Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Trevor Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...


At least I am not a low-life con artist who sells people a
bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of
upscale amps and exotic wires.


**Would you care to phrase that in English?


You con people.


**Prove it.

In addition, you may also be conning
yourself. I do not know which is worse.

Is that opposed to retired
librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms
resistance?


Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
down.


**That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a short
circuit is not zero Ohms?


As one real expert posted previously, yes, it is not zero
ohms. But for all practical purposes, when it is in parallel
with a speaker load it might as well be zero.


**Without knowing the nature of the short circuit, it is not possible to
state this with any certainty. But you'd know that, if you knew anything
about electronics. Of course, you don't, so you continue to make fundamental
errors.


Is
that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection
systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers?


At least I do not claim that one's own, specially built
amplifier has mysterious qualities that make it sound better
than other, decently built versions.


**Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the
amplifiers I referred you to.


Good. That means they sound like all other good amps, at
least up to their respective clipping levels. If you say
otherwise, you are a con artist.


**Indeed. They sound identical to other amplifiers which measure identically
to them. There has never been any argument over this point.


Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid
engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers
actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you.


I know enough about them to realize that when somebody like
you claims that a super-duper amp he is dealing with sounds
superior to all others that individual is pulling a sales
scam.


**IF I had said such a thing (which I have not), then you would be entitled
to say so.


Some of us,
however, have some education into the functioning of electronic
equipment.


Maybe so. However, additional education in the realms of
both common sense and ethics would not hurt.


**I agree.


I
suggest you get off your butt and do likewise. After you've spent 4 years
studying electronics and 30 odd years with hands on experience, we'll be
able to converse at the same level.


How many additional years of con-artist training will I need
to be as good at the job as you?


**When will you stop beating the crap out of your wife?


Is that opposed to
retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?


At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an
audible advantage over thick lamp cord.


**Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME
cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times.


Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp.


**Actually, not that far. Depending on the speaker, of course. And that is
the difference between you and me. You state, unequivocally, that speaker
cables are all the same. I argue that certain systems can benefit from low
inductance cables. IOW: You are wrong.


At least I do not
con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth
fairy.


**Sure you do. You rave about the books you write.


Interestingly, so have others raved about them. In any case,
getting into a insult-trading contest here is doing you a
hell of a lot more damage than it is doing me.


**I'm not insulting you. I'm simply stating fact.


Yet you have no in-depth
knowledge about the topic.


I know enough to be able to spot a con artist in action.


**You may well do so. You are also incapable of spotting people who actually
know their business, however.


Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia,
are you sure you care to continue?


**I have no problem with allowing you to make a complete idiot of yourself.


All you understand is the superficial stuff.


For guys like you, amp and wire scams are "superficial
stuff."


**Are they? I presume you have some actual evidence? A Google cite will be
fine.


You and your comments lack any kind of credibility.


This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
because there is something seriously wrong with it.


**And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no
technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others.


I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at
matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies
notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their
respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird
speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the
speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are
conventional amps out there that are also able to handle
rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is
still nothing exotic about their design.


**How would you know?


You
have no experience with the amp in question anyway.


I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if
your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong
with it.


**IOW: You don't know.


Go study up on the Dewey
Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to
us.


Why on earth would you want to learn about a library
cataloging system that went out of date decades ago?


**Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about
audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak.


I can spot a con artist, and it this day and age that is
more important than the ability to spout technical jargon
and rave about one's experience repairing and installing
gear.


**It is very important, when discussing why an amp shuts down, when turned
up to moderate levels. And it is in this area where your knowledge is sadly
lacking.


Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage
in
some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could
always
admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand.


About amps and wires?


**About the lies you wrote about me. About your incorrect assumptions.
About
much, much more.


OK, here is your chance to repent.


**Repent what, exactly? Be precise and use Google quotes as often as you
feel necessary.

Admit that all good amps
sound the same up to their respective clipping points when
driving normal speaker loads and admit that for home-audio
applications good,


**I will admit that all amps, which demonstrate identical specs, do, indeed,
sound identical.

decently thick lamp cord works as well as
exotic speaker wire.


**For most systems, yes. For SOME systems, no.

If you say that I will apologize for
what I have written about you.


**No, you won't. You're pig-ignorant. You will NEVER apologise to me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


  #82   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote:

Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
they should all sound the same according to tests.


In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.


Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.


You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply
must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That
this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious
deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness
of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on
the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT
says more about you as a true believer than it does about
any kind of audio gear.



Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts
for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation
that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation
effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus,
this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards
producing your "expected" results.
the units



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #83   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...


Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
down.


**That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a short
circuit is not zero Ohms?


As one real expert posted previously, yes, it is not zero
ohms. But for all practical purposes, when it is in parallel
with a speaker load it might as well be zero.


**Without knowing the nature of the short circuit, it is not possible to
state this with any certainty. But you'd know that, if you knew anything
about electronics. Of course, you don't, so you continue to make fundamental
errors.


First, I served four years in the USAF as an electronics
technician, and so I do know something about electronics.
Not college level, but not chopped-liver level, either.
Second, I know that if you put a speaker in parallel with a
load that is but a small fraction of an ohm no significant
sound will come from that speaker. How could it when the
vast bulk of the current flow is heading through that
borderline short?

**Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the
amplifiers I referred you to.


Good. That means they sound like all other good amps, at
least up to their respective clipping levels. If you say
otherwise, you are a con artist.


**Indeed. They sound identical to other amplifiers which measure identically
to them. There has never been any argument over this point.


Yeah, but below a certain point ultra-super measurements are
gilding the lily. I claim that even a good, mid-priced
receiver will have as good an amplifier sound as your exotic
amp. Add to that the existence of a preamp section, surround
sound (still more channels) and a tuner, and the receiver
wins the contest, hands down. Your amp is a money pit.

Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid
engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers
actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you.


I know enough about them to realize that when somebody like
you claims that a super-duper amp he is dealing with sounds
superior to all others that individual is pulling a sales
scam.


**IF I had said such a thing (which I have not), then you would be entitled
to say so.


OK, so your amp sounds like all other good amps. Good for
it. Glad we have reached this agreement.

Is that opposed to
retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?


At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an
audible advantage over thick lamp cord.


**Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME
cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times.


Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp.


**Actually, not that far. Depending on the speaker, of course. And that is
the difference between you and me. You state, unequivocally, that speaker
cables are all the same. I argue that certain systems can benefit from low
inductance cables. IOW: You are wrong.


Such speaker systems are too problematic to fool with. Just
how long a speaker run are we talking about, by the way.

At least I do not
con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth
fairy.


**Sure you do. You rave about the books you write.


Interestingly, so have others raved about them. In any case,
getting into a insult-trading contest here is doing you a
hell of a lot more damage than it is doing me.


**I'm not insulting you. I'm simply stating fact.


Actually, you are getting into a ****ing contest here that
is doing you not a lot of good out there in the business
world. Believe me, you have a lot more to lose here than I.

Yet you have no in-depth
knowledge about the topic.


I know enough to be able to spot a con artist in action.


**You may well do so. You are also incapable of spotting people who actually
know their business, however.


Yeah, and that ain't you.

Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia,
are you sure you care to continue?


**I have no problem with allowing you to make a complete idiot of yourself.


Well, they will do me no harm, whatsoever. On the other
hand, you will at least lose some points in your home area
because of your performance here. I suggest you cut and run
while you have the chance.

All you understand is the superficial stuff.


For guys like you, amp and wire scams are "superficial
stuff."


**Are they? I presume you have some actual evidence? A Google cite will be
fine.


Common sense works better.

You and your comments lack any kind of credibility.


This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
because there is something seriously wrong with it.


**And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no
technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others.


I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at
matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies
notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their
respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird
speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the
speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are
conventional amps out there that are also able to handle
rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is
still nothing exotic about their design.


**How would you know?


They sounded the same as all the others, tweako. What else
do you want other than they all sounded the same? Actually,
the Son of Ampzilla unit I recently reviewed was
bulletproof. However, with normal speaker loads it sounded
no better than a rather old Yamaha integrated amp I had on
hand. Admittedly, the speaker load was not particularly
demanding.

You
have no experience with the amp in question anyway.


I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if
your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong
with it.


**IOW: You don't know.


Well, you are the guy who claims that the amp sounds
"better" than most of the competition. If the competition
all sounds pretty much the same, I think that we can
conclude that those amps sound that way because they have
inaudible distortion. I mean what is the chance that all of
those somewhat different topologies all had identical
audible distortions? If your amp sounds different from the
crowd, as far as I am concerned it is less accurate than
they.

Go study up on the Dewey
Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to
us.


Why on earth would you want to learn about a library
cataloging system that went out of date decades ago?


**Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about
audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak.


I can spot a con artist, and it this day and age that is
more important than the ability to spout technical jargon
and rave about one's experience repairing and installing
gear.


**It is very important, when discussing why an amp shuts down, when turned
up to moderate levels. And it is in this area where your knowledge is sadly
lacking.


Hey, I never said it would not shut down. I simply said that
at any level it would not be able to put any sound into the
speakers. This would be the case, because the VAST bulk of
the current flow would be through the shorted-together lead
in parallel with the speaker.

OK, here is your chance to repent.


**Repent what, exactly? Be precise and use Google quotes as often as you
feel necessary.


Just follow the guide I wrote below.

Admit that all good amps
sound the same up to their respective clipping points when
driving normal speaker loads and admit that for home-audio
applications good,


**I will admit that all amps, which demonstrate identical specs, do, indeed,
sound identical.


And now I suppose you are going to say that your very
special amp has specs that are superior to all (or at least
most) others. My contention, however, is that once you get
below a certain audibility threshold all amps, including
yours, assuming it is properly designed, sound the same - at
least with standard speaker loads and below clipping levels.

The funny thing about you is that you probably sell people
speakers that require an amp like yours. You basically force
people into a situation where they have to purchase an
exotic amp to power those oddball speaker loads. Yeah, I am
sure you do not do this all the time, but when the
opportunity knocks you step up to the plate and take a swing
at the ball.

decently thick lamp cord works as well as
exotic speaker wire.


**For most systems, yes. For SOME systems, no.


Systems that nobody would use in a typical home-listening
environment. Tell me, just how often do you recommend heavy
lamp cord for typical home installations? Do you push the
exotic stuff even in those more mundane situations, as well
as in these situations that involve SOME systems?

If you say that I will apologize for
what I have written about you.


**No, you won't. You're pig-ignorant. You will NEVER apologise to me.


Well, not now I won't.

Howard Ferstler
  #84   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:


Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.


You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply
must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That
this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious
deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness
of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on
the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT
says more about you as a true believer than it does about
any kind of audio gear.


Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts
for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation
that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation
effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus,
this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards
producing your "expected" results.
the units


This is baloney. You either hear differences or you do not.

Howard Ferstler
  #85   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:


Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.


You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply
must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That
this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious
deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness
of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on
the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT
says more about you as a true believer than it does about
any kind of audio gear.


Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts
for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation
that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating
expectation
effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus,
this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards
producing your "expected" results.
the units


This is baloney. You either hear differences or you do not.


you don't need the test to do that!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


  #86   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:


Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.


You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply
must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That
this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious
deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness
of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on
the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT
says more about you as a true believer than it does about
any kind of audio gear.


Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts
for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation
that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating
expectation
effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus,
this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards
producing your "expected" results.
the units


This is baloney. You either hear differences or you do not.


you don't need the test to do that!


But you do need to properly level match, and you also need
to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions
about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior. If
you do not employ the DBT protocol there is no way to tell
if the participant is hearing differences or simply
imagining things - or saying that he hears differences in
order to sell a product.

Well, we have all gone over this many times before.

Howard Ferstler
  #87   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:



you don't need the test to do that!


But you do need to properly level match, and you also need
to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions
about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior.


That's the point, it only neuters
one set of preconceotions
And if the person has preconceptions
that they will sound the same, the test WILL NOT
neuter those preconceptions.

DBT tests for audio are actually designed to
provide a biased result of there being no difference.


you do not employ the DBT protocol there is no way to tell
if the participant is hearing differences or simply
imagining things - or saying that he hears differences in
order to sell a product.



See, you are using a test for the purpose of
arriving at a predetermined result.
It is NOT a proper test. The DBT test is no way to tell
if those that have a predetermined bias against hearing differences
are actually NOT hearing differences, or if
they are merely 'deluding' themselves in ignoring
differences that actually exist!



Well, we have all gone over this many times before.


And you are as wrong as ever!!!





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #88   Report Post  
Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ric" wrote in message ...
Gordon wrote:

Arny ,a quick question ,as you are in Michigan why do you feel the need
to
post in an Austalian newsgroup.


Gordon, read your headers! This thread has been crossposted to
FOUR newsgroups, only one of which is Aussie.

My appologies , in this case , but most of the Ozzy posters will know what I
was getting at.
Gordon


  #89   Report Post  
dean
 
Posts: n/a
Default



You can buy a lot of cheap players
for what one exotic costs and as long as it works OK it will
sound as good as any of them.


** You're paying for what you get. Just like you can not expect Proton's
vehicles to give you the same driving experience as Lexus vehicles-
regarless of physical appearances.

Cheers

Dean






  #90   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Better made players last longer, play marginal discs better, and are
nicer to use. If you want okay for cheap buy a $39 Apex at WalMart. It
will work about a year then buy another. If you don't need DVD-A or
SACD, and don't mind the nasty smell it gives off-why,I'm not sure, but
it has no toobs and Margaret can't possibly put out enough slime to
smell that many of them up-and don't mind the fact you will have to
dismantle it and use a 9V battery to open the drawer to get the last CD
it plays because it will trap your disc when it dies, well, go for it.



  #93   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote:

Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
they should all sound the same according to tests.


In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.


Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.


You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply
must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That
this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious
deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness
of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on
the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT
says more about you as a true believer than it does about
any kind of audio gear.

Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts
for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation
that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation
effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus,
this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards
producing your "expected" results.


Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the
fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #94   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:32:56 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:



you don't need the test to do that!


But you do need to properly level match, and you also need
to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions
about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior.


That's the point, it only neuters
one set of preconceotions
And if the person has preconceptions
that they will sound the same, the test WILL NOT
neuter those preconceptions.

DBT tests for audio are actually designed to
provide a biased result of there being no difference.


Bull****. They're used every day by mainstream manufacturers to
determine whether design changes had any *real* audible effect.

Like most of the 'subjectivists', you're ignoring reality to push your
own prejudices, and bitching about ABX because it doesn't support your
fantasising about the sound of 'high-end' equipment.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #95   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:26:35 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton" wrote
calcerise wrote:




Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
they should all sound the same according to tests.


And indeed the good ones *do*, if we're talking about *listening*
tests. I have a Sony CDP-715E, one of the best-performing players Sony
ever made, although lacking the 'battleship' build of the XA7ES, I
have access to a Meridian 588, probably the finest 'high tech' SOTA CD
player on the planet, and I also own a Pioneer DV-575A 'universal'
player that cost less than the quoted price of a new laser assembly
for the XA7ES. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.




Any reasonable person would most likely also ask that ... when you
were performing a level-matched blind listening test among your
three cd players namely:

1. Sony CDP-715E

2. Meridian 588

3. Pioneer DV-575A


Were you also comparing their sounds from each other?


I have no idea what that means.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #96   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:11:27 -0700, ric wrote:

Gordon, read your headers! This thread has been crossposted to
FOUR newsgroups, only one of which is Aussie.


This one was, but Arnie DOES post here specifically though from time
to time. The question is valid.
  #97   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 12 Jul 2005 03:04:26 -0700, "Sonic" wrote:

I remember when the XA5 and 7ES came out, had some of the first ones to
try out. Found them to be bright as anything, especially the XA5ES,
even using the digital out it proved to be bright.


Well, that's about as dumb a comment as it gets.................

I also remember Greg Borrowmans first review on the 5, he couldnt bring
himself to say it but read between the lines and he basically was
saying its bright as all buggery! LOL


Yeah, riggghht.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #98   Report Post  
Scot Clayton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gordon wrote:

Gordon, read your headers! This thread has been crossposted to
FOUR newsgroups, only one of which is Aussie.


My appologies , in this case , but most of the Ozzy posters will know what I
was getting at.


How about the Black Sabbath ones? ;-)


--
--Scot
www.RonnieJamesDio.org
www.SMCProductions.org
www.CraigGoldy.org
www.TonyIommi.org
www.ScotClayton.org
http://scotclayton.blogspot.com/
  #99   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:



you don't need the test to do that!


But you do need to properly level match, and you also

need
to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions
about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior.


That's the point, it only neuters
one set of preconceotions


That's what you've got Art - "preconceotions".


  #100   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"dean" wrote in message

You can buy a lot of cheap players
for what one exotic costs and as long as it works OK it

will
sound as good as any of them.


** You're paying for what you get.


Not at all. A lot of the $kilobuck players have the same
operational guts as the $200 players.




  #101   Report Post  
Trevor Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...


Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
down.


**That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a
short
circuit is not zero Ohms?


As one real expert posted previously, yes, it is not zero
ohms. But for all practical purposes, when it is in parallel
with a speaker load it might as well be zero.


**Without knowing the nature of the short circuit, it is not possible to
state this with any certainty. But you'd know that, if you knew anything
about electronics. Of course, you don't, so you continue to make
fundamental
errors.


First, I served four years in the USAF as an electronics
technician, and so I do know something about electronics.
Not college level, but not chopped-liver level, either.


**Unless you studied circuit analysis (which, it is abundantly obvious, you
did not) you know only the barest superficial stuff.

Second, I know that if you put a speaker in parallel with a
load that is but a small fraction of an ohm no significant
sound will come from that speaker. How could it when the
vast bulk of the current flow is heading through that
borderline short?


**Go and study up on Thevenin's Theorem and get back to me. However, that is
not the issue. And you (should) know it. The poster who began this whole
fiasco, which allowed you to demonstrate your incredible lack of knowledge
said nothing about the sound coming from the speaker with the short on the
speaker cable. I explained to you at the time (an explanation which you
ridiculed, BTW) that it was highly liklely that the protection system was
not activated until moderate levels (just as the poster suggested) because
all the other channels were still operating. I patiently explained to you
that this was, indeed, very possible, given the likely protection systems
used in most commercial amplifiers. You denied that my explanation made any
sense. Of course, your suggestion that I was incorrect held no weight with
any reader on any forum, given your complete ignorance of modern electronic
devices and their technical features. It is this point where I am most
incensed. You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT
ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick
Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd.


**Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the
amplifiers I referred you to.


Good. That means they sound like all other good amps, at
least up to their respective clipping levels. If you say
otherwise, you are a con artist.


**Indeed. They sound identical to other amplifiers which measure
identically
to them. There has never been any argument over this point.


Yeah, but below a certain point ultra-super measurements are
gilding the lily. I claim that even a good, mid-priced
receiver will have as good an amplifier sound as your exotic
amp.


**You may make as many claims as you wish. You're still operating from a
point of ignorance.

Add to that the existence of a preamp section, surround
sound (still more channels) and a tuner, and the receiver
wins the contest, hands down. Your amp is a money pit.


**Really? Let's talk about obsolescence sometime. See how much a 5 year old
receiver sells for. Then go price a 10 year old Krell. The Krell will have
hled more of it's value than your 5 year old receiver.


Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid
engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how
amplifiers
actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you.


I know enough about them to realize that when somebody like
you claims that a super-duper amp he is dealing with sounds
superior to all others that individual is pulling a sales
scam.


**IF I had said such a thing (which I have not), then you would be
entitled
to say so.


OK, so your amp sounds like all other good amps.


**No. It sounds like all other amps which posses IDENTICAL specs.

Good for
it. Glad we have reached this agreement.


**Don't count your chickens.


Is that opposed to
retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?


At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an
audible advantage over thick lamp cord.


**Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how
SOME
cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times.


Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp.


**Actually, not that far. Depending on the speaker, of course. And that
is
the difference between you and me. You state, unequivocally, that speaker
cables are all the same. I argue that certain systems can benefit from
low
inductance cables. IOW: You are wrong.


Such speaker systems are too problematic to fool with.


**That is an opinion you get to have. It is not one shared by many
listeners.

Just
how long a speaker run are we talking about, by the way.


**Is that a question, Mr Professional Writer?


At least I do not
con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth
fairy.


**Sure you do. You rave about the books you write.


Interestingly, so have others raved about them. In any case,
getting into a insult-trading contest here is doing you a
hell of a lot more damage than it is doing me.


**I'm not insulting you. I'm simply stating fact.


Actually, you are getting into a ****ing contest here that
is doing you not a lot of good out there in the business
world. Believe me, you have a lot more to lose here than I.


**I doubt it.


Yet you have no in-depth
knowledge about the topic.


I know enough to be able to spot a con artist in action.


**You may well do so. You are also incapable of spotting people who
actually
know their business, however.


Yeah, and that ain't you.


**See what I mean? I prove you wrong. Completely, utterly wrong and you
insult me. That is what I am talking about. You are a nasty individual. Try
and stay on topic and keep to the facts. I proved you wrong. You know (or
shoudl know it) and everyone else knows it. You should cut your losses and
admit it.


Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia,
are you sure you care to continue?


**I have no problem with allowing you to make a complete idiot of
yourself.


Well, they will do me no harm, whatsoever.


**Very likely true. You are already a laughing stock. You can't sink much
lower.

On the other
hand, you will at least lose some points in your home area
because of your performance here. I suggest you cut and run
while you have the chance.


**You know very little about me. I don't cut and run from someone who is
wrong. I will continue to attack, until you admit your mistakes and
apologise. I will not stop.


All you understand is the superficial stuff.


For guys like you, amp and wire scams are "superficial
stuff."


**Are they? I presume you have some actual evidence? A Google cite will
be
fine.


Common sense works better.


**Your lack of evidence is duly noted. And expected.


You and your comments lack any kind of credibility.


This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
because there is something seriously wrong with it.


**And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no
technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form
others.


I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at
matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies
notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their
respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird
speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the
speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are
conventional amps out there that are also able to handle
rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is
still nothing exotic about their design.


**How would you know?


They sounded the same as all the others, tweako.


**I'll ask the question again: How would you know?

What else
do you want other than they all sounded the same? Actually,
the Son of Ampzilla unit I recently reviewed was
bulletproof. However, with normal speaker loads it sounded
no better than a rather old Yamaha integrated amp I had on
hand. Admittedly, the speaker load was not particularly
demanding.

You
have no experience with the amp in question anyway.


I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if
your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong
with it.


**IOW: You don't know.


Well, you are the guy who claims that the amp sounds
"better" than most of the competition. If the competition
all sounds pretty much the same, I think that we can
conclude that those amps sound that way because they have
inaudible distortion. I mean what is the chance that all of
those somewhat different topologies all had identical
audible distortions?


**Very high, since all use similar topologies, WRT Global NFB.

If your amp sounds different from the
crowd, as far as I am concerned it is less accurate than
they.


**And again, you speak from a position of ignorance.


Go study up on the Dewey
Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back
to
us.


Why on earth would you want to learn about a library
cataloging system that went out of date decades ago?


**Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments
about
audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak.


I can spot a con artist, and it this day and age that is
more important than the ability to spout technical jargon
and rave about one's experience repairing and installing
gear.


**It is very important, when discussing why an amp shuts down, when
turned
up to moderate levels. And it is in this area where your knowledge is
sadly
lacking.


Hey, I never said it would not shut down. I simply said that
at any level it would not be able to put any sound into the
speakers.


**The poster said that the amp did not shut down 'till moderate levels were
reached. You claimed that this was not possible.


This would be the case, because the VAST bulk of
the current flow would be through the shorted-together lead
in parallel with the speaker.


**The vast bulk of the output from ONE CHANNEL. The other channels would be
unaffected (within reason).


OK, here is your chance to repent.


**Repent what, exactly? Be precise and use Google quotes as often as you
feel necessary.


Just follow the guide I wrote below.

Admit that all good amps
sound the same up to their respective clipping points when
driving normal speaker loads and admit that for home-audio
applications good,


**I will admit that all amps, which demonstrate identical specs, do,
indeed,
sound identical.


And now I suppose you are going to say that your very
special amp has specs that are superior to all (or at least
most) others. My contention, however, is that once you get
below a certain audibility threshold all amps, including
yours, assuming it is properly designed, sound the same - at
least with standard speaker loads and below clipping levels.


**What is a "standard speaker load"? How can you guarantee that an amp
remains below clipping at ALL times?



The funny thing about you is that you probably sell people
speakers that require an amp like yours.


**Wrong. Again.

You basically force
people into a situation where they have to purchase an
exotic amp to power those oddball speaker loads.


**Supposition, based on a faulty line of logic. Your usual stock-in-trade.

Yeah, I am
sure you do not do this all the time, but when the
opportunity knocks you step up to the plate and take a swing
at the ball.

decently thick lamp cord works as well as
exotic speaker wire.


**For most systems, yes. For SOME systems, no.


Systems that nobody would use in a typical home-listening
environment.


**Wrong.

Tell me, just how often do you recommend heavy
lamp cord for typical home installations?


**Pretty much every day, in fact. It's all most people need for their crappy
surround sound systems. Anything else is massive over-kill.

Do you push the
exotic stuff even in those more mundane situations, as well
as in these situations that involve SOME systems?


**Nope. Never. In fact, I never "push" fancy speaker cables. Depending on
the system, I may make a reccommendation for low inductance speaker cables.
I even suggest where people can buy those cables. Dick Smith Electronics is
one of the outlets I suggest. Which, of course, you'd know, if you did even
a modicum of research. DSE sell the fancy, low inductance cable for 4 Bucks
a Metre. Google it, if you don't beleive me.


If you say that I will apologize for
what I have written about you.


**No, you won't. You're pig-ignorant. You will NEVER apologise to me.


Well, not now I won't.


**You have managed to meet my expectations of you.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


  #102   Report Post  
Fella
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

DBT tests for audio are actually designed to
provide a biased result of there being no difference.



Bull****. They're used every day by mainstream manufacturers to
determine whether design changes had any *real* audible effect.


Since everything sounds the same all the time why should any "design
changes" have a "*real*" audible effect? Sice amps and CD players are at
the zenith of perfection, since they can't be bettered in any way (so
say your tests) why would any "mainstream manufacturers" bother to make
any "design changes" ?

DBT's do not work, been there done that. Simple fact.

This *is* about envy with you low-income nerd types, isn't it? You
imagine your yamaha metallic sound $120 receiver as sounding the same as
some $5000 BAT integrated amp, yes? That's how you are able to consume
that edgy, glaringly digital, transistor sound you get from your piece
of **** gear.
  #103   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



And now Brother Ferstler the Overly Pecunious yields the pulpit to his
brethren from the U.K., Brother Pukey the Scatologically Talented. Please
cup your ears, ladies and gentlemen, to make sure you can garner every
syllable of wisdom from Brother Pukey.

Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the
fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-)


Thank you for the inspirational words, Brother Pukey. Do you need some help
maintaining your posture? You look like you've been up all night.




  #104   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Fella" wrote in message


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


DBT tests for audio are actually designed to
provide a biased result of there being no difference.



Bull****. They're used every day by mainstream

manufacturers
to determine whether design changes had any *real*

audible
effect.


Since everything sounds the same all the time why should

any
"design changes" have a "*real*" audible effect?


Obviously, everything doesn't sound the same all the time,
or else people would never check for them.

Since amps and
CD players are at the zenith of perfection, since they

can't
be bettered in any way (so say your tests) why would any
"mainstream manufacturers" bother to make any "design

changes"?

Guess what Fella, audio equipment has other attributes than
sound quality. Examples are size, cost, weight, appearance,
reliability, ease-of-use, and so on.

DBT's do not work, been there done that. Simple fact.


I don't recall reading any detailed descriptions of your own
personal DBTs, Fella.

This *is* about envy with you low-income nerd types, isn't

it?

Actually, being a nerd is a pretty good way to have a high
income.

You imagine your yamaha metallic sound $120 receiver as
sounding the same as some $5000 BAT integrated amp, yes?


Interesting possibility, no?

BTW Fella, there don't appear to be any such things as $120
Yamaha receivers being sold as new equipment. Does this mean
that the rest of your post is equally invalid?

That's how you are able to consume that edgy, glaringly
digital, transistor sound you get from your piece of ****

gear.

I think you really need to check your facts, Fella. The
$5995 BAT VK 300x integrated amplifier you mentioned has a
lot of solid state and not a lot of tubes in it. Check out
the article below from their web site - note the solid
state power amp heat sinks on each side, the absence of
*any* visible glass bottles, and the admission that the only
tube that this BAT integrated amp might have is an
extra-cost option?

http://www.balanced.com/products/amp/Vk-300x/


  #105   Report Post  
EddieM
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote
calcerise wrote:



Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
they should all sound the same according to tests.

And indeed the good ones *do*, if we're talking about *listening*
tests. I have a Sony CDP-715E, one of the best-performing players Sony
ever made, although lacking the 'battleship' build of the XA7ES, I
have access to a Meridian 588, probably the finest 'high tech' SOTA CD
player on the planet, and I also own a Pioneer DV-575A 'universal'
player that cost less than the quoted price of a new laser assembly
for the XA7ES. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.


Any reasonable person would most likely also ask that ... when you
were performing a level-matched blind listening test among your
three cd players namely:

1. Sony CDP-715E

2. Meridian 588

3. Pioneer DV-575A

Were you also comparing their sounds from each other?


I have no idea what that means.



I was wondering what exactly were you talking about when you said
you did a *listening* test as you had mentioned above. You said
that you did a *level-matched* blind listening test among the 3 players
and that towards the end, you concluded that all 3 sounded the same.
So I wonder how you carried out your test. Did you listen separately or
did you made an active comparison using a switch during the test?

And how would a person go about concluding with reasonable expectation
that all three players will sound identical without having made an active
comparison




--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

















  #106   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:



you don't need the test to do that!

But you do need to properly level match, and you also

need
to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions
about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior.


That's the point, it only neuters
one set of preconceotions


That's what you've got Art - "preconceotions".



WOW! impressive, Arny.
I show you that ABX is built on a false premise,
and all you can do is point out a typo.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #108   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:13:32 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote:

Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
they should all sound the same according to tests.


In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.


Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.

Clyde, don't you know that "expectation effects" only apply to those of
us
who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no
difference. :-)


And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations
in.
It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!!
ABX is hideously flawed.


Bull****. What you mean is that ABX doesn't support your absolute
knowledge that 'high-end' designer label gear *must* sound better than
'Chinky cheapies'.
--


It doesn't support it because it is inherently designed
to purposefully support the opposite conclusion.
It is NOT a neutral test. It does not remove
the expectation effects of those who
have preconceived notions that there are no differences.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #109   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote:

Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
they should all sound the same according to tests.

In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.

Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.

You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply
must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That
this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious
deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness
of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on
the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT
says more about you as a true believer than it does about
any kind of audio gear.

Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts
for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation
that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating
expectation
effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus,
this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards
producing your "expected" results.


Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the
fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-)


That they are taken by people from both sides is irrelevant.
Its the test design that skews the results, so that they tend to
be the same



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #110   Report Post  
roughplanet
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell.


snip

Would it be too much to ask the members of other Usenet groups to delete
aus.hi-fi from their newsgroup lists? I think I speak for most of the
members of this group when I say that we really aren't interested in your
squabbling, as we have more than enough of it here already.
Thanks in anticipation of your assistance.

ruff




  #111   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:32:56 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:



you don't need the test to do that!

But you do need to properly level match, and you also need
to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions
about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior.


That's the point, it only neuters
one set of preconceotions
And if the person has preconceptions
that they will sound the same, the test WILL NOT
neuter those preconceptions.

DBT tests for audio are actually designed to
provide a biased result of there being no difference.


Bull****. They're used every day by mainstream manufacturers to
determine whether design changes had any *real* audible effect.

Like most of the 'subjectivists', you're ignoring reality to push your
own prejudices, and bitching about ABX because it doesn't support your
fantasising about the sound of 'high-end' equipment.


Fist of all,
For the purposes of my purchase decisions,
any test results derived from other subjects
are completely irrelevant to my decision.
I could not care less what the unknown masses do or do not hear.

Now, as far as DBT and its removal of expectation effects,
for the purposes of audio purchase decisions, a
test subject would tend to have fairly strong preconceptions
about whether there might be inherent differences
between two items

AS far as manufacturer's using DBT in support of
parts or decsign decisions, the test subjets
are likely to have minimal preconcptions
over whatever is being tested.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #112   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in

message
...


Bull****. What you mean is that ABX doesn't support your
absolute knowledge that 'high-end' designer label gear

*must*
sound better than 'Chinky cheapies'.


It doesn't support it because it is inherently designed
to purposefully support the opposite conclusion.


This is the usual audiophilia-dupe answer, which is what we
should expect from an audiophilia-dupe like Art.

Please note that Art has so much confidence in his baseless
accusations that he doesn't even post under his true name.
Art is obviously afraid of his senseless natterings on
Usenet being associated with his true identity.

I know exactly how ABX was designed because I was there when
it was designed almost 30 years ago. ABX was designed to be
as sensitive as possible to audible differences.

It is NOT a neutral test.


ABX is as neutral of a test for consciiously-perceived
differences as is known to exist.

It does not remove the expectation effects of those who
have preconceived notions that there are no differences.


ABX tests and other DBTs can be used to determine when a
listener is biased against hearing differences. You simply
present candidate listeners with audible differences that
other listeners have been able to hear in DBTs without much
difficulty. If the listener develops random results when
listening to differences that are known to be readily
audible in DBTs or by other means, then it is proof or at
least a strong indication that he is biased against hearing
differences.

The PCABX web site uses a "Listener Training Test" to filter
out listners and listening environments that are biased
against hearing differences. This facility is freely
available at http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .


  #113   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


Fist of all,


Art gratuiously introduces a OT discussion of something
involving a fist. What might that be?

For the purposes of my purchase decisions,
any test results derived from other subjects
are completely irrelevant to my decision.


This only makes sense if Art's hearing or Art's listening
environment is so atypical that no other person's hearing or
listening environment would be relevant. IOW, it suggests
that Art's hearing has become vastly degraded due to his age
and personal activities, and that his home audio system is
full of masking noises and distortions.

I could not care less what the unknown masses do or do not

hear.

Note that Art can't comprehend of any other individual
having the same serious hearing problems that he has.

Now, as far as DBT and its removal of expectation effects,
for the purposes of audio purchase decisions, a
test subject would tend to have fairly strong

preconceptions
about whether there might be inherent differences
between two items.


Agreed - given that retail outlets and manufacturer's have
strong economic incentives to give people favorable
preconceptions about the products they sell.

AS far as manufacturer's using DBT in support of
parts or decsign decisions, the test subjets
are likely to have minimal preconcptions
over whatever is being tested.


At last Art correctly perceives that one of the benefits of
DBTs is that they can help identify and reduce or elminate
the effects of preconceptions.


  #114   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in

message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:



you don't need the test to do that!

But you do need to properly level match, and you also

need
to go the DBT route if the participant has

preconceptions
about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior.

That's the point, it only neuters
one set of preconceotions


That's what you've got Art - "preconceotions".



WOW! impressive, Arny.
I show you that ABX is built on a false premise,
and all you can do is point out a typo.


Art, the rest of your post was just another recitation of
your habitual jingoist mantra.


  #115   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

"EddieM" wrote in message

Clyde Slick wrote
Stewart Pinkerton wrote
calcerise wrote:



Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio
products, since they should all sound the same

according to
tests.


In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person

would
expect.


Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects

again.

Good point.

There's an equal danger in missing an audible difference
because you expect it to not be there, as there is a

danger
in falsely perceiving a difference because the listening
test was done naively.

So Eddie, what to do?


Note that a day later, Eddie has posted to other threads but
has no answer for my simple question.




  #116   Report Post  
Fella
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Arny Krueger wrote:

Obviously, everything doesn't sound the same all the time,


Take the issue up with pinkerton there.


Guess what Fella, audio equipment has other attributes than
sound quality.


Guess what krueger, sound quality is the foremost attribute to be taken
into consideration. Then comes durability and reliability. Then comes
pleasing esthetics. Then comes price, ease of use, etc.


Examples are size, cost, weight, appearance,
reliability, ease-of-use, and so on.


Agreed. What are your priorities? Tell us.


I don't recall reading any detailed descriptions of your own
personal DBTs, Fella.


Well take that up with your head-doctor.



Actually, being a nerd is a pretty good way to have a high
income.


Was.



You imagine your yamaha metallic sound $120 receiver as
sounding the same as some $5000 BAT integrated amp, yes?



Interesting possibility, no?


Interesting IMpossiblity, yes.


BTW Fella, there don't appear to be any such things as $120
Yamaha receivers being sold as new equipment.


Why buy new?


Does this mean
that the rest of your post is equally invalid?


So you validate all the posts around here?



That's how you are able to consume that edgy, glaringly
digital, transistor sound you get from your piece of ****


gear.

I think you really need to check your facts, Fella. BAT uses solid state fellaaaaaa.. etc.


Cheap demogogy, worn out "debating-trade" bul**** snipped.
  #117   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:58:52 +1000, "roughplanet"
wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell.


snip

Would it be too much to ask the members of other Usenet groups to delete
aus.hi-fi from their newsgroup lists? I think I speak for most of the
members of this group when I say that we really aren't interested in your
squabbling, as we have more than enough of it here already.
Thanks in anticipation of your assistance.

ruff


Seconded, Ruff. I feel like I've been dragged back down into that
nightmare hell-hole known as RAO after only lately escaping it. Names
I'm still trying to forget keep appearing before my startled gaze like
phantoms of the underworld. Please make it stop.

  #118   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Mr. Kroofeces, your "language maven" credentials are somewhat worse than
tarnished by your performance on Usenet.

$kilobuck


You so stupid! What do you think the "$" symbol means if not the same thing as
"buck"?

It's so funny to see you whine about other people making typos when you can't
even think straight enough to express a simple idea like this correctly.

I suggest switching from a carpenter's hammer to a ball peen the next time you
try to adjust your wetware.

  #119   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Howard Ferstler said:

This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
because there is something seriously wrong with it.



Here I have two exactly the same Pioneer receivers, which, by your
previous admission, will sound adequate enough.
One of the two has both its tone controls set to 3 o'clock, the tone
controls of the other amp are in straight position.
They both sound different on the same speakers.

Is there something seriously wrong with amp nr. 1 or amp nr. 2?
And why?

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA: from $0.99 SONY Theater RECEIVER ($600 less!) dOUBLEdECK AND headphones HiFi awesome OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION Marketplace 3 January 10th 06 08:28 PM
FA: Sony MZ-E55 Portable MD Player inc New Battery, charger, MDs, rack esandman Marketplace 0 May 14th 05 11:49 AM
[?]Sourcing SONY DAT recorder 7-pin connector (and lead). David Chapman Pro Audio 12 January 6th 05 08:50 AM
Sony Digital Amps (and SACD) vs. Sony Analog Amps banspeakerports High End Audio 0 February 8th 04 07:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:53 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"