dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:15:37 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Sillybot calls on audiophiles to cast out the satanic rituals of listening
to music.

And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and
magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls?
*That* is the dominant paradigm here.

You're not doing a very good job of selling your 'borg oil, Silly. The
first thing you have to do is convince your intended victims their lives
will be better if they join the Hive. So far you're failing miserably.

And his problem is that of promoting a paradigm, that by the High
Priest's own admission, and his own tacit one, is materially
impossible.

It's materially impossible for audio magazines to conduct double-blind
level-matched reviews?

Why would anyone find it odd that the magazines mirror real life and
not some audio fundamentalist's idea of utopia?

In 'real life' most people don't do bench tests of components either.
Yet audio magazines routinely do.

The only fundamentalism here is your fundamental inability to construct
an argument, and Midi-man's fundamental sociopathy.



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

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:15:37 -0500, George M. Middius
cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Sillybot calls on audiophiles to cast out the satanic
rituals of listening to music.

And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists
and magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison,
no controls? *That* is the dominant paradigm here.

You're not doing a very good job of selling your 'borg
oil, Silly. The first thing you have to do is convince
your intended victims their lives will be better if
they join the Hive. So far you're failing miserably.

And his problem is that of promoting a paradigm, that by
the High Priest's own admission, and his own tacit one,
is materially impossible.

It's materially impossible for audio magazines to conduct
double-blind level-matched reviews?

Don't tell Sound & Vision. ;-)

Why would anyone find it odd that the magazines mirror
real life and not some audio fundamentalist's idea of
utopia?

In 'real life' most people don't do bench tests of
components either. Yet audio magazines routinely do.

Even Stereophile.

The only fundamentalism here is your fundamental
inability to construct an argument, and Midi-man's
fundamental sociopathy.

Middiot's biggest problem is lack of social maturity. Other
than his loyal followers and servants, who is impessed by
his middle-school name-calling?

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:26:23 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:



Sillybot calls on audiophiles to cast out the satanic rituals of listening
to music.

And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and
magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls?
*That* is the dominant paradigm here.

You're not doing a very good job of selling your 'borg oil, Silly. The
first thing you have to do is convince your intended victims their lives
will be better if they join the Hive. So far you're failing miserably.

And his problem is that of promoting a paradigm, that by the High
Priest's own admission, and his own tacit one, is materially
impossible.

It's materially impossible for audio magazines to conduct double-blind
level-matched reviews?

No, it's materially impossible to do PCABX for consumers to do audio
purchases, and VERY difficult to do ABX for them as well.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:15:37 -0500, George M. Middius
cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Sillybot calls on audiophiles to cast out the satanic
rituals of listening to music.

And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists
and magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison,
no controls? *That* is the dominant paradigm here.

You're not doing a very good job of selling your 'borg
oil, Silly. The first thing you have to do is convince
your intended victims their lives will be better if
they join the Hive. So far you're failing miserably.

And his problem is that of promoting a paradigm, that by
the High Priest's own admission, and his own tacit one,
is materially impossible.

It's materially impossible for audio magazines to conduct
double-blind level-matched reviews?

Don't tell Sound & Vision. ;-)

Sad to say, after its recent overhaul
S&V now relegates their bench
results largely to their website, with a tiny summary
box in the print version. I dont' see much by Ranada
there any more either. The magazine seems to be
re-tooling itself more for the in-wall speaker/iPod/
HTiB consumer than the people who used to read
Stereo Review or Audio.



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

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:26:23 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:



Sillybot calls on audiophiles to cast out the satanic rituals of listening
to music.

And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and
magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls?
*That* is the dominant paradigm here.

You're not doing a very good job of selling your 'borg oil, Silly. The
first thing you have to do is convince your intended victims their lives
will be better if they join the Hive. So far you're failing miserably.

And his problem is that of promoting a paradigm, that by the High
Priest's own admission, and his own tacit one, is materially
impossible.

It's materially impossible for audio magazines to conduct double-blind
level-matched reviews?

No, it's materially impossible to do PCABX for consumers to do audio
purchases, and VERY difficult to do ABX for them as well.

Mainly because it required having more than one piece of gear at hand
to compare, a means of level-matching, and having an ABX switcher. If you have those,
they're certainly materially possible for the consumer.

Similarly, if you have a bench full of expensive test equipment, bench tests are
certainly materially possible for the consumer.

Yet consumers don't routinely do them. Shame on audio magazines, then,
for bothering to do bench tests. What an insult to the real world.
Or the Weil world, at least.



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

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

dave weil wrote:

No, it's materially impossible to do PCABX for consumers
to do audio purchases,

If this were a proper sentence, I might even lower myself
and respond to it.

and VERY difficult to do ABX for them as well.

In fact ABX was invented by audio consumers.

Mainly because it required having more than one piece of
gear at hand to compare, a means of level-matching, and
having an ABX
switcher.

Mission impossible for technological mental midgets like
Weil to do. I could never even teach him how to rip CDs.


If you have those, they're certainly
materially possible for the consumer.

Been there, done that.

Similarly, if you have a bench full of expensive test
equipment, bench tests are certainly materially possible
for the consumer.

Been there, done that.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:43:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

dave weil wrote:

No, it's materially impossible to do PCABX for consumers
to do audio purchases,

If this were a proper sentence, I might even lower myself
and respond to it.

No you wouldn't. Because you're afraid to respond directly to me, for
good reason.

and VERY difficult to do ABX for them as well.

In fact ABX was invented by audio consumers.

So?

Mainly because it required having more than one piece of
gear at hand to compare, a means of level-matching, and
having an ABX
switcher.

Mission impossible for technological mental midgets like
Weil to do. I could never even teach him how to rip CDs.

In the same sense that I could never teach YOU how to drive a car.

If you have those, they're certainly
materially possible for the consumer.

I said "very difficult" in the case of ABX. And it is. It's materially
impossible for PCABX for the very reasons that Mr. Krueger has already
clearly explained.

Been there, done that.

Well, you've also claimed to wipe your ass with $1000 checks, but very
few of us endorse THAT.

Similarly, if you have a bench full of expensive test
equipment, bench tests are certainly materially possible
for the consumer.

I never said that they weren't. I just suggested that most don't and
if they did, they might not want to duplicate tests that were already
published, because it would be a waste of time.

Stop putting words in my mouth, Mr. Sullivan.

In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"John Corbett" wrote in message


These were the first three audio double blind tests ever
done.

No, they were the first three ABX tests that were done at an
official SMWTMS meeting.



Arny, you are arguing over a direct quotation from the ABX web site.
If you doubt its accuracy, perhaps you should address your concern to
David Carlstrom.

OnanismBorg has a mess on his hands.

official SMWTMS meeting.

This is a coded phrase for "wearing our Sunday best to a circle-jerk".

In article , Steven Sullivan
wrote:

John Corbett wrote:

Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to say about the
abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX tests. He described that
performance as "outlandish in a search for the truth about audible
differences."

And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and
magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls?
*That* is the dominant paradigm here.

Sighted tests may be the dominant paradigm here, as you say, but that
really has nothing to do with the point I raised about problems with
small-sample blind tests. A bad test is a bad test, whether or not you
can find an even worse one.

In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to
say about the abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX
tests. He described that performance as "outlandish in
a search for the truth about audible differences."

No doubt an out-of-context quote.

Not at all, Arny. Why don't you go read the article?

"Statistics in A/B Testing: By the Numbers", H. Burstein, Audio, February
1990, pp.43-48.




Corebett is just another Ludovic-like posturer who tries to
attract attention to himself by overlooking the obvious
flaws of sighted evaluations.

This is, uh, ludicrous.

Arny, are you really stupid enough to believe what you post?

I have laid out out the facts about sensitivity of the 14-of-16 ABX test,
and your response is name-calling and a pathetic attempt to deflect the
subject to Ludovic and sighted tests. But I don't see that you have
actually attempted to refute what I have said about sensitivity of
small-sample tests for subtle effects.

John Corbett said:

Arny, are you really stupid enough to believe what you post?

;-)

I have laid out out the facts about sensitivity of the 14-of-16 ABX test,
and your response is name-calling and a pathetic attempt to deflect the
subject to Ludovic and sighted tests. But I don't see that you have
actually attempted to refute what I have said about sensitivity of
small-sample tests for subtle effects.

And here will begin this holiday's installment in the Krooborg "debating
trade" minstrel show....

"John Corbett" wrote in message

In article , "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"John Corbett" wrote in message


These were the first three audio double blind tests ever
done.

No, they were the first three ABX tests that were done
at an official SMWTMS meeting.

Arny, you are arguing over a direct quotation from the
ABX web site.

Not at all, John. I have no argument with the ABX web site's
statements in the context in which they were made. The web
site is about the public meetings of the SMWTMS club.

Your comment shows how logically-challenged you are John.

I'm happy to stipulate that the quotes from the ABX web site
are correct within the context in which they are stated. I
feel like I've already done so once, but it all seems to
have flown way over your head, John.

If you doubt its accuracy, perhaps you
should address your concern to David Carlstrom.

Dave's web page is correct within the context in which it is
stated, which is a web site belonging to the SMWTMS club.

Again Corbett obviously has no sense of how one organizes
practical demonstrations.

If you follow Corbett's laughable activities on Usenet, you
will find that he likes to pretend that he's found some
theoretical flaw. The operative word here is theoretical, as
opposed to practical. Corbett has demonstrated no competence
or even serious interest in practical matters.

Part of the planning and preparation for any but the most
demonstration should be some parctice runs of the
demonstration. The practice runs that I did privately in
preparation for the demonstrations at the SMWTMS club
meeting were in fact the first ABX tests.

"John Corbett" wrote in message


A bad test is a bad test, whether or not you can find an
even worse one.

Given that the worse test is so widely used to such a
practical disadvantage, we see here yet another example of
Corbett's disconnect from the real world.

"John Corbett" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:


Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to
say about the abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX
tests. He described that performance as "outlandish in
a search for the truth about audible differences."

No doubt an out-of-context quote.

Not at all, Arny. Why don't you go read the article?

"Statistics in A/B Testing: By the Numbers", H. Burstein,
Audio, February 1990, pp.43-48.

John, since you are so unwilling to provide a quote fromk
Bernstein in its proper context, it becomes clear that in
fact your quote is out-of-context.

Your descent into debating trade posturing and obfuscation
will no doubt win you even more favor with Middius.

In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"John Corbett" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:


Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to
say about the abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX
tests. He described that performance as "outlandish in
a search for the truth about audible differences."

No doubt an out-of-context quote.

Not at all, Arny. Why don't you go read the article?

"Statistics in A/B Testing: By the Numbers", H. Burstein,
Audio, February 1990, pp.43-48.

John, since you are so unwilling to provide a quote fromk
Bernstein in its proper context, it becomes clear that in
fact your quote is out-of-context.


I provided detailed information so you could find the article and read it
yourself. Since you are unwilling to actually do the work to support your
baseless claim about the context of the quotation, I'll provide a longer
quotation from that article:

--------------------------------------------------------------

Still with a score of 12/16, now assume that we previously chose alpha'
equals 0.01, leading us to reject H_1 and conclude that audible
differences do not exist. Further assume an effect size of 70%. In this
situation, Type 2 error risk is 0.75. If a subject can make correct
identifications 70% of the time in the long run, we run a 75% risk of
being wrong in rejecting H_1.

An error risk of 0.75 is, of course, outlandish in a search for the truth
about audible differences. More attention should have been paid to the
design of the A/B test with respect to specifications of error risk,
effect size, and resultant sample size.

--------------------------------------------------------------

So how, exactly, is my earlier quote out of context?

BTW, your 14/16 ABX test is actually even worse than Burstein's example.
His example is an approximate 0.01-level test (where 13/16 is the critical
score, so 12/16 is not enough to reject H_0). However, under the same
conditions as in the article, your test has a 90% error risk.

Your descent into debating trade posturing and obfuscation
will no doubt win you even more favor with Middius.

Arny, are you really stupid enough to believe what you post?
Do you think you are fooling anyone else?

In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"John Corbett" wrote in message


A bad test is a bad test, whether or not you can find an
even worse one.

Given that the worse test is so widely used to such a
practical disadvantage, we see here yet another example of
Corbett's disconnect from the real world.

How, exactly, does existence of a flaw in someone else's sighted testing
do _anything_ to fix the problems in your test, Arny? In the real world,
where I live and work, people understand that merely saying there is a
problem with sighted testing cannot fix the proven failures of other
tests.

Elsewhere in this thread, you wrote

... likes to pretend that he's found some theoretical flaw.
The operative word here is theoretical, as opposed to practical.

I'm not pretending anything. Your test are fundamentally flawed as tests
for small effects.

Theoretical issues have practical real-world consequences.

Arny, it's about time for a reality check.

Statistical theory applies to real-world testing every bit as much as
electronic theory and acoustical theory do to audio in general. In the
real world, we don't believe that a cable manufacturer's marketing
department can suspend the laws of physics, and we don't believe that laws
of nature are waived just because you don't know about them. Your
ignorance of probability and statistical theory does not prevent your
tests from behaving as theory says they should.

In setting up an ABX test, we have four quantities to consider:

(i) Type 1 error rate (alpha)
(ii) Type 2 error rate (beta)
(iii) Minimum reliably detected effect size (theta)
(iv) Sample size (n)

Once we choose any three of these the fourth is also determined. For example,

I - When you pick alpha = .01 and beta = .01 and you want to reliably
detect threshold-level effect sizes (theta = .75) you will need sample
size n = 80.

II - When you pick alpha = .01 and want to detect threshold-level effect
sizes using a sample size of only 16, your type 2 error rate is beta =
..80; this is _not_ a reliable test for those effects. In other words,
when a subject's true long-run success rate is at threshold, this test
will _miss_ that 4 times out of 5.

III - When you pick alpha = .01 and beta = .01 and use n = 16, you are
going to only be able to reliably detect effects so gross that their
long-run correct-response rate is at least about 97%.


I'm not making these figures up---these are basic results from standard
formulas and tables that appear in many textbooks and other sources. For
instance, one of Burstein's AES papers is a collection of formulas and
worked examples you can use for these. (However, his formulas are
approximations, so they are slightly different from these exact values.)
You can also get some of these figures from tables in Sensory Evaluation
Techniques, 3rd ed., (Meilgaard, Civille, and Carr). For example, the
required sample size for alpha = .01 and beta = .01 and theta = .75 (theta
is p_max in SET) is 80 as found in table T9 on p. 370. Also in that table
you may note that for alpha = .01 there is no sample size as small as 16,
since the beta risk value is then over 50%. In other words, they realize
that an experiment for detecting theta = .75 with alpha = .01 and n = 16
is hardly worth doing.

You won't have much luck finding any authoritative source who says you can
hold both type 1 and type 2 error rates as low as .01 while making an ABX
test a sensitive test for small effects using a sample size of 16.


So on the one hand we have the knowledge of real-world mathematicians and
statisticians and other researchers, and the standard formulas and tables
we use to determine sample size and related quantities when we construct
an experiment.
These methods are in widespread use throughout the real-world research
community; people agree that those methods work, and they accept the
theory behind those methods. That theory says that tests such as the
14/16 ABX test cannot reliably detect small differences, so it is hardly
surprising that such tests rarely find evidence very often that smaller
effects are really present.


On the other hand, we have Arny, who says that the 14/16 ABX test is
sensitive to both large and small effects, and uses null results as if
they were strong evidence that listeners were doing no better than
guessing. This flies in the face of what professional researchers know,
but Arny offers no theory to support his version, and seems to think that
merely using a broken test for many years makes it a good procedure.

So who is disconnected from the real world here?

"John Corbett" wrote in message
...
: In article , "Arny Krueger"
: wrote:
:
: "John Corbett" wrote in message
:
:
: A bad test is a bad test, whether or not you can find an
: even worse one.
:
: Given that the worse test is so widely used to such a
: practical disadvantage, we see here yet another example of
: Corbett's disconnect from the real world.
:
: How, exactly, does existence of a flaw in someone else's sighted testing
: do _anything_ to fix the problems in your test, Arny? In the real world,
: where I live and work, people understand that merely saying there is a
: problem with sighted testing cannot fix the proven failures of other
: tests.
:
: Elsewhere in this thread, you wrote
:
: ... likes to pretend that he's found some theoretical flaw.
: The operative word here is theoretical, as opposed to practical.
:
: I'm not pretending anything. Your test are fundamentally flawed as tests
: for small effects.
:
: Theoretical issues have practical real-world consequences.
:
: Arny, it's about time for a reality check.
:
: Statistical theory applies to real-world testing every bit as much as
: electronic theory and acoustical theory do to audio in general. In the
: real world, we don't believe that a cable manufacturer's marketing
: department can suspend the laws of physics, and we don't believe that laws
: of nature are waived just because you don't know about them. Your
: ignorance of probability and statistical theory does not prevent your
: tests from behaving as theory says they should.
:
: In setting up an ABX test, we have four quantities to consider:
:
: (i) Type 1 error rate (alpha)
: (ii) Type 2 error rate (beta)
: (iii) Minimum reliably detected effect size (theta)
: (iv) Sample size (n)
:
: Once we choose any three of these the fourth is also determined. For example,
:
: I - When you pick alpha = .01 and beta = .01 and you want to reliably
: detect threshold-level effect sizes (theta = .75) you will need sample
: size n = 80.
:
: II - When you pick alpha = .01 and want to detect threshold-level effect
: sizes using a sample size of only 16, your type 2 error rate is beta =
: .80; this is _not_ a reliable test for those effects. In other words,
: when a subject's true long-run success rate is at threshold, this test
: will _miss_ that 4 times out of 5.
:
: III - When you pick alpha = .01 and beta = .01 and use n = 16, you are
: going to only be able to reliably detect effects so gross that their
: long-run correct-response rate is at least about 97%.
:
:
: I'm not making these figures up---these are basic results from standard
: formulas and tables that appear in many textbooks and other sources. For
: instance, one of Burstein's AES papers is a collection of formulas and
: worked examples you can use for these. (However, his formulas are
: approximations, so they are slightly different from these exact values.)
: You can also get some of these figures from tables in Sensory Evaluation
: Techniques, 3rd ed., (Meilgaard, Civille, and Carr). For example, the
: required sample size for alpha = .01 and beta = .01 and theta = .75 (theta
: is p_max in SET) is 80 as found in table T9 on p. 370. Also in that table
: you may note that for alpha = .01 there is no sample size as small as 16,
: since the beta risk value is then over 50%. In other words, they realize
: that an experiment for detecting theta = .75 with alpha = .01 and n = 16
: is hardly worth doing.
:
: You won't have much luck finding any authoritative source who says you can
: hold both type 1 and type 2 error rates as low as .01 while making an ABX
: test a sensitive test for small effects using a sample size of 16.
:
:
: So on the one hand we have the knowledge of real-world mathematicians and
: statisticians and other researchers, and the standard formulas and tables
: we use to determine sample size and related quantities when we construct
: an experiment.
: These methods are in widespread use throughout the real-world research
: community; people agree that those methods work, and they accept the
: theory behind those methods. That theory says that tests such as the
: 14/16 ABX test cannot reliably detect small differences, so it is hardly
: surprising that such tests rarely find evidence very often that smaller
: effects are really present.
:
:
: On the other hand, we have Arny, who says that the 14/16 ABX test is
: sensitive to both large and small effects, and uses null results as if
: they were strong evidence that listeners were doing no better than
: guessing. This flies in the face of what professional researchers know,
: but Arny offers no theory to support his version, and seems to think that
: merely using a broken test for many years makes it a good procedure.
:
: So who is disconnected from the real world here?

and let's not forget the other nail to the ABX coffin:
a little thing called operationism.
"The validity of any scientific finding or concept depends on the validity
of the procedures employed in arriving at that finding or concept"

iow the validity of both results and interpretations thereof are
contingent upon the way you get them

it's like, you're using a broken calculator
it may have clearly marked keys and functioning display
the results _are_ nonsense :-)
Rudy

"Ruud Broens" said:

it's like, you're using a broken calculator
it may have clearly marked keys and functioning display
the results _are_ nonsense :-)


Thank's for admitting Roud that you don't now the differecne between a
broken calculator and, a broken clock, thats right, twice a day, LOL!!

When you hook up your trusty Fluke 73 to a 9V battery and it displays
23.00 volts, do you believe the meter just because it is digital?

ROTFLMAO!!

--

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

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" said:
:
: it's like, you're using a broken calculator
: it may have clearly marked keys and functioning display
: the results _are_ nonsense :-)
:
:
: Thank's for admitting Roud that you don't now the differecne between a
: broken calculator and, a broken clock, thats right, twice a day, LOL!!
:
: When you hook up your trusty Fluke 73 to a 9V battery and it displays
: 23.00 volts, do you believe the meter just because it is digital?
:
: ROTFLMAO!!
:
: --
:
: "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
: - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

some broken thingies are better than others is all
one needs to know :-) trust me
Rudio

"Ruud Broens" said:

: it's like, you're using a broken calculator
: it may have clearly marked keys and functioning display
: the results _are_ nonsense :-)


: Thank's for admitting Roud that you don't now the differecne between a
: broken calculator and, a broken clock, thats right, twice a day, LOL!!

: When you hook up your trusty Fluke 73 to a 9V battery and it displays
: 23.00 volts, do you believe the meter just because it is digital?

: ROTFLMAO!!


some broken thingies are better than others is all
one needs to know :-) trust me
Rudio


Thanks for admitting mr. Brownose that the best you, can do is an
imitation of a broken, Fesrtler, LoT:s! ;-(

--

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

John Corbett wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"John Corbett" wrote in message


A bad test is a bad test, whether or not you can find an
even worse one.

Given that the worse test is so widely used to such a
practical disadvantage, we see here yet another example of
Corbett's disconnect from the real world.

How, exactly, does existence of a flaw in someone else's sighted testing
do _anything_ to fix the problems in your test, Arny? In the real world,
where I live and work, people understand that merely saying there is a
problem with sighted testing cannot fix the proven failures of other
tests.

But in the real world, the sighted test is the one that produces
the recommendations that most consumers see in the audio press.

If the 'flaw' in a particular DBT (whether it was an ABX or
other species of DBT) is that insufficient trials were done to
exclude errors to a specified degree Y, then you will have to agree
that that's not an *intrinsic* flaw of DBT. It's an implementation
or protocol issue. Yet in the meantime you
have an *intrinsically* flawed method -- sighted evaluation --
as the dominant paradigm in audio journalism and reviewing.
To deny *that* is to be truly disconnected from the real world.

Can you suggest a test to remedy that?



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

Sillybot rants on and on and on.

But in the real world, the sighted test is the one that produces
the recommendations that most consumers see in the audio press.

You already know all auditions are worthless, including your own. So why do
you keep beating this dead horse, Silly?

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" said:
:
: : it's like, you're using a broken calculator
: : it may have clearly marked keys and functioning display
: : the results _are_ nonsense :-)
:
:
: : Thank's for admitting Roud that you don't now the differecne between a
: : broken calculator and, a broken clock, thats right, twice a day, LOL!!
:
: : When you hook up your trusty Fluke 73 to a 9V battery and it displays
: : 23.00 volts, do you believe the meter just because it is digital?
:
: : ROTFLMAO!!
:
:
: some broken thingies are better than others is all
: one needs to know :-) trust me
: Rudio
:
:
: Thanks for admitting mr. Brownose that the best you, can do is an
: imitation of a broken, Fesrtler, LoT:s! ;-(
:
: --
:
: "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
: - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

btw what is your guitarist audio opnion when i use a
ck5654 at 72V 2mA Rl=15K with a 4 Vtt in ? ;-)
R.

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


Sillybot rants on and on and on.

But in the real world, the sighted test is the one that produces
the recommendations that most consumers see in the audio press.

You already know all auditions are worthless, including your own. So why
do
you keep beating this dead horse, Silly?


He has some kind of perceptual tic that precludes him from cognitively
registering the word 'enjoyment'.

"Ruud Broens" said:

btw what is your guitarist audio opnion when i use a
ck5654 at 72V 2mA Rl=15K with a 4 Vtt in ? ;-)
R.


LoT;S! of second harmonics.

Use a LM741 instead, supplied with +/- 3V.

--

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

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" said:
:
: btw what is your guitarist audio opnion when i use a
: ck5654 at 72V 2mA Rl=15K with a 4 Vtt in ? ;-)
: R.
:
:
: LoT;S! of second harmonics.

yes! a dajly portion of distortion
just what the doctor prescribed :-)
(you corretcly gathered it was in triode mode)

:
: Use a LM741 instead, supplied with +/- 3V.

err, may try that l8er - that's not part of a serious hobby, is it ?
sounds more like tweako freako stuff

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

"Ruud Broens" said:

: btw what is your guitarist audio opnion when i use a
: ck5654 at 72V 2mA Rl=15K with a 4 Vtt in ? ;-)
: R.


: LoT;S! of second harmonics.

yes! a dajly portion of distortion
just what the doctor prescribed :-)
(you corretcly gathered it was in triode mode)


Of course, with a Ra of 15 k!

Wimpy tube, BTW.
Get a 6S19pi instead:
http://home.planet.nl/~benadski/CO/6S19P.pdf


: Use a LM741 instead, supplied with +/- 3V.

err, may try that l8er - that's not part of a serious hobby, is it ?
sounds more like tweako freako stuff



For even tweakier results, a 709 would do fine, you will note.
Forget about the frequency compensation, you're looking for a distinct
sound, no?

--

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

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" said:
:
: : btw what is your guitarist audio opnion when i use a
: : ck5654 at 72V 2mA Rl=15K with a 4 Vtt in ? ;-)
:
: Wimpy tube, BTW.
: Get a 6S19pi instead:
: http://home.planet.nl/~benadski/CO/6S19P.pdf
:
mm, yeah, but i don't want a current regulator, rather something wild &
unregulated, you will note :-)

: : Use a LM741 instead, supplied with +/- 3V.
:
: err, may try that l8er - that's not part of a serious hobby, is it ?
: sounds more like tweako freako stuff
:
:
:
: For even tweakier results, a 709 would do fine, you will note.
: Forget about the frequency compensation, you're looking for a distinct
: sound, no?

distinct but gooood, pls ;-)
RB
: --
:
: "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
: - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005