In article .com,
"124" wrote:

paul packer wrote:

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

Placebo effect?

Placebo effect? "...is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement
in health not attributable to treatment."

Two out of three.

Stephen

MINe 109 said to 4 of 12:

Placebo effect?

Placebo effect? "...is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement
in health not attributable to treatment."

Two out of three.

Stephen, it's unfair to expect a 'borg to use words properly. They spend
Their entire childhoods learning that language is a means of distracting
the unassimilated. Communication is a forbidden art in the Hive, and
language is the black magic of the Organics. To Them, correct diction is
pure anathema -- the polar opposite of the garbled dialect we know as
Krooglish. And as we all know, the lesser 'borgs all aspire to osterize
language as efficiently as the Krooborg does.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500

Inability to detect an irrelevant and excluded-middle response noted.

Interesting response. Please explain.

Check the meaning of irrelevant and excluded middle in standard references.

Then apply them to the portions of your post that should have quoted the
actual situation.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:23:43 GMT, wrote:

Electronics on the other hand tend not to make much difference, so
spending
huge amounts of money on somethig that doesn't make any difference seems
ridiculous to those who already know this.

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

No Paul, you probably either replaced a defective component or you're basing
your perceptions an unreliable comparison technique.

"124" wrote in message
oups.com...
paul packer wrote:

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

Placebo effect?

More nicely and inclusively stated: "Basing perceptions on an unreliable
evaluation technique".

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

MINe 109 said to 4 of 12:

Placebo effect?

Placebo effect? "...is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement
in health not attributable to treatment."

Two out of three.

Stephen, it's unfair to expect a 'borg to use words properly. They spend
Their entire childhoods learning that language is a means of distracting
the unassimilated. Communication is a forbidden art in the Hive, and
language is the black magic of the Organics. To Them, correct diction is
pure anathema -- the polar opposite of the garbled dialect we know as
Krooglish. And as we all know, the lesser 'borgs all aspire to osterize
language as efficiently as the Krooborg does.

And I didn't even mention "begging the question."

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Stephen, it's unfair to expect a 'borg to use words properly. They spend
Their entire childhoods learning that language is a means of distracting
the unassimilated. Communication is a forbidden art in the Hive, and
language is the black magic of the Organics. To Them, correct diction is
pure anathema -- the polar opposite of the garbled dialect we know as
Krooglish. And as we all know, the lesser 'borgs all aspire to osterize
language as efficiently as the Krooborg does.

And I didn't even mention "begging the question."

Just two audio know-nothings trying to turn RAO into an English class...

Sad but you can't blame them for trying to expose themselves in alight where
they may actually have some competency.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:23:43 GMT, wrote:

Electronics on the other hand tend not to make much difference, so
spending
huge amounts of money on somethig that doesn't make any difference seems
ridiculous to those who already know this.

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

That was the kind of improvement my college roommate reported when we
installed a new stylus in his cartridge. (This was in the 50's) He
carried on for quite some time, adding further flowery adjectives as they
occurred to him. The only problem was: It was still the old stylus; I
hadn't changed a thing.

Norm Strong

Arny Krueger wrote:
"124" wrote in message
oups.com...
paul packer wrote:

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

Placebo effect?

More nicely and inclusively stated: "Basing perceptions on an unreliable
evaluation technique".

What about promotion for four decades of a "test" supposed to
reveal differences between audio components that was never shown to do
that by proper scientific experimentation, ( randomised in panel
selection, statistically valid results etc)?
Would you call that promotion of a placebo effect?
Ludovic Mirabel

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:50:00 -0500

Check the meaning of irrelevant and excluded middle in standard references.

Then apply them to the portions of your post that should have quoted the
actual situation.

If you read my response, which was directed toward Ludovic Mirabel's
comment on Stardavarius violins, there is no 'excluded middle.' I did
not contradict, nor in any other way, challenge any statement that you
made. If you read what I said, I was simply affirming that both Ludovic
and Pooh Bear could be considered correct.

Ludovic understood that.

Say, Ludovic, are you from the former Yugoslavia?

The lesser 'borgs engage in a lying contest.

It was still the old stylus; I hadn't changed a thing.

You're just as full of it as Pearce, Normy. Do you want us to lump you
in with duh-Mikey? If so, keep up the hogwash.

"124" wrote in message
oups.com...
paul packer wrote:

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

Placebo effect?



Not if it its a different amp.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500

Inability to detect an irrelevant and excluded-middle response noted.

Interesting response. Please explain.

Check the meaning of irrelevant and excluded middle in standard
references.

Then apply them to the portions of your post that should have quoted the
actual situation.


Then bake for a half hour at 350 degrees.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:23:43 GMT, wrote:

Electronics on the other hand tend not to make much difference, so
spending
huge amounts of money on somethig that doesn't make any difference seems
ridiculous to those who already know this.

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

That was the kind of improvement my college roommate reported when we
installed a new stylus in his cartridge. (This was in the 50's) He
carried on for quite some time, adding further flowery adjectives as they
occurred to him. The only problem was: It was still the old stylus; I
hadn't changed a thing.


Then you are saying that Paul acutally did not change the amp.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

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


The lesser 'borgs engage in a lying contest.

It was still the old stylus; I hadn't changed a thing.

You're just as full of it as Pearce, Normy. Do you want us to lump you
in with duh-Mikey? If so, keep up the hogwash.


I wonder if Mommy tried the same trick when
she 'changed' Normy's diaper. Did he stop crying?




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:50:00 -0500

Check the meaning of irrelevant and excluded middle in standard
references.

Then apply them to the portions of your post that should have quoted the
actual situation.

If you read my response, which was directed toward Ludovic Mirabel's
comment on Stardavarius violins, there is no 'excluded middle.

Just saying that Ludo's post contains no excluded middle argument doesn't
make it so.

' I did not contradict, nor in any other way, challenge any statement that
you
made.

Never said you did. I said that you apparently fell for Ludo's excluded
middle argument.

If you read what I said, I was simply affirming that both Ludovic
and Pooh Bear could be considered correct.

Like I said, you were deceived by Ludo's excluded middle argument and
responded to it like it was correct.

Ludovic understood that.

Yup, he reeled you in.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"124" wrote in message
oups.com...
paul packer wrote:

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

Placebo effect?

More nicely and inclusively stated: "Basing perceptions on an unreliable
evaluation technique".

What about promotion for four decades of a "test" supposed to
reveal differences between audio components that was never shown to do
that by proper scientific experimentation, ( randomised in panel
selection, statistically valid results etc)?

That would be the "single presentation method".

Would you call that promotion of a placebo effect?

I would call the single presentation method an incredible sales technique.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:51:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

No Paul, you probably either replaced a defective component or you're basing
your perceptions an unreliable comparison technique.

Arnie, you keep repeating this crap. "Defective component" doesn't
come into it; I clearly stated that I've been into audio since the mid
60s, so obviously my evaluation was based on years of listening
experience.

And now you're going to say that audio memory is notoriously
unreliable, and of course you'd be right. What is reliable, however,
is long term satisfaction and pleasure--the pleasure of being able at
last to listen to hitherto harsh-sounding CDs I was on the verge of
listing on Ebay. We've all had the experience of buying a new
component and struggling to convince ourselves we spent wisely only to
come to the depressing conclusion after weeks or months that we messed
up. In that sense you're right that the listening experience is
unreliable. However, that's the transient listening experience, often
in unfamiliar surroundings with unknown material. Live with a
component for months using familiar CDs and you soon learn how
perceptive your initial impression was and how wisely your money has
been invested.

You know, the weird thing about this whole subjective/objective
debate is that there's truth on both sides, but both sides are too
easily side-tracked and too often choose poor examples. I'm on the
subjective side simply because experience has taught me no better way
of judging sound quality than by listening, even in dicey
circumstances. Plus years of reading mags like "Stereo Review"
(objective), "Hi-Fi Choice" (objective/subjective) and "What Hi-Fi"
(subjective) has convinced me that while measurement often explains
subjective impressions, it just as often doesn't, which means we
haven't yet discovered all the ways we need to test a component in
order to explain our subjective impressions (cue Arnie to tell me how
little I understand electronics). And until that happens, I intent to
remain a subjectivist, whilst not however dismissing the objectivists
entirely.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:28:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



Sad but you can't blame them for trying to expose themselves in alight

Not sure if you're talking here about indecent exposure or
self-immolation, Arnie.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:51:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

No Paul, you probably either replaced a defective component or you're
basing
your perceptions an unreliable comparison technique.

Arnie, you keep repeating this crap. "Defective component" doesn't
come into it; I clearly stated that I've been into audio since the mid
60s, so obviously my evaluation was based on years of listening
experience.

If I were you I wouldn't be so proud of years of errors.

And now you're going to say that audio memory is notoriously
unreliable, and of course you'd be right. What is reliable, however,
is long term satisfaction and pleasure--the pleasure of being able at
last to listen to hitherto harsh-sounding CDs I was on the verge of
listing on Ebay.

Paul, you're not addressing either of the issues that I raised.

We've all had the experience of buying a new
component and struggling to convince ourselves we spent wisely only to
come to the depressing conclusion after weeks or months that we messed
up.

Speak for yourself. The last time I did that it was an Ampex 755 that I
bought instead of a Sony 355, and the year was like 1968.

In that sense you're right that the listening experience is
unreliable.

I'd like to see you actually address this issue Paul, in some real and
positive way.

However, that's the transient listening experience, often
in unfamiliar surroundings with unknown material.

Oh crap, Paul retreats into his cocoon of self-righteousness. He's snatched
himself from the brink of introspection again.

Live with a
component for months using familiar CDs and you soon learn how
perceptive your initial impression was and how wisely your money has
been invested.

Sue me for listening with the more-expensive HD 580s intstead of the cheaper
595s. Sue me for using a proper headphone amp, instead of the headphone jack
of an integrated power amp whose design is unknown. Sue me for actually
owning equalizers and knowing how to use them.

You know, the weird thing about this whole subjective/objective
debate is that there's truth on both sides, but both sides are too
easily side-tracked and too often choose poor examples.

The irony is that I'm on the subjective side. ABX tests are subjective
tests, pure and simple.

I'm on the
subjective side simply because experience has taught me no better way
of judging sound quality than by listening, even in dicey
circumstances.

Since I'm a subjectivist, you're preaching to the choir, Paul.

Plus years of reading mags like "Stereo Review"
(objective), "Hi-Fi Choice" (objective/subjective) and "What Hi-Fi"
(subjective) has convinced me that while measurement often explains
subjective impressions, it just as often doesn't, which means we
haven't yet discovered all the ways we need to test a component in
order to explain our subjective impressions (cue Arnie to tell me how
little I understand electronics).

I don't need to do that, its a matter of public record.

And until that happens, I intent to
remain a subjectivist, whilst not however dismissing the objectivists
entirely.

As I conclusively showed at HE2005, the ob/sub fusion has been there all
along. Just read a dictionary.

MINe 109 wrote:

In article .com,
"124" wrote:

paul packer wrote:

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

Placebo effect?

Placebo effect? "...is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement
in health not attributable to treatment." Two out of three.

A variant applies to audio.

--124

"paul packer" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:28:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Just two audio know-nothings trying to turn RAO into an English class...

Sad but you can't blame them for trying to expose themselves in a light
where
they may actually have some competency.

Not sure if you're talking here about indecent exposure or
self-immolation, Arnie.

Both of those alternatives are completely ridiculous if you look at the
context.

Right, Paul? ;-)

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:58:26 -0500

Yup, he reeled you in.

LOL

paul packer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:51:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

No Paul, you probably either replaced a defective component or you're basing
your perceptions an unreliable comparison technique.

Arnie, you keep repeating this crap. "Defective component" doesn't
come into it; I clearly stated that I've been into audio since the mid
60s, so obviously my evaluation was based on years of listening
experience.

And now you're going to say that audio memory is notoriously
unreliable, and of course you'd be right. What is reliable, however,
is long term satisfaction and pleasure--the pleasure of being able at
last to listen to hitherto harsh-sounding CDs I was on the verge of
listing on Ebay. We've all had the experience of buying a new
component and struggling to convince ourselves we spent wisely only to
come to the depressing conclusion after weeks or months that we messed
up. In that sense you're right that the listening experience is
unreliable. However, that's the transient listening experience, often
in unfamiliar surroundings with unknown material. Live with a
component for months using familiar CDs and you soon learn how
perceptive your initial impression was and how wisely your money has
been invested.

You know, the weird thing about this whole subjective/objective
debate is that there's truth on both sides, but both sides are too
easily side-tracked and too often choose poor examples. I'm on the
subjective side simply because experience has taught me no better way
of judging sound quality than by listening, even in dicey
circumstances. Plus years of reading mags like "Stereo Review"
(objective), "Hi-Fi Choice" (objective/subjective) and "What Hi-Fi"
(subjective) has convinced me that while measurement often explains
subjective impressions, it just as often doesn't, which means we
haven't yet discovered all the ways we need to test a component in
order to explain our subjective impressions (cue Arnie to tell me how
little I understand electronics). And until that happens, I intent to
remain a subjectivist, whilst not however dismissing the objectivists
entirely.

You're hopelessly handicapped in these earnest exchanges:1 ) you can
stop from time to time and ask yourself:" What exactly am I getting so
het-up about? 2) even worse: you have sense of humour and opportunity
offering itself you'd rather follow it than "win". Whatever there is to
win.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:23:43 GMT, wrote:

Electronics on the other hand tend not to make much difference, so
spending
huge amounts of money on somethig that doesn't make any difference seems
ridiculous to those who already know this.

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

Could be you just expected to, or it could be there was something wrong with
the one that you replaced. Remember, I said electronics "tend" not to
makemuch difference, not that it was impossible.

Did the old amp have considerably less power than the new one?
How old was it?
What sort of load do your speakers present? Perhaps the old amp had
difficulty driving them.
How had it been since the wire running to them had been disconnected,
sometimes oxidation can increase resistance and simply disconnnecting them
removes enough to make an audible difference.
Was the old amp functioning properly?
There are valid reasons why a new amp can cause you to hear difference, it's
just that all things being reasonably equal and with amps not driven to
clipping, real differences are rare.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:51:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

No Paul, you probably either replaced a defective component or you're
basing
your perceptions an unreliable comparison technique.

Arnie, you keep repeating this crap. "Defective component" doesn't
come into it; I clearly stated that I've been into audio since the mid
60s, so obviously my evaluation was based on years of listening
experience.

Did you become less human and more machine in that time?
If not, you're subject to the same things as other humans, you can hear
things that aren't really there.

And now you're going to say that audio memory is notoriously
unreliable, and of course you'd be right. What is reliable, however,
is long term satisfaction and pleasure--the pleasure of being able at
last to listen to hitherto harsh-sounding CDs I was on the verge of
listing on Ebay. We've all had the experience of buying a new
component and struggling to convince ourselves we spent wisely only to
come to the depressing conclusion after weeks or months that we messed
up. In that sense you're right that the listening experience is
unreliable. However, that's the transient listening experience, often
in unfamiliar surroundings with unknown material. Live with a
component for months using familiar CDs and you soon learn how
perceptive your initial impression was and how wisely your money has
been invested.

Actually you don't, you just get acclimated/

You know, the weird thing about this whole subjective/objective
debate is that there's truth on both sides, but both sides are too
easily side-tracked and too often choose poor examples. I'm on the
subjective side simply because experience has taught me no better way
of judging sound quality than by listening, even in dicey
circumstances. Plus years of reading mags like "Stereo Review"
(objective), "Hi-Fi Choice" (objective/subjective) and "What Hi-Fi"
(subjective) has convinced me that while measurement often explains
subjective impressions, it just as often doesn't,

You were so close, but then you went south.
If it measures well it will sound like it should, transparent.
If it doesn't sound transparent, it won't measure well.

which means we
haven't yet discovered all the ways we need to test a component in
order to explain our subjective impressions (cue Arnie to tell me how
little I understand electronics). And until that happens, I intent to
remain a subjectivist, whilst not however dismissing the objectivists
entirely.

We're all subjectivists. The whole DBT protocol is for subjective testing,
it's just making it more relaible.

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


The lesser 'borgs engage in a lying contest.

It was still the old stylus; I hadn't changed a thing.

You're just as full of it as Pearce, Normy. Do you want us to lump you
in with duh-Mikey? If so, keep up the hogwash.



Note, in the Middius dictionary truth is defined as hogwash.

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:53:42 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Graham

So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

Some collectors like watches from brands like Patek
Philippe, IWC, and Jaeger-LeCoultre; none of them
will claim that they are more accurate than watches
from brands like Casio, Timex, and Swatch.

--124

124Borg said:

So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

Some collectors like watches from brands like Patek
Philippe, IWC, and Jaeger-LeCoultre; none of them
will claim that they are more accurate than watches
from brands like Casio, Timex, and Swatch.

Only a tiny mind would conceive of accuracy as the apotheosis of audio
performance. Have you had your "mind" measured, perchance?

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 07:37:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:51:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

No Paul, you probably either replaced a defective component or you're
basing
your perceptions an unreliable comparison technique.

Arnie, you keep repeating this crap. "Defective component" doesn't
come into it; I clearly stated that I've been into audio since the mid
60s, so obviously my evaluation was based on years of listening
experience.

If I were you I wouldn't be so proud of years of errors.

Silly debating trade answer, Arnie. That 140 IQ Robert claimed for you
is looking more shaky all the time.

And now you're going to say that audio memory is notoriously
unreliable, and of course you'd be right. What is reliable, however,
is long term satisfaction and pleasure--the pleasure of being able at
last to listen to hitherto harsh-sounding CDs I was on the verge of
listing on Ebay.

Paul, you're not addressing either of the issues that I raised.

That's probably because we're talking about two different things as
usual.

We've all had the experience of buying a new
component and struggling to convince ourselves we spent wisely only to
come to the depressing conclusion after weeks or months that we messed
up.

Speak for yourself. The last time I did that it was an Ampex 755 that I
bought instead of a Sony 355, and the year was like 1968.

So you haven't made an even slightly unwise purchase since 1968? And
you expect this court to believe that?

In that sense you're right that the listening experience is
unreliable.

I'd like to see you actually address this issue Paul, in some real and
positive way.

I just did.

However, that's the transient listening experience, often
in unfamiliar surroundings with unknown material.

Oh crap, Paul retreats into his cocoon of self-righteousness. He's snatched
himself from the brink of introspection again.

Back to the debating trade again.

Live with a
component for months using familiar CDs and you soon learn how
perceptive your initial impression was and how wisely your money has
been invested.

Sue me for listening with the more-expensive HD 580s intstead of the cheaper
595s.

C'mon, Arnie. The 595 is a more recent model, and in fact more
expensive at actual asking prices. In any case that has nothing to do
with what I actually said.

Sue me for using a proper headphone amp, instead of the headphone jack
of an integrated power amp

What the hell is an integrated power amp?

whose design is unknown.

The Marantz PM8200 is a well respected and reviewed integrated from
2/3 years ago. Hardly "unknown" in design or any other way.

Sue me for actually
owning equalizers and knowing how to use them.

And what have equalisers to do with anything? I also own one but only
use it to make old material more listenable.

You know, the weird thing about this whole subjective/objective
debate is that there's truth on both sides, but both sides are too
easily side-tracked and too often choose poor examples.

The irony is that I'm on the subjective side. ABX tests are subjective
tests, pure and simple.

Bulldust, Arnie. You're as much a subjectivist as I am a Satanist.

I'm on the
subjective side simply because experience has taught me no better way
of judging sound quality than by listening, even in dicey
circumstances.

Since I'm a subjectivist, you're preaching to the choir, Paul.

See above.

Plus years of reading mags like "Stereo Review"
(objective), "Hi-Fi Choice" (objective/subjective) and "What Hi-Fi"
(subjective) has convinced me that while measurement often explains
subjective impressions, it just as often doesn't, which means we
haven't yet discovered all the ways we need to test a component in
order to explain our subjective impressions (cue Arnie to tell me how
little I understand electronics).

I don't need to do that, its a matter of public record.

Yep, the debating trade again.

And until that happens, I intent to
remain a subjectivist, whilst not however dismissing the objectivists
entirely.

As I conclusively showed at HE2005, the ob/sub fusion has been there all
along. Just read a dictionary.

I wasn't there. Not worth the trip from OZ. :-)

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:28:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:28:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Just two audio know-nothings trying to turn RAO into an English class...

Sad but you can't blame them for trying to expose themselves in a light
where
they may actually have some competency.

Not sure if you're talking here about indecent exposure or
self-immolation, Arnie.

Both of those alternatives are completely ridiculous if you look at the
context.

Right, Paul? ;-)

You've done it again, Arnie---you've sneakily corrected an error in
your original post ("alight") while replying to a post that
specifically targets that error. Not only that, but once again you've
taken a tongue-in-cheek post utterly seriously.

So you're not only sneaky, you have absolutely no sense of humour.

paul packer said:

... my evaluation was based on years of listening experience.

If I were you I wouldn't be so proud of years of errors.

Silly debating trade answer, Arnie.

Did I read this right? Did Kroo**** actually klaim that listening to a
system is an "error"?

paul packer said:

The last time I did that it was an Ampex 755 that I
bought instead of a Sony 355, and the year was like 1968.

So you haven't made an even slightly unwise purchase since 1968? And
you expect this court to believe that?

Ask him about his siccnentititfc collection of 200 obsolete sound cards.

paul packer said:

Sue me

Again? Your display of magnificent cowardice last time was entertainment
enough for years.

for using a proper headphone amp, instead of the headphone jack
of an integrated power amp

What the hell is an integrated power amp?

Arnii has forgotten that for Organics, an amplifier is a discrete
*mechanical* device, not an extension of the corpus cyberneticus. It has
become second nature for Mr. **** to insert one of his appendages
directly into an amplifier, thereby "integrating" himself with it.

paul packer said:

The irony is that I'm on the subjective side. ABX tests are subjective
tests, pure and simple.

Bulldust, Arnie. You're as much a subjectivist as I am a Satanist.

Quite right, at least in human terms. In 'borg terms (e.g. Krooglish),
all sentient individuals are subjectivists. Want to know why? I'll tell
you anyway. Because the only way to attain pure objectivism is to
transcend cyborgism and become a robot. So far, the Hive has not
succeeded in achieving this mythical plateau of feelings-free existence.
Therefore all 'borgs, as well as Organics of course, are at least
partial subjectivists. And as we all know, "debating trade" rule #3
states that a claim is taken to be true unless it is proven false under
all possible circumstances and all conceivable variations. By extension,
unless and until the state of Pure Objectivism (i.e. roboticization of a
'borg or an Organic) is achieved, all that remains is some degree of
subjectivism.

paul packer wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 07:37:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"

The irony is that I'm on the subjective side. ABX tests are subjective
tests, pure and simple.

Bulldust, Arnie. You're as much a subjectivist as I am a Satanist.


Actually, anytime you use a human subject to make the call...in this
case A or B... using their own perceptions... its a subjective test.

Ojective tests require the use of something other than human subjects
to make the judgement... typcially test equipment measuring something.
The outcome is not up to any human subject perception.

ScottW

On 14 Jan 2006 05:14:45 -0800, "124"
wrote:

So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

Some collectors like watches from brands like Patek
Philippe, IWC, and Jaeger-LeCoultre; none of them
will claim that they are more accurate than watches
from brands like Casio, Timex, and Swatch.

--124

You'd do better than conflating "sounds better" or "likes better" with
"more accurate". For instance, I don't know too many tube amp fans
that make the claim that they are "more accurate". Most of them simply
say, "I prefer the sound of tube amps" or, "It makes music sound more
like real music" (which of course is a highly subjective
determination). Maybe the term "hi-fi" is confusing you. After all,
it's been around for decades and the "sound" of high fidelity
equipment STILL isn't up the sound of "real music", even today. Until
we understand all of the factors that affect an individual's internal
processing of a music signal, claiming that something is "accurate" is
just talk. People have built-in cultural and physiological biases
built in and you can't necessarily correlate them with spec sheets.

Besides, bringing in "collectors" is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

Another consideration is whether you'd be willing to ask someone to
compare a Swatch with a Rolex in a hundred years. I wonder which will
tell better time...

dave weil wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006 05:14:45 -0800, "124"
wrote:

So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

Some collectors like watches from brands like Patek
Philippe, IWC, and Jaeger-LeCoultre; none of them
will claim that they are more accurate than watches
from brands like Casio, Timex, and Swatch.

--124

You'd do better than conflating "sounds better" or "likes better" with
"more accurate". For instance, I don't know too many tube amp fans
that make the claim that they are "more accurate". Most of them simply
say, "I prefer the sound of tube amps" or, "It makes music sound more
like real music" (which of course is a highly subjective
determination). Maybe the term "hi-fi" is confusing you. After all,
it's been around for decades and the "sound" of high fidelity
equipment STILL isn't up the sound of "real music", even today.

Up the sound.... must be a Nashville thing.... anyway... my hi-fi
sounds way better to me than "real music". When is "real music"
going to up the sound?

ScottW

Scottie yapped:

my hi-fi sounds way better to me than "real music".

Why did you put "real music" in quotes?

Doesn't this claim put the lie to your adorations of "accuracy"?
Accuracy in hifi is supposed to be the sine qua non of realism.

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


paul packer said:

The last time I did that it was an Ampex 755 that I
bought instead of a Sony 355, and the year was like 1968.

So you haven't made an even slightly unwise purchase since 1968? And
you expect this court to believe that?

Ask him about his siccnentititfc collection of 200 obsolete sound cards.


What the hell! He can take the depreciation off of his perfessional
kompooter konsulting business.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access