On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:48:10 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"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.

Clearly you have no idea that these tests are used every day by major
audio manufacturers, for the precise purpose of *revealing* small but
real audible differences made by their R&D guys. Cretin.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Arny Krueger" said:

** 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.


Examples please?

--

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

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"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

Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do indeed tend to
be the same. That's because most decent equipment really does sound
the same, whatever guillible fools like you would like to believe.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:58:40 +0300, Fella wrote:

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?

Nowadays, they mostly don't. Most modern R&D in amps and CD players is
biased towards cost reduction. That's why my 'Chinky cheapy' Pioneer
DV-575A will play any kind of silver disc while providing sound
quality identical to that of a SOTA 'audiophile brand' CD player. It
also plays movies!

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" ?

See above

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

If you've really been there and done that, you'll know that they
really do work. Of course, if you were *expecting* that they'd prove
how 'high-end' gear sounds better, then I'm not surprised that you're
disappointed..............

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.

You really are a prat, aren't you?

See my page he http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/

Piece of **** gear? I don't think so................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:38:14 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


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?

Switched between two players at a time, (normally the Pioneer and any
'audiophile contender' nowadays, but the Meridian's been compared
against both Pioneer and Sony), using identical CD-Rs synchronised as
closely as possible, and with levels set to be the same +/- 0.1dB at
the speaker terminals, using -20dB test tones at 20Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz.
Since no statistically significant identification was possible, it
seems that the synch was adequate!

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

Irrelevant, given the existence of an 'active' comparison (whatever
that's supposed to mean). OTOH, anyone with any understanding of the
optics and electronics involved, would indeed expect that they would
most likely sound identical, unless one had a serious problem. Here's
a handy hint - many so-called 'high end' players *do* have serious
design problems, for which you are charged a stratospheric price!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Fella" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

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

Take the issue up with pinkerton there.

Not his problem, not my problem.

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.

Fella, like your leader Middius, you have a wonderful
command of the obvious.

Then comes durability and
reliability. Then comes pleasing esthetics. Then comes
price,
ease of use, etc.

You paraphrase me well, grasshopper.

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

Agreed. What are your priorities? Tell us.

First and foremost sound quality. But reliability is a close
second.

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

Well take that up with your head-doctor.

IOW Fella, you are a no-show when it comes to personal
experience with that which you are critical of. That follows
from the fact that you have shown yourself to be highly
unfamiliar with a certain high end integrated amp whose name
you just dropped.

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

Was.

Is.

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.

Since you exposed your ignorance about the BAT integrated
amp, this claim is obviously bogus.

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

Why buy new?

Why quote prices of used equipment when they can vary all
over the map?

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

So you validate all the posts around here?

Sometimes its interesting to do a little fact-checking
Fella. See how nicely it exposed your ignorance and
posturing.

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/

no relevant reply from Fella

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


That they are taken by people from both sides is
irrelevant.

Not at all.

Its the test design that skews the results, so that they
tend to
be the same

The ABX test was designed to be very sensitive to
differences that are actually audible. This contrasts with
your hobby-horse sighted, non-level-matched,
non-time-synched auditions that can be counted on to sound
different for reasons that are irrelevant to sound quality.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


Idiot, the test removes some expectation effects, but not
others.

As I showed in another post, ABX tests can be used to detect
both false positives and false negatives.

It is more biased than sighted listening.

That's bad joke! There is very little that is more
susceptable to bias than sighted listening. After all that's
one reason why all the high end magazines and audio shops
employ it so religiously. It facilitates them to bias
customers and readers in ways that are profitable for the
audio shops and ragazines.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

** 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.

Examples please?

Theta-Digital

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2653a388212cc9

McCormack

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...73dd41bd672652

"Arny Krueger" said:

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

Examples please?

Theta-Digital
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2653a388212cc9

McCormack
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...73dd41bd672652


DVD players.........interesting.

With CD players, the only 2 examples I know of are the Rega Planet
(earlier versions) and the Ah Tjoeb 99, which was in fact a lower-end
Marantz with an added tube stage.

Both weren't kilobuck players, BTW.

--

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

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:14:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

** 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.

Examples please?

Theta-Digital

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2653a388212cc9

McCormack

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...73dd41bd672652


Yes and no. Those are both Pioneer-transport-based but they do have
different PS, audio and, in the case of the Theta, video boards. In
fact, you can add the BelCanto Pl-1 and the Moon Orbiter to that list
but, again, each does have different proprietary circuit boards and PS
circuits as well as different video options and controls. Same
Pioneer OSD, of course.

Kal

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
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.

Paul and Ruff, how is this for a Utopian ideal "When the RAO
gang leave perhaps they could take one or two more with them
that wish to carry on like this all the time" ;-)

BTW I only have read one or two posts here (from non-local
posters) and it still confirms they are a rather sad bunch -
still.

Cheers Terry

"roughplanet" wrote in message
...
"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


I'll follow your lead, to the "T".



----== 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 =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"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.


So much for my secret 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's not neutral towards those
who preconcieve that there will be no difference

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.


That has nothing to do with the preconceptions
about any differences or preferences betweeen the two test items.
Your pretest does not address that issue, its
irrelevant.



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 .


That has nothing to do with any [reconceptions
about the two items to be comapred for preference.



----== 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 =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"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.


That is not what I said. Not at all.



----== 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 =----

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
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.


Yes, I will slavishly follow your lead in removing crossposts.



----== 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 =----

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:48:10 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"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.

Clearly you have no idea that these tests are used every day by major
audio manufacturers, for the precise purpose of *revealing* small but
real audible differences made by their R&D guys. Cretin.


And who are the subjects taking such tests?



----== 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 =----

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"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

Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do indeed tend to
be the same. That's because most decent equipment really does sound
the same, whatever guillible fools like you would like to believe.


Sure, it sounds the same to people who have
preconceived notions that it will sound 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 =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Fella, like your leader Middius, you have a wonderful
command of the obvious.


Too bad that the command of the obvious
continues to evade you.



----== 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 =----

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

You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the
price of the laser assembly.

Can you please recommend some new players comparable to the XA7ES for
$200USD?

Thanks


With $2000 USD you can browse "e-Bay" or "Audiogon" websites for these:
Meridian 508-24, Pioneer PD-95; Accuphase DP-65V or 70V...etc I have heard
them in action and they are awesome machines and you can probably pick one
up for much less than $2000 USD from the mentioned sites.

Cheers

Dean

Dean, the price is $200USD, not $2000USD. Arny had said for the price
of replacing the laser in the XA7ES (less than $200USD), I could get a
new one which sounds as good. So I asked him to name some player for
under $200USD, which he did. Althought I'm not entirely convinced that
it will sound as good though.

Clyde Slick said to ****-for-Brains:

Too bad that the command of the obvious
continues to evade you.

Not entirely. Arnii has often boasted of recognizing poor Susan's true
market value. ;-)

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


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 .

That has nothing to do with any [reconceptions
about the two items to be comapred for preference.

I agree, http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm has nothing
to do with [reconceptions
about the two items to be comapred for preference. More
specifically it has nothing to do with [reconceptions, it
has nothing to do with times to be comapred, and ABX tests
have nothing to do with preference.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Fella, like your leader Middius, you have a wonderful
command of the obvious.

Too bad that the command of the obvious
continues to evade you.

Art this is just a lame, non-specific come-back. For
example, you cite no relevant examples.

Art you were just whining about how poor ABX tests were as
tests of preference, right?

It is well known and obvious to all that ABX tests are tests
for differences and not tests for preferences.

Therefore Art it appears that command of the obvious evades
you, and I have a specific example of that in your recent
postings.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"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

Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do
indeed
tend to be the same. That's because most decent equipment
really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools like
you
would like to believe.


Sure, it sounds the same to people who have
preconceived notions that it will sound the same.

I just showed how we can use ABX tests to identify people
who are prone towards false negatives.

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:14:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

** 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.

Examples please?

Theta-Digital


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2653a388212cc9

McCormack


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...73dd41bd672652


Yes and no. Those are both Pioneer-transport-based but
they
do have different PS, audio and, in the case of the Theta,
video boards. In fact, you can add the BelCanto Pl-1 and
the
Moon Orbiter to that list but, again, each does have
different
proprietary circuit boards and PS circuits as well as
different video options and controls. Same Pioneer OSD,
of
course.

We found that the McCormack was using the Pioneer audio
board for signal processnig, but just tacked on a fancy
overbuilt buffer and power supply for the buffer. Without
closer examination, we don't know how much of the Pioneer
circuitry the others actually used. But in the case of the
McCormack, a lot more than just the Pioneer transport was
being used.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


and ABX tests
have nothing to do with preference.



unless a normal proclaims a preference for a
particular item, at which time you throw another ABX
hissy fit.



----== 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 =----

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Fella, like your leader Middius, you have a wonderful
command of the obvious.

Too bad that the command of the obvious
continues to evade you.

Art this is just a lame, non-specific come-back. For
example, you cite no relevant examples.

Art you were just whining about how poor ABX tests were as
tests of preference, right?



Learn to read moron.
BTW, this gotcha will cost you a loss
of 15 debating trade frequent liar points.
But keep trying, 250 points
gets you another sound card.





----== 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 =----

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"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

Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do
indeed
tend to be the same. That's because most decent equipment
really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools like
you
would like to believe.


Sure, it sounds the same to people who have
preconceived notions that it will sound the same.

I just showed how we can use ABX tests to identify people
who are prone towards false negatives.





----== 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 =----

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"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

Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do
indeed
tend to be the same. That's because most decent equipment
really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools like
you
would like to believe.


Sure, it sounds the same to people who have
preconceived notions that it will sound the same.

I just showed how we can use ABX tests to identify people
who are prone towards false negatives.


that's not relative to preconceived notions about
the particular two items to be 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 =----

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


and ABX tests
have nothing to do with preference.

unless a normal proclaims a preference for a
particular item, at which time you throw another ABX
hissy fit.

Mere posturing.

ABX is clearly over your head, Art.

ABX are tests for differences not preferences.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Fella, like your leader Middius, you have a wonderful
command of the obvious.

Too bad that the command of the obvious
continues to evade you.

Art this is just a lame, non-specific come-back. For
example, you cite no relevant examples.

Art you were just whining about how poor ABX tests were
as
tests of preference, right?

Learn to read moron.

Nice try at not taking responsibility for your own claims,
Art.

You've already conceded this point in another post.

BTW, this gotcha will cost you a loss
of 15 debating trade frequent liar points.
But keep trying, 250 points
gets you another sound card.

Meaningless posturing. You're cornered Art, but you're
obviously too stupid and arrogant to realize it.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"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

Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do
indeed
tend to be the same. That's because most decent
equipment
really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools
like
you
would like to believe.


Sure, it sounds the same to people who have
preconceived notions that it will sound the same.

I just showed how we can use ABX tests to identify people
who are prone towards false negatives.





----== 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
=----


Note that Art has lost it again, and is just responding with
null replies.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"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

Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do
indeed
tend to be the same. That's because most decent
equipment
really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools
like
you
would like to believe.


Sure, it sounds the same to people who have
preconceived notions that it will sound the same.

I just showed how we can use ABX tests to identify people
who are prone towards false negatives.


that's not relative to preconceived notions about
the particular two items to be tested.

The listener in an ABX test need not know what the
particular items being tested are, exactly.

Art, what is unclear to you about the phrase "Bind Test"?

The answer to that question is obviously: LOTS!

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


and ABX tests
have nothing to do with preference.

unless a normal proclaims a preference for a
particular item, at which time you throw another ABX
hissy fit.

Mere posturing.

ABX is clearly over your head, Art.

ABX are tests for differences not preferences.



Whenever it suits your agenda.



----== 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 =----

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

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Fella, like your leader Middius, you have a wonderful
command of the obvious.

Too bad that the command of the obvious
continues to evade you.

Art this is just a lame, non-specific come-back. For
example, you cite no relevant examples.

Art you were just whining about how poor ABX tests were
as
tests of preference, right?

Learn to read moron.

Nice try at not taking responsibility for your own claims,
Art.


Hah! they are not my claims, they are merely the claims you claiim I
claimed.


You've already conceded this point in another post.

BTW, this gotcha will cost you a loss
of 15 debating trade frequent liar points.
But keep trying, 250 points
gets you another sound card.

Meaningless posturing. You're cornered Art, but you're
obviously too stupid and arrogant to realize it.


Debating trade trick no 28. Purposefully misinterpret and misrepresent
waht I say, and then prove the misinterpreted misrepresentation is wrong.

You got your 15 frequent liar points reinstated.
Congrats!





----== 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 =----

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

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"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

Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do
indeed
tend to be the same. That's because most decent
equipment
really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools
like
you
would like to believe.


Sure, it sounds the same to people who have
preconceived notions that it will sound the same.

I just showed how we can use ABX tests to identify people
who are prone towards false negatives.


Sure!, of other items that are not the units being compared.
You might as well pretest them on the taste of toothpaste.



----== 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 =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Art, what is unclear to you about the phrase "Bind Test"?


Well, I am not sure if you are talking about rope or duct tape.



----== 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 =----

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Art, what is unclear to you about the phrase "Bind Test"?


Well, I am not sure if you are talking about rope or duct tape.


Capt. Johnny's space mask (SNL). Thats a black plastic bag (no holes)
and a rubber band.

ScottW

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.

It's true - any reasonable person would expect that you can't hear the
difference between any audio components.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

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.

Like most "objectivists" you're ignoring reality to push your own
prejudices, and bitching about listening to music because it doesn't support
your fantasizing about measuring equipment. What is it exactly that makes
you think perfectly normal people can't simply hear things? What are you SO
afraid of exactly?