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS A $$ POT OF MONEY FOR THIS CHALLENGE OR ELSE CREATING ONE!! That's all there is to our part of the discussion. The goal is to absolutely minimize post test complaints about methodology - we've been through this all before you know. In the words of Jeff Beck (Guitar Shop Album) "... nothing is being done..." _-_-bear Steve Maki |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Either 104dB or 125dB, for the range of available 'hi-fi' speakers. But of course, you knew that. Lets consider if it is played through speakers of a typical low sensitivity, audiophile style (let's say 82-86dB SPL) at the average in room listening level of 90dB at a distance of say 3 meters away? Let's agree that many classical pieces (and others) have a ratio of average to peak levels of 20 dB. Actually, the current average is 87dB/w/m, so giving 107dB for peak SPL under anechoic conditions, or around 110-113dB at the listening position in an average listening room for a stereo pair, which is pretty darned loud. In fact, due to my nominally 84dB/w/m speakers being dipoles, and my '50 watt' Krell pumping out a max of 27.4 volts rms into my speakers, that's just about exactly what I get from my own system, and I don't get many complaints that it won't play loudly enough. Good. Now let's consider what the distortion level of your Krell is at -3dB down from clipping. Let's talk IM and THD. We find it is higher than one might like. Let's talk about what the *distortion* level of your Apogee speakers is at -3dB down, and then back down at say -10 amd -20dB (the supposed average listening level)? I'll even let you ignore that big bass "ribbon" and concentrate on the tweeter ribbon or if it has one, the midrange ribbon. Whatcha measure? What does the sum of ur amp distortion + speaker distortion look like vs power level. Why not graph it and post it to a website? Complaints about loudness are irrelevant. The subject is not that. _-_-bear |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Sep 2005 14:49:36 GMT, BEAR wrote:
Start a new thread once anyone actually organizes and creates a bona fide challenge fund. Then post it to a website set up for that purpose, at least. Until then, I call upon everyone to cease, desist and stop claiming that such a fund or challenge exists except as a concept or nice idea. I don't call that an "even pace". Randy, it wouldn't take a whole lot to get us (well, me at least) to the "funding" stage. The scenario I see for this is for someone (like you for instance, but I don't mean this as a personal challege to you) to offer up a proposal, stating what units they would like to compare, and a brief description of the method they'd like to use to prove that they can differentiate by sound alone. With all due respect, this so-called "red herring challenge" had been bandied about by certain vociferous posters here for several years without any codification or action. You must be new to this? No, I'm a veteran. I dare say I saw you arrive on these groups. I called for action something like TWO years back. (check the archives on Google?) YOU called for action, yes. And that means we're supposed to jump, right? It doesn't work like that Randy. I now call for either DROPPING THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS A $$ POT OF MONEY FOR THIS CHALLENGE OR ELSE CREATING ONE!! That's all there is to our part of the discussion. You're basically calling us liars Randy. I've told you what it would take to get us to the funding stage. It's a very minimum requirement. If it's too much to ask, then you're right - that's all there is to our discussion. It's all about good faith. We've publically committed the funds, the next TINY step is up to you. If we don't come through after that, then crow all you want. Steve Maki |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
BEAR wrote:
wrote: BEAR wrote: Your statements imply that below some "low" figure for raw "distortion" that everything is therefore inaudible - ergo all amplifiers below some threshold based on the raw distortion figures are going to sound the same, since there will be no audible distortion, no? You're implying that there are no known thresholds for human hearing, which is absolute nonsense no matter what you say, Where is that found?? Egad. I gave you standard references. Go read them if you haven't. You're making things up. A laughable and disgusting smear, since I gave you references. If you want another that gives you historical perspective, there's Fletcher. I clearly stated something about *your argument* - I did not state what my hypothesis might actually be. Furthermore my text clearly suggests a "threshold." Is there no "threshold" for *raw distortion measurement* of an amplifier where all amplifiers testing at or below that level will have no audible distortion whatsoever? Or not? There is no aggregate number as I already said, yet you ask the question again. and I'm not going to argue about it. Furthermore, I and others have not singled out 'distortion' as the only parameter of audible performance as there are linear and non linear distortions and they all have different levels and conditions where they generally become audible. So, how *would* you then characterize amplifiers based upon measurement alone? Extremely conservative numbers would be: THD & IM; 20-20K: .1% FR: 20-20K +/- .1 dB Output impedance: .1 ohm Noise: -100dB below Unconditionally stable into any speaker load: i.e. above performance maintained under such loads. In the vast majority of cases, the above is far more than necessary. I thought YOU knew these things!! Please illuminate the subject with an exposition on these issues for the readers of *this* newsgroup! Why? Those that were here who know the subject in their sleep who have tried to enlighten and have left this place in frustration, because of the endless arguments from those who argue about fundamental points with no or little facts or evidence. Very, very few minds have been changed. I was prompted to reevaluate what I formerly believed, study some more on my own, and satisfy myself by doing some of my own blind listening, but that seems to be rare. You seem to think that it's just some sort of decision folks make to 'authority.' How could my relatively meager knowledge do any better than those who used to be here, whose efforts were mostly mocked? Posting here seems to be some sort of disease, and a time wasting 'sport.' A disease that is cured by just leaving. The point is that many "objectivists" on this newsgroup have been insisting that DBTs show that all amplifiers that measure below some relatively modest level of distortion "sound the same" ergo they fall below the level(s) or threshold(s) of human perception as far as any audible differences. True or not? Yes. Debated here ad nauseum. Examples given include Bryston & Krell amplfiers of late 80s and early 90s vintage, and many Japanese receivers of "0.00X%" distortion. True or not? Those claims have been made. They are not true in all cases. My example of that would be using the stereotypical 'Japanese receiver' to drive really difficult loads and etc. This has been hashed over here ad nauseum. You're probably playing with delusion if you think that the folks working on these newer distortion detection techniques are questioning the validity of the blind listening protocols, but maybe I'm wrong. Show one that does. Show what? You show something. So far you've been merely talking around the issues. You've made no substantive statement that I have read. Try doing that first. Blind listening protocols? What are they? (lol) You can posture better than that! I don't know what they are. Cite a reference or two. Online? Mentioned and debated here ad nauseum. As before, you are just absurdly postering here trying to draw me into another endless argument about blind testing in an attempt to score some 'points' in this tempest in a teapot group. I don't know why I'm even responding to this. Like I said, a disease. But thank you for helping me decide to quit posting here. Maybe that's your goal. You win. Hooray for Randy! Hooray for RAHE! I've never built or tested a Hawksford output stage, but have built power supply buffers using the Sziklai circuit. It has some additional internal feedback intrinsic to the circuit itself, with the resultant advantages and disadvantages. (mostly an advantage depending on what you're after) It is more prone to oscillations, but those problems can usually be solved. The pertanent question is: is it necessary to go to the trouble to do this in practical terms? I agree - this is a pertinent question. Perhaps THE question. The flip side of THE question is do these techiniques change anything in terms of the harmonic (distortion) series produced in steady state or transient conditions, and are *these* significant? It's starting to look like it's not quite straightforward, as some apparently still believe and most apparently previously thought. It's not straightforward and never has been in academic terms. In the last 25 years, it has become more straightforward in listening terms. The so-called 'conventional wisdom' could be wrong about that, but without more evidence that is more than arbitrary personal opinion, every passing day increases the weight of evidence otherwise. I can't disagree, except about the 'often' part. Well, that's where we diverge... the question is how far is that divergence, and would we not diverge at all IF the test conditions that you are familiar with were closer to the test conditions that I am familiar with? (...and I am thinking more about the base line distortion(s) of the *system* being used for the testing, more than anything else...) AFAIK, you haven't ever specified your test conditions. My view is that it happens far more often than most people and systems are likely to make recognize. Merely "accepting" that this is how things are supposed to sound is what I have observed to be the case most often. The reason that the large "overkill" flagship amplifier that I build is built like that is that this design *reduces* the likelyhood of such events (reaching the threshold of audible distortion) ever occurring. You can hear that difference when it is presented as a choice. DBT or not. DBT? Then step up to the plate and show it now that you've made the claim. I would be very impressed if you could. However whenever you're asked this, you get evasive. What's to fear if you're so confident about it? Use your system or any other you deem to be revealing enough. Let's do it! When are you coming up? Who is putting up this alleged money, OR finally admitting that no one is actually going to do so? Or, should we merely ignore that aspect? I don't advocate making it a bet. That's where I part company with some others here, as it only adds noise to what is already an unproductive roar. If the system &/or amplifier(s) being utilized in the DBT or other listening "test" *both* fail to limit themselves in terms of additive distortion(s), depending on the similarity or lack of similarity of this "failure" one may or may not be able to detect which is which. I totally agree. The rest of the system should not hinder the test. Alas! ALL of the tests that I am presently aware of that have been done, or *claim* to have delivered "proof" on these issues in my view have been extremely flawed and limited. AFAIK, you have not specified specifically what you do that is better. (nor am I suggesting that there are any systems that are perfect either, just that there are critical areas that should NOT be compromised ever and some that can stand a degree of compromise - how those are chosen makes a big diff on what can or can not be heard) However, if one has had extensive experience with extremely low distortion *systems* one is more likely to simply be able to state that the thing just doesn't sound that good, or isn't sufficiently capable. No, that's not a reliable way to do audio testing, but maybe the best way to find out what you like. How's that? Debated here ad nauseum. So far, afaik, the DBT'ers that have published have not adequately considered this issue, have not done adequate measurements or controls on this factor(s) so have missed the boat entirely in terms of adequately determining much more than the results of a specific test, with specific test conditions. No way to quarrel with the results of a specific test in specific test conditions. The QUESTION is *do these test conditions actually TELL US anything of general value?* I say no. You can look at the trend, which helps determine the weight of evidence in any human endevour. It's like an asymtote. That doesn't mean the trend won't change in the future. That concept is one of the cornerstones of science as much as weight of evidence. One makes a decision on the weight of evidence. I have NEVER said the results of such tests are absolute universal generalities of the trVth. Some sometimes seem to come closer to that than I'm comfortable with when they make direct parallels with mathematical axioms. I simply think arguments over empirical evidence should be based and validated on what is known rather than something that is speculation. Good bye. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Maki wrote:
snip No, I'm a veteran. I dare say I saw you arrive on these groups. I strongly doubt that. I started on the internet with an email address that ended in .BITNET... did you? I called for action something like TWO years back. (check the archives on Google?) YOU called for action, yes. And that means we're supposed to jump, right? It doesn't work like that Randy. Sorry, Steve, if you and others want to claim that you or "others" who are supposed to be involved in this are *offering* this money as a challenge then it is incumbent upon you and/or the "others" to first back up YOUR CHALLENGE. You've got your horse hitched up backwards, and ur apparently looking at the wrong end of things! I now call for either DROPPING THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS A $$ POT OF MONEY FOR THIS CHALLENGE OR ELSE CREATING ONE!! That's all there is to our part of the discussion. You're basically calling us liars Randy. If there is no money anywhere to be had or found, then there is no challenge, just hyperbole. Is that what it is? You tell everyone on rahe which one it is. I've told you what it would take to get us to the funding stage. It's a very minimum requirement. If it's too much to ask, then you're right - that's all there is to our discussion. It's all about good faith. We've publically committed the funds, the next TINY step is up to you. If we don't come through after that, then crow all you want. What step? Either you commit the funds, or you don't. Either you post a clear statement of EXACTLY WHAT THE CHALLENGE CONSISTS OF or else there is NOTHING that anybody could possible DO! Since there is a legal aspect to such "offers", it is a REQUIREMENT that the terms and conditions sufficient and necessary for capturing the challenge "prize" of $$ be completely and unambiguously clear - that REQUIRES DOCUMENTATION. Where's the documentation?? Either you all are going to be serious in this regard, or you're going to get called on the carpet whenever you make facetious claims about this thing being real. _-_-bear Steve Maki |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Sep 2005 15:10:44 GMT, BEAR wrote:
No, I'm a veteran. I dare say I saw you arrive on these groups. I strongly doubt that. I started on the internet with an email address that ended in .BITNET... did you? You've got me there. I was a late arrival to the computer world (1990) and was "on" almost immediately, but that was after bitnet's heyday. At any rate, I've followed the aforementioned topics closely right from the beginning. I called for action something like TWO years back. (check the archives on Google?) YOU called for action, yes. And that means we're supposed to jump, right? It doesn't work like that Randy. Sorry, Steve, if you and others want to claim that you or "others" who are supposed to be involved in this are *offering* this money as a challenge then it is incumbent upon you and/or the "others" to first back up YOUR CHALLENGE. You've got your horse hitched up backwards, and ur apparently looking at the wrong end of things! In your opinion. I now call for either DROPPING THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS A $$ POT OF MONEY FOR THIS CHALLENGE OR ELSE CREATING ONE!! That's all there is to our part of the discussion. You're basically calling us liars Randy. If there is no money anywhere to be had or found, then there is no challenge, just hyperbole. Is that what it is? You tell everyone on rahe which one it is. I've told you what it would take to get us to the funding stage. It's a very minimum requirement. If it's too much to ask, then you're right - that's all there is to our discussion. It's all about good faith. We've publically committed the funds, the next TINY step is up to you. If we don't come through after that, then crow all you want. What step? Either you commit the funds, or you don't. Either you post a clear statement of EXACTLY WHAT THE CHALLENGE CONSISTS OF or else there is NOTHING that anybody could possible DO! Since there is a legal aspect to such "offers", it is a REQUIREMENT that the terms and conditions sufficient and necessary for capturing the challenge "prize" of $$ be completely and unambiguously clear - that REQUIRES DOCUMENTATION. Where's the documentation?? Either you all are going to be serious in this regard, or you're going to get called on the carpet whenever you make facetious claims about this thing being real. I can see where this is headed, and I'm not going to get sucked into long drawn out exchanges about it, but here's my view: This is an informal but serious offer. The reason it's informal at this point is that: 1) We are open to many diferent scenarios depending on what type of demonstration the challenger would feel comfortable with. As I said, we are trying to minimize post-test complaints. Once someone expresses an interest and offers a preliminary proposal, open discussions about details could be firmed up rapidly. Either the discussions lead to mutually agreeable terms, or they don't. They would be mostly public, so the gentle readers could form their own opinions about whether good faith efforts were being made. 2) As I said before, I don't want to tie up my money or encourage others to do so, or spend a lot of time researching all the legal fine points until we at least get a preliminary proposal out there. My own vision, as far as the money goes, was to simply send the funds to a neutral third party, probably an RAHE participant, whose identity is agreed upon by both sides. But that can't happen till we know who the other side is... 3) The effort required to put up an all encompassing "legal contract" which didn't have loopholes through which the unscrupulous could slip would be huge, and require a team of lawyers. Much better, IMO, to focus on a particular challenger and his own ideas about what he thinks he can hear, and work up to formal terms from there. In short, a "serious" offer does not have to be formal at this point. And that's all I'm going to say about it. I think. BTW, I agree that the "Challenge" is used as a hammer too often, and also that the money issue probably adds some noise to the topic. But exasperation causes **** to happen. Steve Maki |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Maki wrote:
snip I can see where this is headed, and I'm not going to get sucked into long drawn out exchanges about it, but here's my view: This is an informal but serious offer. The reason it's informal at this point is that: 1) We are open to many diferent scenarios depending on what type of demonstration the challenger would feel comfortable with. As I said, we are trying to minimize post-test complaints. A) who is "we"? who do you speak for? B) suggest some scenarios? which are favored? which, btw, are not? C) make some sort of concrete proposal Once someone expresses an interest and offers a preliminary proposal, open discussions about details could be firmed up rapidly. Either the discussions lead to mutually agreeable terms, or they don't. They would be mostly public, so the gentle readers could form their own opinions about whether good faith efforts were being made. D) this is bass-ackwards. it's "your" challenge, you don't make an open challenge and then ask comers to set terms! state your basic terms. then if they seem plausible, potential respondants can decide if they wish to participate or discuss... 2) As I said before, I don't want to tie up my money or encourage others to do so, or spend a lot of time researching all the legal fine points until we at least get a preliminary proposal out there. E) not much to tie up or research. that's what an escrow service does. F) fine, get a preliminary proposal "out there." G) don't mention anything about the thing until "you" (whomever that may be...) do get some proposal concocted. My own vision, as far as the money goes, was to simply send the funds to a neutral third party, probably an RAHE participant, whose identity is agreed upon by both sides. But that can't happen till we know who the other side is... H) I don't see how it matters who the "other side" may be - a neutral third party is still a neutral third party - although an escrow service seems more appropriate to me. But then the proponents would have to do more than just talk? J) the idea that there is an "other side" merely highlights the adversarial concept that far too many regular participants of this forum begin every discussion with... 3) The effort required to put up an all encompassing "legal contract" which didn't have loopholes through which the unscrupulous could slip would be huge, and require a team of lawyers. K) hardly - what is there that will keep those who claim to be putting up this money from backing out if they should "lose" the "challenge"? L) why would any potential "challenger" waste time and effort (not to mention money) on taking on a "challenge" that is so nebulous?? Much better, IMO, to focus on a particular challenger and his own ideas about what he thinks he can hear, and work up to formal terms from there. M) so, there is no clear "challenge" then? how can this "challenge" be specific to one person?? Something wrong with this picture. In short, a "serious" offer does not have to be formal at this point. N) au contraire. it does, or else it is "snake oil", smoke, lights, and mirrors. At this juncture there is not one thing that is clear, nor firm, nor certain about it other than the use of its alleged existence as a debating tool - to be polite about it. And that's all I'm going to say about it. I think. BTW, I agree that the "Challenge" is used as a hammer too often, and also that the money issue probably adds some noise to the topic. But exasperation causes **** to happen. O) what causes action? _-_-bear Steve Maki |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steve Maki" wrote in message
... On 5 Sep 2005 15:10:44 GMT, BEAR wrote: No, I'm a veteran. I dare say I saw you arrive on these groups. I strongly doubt that. I started on the internet with an email address that ended in .BITNET... did you? You've got me there. I was a late arrival to the computer world (1990) and was "on" almost immediately, but that was after bitnet's heyday. At any rate, I've followed the aforementioned topics closely right from the beginning. I called for action something like TWO years back. (check the archives on Google?) YOU called for action, yes. And that means we're supposed to jump, right? It doesn't work like that Randy. Sorry, Steve, if you and others want to claim that you or "others" who are supposed to be involved in this are *offering* this money as a challenge then it is incumbent upon you and/or the "others" to first back up YOUR CHALLENGE. You've got your horse hitched up backwards, and ur apparently looking at the wrong end of things! In your opinion. I now call for either DROPPING THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS A $$ POT OF MONEY FOR THIS CHALLENGE OR ELSE CREATING ONE!! That's all there is to our part of the discussion. You're basically calling us liars Randy. If there is no money anywhere to be had or found, then there is no challenge, just hyperbole. Is that what it is? You tell everyone on rahe which one it is. I've told you what it would take to get us to the funding stage. It's a very minimum requirement. If it's too much to ask, then you're right - that's all there is to our discussion. It's all about good faith. We've publically committed the funds, the next TINY step is up to you. If we don't come through after that, then crow all you want. What step? Either you commit the funds, or you don't. Either you post a clear statement of EXACTLY WHAT THE CHALLENGE CONSISTS OF or else there is NOTHING that anybody could possible DO! Since there is a legal aspect to such "offers", it is a REQUIREMENT that the terms and conditions sufficient and necessary for capturing the challenge "prize" of $$ be completely and unambiguously clear - that REQUIRES DOCUMENTATION. Where's the documentation?? Either you all are going to be serious in this regard, or you're going to get called on the carpet whenever you make facetious claims about this thing being real. I can see where this is headed, and I'm not going to get sucked into long drawn out exchanges about it, but here's my view: This is an informal but serious offer. The reason it's informal at this point is that: 1) We are open to many diferent scenarios depending on what type of demonstration the challenger would feel comfortable with. As I said, we are trying to minimize post-test complaints. Once someone expresses an interest and offers a preliminary proposal, open discussions about details could be firmed up rapidly. Either the discussions lead to mutually agreeable terms, or they don't. They would be mostly public, so the gentle readers could form their own opinions about whether good faith efforts were being made. 2) As I said before, I don't want to tie up my money or encourage others to do so, or spend a lot of time researching all the legal fine points until we at least get a preliminary proposal out there. My own vision, as far as the money goes, was to simply send the funds to a neutral third party, probably an RAHE participant, whose identity is agreed upon by both sides. But that can't happen till we know who the other side is... 3) The effort required to put up an all encompassing "legal contract" which didn't have loopholes through which the unscrupulous could slip would be huge, and require a team of lawyers. Much better, IMO, to focus on a particular challenger and his own ideas about what he thinks he can hear, and work up to formal terms from there. In short, a "serious" offer does not have to be formal at this point. And that's all I'm going to say about it. I think. BTW, I agree that the "Challenge" is used as a hammer too often, and also that the money issue probably adds some noise to the topic. But exasperation causes **** to happen. Steve Maki I've got to say that I find this somewhat preposterous. You can draw the design as loose or as tight as you want; agree if the site is to be in testers home or a neutral spot; agree on a proceedure for agreeing on the equipment chain; agree on how to pick the proctors, etc. and it should be in writing. Then at least promissory notes should be placed in escrow with the proviso that if the test is agreed to within the written guidelines and the participant wins the test, he/she gets the money. Without at least that level of commitment you are totally free to duck if a serious challenge appears...as Stewart just did by...oh, by the way, no Audionote. |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 6 Sep 2005 23:09:48 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
I've got to say that I find this somewhat preposterous. You can draw the design as loose or as tight as you want; agree if the site is to be in testers home or a neutral spot; agree on a proceedure for agreeing on the equipment chain; agree on how to pick the proctors, etc. and it should be in writing. Then at least promissory notes should be placed in escrow with the proviso that if the test is agreed to within the written guidelines and the participant wins the test, he/she gets the money. Without at least that level of commitment you are totally free to duck if a serious challenge appears...as Stewart just did by...oh, by the way, no Audionote. Preposterous? Yes, I think I agree with you Harry. I'm trying to make sure the test means something. Why else would it be worth money to me? It's NOT a bet, where I can make money if I "win". I don't think we'd win any "points" by specifying a rigid test and then having everyone, including the testee, complaining about it after the fact. IMO the only chance this excercise has for any meaning (and then just in the narrow confines of RAHE) would be for someone to test themselves and get good at it in the comfort of their own system - and THEN show it to the world, as it were. This procedure eliminates a number of issues that people harp about, i.e. "untrained" listeners and unfamiliar systems. That said, I agree that some basic rules should be drawn up. Steve Maki |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Maki wrote:
On 6 Sep 2005 23:09:48 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Preposterous? Yes, I think I agree with you Harry. I'm trying to make sure the test means something. Why else would it be worth money to me? It's NOT a bet, where I can make money if I "win". I don't think we'd win any "points" by specifying a rigid test and then having everyone, including the testee, complaining about it after the fact. IMO the only chance this excercise has for any meaning (and then just in the narrow confines of RAHE) would be for someone to test themselves and get good at it in the comfort of their own system - and THEN show it to the world, as it were. This procedure eliminates a number of issues that people harp about, i.e. "untrained" listeners and unfamiliar systems. That said, I agree that some basic rules should be drawn up. Steve Maki Excuse me?? That is NOT the point, Dear Steve. Certain posters have already, and often made the CLAIM of this MONEY being OFFERED as a "Challenge" which they claim "no one" is brave enough to take on!! The issue of "meaning" is irrelevant to the present discussion. EITHER THERE IS MONEY BEING OFFERED - OR THERE IS NOT. Which one do you say it is? IF the latter - let's have at least *you* cease and desist the claim and the support for those who still persist in this mythic and non-existant "challenge." Ok? Can you agree on that? _-_-bear PS. I have *never* made a complaint about "unfamiliar systems" - although there may or may not be some issues surrounding the participants in the perception part of the testing... but still not one of my big points to make on this issue. |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
BEAR wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 22 Aug 2005 23:44:49 GMT, wrote: "Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard," The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps mentioned in this thread. We've danced this dance before, but the music always stops before Randy gets on the floor. Randy will make lots of noise, but he will eventually duck the challenge on some pretext - even though he sells 'audiophile' cables, never mind amplifiers. Check out his 'BEAR Labs' website to get a better idea of what this guy is *really* about.... Hmmm... I thought this sort of post was not going to be permitted any more? Well, everyone please do look at my website. And, Stewie, where is THE MONEY THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY PUT UP FOR THIS GROUPS CHALLENGE? Nowhere. All talk, no action, eh? I'm still in for $100, as I wrote on RAHE in this post a few years back: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...8ea21 7bde947 I'll be happy to donate it to an escrow account if it will stop your yelling. My yelling? C'mon Sullivan! Really! You're now only $4,900 short IF you actually were to follow through in a manner that was *objectively* testable! Why don't you and the others cease claiming that this "challenge" exists in reality, it is only a fantasy and a nice warm fuzzy idea at best. Ok? Nothing substantive has been done on this thing since "a few years back." Nothing was done then either. Nada. Zero. Nil. That's a fact, now isn't it? _-_-bear |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Maki wrote:
On 6 Sep 2005 23:09:48 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I've got to say that I find this somewhat preposterous. You can draw the design as loose or as tight as you want; agree if the site is to be in testers home or a neutral spot; agree on a proceedure for agreeing on the equipment chain; agree on how to pick the proctors, etc. and it should be in writing. Then at least promissory notes should be placed in escrow with the proviso that if the test is agreed to within the written guidelines and the participant wins the test, he/she gets the money. Without at least that level of commitment you are totally free to duck if a serious challenge appears...as Stewart just did by...oh, by the way, no Audionote. Preposterous? Yes, I think I agree with you Harry. I'm trying to make sure the test means something. Why else would it be worth money to me? It's NOT a bet, where I can make money if I "win". I don't think we'd win any "points" by specifying a rigid test and then having everyone, including the testee, complaining about it after the fact. IMO the only chance this excercise has for any meaning (and then just in the narrow confines of RAHE) would be for someone to test themselves and get good at it in the comfort of their own system - and THEN show it to the world, as it were. This procedure eliminates a number of issues that people harp about, i.e. "untrained" listeners and unfamiliar systems. A amp seller was set to do exactly that for Tom Nousaine this summer, having already done the testing themsevles/getting good at it part...but last I heard he hadn't managed to find time to meet Tom yet. -- -S |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , BEAR wrote:
: EITHER THERE IS MONEY BEING OFFERED - OR THERE IS NOT. : Yes, there is money being offered. I believe I pledged $500, so here's a renewal. Now, it should come as no suprise that if I am to offer money with no possible financial profit - only to prove a point - I am going to be pretty cautious about the terms of the test before I put the amount into escrow. You are being given the opportunity to define those terms. The impression your postings give is not so much that you don't believe there is money being offered, but that you don't WANT it to be true. Patrick Wallace --------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 9 Sep 2005 03:50:34 GMT, BEAR wrote:
Certain posters have already, and often made the CLAIM of this MONEY being OFFERED as a "Challenge" which they claim "no one" is brave enough to take on!! The issue of "meaning" is irrelevant to the present discussion. EITHER THERE IS MONEY BEING OFFERED - OR THERE IS NOT. Which one do you say it is? There is money being offered. IF the latter - let's have at least *you* cease and desist the claim and the support for those who still persist in this mythic and non-existant "challenge." Ok? The challenge is real, and has existed for some six years. If you are not prepared to demonstrate that your 'Silver Lightning; cables really do sound different from zipcord - to your own ears in your own system, will *you* remove them from your BEAR Labs website? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 9 Sep 2005 03:50:34 GMT, BEAR wrote:
Preposterous? Yes, I think I agree with you Harry. I'm trying to make sure the test means something. Why else would it be worth money to me? It's NOT a bet, where I can make money if I "win". I don't think we'd win any "points" by specifying a rigid test and then having everyone, including the testee, complaining about it after the fact. IMO the only chance this excercise has for any meaning (and then just in the narrow confines of RAHE) would be for someone to test themselves and get good at it in the comfort of their own system - and THEN show it to the world, as it were. This procedure eliminates a number of issues that people harp about, i.e. "untrained" listeners and unfamiliar systems. That said, I agree that some basic rules should be drawn up. Excuse me?? That is NOT the point, Dear Steve. Certain posters have already, and often made the CLAIM of this MONEY being OFFERED as a "Challenge" which they claim "no one" is brave enough to take on!! The issue of "meaning" is irrelevant to the present discussion. EITHER THERE IS MONEY BEING OFFERED - OR THERE IS NOT. Which one do you say it is? IF the latter - let's have at least *you* cease and desist the claim and the support for those who still persist in this mythic and non-existant "challenge." Ok? Can you agree on that? _-_-bear Hell no I can't agree with that, no matter how much you wish it were true. Ok, so your hang up is the money. Send me your address and I'll send a check, Dear Randy. Deposit it in your account, verify that it clears. I trust that if no one answers the challenge after a couple of months, you'll send it back. Now, if you are thinking of trying yourself, you might prefer a third party to hold the money. How about Harry Lavo, if he agrees? I'd feel comfortable with Harry holding my money. Disclaimer: I'm speaking only for myself in this matter. Steve Maki |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Maki wrote:
On 9 Sep 2005 03:50:34 GMT, BEAR wrote: Preposterous? Yes, I think I agree with you Harry. I'm trying to make sure the test means something. Why else would it be worth money to me? It's NOT a bet, where I can make money if I "win". I don't think we'd win any "points" by specifying a rigid test and then having everyone, including the testee, complaining about it after the fact. IMO the only chance this excercise has for any meaning (and then just in the narrow confines of RAHE) would be for someone to test themselves and get good at it in the comfort of their own system - and THEN show it to the world, as it were. This procedure eliminates a number of issues that people harp about, i.e. "untrained" listeners and unfamiliar systems. That said, I agree that some basic rules should be drawn up. Excuse me?? That is NOT the point, Dear Steve. Certain posters have already, and often made the CLAIM of this MONEY being OFFERED as a "Challenge" which they claim "no one" is brave enough to take on!! The issue of "meaning" is irrelevant to the present discussion. EITHER THERE IS MONEY BEING OFFERED - OR THERE IS NOT. Which one do you say it is? IF the latter - let's have at least *you* cease and desist the claim and the support for those who still persist in this mythic and non-existant "challenge." Ok? Can you agree on that? _-_-bear Hell no I can't agree with that, no matter how much you wish it were true. Ok, so your hang up is the money. Send me your address and I'll send a check, Dear Randy. Deposit it in your account, verify that it clears. I trust that if no one answers the challenge after a couple of months, you'll send it back. Now, if you are thinking of trying yourself, you might prefer a third party to hold the money. How about Harry Lavo, if he agrees? I'd feel comfortable with Harry holding my money. Disclaimer: I'm speaking only for myself in this matter. If we are talking about getting Randy to do the cable test (silver cables vs copper of the same gauge), I'll even let Harry hold my $500  .Steve Maki |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Steve Maki wrote: On 6 Sep 2005 23:09:48 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I've got to say that I find this somewhat preposterous. You can draw the design as loose or as tight as you want; agree if the site is to be in testers home or a neutral spot; agree on a proceedure for agreeing on the equipment chain; agree on how to pick the proctors, etc. and it should be in writing. Then at least promissory notes should be placed in escrow with the proviso that if the test is agreed to within the written guidelines and the participant wins the test, he/she gets the money. Without at least that level of commitment you are totally free to duck if a serious challenge appears...as Stewart just did by...oh, by the way, no Audionote. Preposterous? Yes, I think I agree with you Harry. I'm trying to make sure the test means something. Why else would it be worth money to me? It's NOT a bet, where I can make money if I "win". I don't think we'd win any "points" by specifying a rigid test and then having everyone, including the testee, complaining about it after the fact. IMO the only chance this excercise has for any meaning (and then just in the narrow confines of RAHE) would be for someone to test themselves and get good at it in the comfort of their own system - and THEN show it to the world, as it were. This procedure eliminates a number of issues that people harp about, i.e. "untrained" listeners and unfamiliar systems. A amp seller was set to do exactly that for Tom Nousaine this summer, having already done the testing themsevles/getting good at it part...but last I heard he hadn't managed to find time to meet Tom yet. I thought that if it was to be done in his home, then it is Tom who is supposed to meet hime. Is it possiblt that it is Tom who does not have the time? And there is a good bet that if his results hold up with Tom, there will be many here on RAHE who will find post-test reasons why the test was not optimal and the money should not / will not be paid. Acceptable test conditions *must* be laid out in advance, or the whole thing is a charade. |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 10 Sep 2005 02:52:18 GMT, BEAR wrote:
Why don't you and the others cease claiming that this "challenge" exists in reality, it is only a fantasy and a nice warm fuzzy idea at best. Nope, it's real, the only thing lacking is a subjectivist with enough confidence in his own claims to take the test. Still selling those 'Silver Lightning' cables that you *claim* sound different from zipcord? Nothing substantive has been done on this thing since "a few years back." Nothing was done then either. Nada. Zero. Nil. That's a fact, now isn't it? Indeed it is, since you refused to step up to the plate then, and you're still manufacturing excuses after all these years. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
"BEAR" wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote: BEAR wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 22 Aug 2005 23:44:49 GMT, wrote: "Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard," The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps mentioned in this thread. We've danced this dance before, but the music always stops before Randy gets on the floor. Randy will make lots of noise, but he will eventually duck the challenge on some pretext - even though he sells 'audiophile' cables, never mind amplifiers. Check out his 'BEAR Labs' website to get a better idea of what this guy is *really* about.... Hmmm... I thought this sort of post was not going to be permitted any more? Well, everyone please do look at my website. And, Stewie, where is THE MONEY THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY PUT UP FOR THIS GROUPS CHALLENGE? Nowhere. All talk, no action, eh? I'm still in for $100, as I wrote on RAHE in this post a few years back: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...8ea21 7bde947 I'll be happy to donate it to an escrow account if it will stop your yelling. My yelling? C'mon Sullivan! Really! You're now only $4,900 short IF you actually were to follow through in a manner that was *objectively* testable! Why don't you and the others cease claiming that this "challenge" exists in reality, it is only a fantasy and a nice warm fuzzy idea at best. Ok? Nothing substantive has been done on this thing since "a few years back." Nothing was done then either. Nada. Zero. Nil. That's a fact, now isn't it? This isn't a bet, is it? As far as I can tell, there's no downside for Randy. He either gets the money or he doesn't. In no case will he lose any of his own. If I thought I could pass the test, I would make an effort to TAKE it--not avoid it by throwing up dozens of picayune objections. Norm Strong |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
BEAR wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: BEAR wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 22 Aug 2005 23:44:49 GMT, wrote: "Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard," The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps mentioned in this thread. We've danced this dance before, but the music always stops before Randy gets on the floor. Randy will make lots of noise, but he will eventually duck the challenge on some pretext - even though he sells 'audiophile' cables, never mind amplifiers. Check out his 'BEAR Labs' website to get a better idea of what this guy is *really* about.... Hmmm... I thought this sort of post was not going to be permitted any more? Well, everyone please do look at my website. And, Stewie, where is THE MONEY THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY PUT UP FOR THIS GROUPS CHALLENGE? Nowhere. All talk, no action, eh? I'm still in for $100, as I wrote on RAHE in this post a few years back: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...8ea21 7bde947 I'll be happy to donate it to an escrow account if it will stop your yelling. My yelling? C'mon Sullivan! Really! You're now only $4,900 short IF you actually were to follow through in a manner that was *objectively* testable! Why don't you and the others cease claiming that this "challenge" exists in reality, it is only a fantasy and a nice warm fuzzy idea at best. Ok? A man who hawks audio cables is chiding others about fantasy and warm fuzzy ideas? Nothing substantive has been done on this thing since "a few years back." Nothing was done then either. Nada. Zero. Nil. That's a fact, now isn't it? Nope, the offer stands. When are you going to take us up on it? -- -S |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... "BEAR" wrote in message snip ealier Sullivan/BEAR discussion Nothing substantive has been done on this thing since "a few years back." Nothing was done then either. Nada. Zero. Nil. That's a fact, now isn't it? This isn't a bet, is it? As far as I can tell, there's no downside for Randy. He either gets the money or he doesn't. In no case will he lose any of his own. If I thought I could pass the test, I would make an effort to TAKE it--not avoid it by throwing up dozens of picayune objections. Norm Strong Norm, there is not a high trust level between the two camps. And there is much more than money involved...there is crowing or face saving to be had on one side or the other. So for those reasons, their has to be some form of agreement in place before the event to set some parameters on attempted evasion afterwards. Why are the objectivists so apparently reluctant to attempt to agree on parameters and cough up the requisite promissory notes, if it would call our bluff and get the process moving? Isn't that the supposed objective here? Or perhaps that is not the *real* objective? |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
Steve Maki wrote: On 9 Sep 2005 03:50:34 GMT, BEAR wrote: Preposterous? Yes, I think I agree with you Harry. I'm trying to make sure the test means something. Why else would it be worth money to me? It's NOT a bet, where I can make money if I "win". I don't think we'd win any "points" by specifying a rigid test and then having everyone, including the testee, complaining about it after the fact. If we are talking about getting Randy to do the cable test (silver cables vs copper of the same gauge), I'll even let Harry hold my $500 .Steve Maki Heh... that's pretty funny, but Ok. I trust Harry too. But I wish you would figure out that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between an ad hoc "test" (money or not) and a bona fide "challenge" which has: A) and organized approach B) the money held *in advance* by a third party C) terms and conditions for the test D) clarity as to WHAT is to be TESTED I prefer the organized version, but am open to the ad hoc version, IF those who want to challenge *me* in specific about something or other (and I agree to that) would line up their ducks and then we can figure out these details more or less privately, and the size of the pot and then post the *result of our private email discussions* here on rahe. _-_-bear |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
BEAR wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: A man who hawks audio cables is chiding others about fantasy and warm fuzzy ideas? Nothing substantive has been done on this thing since "a few years back." Nothing was done then either. Nada. Zero. Nil. That's a fact, now isn't it? Nope, the offer stands. When are you going to take us up on it? What offer? Document the offer - document the terms & conditions. Put the money in escrow. Until then, it is you who is all smoke, lights and mirrors. AND, this has not one thing to do with ME personally or what I sell or don't sell. It has to do with you and others ENDLESS BASHING people with this mythic "challenge" which as it now stands is nothing more than rhetoric and dogma. And as far as what I sell, Mr. Sullivan, I am confident that my power amp measures objectively better than yours - even though you won't be able to hear that difference (right?) - and that my cables measure just fine, and actually measure better than your nice zip cord - even if you can't hear the difference (right?). All of which means not one thing in terms of the "challenge" which is the creation of people like yourself on this newsgroup. (Please stop the personal attacks, lest you get some in return. They are clearly not necessary, do nothing to elevate the discussion, and are the sign of an insecure personality to boot.) Back it up properly, or else you are worse than anything that you or the rest of you involved in this charade accuse me or anyone else of doing or being involved with. I've said this about a dozen or more times now. --- Do it (document/escrow) or please cease making a claim that is *objectively* highly suspect - to be very, very polite about it. --- _-_-bear |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 10 Sep 2005 16:48:30 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
And there is a good bet that if his results hold up with Tom, there will be many here on RAHE who will find post-test reasons why the test was not optimal and the money should not / will not be paid. That's why we have a third party hold the cash, Harry. Could even be you. Acceptable test conditions *must* be laid out in advance, or the whole thing is a charade. I entirely agree, although for slightly different reasons...... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Sep 2005 02:15:43 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
wrote in message ... This isn't a bet, is it? As far as I can tell, there's no downside for Randy. He either gets the money or he doesn't. In no case will he lose any of his own. If I thought I could pass the test, I would make an effort to TAKE it--not avoid it by throwing up dozens of picayune objections. Norm, there is not a high trust level between the two camps. We can at least agree on *that* point! And there is much more than money involved...there is crowing or face saving to be had on one side or the other. And commercial interests in the case of BEAR. So for those reasons, their has to be some form of agreement in place before the event to set some parameters on attempted evasion afterwards. We can also agree on that point. Why are the objectivists so apparently reluctant to attempt to agree on parameters and cough up the requisite promissory notes, if it would call our bluff and get the process moving? Isn't that the supposed objective here? Or perhaps that is not the *real* objective? Which part of 'we could let Harry hold the cash' was unclear to you? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
BEAR wrote:
Chung wrote: Steve Maki wrote: On 9 Sep 2005 03:50:34 GMT, BEAR wrote: Preposterous? Yes, I think I agree with you Harry. I'm trying to make sure the test means something. Why else would it be worth money to me? It's NOT a bet, where I can make money if I "win". I don't think we'd win any "points" by specifying a rigid test and then having everyone, including the testee, complaining about it after the fact. If we are talking about getting Randy to do the cable test (silver cables vs copper of the same gauge), I'll even let Harry hold my $500 .Steve Maki Heh... that's pretty funny, but Ok. I trust Harry too. But I wish you would figure out that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between an ad hoc "test" (money or not) and a bona fide "challenge" which has: A) and organized approach B) the money held *in advance* by a third party C) terms and conditions for the test D) clarity as to WHAT is to be TESTED It's a semantic issue -- *you* are the one who has tacked on criteria for what constitutes a 'challenge'. And then you get all peeved when people don't agree with your definition. The *challenge* as originally posted stipulated that some terms were to be agreed upon by the participant and the challengers. Now you're mad because you have been offered input into the terms of the challenge, rather than being handed a detailed, complete, 'package'. The general terms required by the people offering hte money, were laid out in the original posts: level matching, use of DBT, etc. It's up to you to negotiate with us the specifics of how you are going to take the challenge. I prefer the organized version, but am open to the ad hoc version, IF those who want to challenge *me* in specific about something or other (and I agree to that) would line up their ducks and then we can figure out these details more or less privately, and the size of the pot and then post the *result of our private email discussions* here on rahe. Then stop whining and start specifying details that would be agreeable to *you*. -- -S |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
BEAR wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: BEAR wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: A man who hawks audio cables is chiding others about fantasy and warm fuzzy ideas? Nothing substantive has been done on this thing since "a few years back." Nothing was done then either. Nada. Zero. Nil. That's a fact, now isn't it? Nope, the offer stands. When are you going to take us up on it? What offer? Document the offer - document the terms & conditions. They're on Usenet. If you are *now* requiring that they be written up in a formal document, you'd best start hammering out the details so that we can write up such a document. Put the money in escrow. Never a requirement up until now, but so far anyone who's chimed in ahs agreed to this. Until then, it is you who is all smoke, lights and mirrors. Nonsense. *You* are the one who believes that. So, start negotiating! AND, this has not one thing to do with ME personally or what I sell or don't sell. It has to do with you and others ENDLESS BASHING people with this mythic "challenge" which as it now stands is nothing more than rhetoric and dogma. No, Randy, there are certainly underlying issues here, given that your history on RAHE. It's not *just* about the challenge. It's about claims people like you constantly make about audio gear -including your cables an amps, the claimed audibile superiority of which isas yet unsupported by any good evidence. It's rather more interesting in your case because you actually try to make money off these claims. Well, we're offering you ANOTHER chance to make some money -- but this time you actually have to back up your claims with evidence. Are you up for it or not? And as far as what I sell, Mr. Sullivan, I am confident that my power amp measures objectively better than yours - even though you won't be able to hear that difference (right?) - The question is, will *you*? and that my cables measure just fine, and actually measure better than your nice zip cord - even if you can't hear the difference (right?). All of which means not one thing in terms of the "challenge" which is the creation of people like yourself on this newsgroup. The challenge puts *our* money where *your* mouth is. So, show us all that you're right, and the money's yours. (Please stop the personal attacks, lest you get some in return. I trust the moderators will distinguish me connecting a dealer's claims about his products to the question of whether the claims are true, from 'personal attacks'. They are clearly not necessary, do nothing to elevate the discussion, and are the sign of an insecure personality to boot.) Actually they are simply consistent with the purpose of the *challenge*. Back it up properly, or else you are worse than anything that you or the rest of you involved in this charade accuse me or anyone else of doing or being involved with. Back up my claim that you ahven't established the audible superiority of your gear? Or even that it sounds *different* from gear costing rather less? There's no need to back up that claim, unless you have been hiding some test results from us -- it's evident from your website and your own claims. I've said this about a dozen or more times now. Fortunately, it's not your judgement that determines what does and does not get posted here. --- Do it (document/escrow) or please cease making a claim that is *objectively* highly suspect - to be very, very polite about it. --- By the same token, I could *insist* that you remove all claims about your products' audible performance, until you document it. Fat chance, huh? -- -S |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 11 Sep 2005 02:15:43 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: wrote in message ... This isn't a bet, is it? As far as I can tell, there's no downside for Randy. He either gets the money or he doesn't. In no case will he lose any of his own. If I thought I could pass the test, I would make an effort to TAKE it--not avoid it by throwing up dozens of picayune objections. Norm, there is not a high trust level between the two camps. We can at least agree on *that* point! And there is much more than money involved...there is crowing or face saving to be had on one side or the other. And commercial interests in the case of BEAR. So for those reasons, their has to be some form of agreement in place before the event to set some parameters on attempted evasion afterwards. We can also agree on that point. Why are the objectivists so apparently reluctant to attempt to agree on parameters and cough up the requisite promissory notes, if it would call our bluff and get the process moving? Isn't that the supposed objective here? Or perhaps that is not the *real* objective? Which part of 'we could let Harry hold the cash' was unclear to you? So far, two people have offered to have me hold the cash, for a grand total of $600. Where are you and the rest of your cohort? As having me hold the cash was volunteered, I would not reject the role. But as far as I am concerned promissory notes would do just as well. Others may not agree. But beyond the financial aspect, I still feel strongly that the "rules" need to be committed in writing and agreed to by all parties on your side and any subjectivist who wants to undertake the test on the other side. To not do so is inviting problems, and since your are making the "offer", what is stopping you from being the first to propose what you feel are reasonable conditions (subject to negotiated acceptance, of course). If you are serious, coming up with an escrow or promissory agreement among yourselves and making a first draft of procedure to show your honest intent seem to me to be a reasonable request, if the challenge is "real". |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
Which part of 'we could let Harry hold the cash' was unclear to you? So far, two people have offered to have me hold the cash, for a grand total of $600. Where are you and the rest of your cohort? Er, I was the one who nominated you, and I'm in for $1000; so.... Steve Maki |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
But beyond the financial aspect, I still feel strongly that the "rules" need to be committed in writing and agreed to by all parties on your side and any subjectivist who wants to undertake the test on the other side. To not do so is inviting problems, and since your are making the "offer", what is stopping you from being the first to propose what you feel are reasonable conditions (subject to negotiated acceptance, of course). The rules are already clear, and very sparse - double-blind protocol, 15 correct out of 20 trials to win, level-matching at 1 kHz and 10 kHz to +/- 0.1dB at the speaker terminals. That's it. Otherwise, your own choice of venue, equipment, music, everything. What's *your* problem? The rules couldn't be simpler, and they couldn't be more accommodating to those nmaking the claims of difference. You can use your own system in your own listening room with your own choice of music, and take as long as you like over the trials. The only stipulations are that the levels must be reasonably matched, and you mustn't *know* what's connected. Just exactly what is so difficult for you? After all, these are 'night and day' differences you hear, no? :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: But beyond the financial aspect, I still feel strongly that the "rules" need to be committed in writing and agreed to by all parties on your side and any subjectivist who wants to undertake the test on the other side. To not do so is inviting problems, and since your are making the "offer", what is stopping you from being the first to propose what you feel are reasonable conditions (subject to negotiated acceptance, of course). The rules are already clear, and very sparse - double-blind protocol, 15 correct out of 20 trials to win, level-matching at 1 kHz and 10 kHz to +/- 0.1dB at the speaker terminals. This is the set of conditions for testing cables, although I thought that the limit was 16 out of 20. For amplifiers, we need a larger set of conditions. For example, no distortion products above the -60 dB (0.1% level) at rated power and frequency extremes, no line spurs above the -80 dBc level, no ripples measured in the speaker terminals, etc. There are many more ways of coming up with a incompetent amplifier than an incompetent pair of speaker cables, and we should guard against those obviously poorly designed amplifiers, since they will be audibly different. A 2-point FR measurement may be insufficient. I also think that those who want to prove their amps sound different should take the Richard Clark challenge instead, since he is better equipped to administer the test. And he has a larger reward .That's it. Otherwise, your own choice of venue, equipment, music, everything. What's *your* problem? The rules couldn't be simpler, and they couldn't be more accommodating to those nmaking the claims of difference. You can use your own system in your own listening room with your own choice of music, and take as long as you like over the trials. The only stipulations are that the levels must be reasonably matched, and you mustn't *know* what's connected. Just exactly what is so difficult for you? After all, these are 'night and day' differences you hear, no? :-) |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steve Maki" wrote in message
... On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Which part of 'we could let Harry hold the cash' was unclear to you? So far, two people have offered to have me hold the cash, for a grand total of $600. Where are you and the rest of your cohort? Er, I was the one who nominated you, and I'm in for $1000; so.... Steve Maki Sorry, Steve, I remembered $500. My bad. :-( |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 14 Sep 2005 02:24:25 GMT, Chung wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: But beyond the financial aspect, I still feel strongly that the "rules" need to be committed in writing and agreed to by all parties on your side and any subjectivist who wants to undertake the test on the other side. To not do so is inviting problems, and since your are making the "offer", what is stopping you from being the first to propose what you feel are reasonable conditions (subject to negotiated acceptance, of course). The rules are already clear, and very sparse - double-blind protocol, 15 correct out of 20 trials to win, level-matching at 1 kHz and 10 kHz to +/- 0.1dB at the speaker terminals. This is the set of conditions for testing cables, although I thought that the limit was 16 out of 20. Sorry, that's due to my using '' for quoted text. It should have read 'more than 15 correct out of 20'. For amplifiers, we need a larger set of conditions. For example, no distortion products above the -60 dB (0.1% level) at rated power and frequency extremes, no line spurs above the -80 dBc level, no ripples measured in the speaker terminals, etc. There are many more ways of coming up with a incompetent amplifier than an incompetent pair of speaker cables, and we should guard against those obviously poorly designed amplifiers, since they will be audibly different. A 2-point FR measurement may be insufficient. Agreed, there's an additional 100Hz point for amplifiers. It would be a relatively simple task to build an amplifier which *deliberately* found a way through the rules (a 3dB hump centred on 3kHz, for instance), but AFAIAC, that would simply prove the point that the 'high end' is all smoke and mirrors, with no genuine advance in sound quality over midrange electronics. I also think that those who want to prove their amps sound different should take the Richard Clark challenge instead, since he is better equipped to administer the test. And he has a larger reward .Fair enough, but we don't seem to see *any* takers for either prize, despite all the noise and bluster from those such as U238. That's it. Otherwise, your own choice of venue, equipment, music, everything. What's *your* problem? The rules couldn't be simpler, and they couldn't be more accommodating to those making the claims of difference. You can use your own system in your own listening room with your own choice of music, and take as long as you like over the trials. The only stipulations are that the levels must be reasonably matched, and you mustn't *know* what's connected. Just exactly what is so difficult for you? After all, these are 'night and day' differences you hear, no? :-) A deafening silence spread across the ranks of the subjectivists.... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 14 Sep 2005 02:52:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Steve Maki" wrote in message ... On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Which part of 'we could let Harry hold the cash' was unclear to you? So far, two people have offered to have me hold the cash, for a grand total of $600. Where are you and the rest of your cohort? Er, I was the one who nominated you, and I'm in for $1000; so.... Steve Maki Sorry, Steve, I remembered $500. My bad. :-( And I'm in for $500 in this pool. I have my own separate prize of £1,000 for any UK contenders, but it's also happlily gathering interest - only of the financial kind, it would seem........... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: But beyond the financial aspect, I still feel strongly that the "rules" need to be committed in writing and agreed to by all parties on your side and any subjectivist who wants to undertake the test on the other side. To not do so is inviting problems, and since your are making the "offer", what is stopping you from being the first to propose what you feel are reasonable conditions (subject to negotiated acceptance, of course). The rules are already clear, and very sparse - double-blind protocol, 15 correct out of 20 trials to win, level-matching at 1 kHz and 10 kHz to +/- 0.1dB at the speaker terminals. This is the set of conditions for testing cables, although I thought that the limit was 16 out of 20. 15/20 is the least number correct out of 20 that still yields a p0.05 14/20: 0.058 15/20: 0.021 16/20: 0.006 There are many more ways of coming up with a incompetent amplifier than an incompetent pair of speaker cables, and we should guard against those obviously poorly designed amplifiers, since they will be audibly different. A 2-point FR measurement may be insufficient. It's the reason why Randy needs to specify which two amps he wants to compare. -- -S |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
BEAR wrote: Chung wrote: Steve Maki wrote: On 9 Sep 2005 03:50:34 GMT, BEAR wrote: Preposterous? Yes, I think I agree with you Harry. I'm trying to make sure the test means something. Why else would it be worth money to me? It's NOT a bet, where I can make money if I "win". I don't think we'd win any "points" by specifying a rigid test and then having everyone, including the testee, complaining about it after the fact. If we are talking about getting Randy to do the cable test (silver cables vs copper of the same gauge), I'll even let Harry hold my $500 .Steve Maki Heh... that's pretty funny, but Ok. I trust Harry too. But I wish you would figure out that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between an ad hoc "test" (money or not) and a bona fide "challenge" which has: A) and organized approach B) the money held *in advance* by a third party C) terms and conditions for the test D) clarity as to WHAT is to be TESTED It's a semantic issue -- *you* are the one who has tacked on criteria for what constitutes a 'challenge'. And then you get all peeved when people don't agree with your definition. The *challenge* as originally posted stipulated that some terms were to be agreed upon by the participant and the challengers. Now you're mad because you have been offered input into the terms of the challenge, rather than being handed a detailed, complete, 'package'. The general terms required by the people offering hte money, were laid out in the original posts: level matching, use of DBT, etc. It's up to you to negotiate with us the specifics of how you are going to take the challenge. I prefer the organized version, but am open to the ad hoc version, IF those who want to challenge *me* in specific about something or other (and I agree to that) would line up their ducks and then we can figure out these details more or less privately, and the size of the pot and then post the *result of our private email discussions* here on rahe. Then stop whining and start specifying details that would be agreeable to *you*. Ok then: I decide, I tell you the results. You send me the money. Ok? Now if you think that is kinda foolish, then I agree. Or perhaps you wish to first outline the general premise beyond some vauge "handwave"?? If ur logical faculties fail to indicate where the onus lies for the definition of the "challenge" then there is little that continued discussion is likely to produce. On the other hand, if you fathom the exceedingly complex concept of the "challenge" being at least stipulated in some form by those whose hard earned dollars are apt to removed from their pockets, then please proceed at your own pace with said stipulation/definition. Otherwise, please stop mentioning it as if it is something real or serious. Let's make it 100% clear - I have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this "challenge", nothing more than to challenge its very existance in reality. (what happens after it is defined, remains to be seen) _-_-bear |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| A Strawman, Constructed and Destroyed-Williamson's Folly? | Audio Opinions | |||
| A Strawman, Constructed and Destroyed-Williamson's Folly? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| KISS 113 by Andre Jute | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Rockers Unite to Oust Bush | Audio Opinions | |||
| FS: 3000 watt amp $179!! 900 watt woofers $36!! new- free shipping | General | |||
Linear Mode
