Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#401
|
|||
|
|||
|
#403
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile Wrote: But that doesn't mean I accept that a $5,000 replacement power cord affects anything! "No argument from me there, Mr Winwer (though some of my writers would disagree). " Clearly some of your writers are stupid, otherwise they would believe such stupid things. "But what I care more about is allowing my maagzines readers to make up their own minds about where the line is drawn between small but significant improvements and imaginary beasts." No you are lying. If the above were in fact true, you would provide them with ALL the information required. That you bob and weave around the current accepted reality about how to determine differences is evidence enough that you are plainly trying to keep them from being fully informed. That you allow some of the obvious nonsense that your "writers" say go unchallenged is yet another nail in the coffin. Eventually, it will be computers that dominate audio and you will be consigned to the ash heap where you belong. |
#404
|
|||
|
|||
|
#405
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: John Atkinson (Editor, Stereophile) wrote: what I care more about is allowing my [magazine's] readers to make up their own minds about where the line is drawn between small but significant improvements and imaginary beasts. No you are lying... Yet another anonymous, mindreading Internet flamer who only feels secure in making such accusations from behind the safety of his PC :-) Somehow John never got around to mentioning this when he introduced me (in person) at our HE2005 debate. He sure has been vocal enough about it on Usenet. ;-) |
#406
|
|||
|
|||
Chel van Gennip wrote:
You fail to answer specific questions about reviews containing specific nonsense. So I think you are in no position to complain about remarks this way. I was objecting to be called a liar by someon who posts anonymously, not to being criticized per se. See the questions fom may 21, 22 and 23. May I remind you another review in Stereophile: http://www.hi-fi.hr/hi-fi/Goertz/goertz.htm About this speaker cable stereophile writes: "But wait, there's more! - only a very few minutes of break-in required!" instead of mentioning some well known facts that undermines the whole theory behind this cable: .... I noted your comment when you made it, Mr. van Gennip, but I didn't see anything that required a specific response from me. You felt the Stereophile review of the Goertz cable was incomplete. I see no need to argue with your opinion. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#407
|
|||
|
|||
|
#408
|
|||
|
|||
|
#409
|
|||
|
|||
hank alrich wrote:
wrote: hank alrich wrote: wrote: Ethan Winer wrote how could you possibly believe that changing one competent 3-foot RCA cable for another can affect audio quality? a) Because I have heard audible differences between such cables under blind conditions where the cable change was the only variable; In what manner was the cable change effected? Instantaneous switching? Or disconnection of one cable, and then connection of the next? The latter, making the test single-blind. However, the operator could not communicate with me, nor could I see the cables being switched. (I wrote about this test in a mid-1980s issue of Hi-Fi News, BTW). If you object to the test being single-blind, then yes, with a mechanical change it is hard to perform without the operator knowing what was being changed. However, the same methodology of physical cable changes was used by David Clark in a series of tests performed at the 1988 AES tests. No-one objected to the methodology of those tests, as best as I can recall. My concern would be the time needed to physically swap cables. Isn't there data suggesting our auditory memory of tiny details doesn't hold for long? Yes, if anything, long switching intervals *decrease* sensitivity to difference....making Mr. Atkinson's positive cable DBT performance all the more remarkable. Likely either one of those cables was defective, or *highly* unsuited to the system, or there were non-audible cues for difference. Two 3-ft cables sonically different enough to pass an SBT with long switching intervals, should be a slam-dunk using DBT and short intervals. So, where's the replication? |
#411
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: This leaves the possibility of the listener communicating with the switching operator in a way that could affect the outcome of the test. No, that did not happen. Well, as you say, none of us is *all-knowing*. Are you ruling out any possibility of it having happened? You seem to be taking skepticims to extremes, Mr. Sullivan. As I was the listener in the test, I don't need to claim omniscience to know whether or not _I_ communicated with the tester. I didn't do so until after the test was concluded. Of course, as has already been pointed out by another poster, I didn't take steps to prevent telepathy, or even the judicious use of time travel. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#412
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: This leaves the possibility of the listener communicating with the switching operator in a way that could affect the outcome of the test. No, that did not happen. Well, as you say, none of us is *all-knowing*. Are you ruling out any possibility of it having happened? You seem to be taking skepticims to extremes, Mr. Sullivan. As I was the listener in the test, I don't need to claim omniscience to know whether or not _I_ communicated with the tester. I didn't do so until after the test was concluded. Depending on the actual test conditions, the listener may or may not be a reliable source of information about whether or not he communicated with a person who knew knew the identity of the equipment that was playing at the time. For example, the listener may unknowingly have been facing some person who knew the identity of the equipment that was playing at the time. Or he may have known that he was facing a person with that critical knowlege and not known that this invalidated the blindness of the test. |
#413
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
I noted your comment when you made it, Mr. van Gennip, but I didn't see anything that required a specific response from me. You felt the Stereophile review of the Goertz cable was incomplete. I see no need to argue with your opinion. "But wait, there's more! - only a very few minutes of break-in required!" Indeed, _Stereophile_'s intellectual rigor is impressive! -- ha |
#414
|
|||
|
|||
hank alrich wrote:
wrote: I noted your comment when you made it, Mr. van Gennip, but I didn't see anything that required a specific response from me. You felt the Stereophile review of the Goertz cable was incomplete. I see no need to argue with your opinion. "But wait, there's more! - only a very few minutes of break-in required!" Indeed, _Stereophile_'s intellectual rigor is impressive! I was reminded of that when I re-encountered this gem of hermetic anti-reason from Robert Harley circa 1990, while researching the green pen hoax on the Web today: http://stereophile.com/reference/590jitter/ "Conclusion From my measurements, it is apparent that none of these CD tweaks have any effect on a player's error-correction ability or on the amount of jitter in the HF signal. However, it is beyond doubt that they increase the musicality of CDs. Just as in analog audio, there are things going on in digital audio that have not been identified, but influence sonic characteristics. There is a real need to explore these questions through empirical measurement and by listening. I am convinced that undiscovered optical phenomena in CD playback affect sound quality. Only by combining critical listening with the scientific method can these mysteries be solved" |
#415
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
hank alrich wrote: wrote: I noted your comment when you made it, Mr. van Gennip, but I didn't see anything that required a specific response from me. You felt the Stereophile review of the Goertz cable was incomplete. I see no need to argue with your opinion. "But wait, there's more! - only a very few minutes of break-in required!" Indeed, _Stereophile_'s intellectual rigor is impressive! I was reminded of that when I re-encountered this gem of hermetic anti-reason from Robert Harley circa 1990, while researching the green pen hoax on the Web today: http://stereophile.com/reference/590jitter/ "Conclusion From my measurements, it is apparent that none of these CD tweaks have any effect on a player's error-correction ability or on the amount of jitter in the HF signal. However, it is beyond doubt that they increase the musicality of CDs. Just as in analog audio, there are things going on in digital audio that have not been identified, but influence sonic characteristics. There is a real need to explore these questions through empirical measurement and by listening. I am convinced that undiscovered optical phenomena in CD playback affect sound quality. Only by combining critical listening with the scientific method can these mysteries be solved" Right. Harley couldn't measure it, he didn't even try to find it in a blind test, but he was quite sure that the effect(s) was significant, and demanded developing a whole new area of audio theory in order to support his beliefs. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Magazine Statitistics | Audio Opinions | |||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater | Audio Opinions | |||
Google Proof of An Unprovoked Personal Attack from Krueger | Audio Opinions |