From: Chung
Date: 5/25/2004 5:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 5/20/2004 3:55 PM Pacific
Standard Time
Message-id:

Bruce J. Richman wrote:


The "controlled listening tests" obviously involve the listeners
determining
whether the DUT's sound the same or different. This is a form of
measurement,
although on a dichotomous basis rather than an interval scale.
Every data
point recorded in an ABX test or even in a more simple A/B
comparison is
obviously a measurement of the observer's ability to differentiate
or not
differentiate between the the 2 components being evaluated.

That's got to be one of the most convoluted explanations (should I
say excuses?) I have ever seen.

So when you listen to two pieces of equipment, A and B, and you
decide A is better, have you made a measurement? According to your
definition, you have, since the fact that you prefer A over B is
obviously a measurement of your ability to differentiate between A
and B.

Seems to me that you, being a subjectivist, based on
selections/preferences on measurements, too! You're sure you're not
an objectivist?






Sure it's a measurement. It is however a subjective measurement. Kind
of like a
four star movie.

Would anyone else say that whether you decide a movie is a 3 star or 4
star movie constitutes a measurement?

People say all kinds of things. I asked my wife if I decide a movie is a four
star movie is that a measurement of the quality of that movie. She said yes.
Other opinions may vary.

How is your definition of a star
going to be the same as someone else's?

The definition is pretty standard. It is a four tier scale of excellence. But
it is a subjective measurement so not all movies will get the same number of
stars from different people.

How about deciding whether you
like vanilla or chocolate ice-cream. Is that a measurement also?

Sure it's a measure of favor. Again it is subjective.

Or
whether you like tube amps or transistor amp. Is that a measurement
also?I believe that even Mr, Bromo said that measurements are
objective.

Here is what a dictionary says.

Measu 5 : to estimate or appraise by a criterion measures his skill against
his rival
An appraisal is a measurement. It is subjective and it fits all of your
questions above.


You won't find the four stars on any test bench will you?

That's why calling a movie 4-star is not a measurement.

The dictionary online agrees with me not you. Or would you say that it isn't an
apraisal either? The online dictionary sees them as synonymous.


I also noted that you sneaked in another strawman, that measurements
require a bench.

Really? I said it "required" a bench? No. I said some measurements ( the
quality of a movie in this case) won't be found on a bench so obviously I was
saying just the opposite.

If you use an ohm meter to measure the resistance of a
cable, that's a measurement. You can do this in your living room. Trust
me!

I do. Heck you can measure your thumb with a ruler. You can measure time with a
clock. The list is quite long. I have no idea how you concluded anything I said
suggested I was claiming "measurements require a bench."


You
might not have a concensus either.

Further proof that giving stars is not a measurement.

Wrong, according to the dictionary.


But yes, subjective evaluations are a
subjective and personal measurement.

Hmmm, subjective and personal measurement. That's the oxymoron of the
month.

I suppose if you limit the idea of measurement to only objective measurements.
The English language places no such limmit on the use of the word.


Well, if every subjective, perceived, listening session is a
measurement, then subjectivists based their preferences solely on
measurements, then. OK by me!

Who ever said *every* listening session was a measurement? I would say every
audition is, at least if one is paying attention.


PS: Also noticed that you disagreed with MR. Richman, since Mr. Richman
has not changed his tune: only ABX test are measurements according to
him.

That is obviously a pretty gross misrepresentation of his beliefs. I guess the
idea of speaking for yourself and not others wsn't appealing? I remember when
the moderators didn't like that sort of thing. I would suggest they consider
clamping down on it. There is nothing constructive about it IMO.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

chung wrote in message news:YYJsc.21691$hi6.2247943@attbi_s53...

'Objective' must
also be 'relevant'.


That's wrong, plain and simple. Besides, who decides the relevancy? Are
you saying that all audio measurements are not relevant?

We cannot be sure which, if any, relate to sonic character...


You do not have to be sure about whether a measurement is relevant or
not to call it objective.

Example: frequency response of an amplifier. It is objective, regardless
of whether you believe it is relevant for *you* or not.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 5/25/2004 5:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:

On 5/24/04 9:34 PM, in article Loxsc.38298$zw.20454@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Of course, they could
say, any 'competent' wine must have a specific gravity between x and
y.

Quite so, as one might say that any competent amplifier should have
THD below 0.1%.

Except that many people prefer a THD of the right H to be 1% or more -
colorations and all.

So some people prefer incompetent amps. What else is new?

And with the wrong H, a 0.1% may sound grainy and
nasty. So to declare that a 0.1% might just be a subjective judgement.

Note that he said any competent amp should have THD below 0.1%. He did
not say that all amps with 0.1% THD will be competent.







Competence is in the eye of the designer.
If the amp does what the designer set
out for that amp to do the amp and it's designer are competent.

If that's the case, then nothing can ever be incompetent. After all, the
designer, or maybe the designer's mother/wife/partner, probably thinks
that the product is competent. According to your logic, even snake-oil
products are not incompetent, since the designer may very well intend
the product to be snake-oil.

So much for
objectivists respecting preferences.

So you are assuming I'm an objectivist?

You are perfectly welcome to prefer incompetent equipment. I perfectly
respect your preference. That does not detract from the fact that there
are incompetent products preferred by someone.

A claim of incompetence is about as
disrespectful as it can get.


It's disrespectful of the designer or the company producing such
product. But if you feel that disrespect transfers to the one preferring
such product, you are free to feel that way, although the intent is not
necessarily so.

From: chung
Date: 5/26/2004 7:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: yN1tc.63485$gr.6218639@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 5/25/2004 5:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:

On 5/24/04 9:34 PM, in article Loxsc.38298$zw.20454@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Of course, they could
say, any 'competent' wine must have a specific gravity between x and
y.

Quite so, as one might say that any competent amplifier should have
THD below 0.1%.

Except that many people prefer a THD of the right H to be 1% or more -
colorations and all.

So some people prefer incompetent amps. What else is new?

And with the wrong H, a 0.1% may sound grainy and
nasty. So to declare that a 0.1% might just be a subjective judgement.

Note that he said any competent amp should have THD below 0.1%. He did
not say that all amps with 0.1% THD will be competent.







Competence is in the eye of the designer.
If the amp does what the designer set
out for that amp to do the amp and it's designer are competent.

If that's the case, then nothing can ever be incompetent.

Completely wrong. If an engineer designs a dam and it breaks and floods the
town due to design flaws that is an incompetently designed dam.

After all, the
designer, or maybe the designer's mother/wife/partner, probably thinks
that the product is competent.

That is not the issue and it is not what I said regarding competency.
Competency can be judged by the success of the design as measured against the
goals of a designer. It has nothing to do with friends and family thinking a
designer is great despite the success or failure of his or her designs.

According to your logic, even snake-oil
products are not incompetent, since the designer may very well intend
the product to be snake-oil.

Indeed snake oil that successfully milks people out of their money is not
incompetent it is simply dishonest. The incompetence lies with those who bought
the snake oil.


So much for
objectivists respecting preferences.

So you are assuming I'm an objectivist?

No, you have said as much.


You are perfectly welcome to prefer incompetent equipment. I perfectly
respect your preference.

Clearly you don't if you do not see the disrespect inherent in the label
"incompetent."

That does not detract from the fact that there
are incompetent products preferred by someone.

There may very well be incompetent products that are prefered by some
consumers. Many products suffer from mechanical failures due to incompetent
engineering and workmanship and yet are still favored by some consumers. many
products fail to actually meet the design goals and are still favored by some
consumers. You can see many examples of both throughout the history of the
automobile. BUT, if the product does what the designer sets out for the design
to do there is no incompetence. To call a designer's deliberate and effective
choices incompetent because you do not agree with his or her goals is
disrespectful. Plain and simple.

A claim of incompetence is about as
disrespectful as it can get.


It's disrespectful of the designer or the company producing such
product. But if you feel that disrespect transfers to the one preferring
such product, you are free to feel that way, although the intent is not
necessarily so.

On 5/26/04 10:25 AM, in article yN1tc.63485$gr.6218639@attbi_s52, "chung"
wrote:

So much for
objectivists respecting preferences.

So you are assuming I'm an objectivist?

You are perfectly welcome to prefer incompetent equipment. I perfectly
respect your preference. That does not detract from the fact that there
are incompetent products preferred by someone.

"incompetent" is a subjective judgement. It is NOT data based or objective
in character.

Scott Wheeler wrote:

From: Chung
Date: 5/25/2004 5:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 5/20/2004 3:55 PM Pacific
Standard Time
Message-id:

Bruce J. Richman wrote:


The "controlled listening tests" obviously involve the listeners
determining
whether the DUT's sound the same or different. This is a form of
measurement,
although on a dichotomous basis rather than an interval scale.
Every data
point recorded in an ABX test or even in a more simple A/B
comparison is
obviously a measurement of the observer's ability to differentiate
or not
differentiate between the the 2 components being evaluated.

That's got to be one of the most convoluted explanations (should I
say excuses?) I have ever seen.

So when you listen to two pieces of equipment, A and B, and you
decide A is better, have you made a measurement? According to your
definition, you have, since the fact that you prefer A over B is
obviously a measurement of your ability to differentiate between A
and B.

Seems to me that you, being a subjectivist, based on
selections/preferences on measurements, too! You're sure you're not
an objectivist?






Sure it's a measurement. It is however a subjective measurement. Kind
of like a
four star movie.

Would anyone else say that whether you decide a movie is a 3 star or 4
star movie constitutes a measurement?

People say all kinds of things. I asked my wife if I decide a movie is a four
star movie is that a measurement of the quality of that movie. She said yes.
Other opinions may vary.

How is your definition of a star
going to be the same as someone else's?

The definition is pretty standard. It is a four tier scale of excellence. But
it is a subjective measurement so not all movies will get the same number of
stars from different people.

How about deciding whether you
like vanilla or chocolate ice-cream. Is that a measurement also?

Sure it's a measure of favor. Again it is subjective.

Or
whether you like tube amps or transistor amp. Is that a measurement
also?I believe that even Mr, Bromo said that measurements are
objective.


Nobody is disputing the fact that *some* measurements afre objective in the
sense that they are performed with instrumentation in which the results can be
replicated. I see nothing in Bromo's or Scoitt Wheeler's comments to indicate
that they, or other subjectivists for that matter, believe that *all*
measurements are objective. This would appear to be a strawman erected by some
objectivists that don't agree.

Here is what a dictionary says.

Measu 5 : to estimate or appraise by a criterion measures his skill
against
his rival
An appraisal is a measurement. It is subjective and it fits all of your
questions above.


You won't find the four stars on any test bench will you?

That's why calling a movie 4-star is not a measurement.

The dictionary online agrees with me not you. Or would you say that it isn't
an
apraisal either? The online dictionary sees them as synonymous.


I also noted that you sneaked in another strawman, that measurements
require a bench.

Really? I said it "required" a bench? No. I said some measurements ( the
quality of a movie in this case) won't be found on a bench so obviously I was
saying just the opposite.


There has been a disturbing trend in this thread for subjectivists to be
continuously misrepresented by a few objectivists. Here is yet another example
of a person's comments being misrepresented to facilitate an argument against
them. Unfortunately, both Marcus and Pinkerton have engaqed in the same
behavior in my view re. various things they *allege* that I've said, but can
not prove in any way. Mr. Chung's allegation that I've said only ABX tests are
measurements is also false.

If you use an ohm meter to measure the resistance of a
cable, that's a measurement. You can do this in your living room. Trust
me!

I do. Heck you can measure your thumb with a ruler. You can measure time with
a
clock. The list is quite long. I have no idea how you concluded anything I
said
suggested I was claiming "measurements require a bench."


You
might not have a concensus either.

Further proof that giving stars is not a measurement.

Wrong, according to the dictionary.


But yes, subjective evaluations are a
subjective and personal measurement.

Hmmm, subjective and personal measurement. That's the oxymoron of the
month.

I suppose if you limit the idea of measurement to only objective
measurements.
The English language places no such limmit on the use of the word.


Well, if every subjective, perceived, listening session is a
measurement, then subjectivists based their preferences solely on
measurements, then. OK by me!

Who ever said *every* listening session was a measurement? I would say every
audition is, at least if one is paying attention.


PS: Also noticed that you disagreed with MR. Richman, since Mr. Richman
has not changed his tune: only ABX test are measurements according to
him.

That is obviously a pretty gross misrepresentation of his beliefs.

Agreed. It is also not only a gross misrepresentation of my opinions, as
stated in this thread, but also what appears to be deliberate attempt to
misrepresent my identity. Note Mr. Chung's initial CAPITALIZATION of my title,
which he erroneously cites. While I'd like to think this was just a
typographical error, the derogatory tone of many of his comments about my posts
suggests that this was not the case.

I guess
the
idea of speaking for yourself and not others wsn't appealing? I remember when
the moderators didn't like that sort of thing. I would suggest they consider
clamping down on it. There is nothing constructive about it IMO.




Agreed. The moderators should not prevent posters from correcting statements
made by others that are explicitly contradicted by what a poster has actually
written. Allowing certain posters to continuously make statements about others
which are not supported by the Google record, while simultaneously preventing
others from doing so - with the same frequency - is unfair.

Better still, as Mr. Wheeler suggests (and he can correct me if I'm wrong), a
moderator's decision should at some point be made to NOT permit any more posts
within a given thread when/after it has degenerated into those opposed to a
given poster's views resorting to fraudulent misrepresentatios of what the
poster has actually said.

Bruce J. Richman

S888Wheel wrote:


From: chung
Date: 5/21/2004 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:



Of course these definintions of subjectivist positions were
defined by a self-proclaimed objectivist. You know it is rarely
flatering when an objectivist speaks for a subjectivist or visa
versa.

So, given that you frequent this newsgroup, is there anything in
Self's definition you deem inaccurate?

Yes. At least for me each one is either inaccurate or skewed to imply
a misleading meaning.

Herein lies the problem. You are assuming that you are the typical
subjectivist.

No, I am assuming nothing. I chose to speak strictly for myself as a
subjectivist.


The fact that you find those descriptions not accurate in
your case simply means that you are less of a subjectivist than you
might think.

I am every bit the subjectivist that *I* think *I* am.

Yes, thanks for confirming what I said: the subjectivist *you* think
*you* are. Which could be very different from those who hang out in the
cable forums at AA, for example. Or those who do not believe in
controlled-bias testing. (In fact, I believe that the typical
subjectivist does not believe in controlled-bias testing.) Or those who
believe in cable lifters and magic pens.

I guess this
idea of
mine that people should speak for their own thoughts and beliefs just
isn't
going over very well with you.

Why do you say that? I was simply trying to correct your logical
oversight of believing that every subjectivist is like you.



" Welcome to the light side; no doubt this newsgroup has
helped you make the transition ."

OK fine. My tube electronics and turntable are still my weapons of
choice based
on listening despite what the measurements may or may not say.

That's funny. Didn't you just say, in another message dated 5/21, that
subjective evaluations are subjective and personal measurements? Now you
are implying that subjective measurements are not measurements.





Lets take the first one. IMO if one amplifier measures with less
distortion than another but the amp with higher distortion sounds
better in a given system then the one that sounds better is the
prefered amp. The implication though is that the subjectivist
disregard the measurements all together.

And you don't agree that that's what subjectivists would do?

No. I think when a subjectivist such as myself
prefers one piece of
equipment
over another even when some objectivists insist the specs prove that
choice to
be inferior, I, as a subjectivist, opt for what my ears tell me rather
than
what the specs tell me for my personal use.

Specs or measurements?

I don't suggest that specs
be
ignored by designers and researchers though.

Well, Doug Self did not suggest that subjectivists do that.

I don't suggest they be
"dismissed."

Ah, you just said that you would dismiss them if your ears disagree,
which was what Self said subjectivists do.

I don't know any other subjectivists that have said that
specs
should be dismissed thus.

"Thus" is your qualification. You do not understand Doug's Self's
qualification, it would seem.

There may very well be such people but not
*all*
subjectivists or any I personally know have expressed this belief to me.

Well, as Doug Self implied, specs/measurements that *agree* with
subjective impressions will not be dismissed.



Have you
seen the measurements of SET's?

No I haven't but I have heard stories about them.

You think subjectivists pay any
attention to cable measurements?

I cannot speak for all subjectivists.

Thanks for conceding my point!

Cable measurements don't seem to
come up
so much.

Because the amazing similarities in measurements between cables, I
guess. When it comes to cables, it's all subjective. Wait, you said that
subjective listening tests are subjective measurements in another
thread, though. Hmmm, maybe you should say, for consistency, that only
"objective" measurements don't come up. And that "subjective
measurements" come up all the time.

I suspect that most are not aware of them.
I never looked into
it.
That does not mean that all subjectivists dismiss all specs of all
components
though.

Strawman. No one said that.




Well, I hope the designers are paying attention to the relevant
measurements and how they relate to sonic impressions and moving
forward with their designs from there. But as it stands it is a
misleading statement about subjectivists.

Why? It may not be an accurate statement *in your case*, but it is
dangerous to set yourself up as the prototype subjectivist.

I'm not setiing myself up as anything. You still haven't apparently got
the
message that "subjectivists" are a wdely diversified group of
audiophiles with
many different beliefs on many different audio related subjects. When
you get
past the all subjectivists are the same (irony alert) assumption you
will
possibly better understand that I am speaking for myself as a
subjectivist and
that is a wise choice.

And you still have not got it that Doug Self's descriptions is not
intended to describe you only. He was describing the general behavior of
subjectivists. Although in carefully reading what you said, he actually
describes you pretty well.




I have not read anything from you dismissing the validity of controlled
testing, or stating that you could not function as a listener once you
have to choose between A and B, so you are not as far out there as the
others .

I probably am less extreme than many subjectivists.

Thanks for conceding my point, again!





It would be just as misleading to say that objectivists will prefer
equipment based on measurements despite how it might *actually*
sound.

It is misleading because many of the objectivists on this newsgroup
have
stated otherwise, ad nauseum.

Than consider learning from my example and avoid making such
prejudicial claims
about an entire group of people with diverse opinions.


I was bringing someone's attention to Doug Self's description, if you
have not noticed. I tend to agree to a large degree with his
description. I didn't notice that he was making prejudicial claims.

Perhaps you should also address this directly to Mr. Bromo, who started
this sub-thread by making prejudicial claims about an entire group?


I think the truth is that objectivists are more interested in the
measurements than the subjectivists but that does not mean that
measurments are being dismissed all together.

Self did not say that. Self said that when listening impressions
disagree with measurements, the latter can be discarded by
subjectivists.

I knew which measurements we were talking about. Dismissed is still
dismissed.
He did say "dismiss."

You left out the important qualifier: "dismissed when they do not agree
with subjective opinion". If the measurements agree with their listening
impressions, then I'm sure that those are *not* dismissed.



The second point. First off I'm not sure what is meant by
"engineering science."

Well, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and science would
be the popular answer.

I think it wise to keep them seperate. I have seen many branches of
science,
Physics, Biology, etc. I have never seen a branch called engineering
science.
Maybe I missed something?


Yes, you did. There are even majors in colleges called engineering
science, or engineering physics. Harvard has such a major:

http://www.deas.harvard.edu/undergradstudy/

The fact that you do not know a term does not mean that that term is not
commonly used or understood. To a lot of people, it is extremely clear
what engineering sciences mean. Mr. Self cannot be any clearer.



But I do believe there is nothing magical about audio
and that all parameters of audio that can be heard can also be
measured.

See, you may not be the typical subjectivist then.

Or, maybe, you don't really know what many subjectivists are thinking.

You probably have noticed that I have been on debates with
self-proclaimed subjectivits a lot here.


I'm sure you have
seen posts and posts about how imaging cannot be measured.

I have seen many claiming the right things *aren't* being measured. I
have seen
a few claiming they *can't* be measured. You really ought to consider
the
diversity of opinions amoung subjectivists.


as for the third point, it simply does not apply to me at
all.

So you are again saying that you are less of a subjectivist than
others.

No, you are simply trying to stereotype a diverse group of people. I
still rely
on the old ears for my evaluations.

Non-sequitur, since we all do.




I know my limitations when it comes to technology and I know
better than to ascribe hypothetical cause and effects to various
designs of audio components. My hypothesis of any cause and effect
are usually born of trial and error while carefully allowing one
variable in my trials.

Some subjectivists' hypothesis is simply what they are told by boutique
companies. Witness cable burn-in, and CD magic pen.

You said some, Maybe you are getting it. That is good. Yes some people
buy
whatever line they are fed by those they look up to. I think that goes
both
ways. How many objectivists are really doing thier own extensive bias
controled
testing and how many are accepting what has been reported by other
objectivists
at face value? I'm confident there are plenty of both.





Here is something that was said about all objectivists in a
Stereophile article: "For an objectivist, the musical experience
begins with the compression and rarefaction of the local
atmosphere by a musical instrument
and
ends with the decay of hydraulic pressure waves in the listener's
cochlea;
"

Have you met an objectivist that behaves in such a way?

I have interacted with some that at first blush seemed to but upon
further converstation did not.

OK, so we all agree that the definition does not merit further debate.

There was never any debate. I presented it as an example of a
subjectivist
misrepresenting objectivists.

Which happens a lot, obviously. In fact, that was the reason why I
responded to Mr. Bromo's post a while back.

Interesting you did not respond to Mr. Bromo's first post.



My point was that the
misrepresentations go in both directions. I guess you agree that this
was one of those misrepresentations of an objectivist by a
subjectivist. I don't know and you don't know that this author has
never meat an objectivist who actually meets this description. the
real problem is with the single universal description for a broad
group of people with diverse opinions.

So there are various shades of subjectivism. But by and large Doug Self
did a good job summarizing it.







We disagree.

(Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:


Bob Marcus wrote:


....many snips to content....Again, you're misrepresenting my position and
attempting to put words
in my mouth. I have not claimed that objectivists don't understand imaging.

However, "imaging" per se, seems to be a term that appears much more
frequently
in subjective reviews of equipment.


Only in "reviews" that contain imaging claims for products that thave never
been shown to sound different from one another let alone have "imaging"
characteristics.


And what makes you think we canâ__t measure this?


Where have I claimed that *you* (not "we") can't measure this? . There is
no evidence provided by you that I have made this claim, other than the
repetitive assertion of your illogical assumption about my views on imaging.
My choice to discuss imaging, as opposed, for example, to frequency,
distortion, or amplitude, was done purely to illustrate the point that there
are variables of importance to subjectivists, such as imaging, that are not
typically discussed or from what I can see, addressed, by most objectivists.

Actually staging, imaging, ambience and envelopment are discussed all the time
by objectvists. Indeed I had quite an interesting discussion with a client
about them today. However I was speaking about a audio system and not the
imaging characeristics of his wires or amplifiers.

....snips....



Many
reviewers have commented on the relative synergy or lack of synergy
between a
certain product, for example, and a certain speaker. Now, as an
objectivist,
you may not accept this line of reasoning, but consider, as you've
mentioned,
the variation in radiation patterns, and I'll add in other speaker
complexities
such as resistance curves (said as the owner of electrostatics that
have wild
resistance swings and definitely *don't* sound the same with every
amplifier

OSAF In my opinion. Electrostatics do not have wild swings in resistance. The
reactive elements seem to vary more. But even so I've tested literally hundreds
of loudspeakers and I have yet to find ONE no matter what the driving force
that sounds "different" with every amplifier.

It may be true that a few unusual loads "may" sound different with some
amplifiers but exactly no commerically available speaker will sound different
with every amplifier.

Even so no subjectivist has ever put these assertions to the test with a
simple, replicable bias controlled listening test. I wonder why not.


What is it that you donâ__t think Iâ__ve considered? Why should I give any
credence to anyone who talks about â__synergyâ_� between speakers and
other
components and doesnâ__tâ__ even offer a coherent definition of the term?

All â__synergyâ_� appears to mean is that this speaker sounds better with
this amp than with that amp. Fine. Then you should be able to tell the
two amps apart blind, when driving that speaker. Show me that you can,
and Iâ__ll believe that this â__synergyâ_� is real. (Please note: There
is
no
mention of measurement in this paragraph. Thatâ__s your hang-up, not
mine.)

I have no hangup with measurements, and favor their use in many
situations. You not qualified to evaluate "hang-ups", but continue to engage
in ad
hominem attacks. So who really has the hangups?

So where is the experimental data on "synergy"? I once developed a system with
as many "tweaks" as I could muster (tubes, high-end amps, special
interconnects, special networked speaker cables, outboard converters, resonance
control devices, special wire/cable dress) and no one of several hardened
audiophiles (one the salesman of the cabling) were able to tell it from a
decidedly down-scale set of electronics driving the same speakers with modestt
bias controls implemented.

Where is the evidence, other than word-of-mouth, on system/component synergy
that hasn't been shown with the standard set of currently known and commonly
measured electro-acoustical tests?

And components ahead of the speakers have no impact on
these radiation patterns--which is why it's so funny to read
reviewers who
talk about certain cables "opening up the sound.")

One can always find extremes to ridicule. I lose very little sleep
over the
hyperbole of many cable manufacturers. But I don't think they are
reified by
too many subjectivists.

Oh so you DON'T believe in cable sound? Why didn't you just say so.
Amplifiers?


....snip....

Even the content of such
magazines as
Stereophile and The Absolute Sound, contain relatively few cable reviews,
nor
do their letter columns or websites give the subject of cable evaluations a
very prominent place in comparison with the attention devoted to other
classes of equipment.

Oh really. Hmmm the latest issue of Stereophile seem to prominently lists every
cable used in every review. A study of one of the last few years Reviewed
Components for the previous years showed 12% were cabling; more than any other
single product category except digital components and loudspeakers (21% each.)
MORE than preamplifiers, power amps, integrated amps, phono carts, turntables,
tuners, and headphones.


Still others may
simply say "this sounds more realistic me" (than another component
being
compared).Ã_ While it may be perfectly acceptable to the
objectivists to
consider only variables that can be measured in terms of frequency
response
or
various kinds of distortion, I would be reluctant - as I think would
be
most
subjectivists - to attribute the various variables I've mentioned
above to
specific, capable of replication, measurements to measure these
things.

That's true. .The single largest variable is listener bias. Although there are
measures of that around too. In 1990 I conducted an experiment where I found
that subjects (including audiophiles, housewives, schoolteachers, audio
professionals, medical doctors, students and engineers) were quite happy to
report "differences" over 3/4 of the time when given 2 precisely identical
presentations of the same musical material.

....snips...

Again, you've fallen into the inappropraite habit of misrepresenting what
I've
actually said. No claim has been made that objectivists can't measure
whatever they care to measure. All that's been suggested is that perhaps a
more
complete set of measurements would be of value in explaining why a
given component *might* sound different to some people than another under
comparison.

Given your background what extra electro/acoustical measurements would you
consider that would 'measure' imaging of amplifiers?


Also, how often, even within the frequency response realm, are
complete
graphs
presented that *might* account for a particular component being
perceived
as
relatively analytical, dark, or lean - all terms frequently used by
subjectivists?

I don't know. How often? (And what's your point?)

That's what I'm asking you. What is there to physically "hear" other than
loudness, pitch (partial loudness) and the arrival time of the stimulus?




I don't think so, at least as concerns the number of posts that I've
made to RAHE over the years. Even the most casual glance at the topic list
of

RAHE on any given day seems to indicate that, unfortunately, IMHO, the
objectivist-subjectivist arguments have almost totally (but not completely)
dominated the discussions here.

Probably true.

And most of the post have come from the
objectivist camp, not the subjectivist camp.

OSAF. It seems to me the subjectivists just wish to debate. I wonder why one or
two of them don't just set about providing a replicable experiment that proves
amp/cable/bit sound so everybody else can be convinced.

In my case I've led every horse who would go to the trough to it; and so far
none have ever been able to show that amps/wires/synergy sound actually exists
in an acoustical sense (someone could measure it OR hear it is it's
unmeasureable.)


The moderators have
even, at times, chosen, to limit discussion of certain topics such as double

blind testing, I suspect, for the same reason.

Sure. Subjectivists just want to argue. No new examinable evidence ever gets
brought to the table by subjectivists.

....snips......


I feel confident in
stating
that I probably have a much more healthy respect (and have been fully
trained)
in scientific methodology than you do.

As such how do you suggest that subjectivists organize an experiment that can
show they are right about things you believe objectivists (me) think are not
so?

Being fully trained in scientific methodology how would you design the
experiment that shows that amp/cable/bit/other sound that is being disputed is
put to a debate-ending test?

Bruce J. Richman
Bruce J. Richman

Tom Nousaine
Tom Nousaine

On 5/25/04 8:47 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

1. The data sheet is wrong somehow (marketing hype influencing numbers -
typical games being specifying minimum, typical or maximum)
2. The things that make one "superior" to another is not important for the
testing you are performing through listening.
3. It is all in your head and you are hallucinating (popular amoungst the
extreme "objectivist" crowd)
4. There are other unspecified items that are influencing the sound in a
way that you don't like.
5. There is some system interaction issue that is causing the data sheet
"winner" to sound less good than it should!

Have you confused data, as in a data sheet or spec sheet, with measurements?

Or with experimental results from bias-controlled listening tests. Or with the
lack of them from amp/wire sound guys (who as far as I can tell are
universally
subjectivists as typically meant in this context.)

Okay guys -

How do you choose and purchase your equipment? Do you listen to it before
plunking down your hard earned money?

On 5/25/04 8:46 PM, in article , "Chung"
wrote:

Sure it's a measurement. It is however a subjective measurement. Kind
of like a
four star movie.

Would anyone else say that whether you decide a movie is a 3 star or 4
star movie constitutes a measurement? How is your definition of a star
going to be the same as someone else's? How about deciding whether you
like vanilla or chocolate ice-cream. Is that a measurement also? Or
whether you like tube amps or transistor amp. Is that a measurement
also?I believe that even Mr, Bromo said that measurements are
objective.

I measurement can be done by anyone else and have the exact same result
within the measurement error of the meter used.

Making any sort of declaration about the implications of the measurement -
that is where the objective is left and subjective takes over.

You can make a judgement about the flavor or type of ice cream you like -
after experiencing it. You are measuring it - though you may not be
recording any data in a lab book. Your conclusions are just that - but the
tasting you do is measurement nonetheless!

On 5/25/04 10:03 PM, in article aWSsc.25971$af3.1355739@attbi_s51, "Jacob
Kramer" wrote:

Bromo wrote in message
news:rHSic.32839$_L6.1818930@attbi_s53...

I recall reading a review in Absolute Sound where they compared a bunch of
amps ranging from $2k (Rotel) to about $6K - and their only comment was that
at normal listening levels, any of the amps would be easy to live with - and
the only differences were heard at a high level of drive.

Well I recall reading many, many reviews in which amps are compared
according to soundstage, musicality, bass response, speed, openness,
and many other characteristics, none of which can be corrected by
equalization or which appear only at the power extremes. If such
qualities are in fact comparable then they should be plainly obvious
when both amps are driving the same speakers well within their
performance specs. If they're not obvious, it means the reviews are
overblown.


The DID compare all of that - but went on to talk about how the differences
were only heard at high levels and that listening to the "laggard" amp -
they did comment that it would be totally acceptable at normal volumes.

I figure that a bright chap may be able to measure the stereo image of
speakers being driven by different amps - since depending upon source - like
Vinyl, CD and MP3 being played through speakers - I have noticed differences
in the stereo imaging - I figure that it could be measurable if someone
cared to do so.

Mike Scarpitti wrote:


chung wrote in message
news:YYJsc.21691$hi6.2247943@attbi_s53...

'Objective' must
also be 'relevant'.


That's wrong, plain and simple. Besides, who decides the relevancy? Are
you saying that all audio measurements are not relevant?

We cannot be sure which, if any, relate to sonic character...









Why not? I recently, for example, read a review in which the writer claimed
that one CD player "handled the frequency extremes and was more extended" than
another CD player he had for reference. There were no measurements presented
to support this claim, so I assume he was making this claim based on his own
*unique* listening impressions.

Now, would not a reasonable reader expect that if this claim were valid, there
should be some frequency response curves at given listening levels that would
illustrate this alleged discrepancy between the 2 CD players?

It would be harder, probably, to correlate specific measurements with other,
more nebulous descriptive terms that are open to interpretation.



Bruce J. Richman

Bromo wrote:

On 5/25/04 8:14 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Except that many people prefer a THD of the right H to be 1% or more -
colorations and all.

So some people prefer incompetent amps. What else is new?

"competent" and "incompetent" are subjective judgments.

I perfectly understand that what I find competent someone may find
extremely competent. That's why someone else owns such products.

"Amps with audible
distortions are desirable by some people but not me" would be a proper more
objective and accurate statement.

I don't see any conflict between what you said and what I said. The
point I was refuting was that you were assuming that just because
someone prefers such products, then such products cannot be called
incompetent.

Example: someone really believe in magic pens. That someone probably
thinks the magic pens are very competent products. Now does that mean
that everyone else will agree that they are competent? And do you also
think that magic pens are competent products?

As an RF engineer, do you think that amps with audible distortion are
competent? As an RF engineer, do you want an amp that always adds
audible distortion to all types of music? Do you believe that adding
audible distortion brings it any closer to high-fidelity?


The funny thing is, that 1% THD may be preferable sounding if it is low
order and even harmonic dominated than a lower THD that is higher order and
odd harmonic dominated.

Having said that - you might think the more competent amp would be the one
with less than 1%, but in reality most people would prefer the 1% one if the
harmonics add pleasant sounding colorations.

Again, people may prefer incompetent amps, so what else is new?


The problem with mixing judgements like you have with objective
measurements, is that you end up removing the objective measurements by
substituting a declaration for careful analysis.

Not sure what you meant by that. You totally lost me there. I thought I
said something that is very straightforward: that someone likes
something does not mean that the something cannot be incompetently
designed, especially in high-end audio.

Example: Dick Pierce mentioned some high-end DAC's that were poorly
designed, with the output jitter being a strong function of output
loads, etc. That's an incompetent product. It was also a product that
was claimed to be extraordinarily revealing by high-end reviews and
users. Does the fact that the DAC got great reviews mean that we cannot
call it incompetent?



And with the wrong H, a 0.1% may sound grainy and
nasty. So to declare that a 0.1% might just be a subjective judgement.

Note that he said any competent amp should have THD below 0.1%. He did
not say that all amps with 0.1% THD will be competent.

Point taken. It was a fair assumption to think that he thought it was both
necessary and sufficient to have a THD 0.1%. Perhaps it is just necessary.

Would be nice to have a definition (objectivist) of what a competent amp
might be...

Bromo wrote:

On 5/25/04 8:14 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Except that many people prefer a THD of the right H to be 1% or more -
colorations and all.

So some people prefer incompetent amps. What else is new?

"competent" and "incompetent" are subjective judgments.*

Yes and no. There is an engineering ideal for what an amplifier is supposed
to do: It is supposed to amplify the signal without otherwise distorting it
in any way. No such perfect amplifier exists. A competent audio amplifier is
one whose distortions fall below the threshold of audibility (as determined
by DBTs, of course). That's an objective standard. (But please note that
it's not a universal one: An amp may be competent to drive one speaker but
not another.)

But there is a subjective side to this, because when objectivists use the
term "competent" there is often a value judgment attached. Many objectivists
believe that the best way to put together an audio system is to seek out a
competent amp and neutral wires, so that the speakers alone determine the
sonic character of the system. But that's not the only way to put together
an audio system. Many listeners may prefer the sound of a system that
includes an amplifier with a definite sonic signature (e.g., "that tube
sound"), and there is nothing wrong with that, even if it doesn't meet the
engineering definition of competent.

So competence itself is an objective standard. But whether you prefer a
competent amp or not is a subjective judgment.

"Amps with audible
distortions are desirable by some people but not me" would be a proper more
objective and accurate statement.

The funny thing is, that 1% THD may be preferable sounding if it is low
order and even harmonic dominated than a lower THD that is higher order and
odd harmonic dominated.

Having said that - you might think the more competent amp would be the one
with less than 1%, but in reality most people would prefer the 1% one if
the
harmonics add pleasant sounding colorations.

Really? Most People? You have studies that show this?

The problem with mixing judgements like you have with objective
measurements, is that you end up removing the objective measurements by
substituting a declaration for careful analysis.


* And with the wrong H, a 0.1% may sound grainy and
nasty.* So to declare that a 0.1% might just be a subjective judgement.

Note that he said any competent amp should have THD below 0.1%. He did
not say that all amps with 0.1% THD will be competent.

Point taken.* It was a fair assumption to think that he thought it was both
necessary and sufficient to have a THD 0.1%.* Perhaps it is just
necessary.

I think he has since suggested that the necessary condition for THD may be
0.5%.

Would be nice to have a definition (objectivist) of what a competent amp
might be...

See above.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm...ave/direct/01/

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:lYJsc.58094$gr.5702314@attbi_s52...
On Tue, 25 May 2004 01:56:07 GMT, Bromo wrote:

Except that many people prefer a THD of the right H to be 1% or more -
colorations and all.

Indeed they do - but the amplifier is still fundamentally incompetent
as a high fidelity device.

That is false on its face. If MOST auditors prefer the sound of
colored amplification, then THAT is 'high fidelity' to the ideal.

Please, words do have real meanings. "High fidelity" does not mean, "most
people like it." It means, high correspondence to the source, in this case
the recording. And as it's quite trivial to design an amp with less than 1%
THD, amps with higher THD than that hardly qualify as "high fidelity."
(Note: I'm not arguing that THD is the only determinant of fidelity, by any
means. But it is one of them.)

That doesn't mean that people can't like amps with high THD, which I think
was your real point, as well as Bromo's.

Creating an amplifier that SOUNDS perfect may be harder than to
produce one that MEASURES perfect.

All empirical evidence suggests that no amp measures perfect, but many are
audibly indistinguishable from perfect.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung
Date: 5/26/2004 7:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: yN1tc.63485$gr.6218639@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 5/25/2004 5:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:

On 5/24/04 9:34 PM, in article Loxsc.38298$zw.20454@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Of course, they could
say, any 'competent' wine must have a specific gravity between x and
y.

Quite so, as one might say that any competent amplifier should have
THD below 0.1%.

Except that many people prefer a THD of the right H to be 1% or more -
colorations and all.

So some people prefer incompetent amps. What else is new?

And with the wrong H, a 0.1% may sound grainy and
nasty. So to declare that a 0.1% might just be a subjective judgement.

Note that he said any competent amp should have THD below 0.1%. He did
not say that all amps with 0.1% THD will be competent.







Competence is in the eye of the designer.
If the amp does what the designer set
out for that amp to do the amp and it's designer are competent.

If that's the case, then nothing can ever be incompetent.

Completely wrong. If an engineer designs a dam and it breaks and floods the
town due to design flaws that is an incompetently designed dam.

Perhaps I should say very few things in audio can ever be incompetent. I
was referring to audio.


After all, the
designer, or maybe the designer's mother/wife/partner, probably thinks
that the product is competent.

That is not the issue and it is not what I said regarding competency.
Competency can be judged by the success of the design as measured against the
goals of a designer. It has nothing to do with friends and family thinking a
designer is great despite the success or failure of his or her designs.

That's *your* defintion of competency. After all you said competence is
in the eye of the designer, a statement that few would agree. And how
would you know what the goals of the design were?

In the case of the amp, if the amp designer really wants to get 0.1% THD
and only achieves 1%, is the amp competent? The answer is no. It is
still incompetent if he later changes the goal to be 1% to fit his
design, because other products routinely achieve much lower distortion.


According to your logic, even snake-oil
products are not incompetent, since the designer may very well intend
the product to be snake-oil.

Indeed snake oil that successfully milks people out of their money is not
incompetent it is simply dishonest. The incompetence lies with those who bought
the snake oil.


Gee, now I really sense disrespect for preferences!

You never can tell what other design goals the designer of such product
has, in addition to milking people out of theor money. Even according to
your defintion, snake oil products are incompetent because the designer
may really want the product to work as claimed, but just fails.


So much for
objectivists respecting preferences.

So you are assuming I'm an objectivist?

No, you have said as much.

Please provide quote.



You are perfectly welcome to prefer incompetent equipment. I perfectly
respect your preference.

Clearly you don't if you do not see the disrespect inherent in the label
"incompetent."

Clearly the disrespect is meant for the product, and not necessarily the
user.


That does not detract from the fact that there
are incompetent products preferred by someone.

There may very well be incompetent products that are prefered by some
consumers.

So after all this, you are agreeing with what I said in the firsrt
place? I can't believe this...

Many products suffer from mechanical failures due to incompetent
engineering and workmanship and yet are still favored by some consumers. many
products fail to actually meet the design goals and are still favored by some
consumers. You can see many examples of both throughout the history of the
automobile. BUT, if the product does what the designer sets out for the design
to do there is no incompetence. To call a designer's deliberate and effective
choices incompetent because you do not agree with his or her goals is
disrespectful. Plain and simple.

Ahh, so you finally see that the disrespect is for the product, and not
for the one who owns it necessarily. We're making progress.

Yes, I believe that anyone who sets out to design incpmpetent products
to milk money out of unsuspecting customers deserve disrespect. Of
course, that does not mean that someone will not give them a lot of
respect. Such is marketing.



A claim of incompetence is about as
disrespectful as it can get.


It's disrespectful of the designer or the company producing such
product. But if you feel that disrespect transfers to the one preferring
such product, you are free to feel that way, although the intent is not
necessarily so.

On 5/26/04 10:22 AM, in article YK1tc.4335$Ly.4238@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

I would agree with that - but if the music you listen to has a dynamic range
of 20dB - that would imply to have grainless sound you would at least need
to be 65dB down from the peak.

Not at all, as the distortion artifacts will of course track the
signal, so as long as they are 45dB below the signal level at any
time, they should be inaudible.

You are making my point perfectly. If I listen to music with loud and quiet
passages - such as some orchestral pieces - I might be at 0dB (peak) or
-20dB. If my noise floor is at -45dB then it will be audible in quieter
passages. If I account for that in my design - I would make my noise floor
AT LEAST -65dB if -20dB is as quiet as it gets.

As CD would theoretically allow for up to 96dB of dynamic range - you might
want to consider a non-quantization noise floor of -116dB to remove the
noise floor from bumping up the overall noise to the region whee it might be
audible on some pieces of music or music poorly mastered.

Bromo wrote:


On 5/25/04 9:57 PM, in article WPSsc.8102$eT4.4361@attbi_s54, "S888Wheel"
wrote:

I am an extreme subjectivist. I attempt to listen to ONLY acoustical
performance.


So do most audiophiles. What else can you listen to in the context od audio
evaluation?

Subjectivists are audiophiles as well as objectivists - they divide
themselves into the two camps and spend idle hours lobbing NG posts at one
another! :-)









Ain't that the truth!



Bruce J. Richman

On 5/26/04 10:25 AM, in article 5N1tc.115702$536.21527293@attbi_s03, "chung"
wrote:

We cannot be sure which, if any, relate to sonic character...


You do not have to be sure about whether a measurement is relevant or
not to call it objective.

You are correct, but it might not be useful, either.



Example: frequency response of an amplifier. It is objective, regardless
of whether you believe it is relevant for *you* or not.

Bromo wrote:



On 5/25/04 9:57 PM, in article WPSsc.8102$eT4.4361@attbi_s54, "S888Wheel"
wrote:

I am an extreme subjectivist. I attempt to listen to ONLY acoustical
performance.


So do most audiophiles. What else can you listen to in the context od audio
evaluation?

Subjectivists are audiophiles as well as objectivists - they divide
themselves into the two camps and spend idle hours lobbing NG posts at one
another! :-)

Good one :-) But frankly I don't know any "audiophiles" in the subjectivist
sense who have a set of common materials to use for evaluation. I'm sure that
"some" exist but its not common. And I don't see any kind of consistentcy in
high-end magazine reviews either. It is true that often the big-book reviews
don't have such consistency either.

My main point is thatn IMO and IME 'subjectivists' as a class do not ordinarily
use ordinary techniques for help in reducing the effects of commonly known and
easily demonstrated bias elements to help restrict perception and conclusion to
acoustically reproduced sound.

On 5/26/04 7:42 PM, in article 3Y9tc.29337$af3.1619587@attbi_s51, "Bruce J.
Richman" wrote:

Better still, as Mr. Wheeler suggests (and he can correct me if I'm wrong), a
moderator's decision should at some point be made to NOT permit any more posts
within a given thread when/after it has degenerated into those opposed to a
given poster's views resorting to fraudulent misrepresentatios of what the
poster has actually said.

I disagree with this sentiment. I think a moderator should keep out
personal attacks, spam and so on, but skate the fine line of passion - since
passion about high end audio is what this group is about.

Bromo wrote:

On 5/26/04 7:42 PM, in article 3Y9tc.29337$af3.1619587@attbi_s51, "Bruce J.
Richman" wrote:

Better still, as Mr. Wheeler suggests (and he can correct me if I'm wrong),
a
moderator's decision should at some point be made to NOT permit any more
posts
within a given thread when/after it has degenerated into those opposed to a
given poster's views resorting to fraudulent misrepresentatios of what the
poster has actually said.

I disagree with this sentiment. I think a moderator should keep out
personal attacks, spam and so on, but skate the fine line of passion - since
passion about high end audio is what this group is about.








I have no problem in "passionately" stating my views and would certainly favor
others having equal rights. However, when a poster appears to deliberately
misrepresent what another poster has said - and worse yet, then proceeds to
attack the very misrepresentation that they just created, that is patently
dishonest. It may or may not involve personal attacks, which I agree, should
be eliminated from RAHE. Use of perjorative terms, accusations of "strawmen",
"rubbish", and other inflammatory epithets leveled at others, however, seems to
be fairly common. What amuses me is that some people can so cavalierly allege
that "person A says that ...................(fill in your favorite fantasy)",
when in fact they can NOT provide any quotation to support that type of
misrepresentation.

At some point, most of the personal attacks and counterattacks become
repetitious and redundant in my view, despite the mighty efforts of the
originators and responders to justify them.

So, at some point, I think the RAHE moderators would be well advised to declare
a set date/time perhaps after which no further "repetitions" will be allowed.
Hopefully, this would only be applied to a few threads. A side benefit might
be that people would be more encouraged to discuss other things and start new
threads on other topics.

YMMV.

Bruce J. Richman

Bromo wrote:

On 5/25/04 8:46 PM, in article , "Chung"
wrote:

Sure it's a measurement. It is however a subjective measurement. Kind
of like a
four star movie.

Would anyone else say that whether you decide a movie is a 3 star or 4
star movie constitutes a measurement? How is your definition of a star
going to be the same as someone else's? How about deciding whether you
like vanilla or chocolate ice-cream. Is that a measurement also? Or
whether you like tube amps or transistor amp. Is that a measurement
also?I believe that even Mr, Bromo said that measurements are
objective.

I measurement can be done by anyone else and have the exact same result
within the measurement error of the meter used.

If I understand you correctly, that disqualifies subjective impressions
as measurements.


Making any sort of declaration about the implications of the measurement -
that is where the objective is left and subjective takes over.

Yes and no, depending on the implications. There clearly are
implications that are objective. For example, you make a frequency
response measurement of an amplifier. The results do not meet the
published specs. One implication of the measurement is that specs are
not met, and that is objective and not subjective. Of course there are
implications, like whether the frequency response errors are acceptable
to the listener, that can be subjective.


You can make a judgement about the flavor or type of ice cream you like -
after experiencing it. You are measuring it - though you may not be
recording any data in a lab book. Your conclusions are just that - but the
tasting you do is measurement nonetheless!

I am confused here, since this contradicts what you said 2 paragraphs
ago. When you watch a movie, are you measuring it?

(S888Wheel) wrote in message news:Bg3tc.10204$eT4.6554@attbi_s54...


That does not detract from the fact that there
are incompetent products preferred by someone.

There may very well be incompetent products that are prefered by some
consumers. Many products suffer from mechanical failures due to incompetent
engineering and workmanship and yet are still favored by some consumers. many
products fail to actually meet the design goals and are still favored by some
consumers. You can see many examples of both throughout the history of the
automobile. BUT, if the product does what the designer sets out for the design
to do there is no incompetence. To call a designer's deliberate and effective
choices incompetent because you do not agree with his or her goals is
disrespectful. Plain and simple.

A claim of incompetence is about as
disrespectful as it can get.


It's disrespectful of the designer or the company producing such
product. But if you feel that disrespect transfers to the one preferring
such product, you are free to feel that way, although the intent is not
necessarily so.

There is no such thing as a 'perfect product'. Even Mercedes and
Leicas come with warrantees. I once saw a Leica Noctilux that came
right from the factory and the aperture could not be closed. Sure,
f/1.0 is quite an accomplishment, but you don't need to use it wide
open all the time!

The notion of a 'competent' amplifier is an absurdity. It says
nothing. Even products that meet every design standard in production
can fail. Our knowledge is not perfect, and materials are imperfect.
Tolerances exist in every manufactured product, even for parts used by
NASA.

If it turns out that amplifier A that measures 1% distortion 'sounds
better' than amplifier B that measures 0.1% distortion, that does not
make amplifier A 'incompetent'.

If the Leica 50mm Summilux-R has more curvature of field than the
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, but it offers more contrast and less astigmatism,
that does not make the Summilux-R 'incompetent'. It is in fact a mark
of competence that the designer has allowed what might be called
'cosmetic' flaws in order to achieve more important design goals.

On 5/26/04 8:04 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

As an RF engineer, do you think that amps with audible distortion are
competent? As an RF engineer, do you want an amp that always adds
audible distortion to all types of music? Do you believe that adding
audible distortion brings it any closer to high-fidelity?

As an engineer - it all depends upon what the design goals might be. I
invent and design to a specification - and apply what I know to avoid
badness.

In audio amplifiers - it might be preferable to allow a higher noise floor
than higher THD - then again it might not. It all depends upon the design
goal. What I feel personally is not as important as the design goal.

While I am not a fan of Carver amps - it is impressive what the man does in
trying to control and replicate colorations that many find euphonic. I
would not call him incompetent by any stretch, BTW.

In most cases, when you make design decisions, it is with the constraints of
manufacturability, performance, reliability, cost and repeatability. In
rare cases do you achieve all these elements at once - and those usually
become classic products.

If I had to choose between an amplifier that would have the harsh grain of
high odd order harmonics, or one with limited bandwidth but was much
smoother - I would probably take the limited bandwidth, in all honesty.

It is an interesting perspective you take on this - but as an engineer, as
you asked, the right answer is always - WHAT WAS THE DESIGN GOAL in the case
in question.

Good engineering hit the goal with acceptable tradeoffs, and delivers a
good, economically efficient package that give acceptable performance to a
given specification.

Bromo wrote:

On 5/26/04 10:25 AM, in article 5N1tc.115702$536.21527293@attbi_s03, "chung"
wrote:

We cannot be sure which, if any, relate to sonic character...


You do not have to be sure about whether a measurement is relevant or
not to call it objective.

You are correct, but it might not be useful, either.


Well, no one ever said that all measurements are equally useful...


Example: frequency response of an amplifier. It is objective, regardless
of whether you believe it is relevant for *you* or not.

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Scott Wheeler wrote:

From: Chung
Date: 5/25/2004 5:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 5/20/2004 3:55 PM Pacific
Standard Time
Message-id:

Bruce J. Richman wrote:


The "controlled listening tests" obviously involve the listeners
determining
whether the DUT's sound the same or different. This is a form of
measurement,
although on a dichotomous basis rather than an interval scale.
Every data
point recorded in an ABX test or even in a more simple A/B
comparison is
obviously a measurement of the observer's ability to differentiate
or not
differentiate between the the 2 components being evaluated.

That's got to be one of the most convoluted explanations (should I
say excuses?) I have ever seen.

So when you listen to two pieces of equipment, A and B, and you
decide A is better, have you made a measurement? According to your
definition, you have, since the fact that you prefer A over B is
obviously a measurement of your ability to differentiate between A
and B.

Seems to me that you, being a subjectivist, based on
selections/preferences on measurements, too! You're sure you're not
an objectivist?






Sure it's a measurement. It is however a subjective measurement. Kind
of like a
four star movie.

Would anyone else say that whether you decide a movie is a 3 star or 4
star movie constitutes a measurement?

People say all kinds of things. I asked my wife if I decide a movie is a four
star movie is that a measurement of the quality of that movie. She said yes.
Other opinions may vary.

How is your definition of a star
going to be the same as someone else's?

The definition is pretty standard. It is a four tier scale of excellence. But
it is a subjective measurement so not all movies will get the same number of
stars from different people.

How about deciding whether you
like vanilla or chocolate ice-cream. Is that a measurement also?

Sure it's a measure of favor. Again it is subjective.

Or
whether you like tube amps or transistor amp. Is that a measurement
also?I believe that even Mr, Bromo said that measurements are
objective.


Nobody is disputing the fact that *some* measurements afre objective in the
sense that they are performed with instrumentation in which the results can be
replicated. I see nothing in Bromo's or Scoitt Wheeler's comments to indicate
that they, or other subjectivists for that matter, believe that *all*
measurements are objective. This would appear to be a strawman erected by some
objectivists that don't agree.

Obviously Mr. Wheeler believes that not all measurements are objective;
that's the point of the debate!

Here's what Mr. Bromo said on 5/20 in a post to the thread
"Subjectivists and Objectivist..."

"I agree that data is objective - and measurements (be they ears or
electrical traces on an oscilloscope) are, too."

It would appear that Mr. Bromo, at least at one time, believes that
measurements are objective, too. Do you disagree?


Here is what a dictionary says.

Measu 5 : to estimate or appraise by a criterion measures his skill
against
his rival
An appraisal is a measurement. It is subjective and it fits all of your
questions above.


You won't find the four stars on any test bench will you?

That's why calling a movie 4-star is not a measurement.

The dictionary online agrees with me not you. Or would you say that it isn't
an
apraisal either? The online dictionary sees them as synonymous.


I also noted that you sneaked in another strawman, that measurements
require a bench.

Really? I said it "required" a bench? No. I said some measurements ( the
quality of a movie in this case) won't be found on a bench so obviously I was
saying just the opposite.


There has been a disturbing trend in this thread for subjectivists to be
continuously misrepresented by a few objectivists. Here is yet another example
of a person's comments being misrepresented to facilitate an argument against
them. Unfortunately, both Marcus and Pinkerton have engaqed in the same
behavior in my view re. various things they *allege* that I've said, but can
not prove in any way. Mr. Chung's allegation that I've said only ABX tests are
measurements is also false.

That's interesting. Here's what you said on 5/24:

"More specifically, my comments re. measurements had *only* to
do with DBT's as normally conducted, and *not* the practice of simply
listening to a product and forming a subjective impression."

That was a response to my statement that according to you, "every
listening comparison that results in a perceived, subjective, difference
is a "measurement"".

So you were saying only the subjective listening employed in DBT's are
measurements, but listening to a product and forming a subjective
impression is *not* a measurement. While Mr. Wheeler says that the
latter is, just like deciding whether to have vanilla or chocolate ice
cream constitutes a measurement.

Snip the rest, since obviously we have trouble deciding what has been
said .

"Norman Schwartz" wrote:



"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...

James Boyk once wrote that there are
only two meaningful measurements on a spec sheet: the dimensions,
which
tell
you if it'll fit on your shelf, and the weight, which tells you if
your
shelf will hold it.

He should have also considered how much "heat" it will generate ;-)

Wow; Boyk has gotten downright cogent over time. Actually with
amplifiers there
are features I find very useful such as level controls and banana
speaker
outputs on 0.75" centers. But, for the most part, the specified power
capability, given the standards for "home" and professional equipment,
has been
'met' but expectation, measurement and use.

Bromo wrote:

On 5/26/04 10:25 AM, in article yN1tc.63485$gr.6218639@attbi_s52, "chung"
wrote:

So much for
objectivists respecting preferences.

So you are assuming I'm an objectivist?

You are perfectly welcome to prefer incompetent equipment. I perfectly
respect your preference. That does not detract from the fact that there
are incompetent products preferred by someone.

"incompetent" is a subjective judgement. It is NOT data based or objective
in character.


If you have been following this thread so far, you should have realized
that my concept of "competent" is different than Mr. S888Wheel's. Hence
it is obvious that it is subjective.

Clearly those who prefer what I consider incompetent products do not
think of such products as incompetent.

From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 5/26/2004 5:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:lYJsc.58094$gr.5702314@attbi_s52...
On Tue, 25 May 2004 01:56:07 GMT, Bromo wrote:

Except that many people prefer a THD of the right H to be 1% or more -
colorations and all.

Indeed they do - but the amplifier is still fundamentally incompetent
as a high fidelity device.

That is false on its face. If MOST auditors prefer the sound of
colored amplification, then THAT is 'high fidelity' to the ideal.

Please, words do have real meanings. "High fidelity" does not mean, "most
people like it." It means, high correspondence to the source, in this case
the recording. And as it's quite trivial to design an amp with less than 1%
THD, amps with higher THD than that hardly qualify as "high fidelity."
(Note: I'm not arguing that THD is the only determinant of fidelity, by any
means. But it is one of them.)

That doesn't mean that people can't like amps with high THD, which I think
was your real point, as well as Bromo's.

Creating an amplifier that SOUNDS perfect may be harder than to
produce one that MEASURES perfect.

All empirical evidence suggests that no amp measures perfect, but many are
audibly indistinguishable from perfect.


Main Entry: high fidelity
Function: noun
Date: 1934
: the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to
the original

If a more distorted amp perceptually brings a listener closer to the sound of
live music (the original source) in a given system then it is a higher fidelity
component in that system. Some times you gotta step back and see the forrest.
You can get lost in the trees.

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 5/26/2004 5:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:



On 5/25/04 9:57 PM, in article WPSsc.8102$eT4.4361@attbi_s54, "S888Wheel"
wrote:

I am an extreme subjectivist. I attempt to listen to ONLY acoustical
performance.


So do most audiophiles. What else can you listen to in the context od
audio
evaluation?

Subjectivists are audiophiles as well as objectivists - they divide
themselves into the two camps and spend idle hours lobbing NG posts at one
another! :-)

Good one :-) But frankly I don't know any "audiophiles" in the subjectivist
sense who have a set of common materials to use for evaluation.

I just posted that I do and now you say you don't know any. What's up with
that?

I'm sure that
"some" exist but its not common.

How do you know if you can't remember one that identified himslef in such a
short time?


And I don't see any kind of consistentcy in
high-end magazine reviews either. It is true that often the big-book reviews
don't have such consistency either.

Probably becuase audiophilia is a hobby and not a clinical study.



My main point is thatn IMO and IME 'subjectivists' as a class do not
ordinarily
use ordinary techniques for help in reducing the effects of commonly known
and
easily demonstrated bias elements to help restrict perception and conclusion
to
acoustically reproduced sound.


such broad claims are not really of much value and lead to mischaracterizations
of individuals. This is the definition of prejudice.

Bromo wrote:
On 5/26/04 7:42 PM, in article 3Y9tc.29337$af3.1619587@attbi_s51, "Bruce J.
Richman" wrote:

Better still, as Mr. Wheeler suggests (and he can correct me if I'm wrong), a
moderator's decision should at some point be made to NOT permit any more posts
within a given thread when/after it has degenerated into those opposed to a
given poster's views resorting to fraudulent misrepresentatios of what the
poster has actually said.

I disagree with this sentiment. I think a moderator should keep out
personal attacks, spam and so on, but skate the fine line of passion - since
passion about high end audio is what this group is about.

all of which makes me wonder, why hasn't there been a post to
RAHE-discuss (the yahoo group for meta-discussion of RAHE)
since *January*?

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

On Wed, 26 May 2004 02:02:43 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: chung
Date: 5/25/2004 5:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:

On 5/24/04 9:34 PM, in article Loxsc.38298$zw.20454@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Of course, they could
say, any 'competent' wine must have a specific gravity between x and
y.

Quite so, as one might say that any competent amplifier should have
THD below 0.1%.

Except that many people prefer a THD of the right H to be 1% or more -
colorations and all.

So some people prefer incompetent amps. What else is new?

And with the wrong H, a 0.1% may sound grainy and
nasty. So to declare that a 0.1% might just be a subjective judgement.

Note that he said any competent amp should have THD below 0.1%. He did
not say that all amps with 0.1% THD will be competent.

Competence is in the eye of the designer. If the amp does what the designer set
out for that amp to do the amp and it's designer are competent. So much for
objectivists respecting preferences. A claim of incompetence is about as
disrespectful as it can get.

The context is *high fidelity* amplifiers, as you well know. In that
context, any amp with more than 0.1% THD at any level up to say 75% of
full power across the 20-20,000Hz band, may safely be described as
incompetent.

This is nothing to do with those who may prefer the distinctive sound
of such an amplifier, such as a SET amp, designed by someone who is
choosing to target that market.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 27 May 2004 00:19:42 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 5/26/04 10:22 AM, in article YK1tc.4335$Ly.4238@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

I would agree with that - but if the music you listen to has a dynamic range
of 20dB - that would imply to have grainless sound you would at least need
to be 65dB down from the peak.

Not at all, as the distortion artifacts will of course track the
signal, so as long as they are 45dB below the signal level at any
time, they should be inaudible.

You are making my point perfectly.

No, you are *missing* the point.

If I listen to music with loud and quiet
passages - such as some orchestral pieces - I might be at 0dB (peak) or
-20dB. If my noise floor is at -45dB then it will be audible in quieter
passages. If I account for that in my design - I would make my noise floor
AT LEAST -65dB if -20dB is as quiet as it gets.

I said nothing about the noise floor, I was discussing *distortion*,
which tracks the signal level (in any competent amp!). The level of
audibility of the noise floor is quite another matter, and is more
commonly set by room ambience than by the recording.

As CD would theoretically allow for up to 96dB of dynamic range

Actually 93, with a properly-made recording - but who's counting?

- you might
want to consider a non-quantization noise floor of -116dB to remove the
noise floor from bumping up the overall noise to the region whee it might be
audible on some pieces of music or music poorly mastered.

As I previously noted, there is no known *master tape* with a dynamic
range greater than about 80dB, so CD is more than adequate for its
purpose, and the rest of the gear need have a noise floor no lower
than say 90dB below peak level. This will still set the noise floor
below room ambience for almost all domestic hi-fi systems.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 26 May 2004 04:18:43 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:lYJsc.58094$gr.5702314@attbi_s52...
On Tue, 25 May 2004 01:56:07 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 5/24/04 9:34 PM, in article Loxsc.38298$zw.20454@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Of course, they could
say, any 'competent' wine must have a specific gravity between x and
y.

Quite so, as one might say that any competent amplifier should have
THD below 0.1%.

Except that many people prefer a THD of the right H to be 1% or more -
colorations and all.

Indeed they do - but the amplifier is still fundamentally incompetent
as a high fidelity device.

That is false on its face. If MOST auditors prefer the sound of
colored amplification, then THAT is 'high fidelity' to the ideal.

Rubbish. The output of a high fidelity amplifier is an enlarged but
otherwise *exact* representaion of its input signal. This has
*nothing* to do with personal preference, and everything to do with
the classic description of 'a straight wire with gain', coined by
Peter Walker of The Acoustical Manufacturing Company, aka QUAD.

Creating an amplifier that SOUNDS perfect may be harder than to
produce one that MEASURES perfect.

Not really - they are the same. Any amplifier which measures
perfectly, will produce at its output an *exact* replica of its input
signal. Anything else is *by definition* inferior.

Just as in lenses, wher it can be
shown that higher resolution by itself does not make 'better' lenses.
Many Leica lenses, for instance, have designs which deliberately chose
one kind of correction over another (because it is impossible to
correct fully for all aberations) because the overall image quality is
better for the purposes for which the lens is intended.

That is of course true of *all* lens designs, not just Leicas. Leitz
lenses in fact are known to have the highest edge resolution of any
design. They sacrifice a fraction of central resolution to achieve
this, but the resolution across the entire field is arguably superior
to anything bar a Zeiss equivalent.

Choices have
to be made in the design of any product, given manufacturing and
engineering constraints of the price that can be placed on the item
and sold.

Well of course. That's what engineering *is*. An engineer is someone
who can make for a dollar, what any fool can make for 10.

The Leica 50mm f/1,4 Summilux-R
http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/...jektive/63.pdf

retails for about $2200,

http://store.yahoo.com/tamarkin/la11344.html

whereas the Nikon or Canon lens of the same speed and focal length
sells for far less (about $300)

And they have inferior flatness of field and edge resolution, but
better central resolution.

http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs...&cat2= 915144

http://www.adorama.com/refby.tpl?ref...CA5014AF&st=NA

What is interesting is that VISUALLY the Leica 50mm Summilux-R rips
these other lenses to shreds,

It has marginally better edge resolution and flatness of field -
hardly 'rips to shreds'. Is this another example of a subjectivist
equating price and badge with quality? Having said that, I have a
collection of some 7,000 35mm slides, mostly shot on Kodachrome 25
with a combination of Zeiss, Minolta and Nikon optics, and there are
perhaps half a dozen where image quality is limited by the lens.

but it is possible that the Japanese
lenses may measure better in certain ways that are often considered as
contributing to the excellence of a lens (e.g., flatness of field).

No, you are utterly wrong on this point, as Zeiss and Leitz lenses are
generally superior in that measure.

I know this because I tested the earlier versions of both the Nikon 50mm
f/1.4 and the Leica 50mm Summilux-R 30 years ago, and the Leica lens
was clearly superior for taking the kind of pictures that ones uses a
high-speed lens for.

What kind of pictures would those be?

The contrast was noticeably higher in the Leica
lens;

That has *mostly* to do with the surface coating (and the number of
elements), and Zeiss T* lenses are the best in this regard.

astigmatism was less also. The lens has an amazing depth and
three-dimensionality.

Excuse me? Since when did 'depth and three-dimensionality' become lens
properties? Sounds like a simple function of contrast - and you should
note that this can also be controlled in the design of the lens. Video
lenses are an excellent example, where they have relatively low
resolution but high contrast up to the limit of that resolution.

The Leica lens had a bit more distortion in the
extreme corners and a little more vignetting (drop-off in
illumination) in the extreme corners as well as bit of curvature of
field. But for 95% of the image area, the Leica lens absolutely
trounced the Nikon lens, which was kind of blah overall. The qualities
that made the Leica lens superior were the result of:

1. Superior raw glass, which possesses more desirable optical
properties (glass not available to other mfrs)

Rubbish, if anything it's Canon who always made use of exotic glasses.

2. Superior manufacturing capabilities (target tolerances and
consistency, such as polishing to 1/10,000mm on EVERY lens)

Rubbish. Nikon, Canon and Minolta manufacturing facilities are every
bit as precise as those available to Leitz. Personally, I regard them
all as poor relations of Zeiss......................

3. Superior understanding of 'real-world' optical needs and thus
superior design decisions

Rubbish, this is a purely subjective opinion. You might be interested
to know that Nikon gained supremacy in the professional photography
world because they *deliberately* enhanced centre sharpness to give
added punch to press photographers, who invariably place their
subjects centre frame for speed and certainty, as opposed to carefully
composed 'art' photography.

So, what is the 'objective' measure of the lens?

MTF, flatness of field, contrast, chromatic aberration, and resolution
from edge to edge. Check out dpreview.com sometime.............

Without a profound
understanding of HOW the lens is being used, it is impossible to
design the best one.

No sh1t....................

So, even though the Leica lens gives up a bit in
the extreme corners to the Nikon lens, for the other 95% there is no
comparison: the Leica lens triumphs. So, even though both the Canon
and Nikon lenses are 'competent', that means nothing.

Especially since you got that comparison totally back-asswards, and
none of what you say applies to the *modern* equivalents to which you
gave URLs. Lens design has come a *long* way since the '70s, thanks to
ray-tracing computers and modern assembly techniques. The very best
lens I ever owned was a 135mm f2.8 Rokkor, but that was just a lucky
chance of components and assembly.

BTW, most serious photographers would disagree with your comparisons,
and would note that with a Zeiss Planar, you could have it all!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 26 May 2004 23:59:03 GMT, Bromo wrote:

Okay guys -

How do you choose and purchase your equipment? Do you listen to it before
plunking down your hard earned money?

For myself, I check the specs and any available technical reviews to
check that it meets my basic requirements, then I listen at home in my
own system, before parting with the hard-earned. Of course, if I'm
buying wire, I just get it off the cheapest reel I can find.... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Nousaine wrote:

* James Boyk once wrote that there are
only two meaningful measurements on a spec sheet: the dimensions,
which
tell
you if it'll fit on your shelf, and the weight, which tells you if
your
shelf will hold it.

He should have also considered how much "heat" it will generate ;-)

Wow; Boyk has gotten downright cogent over time.

Not necessarily. He wrote that in 1978.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page –
FREE download!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/...ave/direct/01/

(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote:
Even the content of such magazines as Stereophile and The
Absolute Sound, contain relatively few cable reviews, nor
do their letter columns or websites give the subject of cable
evaluations a very prominent place in comparison with the
attention devoted to other classes of equipment.

Oh really. Hmmm the latest issue of Stereophile seem to prominently
lists every cable used in every review.

Of course. I don't think a system can produce an output without
interconnects or loudspeaker cables.

A study of one of the last few years Reviewed Components for
the previous years showed 12% were cabling; more than any other
single product category except digital components and
loudspeakers (21% each.) MORE than preamplifiers, power amps,
integrated amps, phono carts, turntables, tuners, and headphones.

Which years was that Mr. Nousaine? If you go to the overall index
of components reviewed by Stereophile (accessible at
http://www.stereophile.com/images/ma...dex/index.html),
you would get a different impression. For example, Stereophile
has published 116 reviews of cables between 1962 and the end of
2003. Admittedly, some of the reviews indexed were of more than
one cable, but to give that number a context, Stereophile also
reviewed 116 headphones and headphone amplifiers in the same
period. We also reviewed 269 FM tuners, 317 preamplifiers...
835 loudspeakers. I think the picture is clear.

With respect, I suggest you are merely dredging among the data
to support your conclusion.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

(S888Wheel) wrote:

:
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 5/26/2004 5:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:



On 5/25/04 9:57 PM, in article WPSsc.8102$eT4.4361@attbi_s54, "S888Wheel"
wrote:

I am an extreme subjectivist. I attempt to listen to ONLY acoustical
performance.


So do most audiophiles. What else can you listen to in the context od
audio
evaluation?

Subjectivists are audiophiles as well as objectivists - they divide
themselves into the two camps and spend idle hours lobbing NG posts at one
another! :-)

Good one :-) But frankly I don't know any "audiophiles" in the subjectivist
sense who have a set of common materials to use for evaluation.

I just posted that I do and now you say you don't know any. What's up with
that?

I don't know you. I only see what you say on line. Not that I disagree with you
on this point; it's just that I don't "see" people who call themselves
"audiophiles" using common material for evaluation. And as far as I can see
there isn't any consistency of programs in written high-end reviews.

I'm sure that
"some" exist but its not common.

As above.

How do you know if you can't remember one that identified himslef in such a
short time?

As above.

And I don't see any kind of consistentcy in
high-end magazine reviews either. It is true that often the big-book reviews
don't have such consistency either.

Probably becuase audiophilia is a hobby and not a clinical study.

But written evaluations in print are taken to be a sign of proficiency.


My main point is thatn IMO and IME 'subjectivists' as a class do not
ordinarily
use ordinary techniques for help in reducing the effects of commonly known
and
easily demonstrated bias elements to help restrict perception and conclusion
to
acoustically reproduced sound.


such broad claims are not really of much value and lead to
mischaracterizations
of individuals. This is the definition of prejudice.

Prejudice? Wow; you don't believe that all of my amplifiers sound the same? Why
not come here are listen to them yourself?

I think that you probably believe that your amplifier(s) sound different from
one another. Why not show me that this is true with a bias-controlled test in
your reference system?

(John Atkinson) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote:
Even the content of such magazines as Stereophile and The
Absolute Sound, contain relatively few cable reviews, nor
do their letter columns or websites give the subject of cable
evaluations a very prominent place in comparison with the
attention devoted to other classes of equipment.

Oh really. Hmmm the latest issue of Stereophile seem to prominently
lists every cable used in every review.

Of course. I don't think a system can produce an output without
interconnects or loudspeaker cables.

A study of one of the last few years Reviewed Components for
the previous years showed 12% were cabling; more than any other
single product category except digital components and
loudspeakers (21% each.) MORE than preamplifiers, power amps,
integrated amps, phono carts, turntables, tuners, and headphones.

Which years was that Mr. Nousaine? If you go to the overall index
of components reviewed by Stereophile (accessible at
http://www.stereophile.com/images/ma...dex/index.html),
you would get a different impression. For example, Stereophile
has published 116 reviews of cables between 1962 and the end of
2003. Admittedly, some of the reviews indexed were of more than
one cable, but to give that number a context, Stereophile also
reviewed 116 headphones and headphone amplifiers in the same
period. We also reviewed 269 FM tuners, 317 preamplifiers...
835 loudspeakers. I think the picture is clear.

With respect, I suggest you are merely dredging among the data
to support your conclusion.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Thank you for the updated count. It would appear from your numbers that for
every 3 preamplifiers and every 8 loudspeakers you publish a wire review. My
listing was from the year 2001 as I recall.

That was back when you were still claiming the RCL had 700+ Recommended
Components when there were fewer than 550 on the List. Pretty good dredging job
I'd say.

Actually at a PSACS meeting during that time a member made a caustic remark
that he thought most every amplifier Stereophile reviewed appeared on the RCL.
Accordingly we grabbed the January list of components reviewed for the priort
year and compared it to the spring RCL list.

The answer to the question "How Many of the Amplifiers Reviewed in the prior
year appeared on the RCL?" could be simply stated "all of them." A casual
examination seemed to indicate the same answer looked to hold pretty much true
for many product categories.

I guess you don't need to analyze data when you've never met an amplifier you
didn't like :-) It seemed to me at the time that the old complaint about
Julian Hirsch could have been equally well applied to Stereophile.