John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
If that's your reaction to my presentation, Mr.
Krueger, then there must have been a reason why
you are saying now that I am lying but didn't say so
then.

Where might you have lied, John?

Go play your word games with soneone else, Mr. Krueger.

There's no word game here, John. You've made a specific
claim, which should be easy for you to back up. I've
politely asked you to back that claim up. Now, you're making
weird sounds about word games.


Now do tell us: if, when we debated in person, you
thought I was lying about my experiences with
amplifiers,
why didn't you say so then?

Where have I said that since then?

groups.google.com

How Middius-like of you John.

So John, you again have no evidence to back up your claim.

Sad.

Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
If that's your reaction to my presentation, Mr.
Krueger, then there must have been a reason why
you are saying now that I am lying but didn't say so
then.

Where might you have lied, John?

Go play your word games with [someone else], Mr. Krueger.

There's no word game here, John. You've made a specific
claim, which should be easy for you to back up.

Please note that I am not saying _I_ lied, Mr. Krueger, as
you imply in your "have you stopped beating your wife" question,
I am saying _you_ made such a claim. In the past, Mr. Krueger,
when you have made similar demands I have gone to the trouble of
searching the newsgroups, citing message IDs and exact quotes,
only for you to disappear from the thread or to claim that you
didn't say the exact word the Google record shows you as saying.

But I will take pity on you, given your poor track record in
search engine skills: the word you used to describe my
argument in the first of several messages was "horsefeathers."
If you are willing to admit that your use of this word was _not_
intended in nay disparaging way, that it was _not_ meant to show
unsupported disagreement with my case (one that, BTW, you have not
yet offered any meaningful arguments against), then I will consider
the matter closed.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
If that's your reaction to my presentation, Mr.
Krueger, then there must have been a reason why
you are saying now that I am lying but didn't say so
then.

Where might you have lied, John?

Go play your word games with [someone else], Mr.
Krueger.

There's no word game here, John. You've made a specific
claim, which should be easy for you to back up.

Please note that I am not saying _I_ lied, Mr. Krueger, as
you imply in your "have you stopped beating your wife"
question,
I am saying _you_ made such a claim. In the past, Mr.
Krueger,
when you have made similar demands I have gone to the
trouble of
searching the newsgroups, citing message IDs and exact
quotes,
only for you to disappear from the thread or to claim that
you
didn't say the exact word the Google record shows you as
saying.

But I will take pity on you, given your poor track record
in
search engine skills: the word you used to describe my
argument in the first of several messages was
"horsefeathers."
If you are willing to admit that your use of this word was
_not_
intended in nay disparaging way, that it was _not_ meant
to show
unsupported disagreement with my case (one that, BTW, you
have not
yet offered any meaningful arguments against), then I
will consider
the matter closed.

I can't believe that I have to lecture an accomplished
wordsmith like John Atkinson on the differences between
lying, unintentional falsehoods, and vigorous disagreement.

But, so be it. Since pity seems to be the order of a day -
here's a little pity for you, John.

In the Krooglish lexicon, horsefeathers is mostly someplace
in and among unitentional falsehoods and disagreement.

Arny Krueger wrote:
x`ScottW wrote:


I am not keeping company. I found Arny's comments
completely
contradictory to his usenet comments in both content and
demeanor.

That speaks to your perceptual difficulties, Scott.


What is it they say when both sides are bitching at you?

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
x`ScottW wrote:


I am not keeping company. I found Arny's comments
completely
contradictory to his usenet comments in both content and
demeanor.

That speaks to your perceptual difficulties, Scott.


What is it they say when both sides are bitching at you?

ScottW


Often, it means that you have taken a sensible position.

That said, Scott, I will say that I agree with Arny that the position
he took in the "Great Debate" _was not_ contradictory to
what he has said in the past. It *was* less extreme and more nuanced
than what many (including Atkinson, it seems) expected and made the
debate less 'black and white'.

wrote:
ScottW wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
x`ScottW wrote:


I am not keeping company. I found Arny's comments
completely
contradictory to his usenet comments in both content and
demeanor.

That speaks to your perceptual difficulties, Scott.


What is it they say when both sides are bitching at you?

ScottW


Often, it means that you have taken a sensible position.

That said, Scott, I will say that I agree with Arny that the position
he took in the "Great Debate" _was not_ contradictory to
what he has said in the past. It *was* less extreme and more nuanced
than what many (including Atkinson, it seems) expected and made the
debate less 'black and white'.

He brought up a bunch of irrelevant hogwash. His "discovery" that he
can show sonic differences of amps by running output back thru the amp
5 times and showing sonic differences has zero bearing on the amps
transparency in normal application.

It was irrelevant bs and left him with nothing to debate but that the
differences between amps amounts to a matter of degree and revealing
undefined concepts like audio hygiene. I'm sure all the golden ears
loved that.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
is the clash with your own belief system so extreme that you don't
have any problem with the company you are keeping?

Pathetic defense unworthy of you.

Yes, it was a cheap shot. My apologies.

Bottom line is this - your experience does nothing to bring into
question the validity of the DBT protocol nor your personal test
experience.

I disagree on both counts, for the reasons I have given. I suggest
we agree to disagree.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

****-for-Brains poops on himself.

Where have I said that since then?

groups.google.com

How Middius-like of you John.

No, idiot, that was Krooger-like of him, and a deliberate mockery of your
****ful self.

As time goes by, one often wonders if you will continue to exhibit even
more profound stupidity than you have in the past. The world turns, and
you continue to do so. Sad. ;-(™

John Atkinson wrote:
ScottW wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message
oups.com...
is the clash with your own belief system so extreme that you
don't
have any problem with the company you are keeping?

Pathetic defense unworthy of you.

Yes, it was a cheap shot. My apologies.

Mine as well.


Bottom line is this - your experience does nothing to bring into
question the validity of the DBT protocol nor your personal test
experience.

I disagree on both counts, for the reasons I have given. I suggest
we agree to disagree.

Well that is something Arny certainly cannot do Agreed.

ScottW

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...
severian wrote:
Lecson? Was it one of those cylindrical, fan cooled, Class A
beauties? I worked at a store that sold them and the
associated preamp and tuner, and they were sexy pieces of gear!

Cylindrical, but the one I owned was not fan-cooled and used
conventional class-AB output stage. Originally designed by Meridian's
Bob Stuart long before Meridian. The preamp used FET switching but its
horizontal form factor was prone to dust contamination in the sliders.

And yes, sexy as all get-out.

Ah, if memory serves me correctly (I've been watching too many Iron Chef
episodes), that was the 50 w/ch one, the larger fan cooled one was 100 w/ch.
I thought those amps were the bees knees back then, would still love to have
one now. We had them displayed on a low table, with the amp, preamp, and one
of those sexy Micro Seiki three armed skeletal turntables. Definitely was
just oozing sex appeal, and to this day one of the best looking setups I can
recall. I recall it sounded quite fabulous driving a pair of Dahlquist
DQ-10's.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

I see. You routinely impugn the honesty and integrity of
others
(Krueger and Ferstler come readily to mind), but, when
applied to
you, the accusation of lying is "beneath contempt".

Those guys lie as a matter of habbit. Calling them liars
is simply calling it like it is.

I therefore conclude that responding to Scott's posts is a
waste of my time. I shall stop doing so, immediately.

I've decided to take the same tack...or rather, I'm done
posting to RAO for now, and not responding to Scott here
is just a fringe benefit of that...of course he's there,
too, spending inordinate amounts of time arguing about the
facts of audio, for someone who calls it just a hobby...so it's
not like I'm missing any opportunities.




Yeah right. You spend a hell of a lot more time there than I do. If I
am spending an inordinate amount of time there perhaps it's time for
you to check yourself into a 12 step program. Speaking of which, you
are responding to a guy with over 100,000 Usenet posts. Now that
wouldn't represent an inordinant amount of time would it? But keep up
the support of the frauds and the psudoscientists. They need all the
help they can get.



Scott Wheeler

Scott "willing sucker" Wheeler wrote:

But keep up
the support of the frauds and the psudoscientists. They need all the
help they can get.


I haven't noticed Steve Sullivan supporting Atkinson and Stereopile.
Did I miss something?

wrote:
Scott "willing sucker" Wheeler wrote:

But keep up
the support of the frauds and the psudoscientists. They need all
the
help they can get.


I haven't noticed Steve Sullivan supporting Atkinson and Stereopile.
Did I miss something?




The lesson on how to be a self-supporting productive person?



Scott Wheeler

ScottW wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
x`ScottW wrote:


I am not keeping company. I found Arny's comments
completely
contradictory to his usenet comments in both content and
demeanor.

That speaks to your perceptual difficulties, Scott.


What is it they say when both sides are bitching at you?

You're way smarter than they are and are unfortunately
talking over their heads.

The Big **** squats another pot-full™.

What is it they say when both sides are bitching at you?

You're way smarter than they are and are unfortunately
talking over their heads.

By "they", he didn't mean the voices in your head. He meant "other human
beings". That is unfortunately a subject on which you're not qualified to
speak.

George M. Middius wrote:
Arny Krueger commented:
John Atkinson answered
Arny Krueger asked:
Where have I said that since then?

groups.google.com

How Middius-like of you John.

No, idiot, that was Krooger-like of him, and a
deliberate mockery of your ****ful self.

I guess I was the idiot in expecting my quoting
of Mr. Krueger's oft-made answer to have an
effect on someone who apparently doesn't even
have a glimmer of self-awareness. :-(

And Mr. Krueger has explained that he wasn't
accusing me of lying but of uttering "inadvertent
falsehoods," then that's all right, then. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:

snipped

And Mr. Krueger has explained that he wasn't
accusing me of lying but of uttering "inadvertent
falsehoods," then that's all right, then. :-)



Being seen as "uttering inadvertent falsehoods" is the only way that
you can escape being perceived as sleazy. Better a boob than a sleaze
ball.

wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:

snipped

And Mr. Krueger has explained that he wasn't
accusing me of lying but of uttering "inadvertent
falsehoods," then that's all right, then. :-)



Being seen as "uttering inadvertent falsehoods" is the
only way that
you can escape being perceived as sleazy. Better a boob
than a sleaze
ball.

Seems like a fitting response to Atkinson's pandering to
Middius.

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:

snipped

And Mr. Krueger has explained that he wasn't
accusing me of lying but of uttering "inadvertent
falsehoods," then that's all right, then. :-)



Being seen as "uttering inadvertent falsehoods" is the
only way that
you can escape being perceived as sleazy. Better a boob
than a sleaze
ball.

Seems like a fitting response to Atkinson's pandering to
Middius.


After what he wrote to ScottW, isn't it strange that Atkinson seems
unconcerned with the company he himself keeps. :-(

John Atkinson said:

No, idiot, that was Krooger-like of him, and a
deliberate mockery of your ****ful self.

I guess I was the idiot in expecting my quoting
of Mr. Krueger's oft-made answer to have an
effect on someone who apparently doesn't even
have a glimmer of self-awareness. :-(

That was a newbie's mistake. I hope you're just tired, John. :-)

And Mr. Krueger has explained that he wasn't
accusing me of lying but of uttering "inadvertent
falsehoods," then that's all right, then. :-)

As Krooger has claimed in the past, if he'd said what he meant, then he'd
have been right. (The inverse of that assertion -- that he means what he
says -- never seems to come into the picture, of course.)

Cue Little **** to call JA names and pat Lionella on her pointy head....

Arny said:


I can't believe that I have to lecture an accomplished
wordsmith like John Atkinson on the differences between
lying, unintentional falsehoods, and vigorous disagreement.


Then you must be slipping. JA has made hairsplitting an art form.

Robert Morein said:

John,
You, alone of all the participants in this newsgroup, have
retained your
dignity under all circumstances. Don't get sucked under now. You speak
from
a higher platform and with greater authority than anyone else on this
newgroup. As it happens, I've become aware of an argument that
objective
reality does not exist at all:

The problem is that if that were true, there's no way you could know,
which may be good for magazine sales but make for very bad appliances.

Mike McKelvy wrote:


snipped


JA has made hairsplitting an art form.


Don't forget slippery and evasive. These "talents" allow him to avoid
commenting on frauds such as Shakti Stones by saying that he hasn't had
a chance to evaluate them in his system. What a crock! :-(

wrote:
Mike McKelvy wrote:


snipped

JA has made hairsplitting an art form.

Hairsplitting is just a subset of his high level of
production of red herrings and straw men.

Don't forget slippery and evasive.

Note how he takes responsibility for his elusiveness at
HE2005.

These "talents" allow him to avoid
commenting on frauds such as Shakti Stones by saying that
he hasn't
had a chance to evaluate them in his system.

Take that as a tacit admission that Shatki products aren't
worth anyone's time to evaluation.

What a crock! :-(

Or, learn to read between the lines of your typical Atkinson
post.

ScottW goes one-on-one with JA

The M&A gave a sound that I preferred with the LS3/5as. (I still have

both,
BTW.)
So



the only available conclusion, accepting all your experience is that
the
two amps sound the same on BC1s but not on LS3/5as. The conclusion
that DBTs
are flawed is not supported

Especially when you consider that DBT's were used by the BBC when they
decided that LS3/5a and their brethren must go the way of the dodo.
They set up a series of DBT's to decide on their next, more accurate
speakers, Dynaudio.


as your anecdotal experience introduces critical
variance from the test. That is the end of the story. For you to
argue
further is mere postulation. Plenty of that around here.

JA does mock indignation:

Now do tell us: if, when we debated in person, you
thought I was lying about my experiences with amplifiers,

I doubt that anybody thinks you're lying about your experiences with
amps, it's just that:
A: being subjective they can't be said to have even happened for sure
B: Being subjective and sighted they don't really mean anything.

Take your pick.

why didn't you say so then? After all, that was your
golden opportunity to make such an accusation on the
record, in public, in front of an audience, knowing
that the recording of the debate would be made
available to anyone who cared to download it. What
better opportunity would you have had for exposing the
error in my case?

The error of your case has been hammered home many times, you just
choose to ignore it.

Mike McKelvy wrote:
JA does mock indignation:

Now do tell us: if, when we debated in person, you
thought I was lying about my experiences with amplifiers,

I doubt that anybody thinks you're lying about your experiences with
amps, it's just that:
A: being subjective they can't be said to have even happened for
sure


Balony. There is no question that John is 1. either lying or 2. Was
dissatisfied with the sound of his system with the Quad amp in it.




B: Being subjective and sighted they don't really mean anything.


Except that he didn't enjoy listening to music anymore. I guess that is
meaningless in the objectivist world of audio?




Take your pick.


I pick enjoying audio. I think John made the right move ofr him.





why didn't you say so then? After all, that was your
golden opportunity to make such an accusation on the
record, in public, in front of an audience, knowing
that the recording of the debate would be made
available to anyone who cared to download it. What
better opportunity would you have had for exposing the
error in my case?

The error of your case has been hammered home many times, you just
choose to ignore it.


No. No objectivist has offered a solution to the problem his "case"
presents. Instead you guys dance around the problem and find the error
in John for percieving what he percieved. That is ridiculous. That
position basically demands that audiophiles ignore their perceptions
because they may not fit within the objectivist model of audio. No
thank you.






Scott Wheeler

Scott said:

No objectivist has offered a solution to the problem his "case"
presents. Instead you guys dance around the problem and find the error
in John for percieving what he percieved. That is ridiculous. That
position basically demands that audiophiles ignore their perceptions
because they may not fit within the objectivist model of audio.

Nicely put. I'd only add that for Them ('borgs, not objectivists),
maintaining religious faith is more important than enjoying music.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scott said:

No objectivist has offered a solution to the problem his "case"
presents. Instead you guys dance around the problem and find the error
in John for percieving what he percieved. That is ridiculous. That
position basically demands that audiophiles ignore their perceptions
because they may not fit within the objectivist model of audio.

Nicely put. I'd only add that for Them ('borgs, not objectivists),
maintaining religious faith is more important than enjoying music.

So you guys really think that his experience demonstrates that the DBT of
the Quad John sited must have failed to detect small but real sonic
differences? It's this conclusion that I cannot accept. Speakers is far
too large a variable for me to accept left uncontrolled.

ScottW

Scottieborg said:

No objectivist has offered a solution to the problem his "case"
presents. Instead you guys dance around the problem and find the error
in John for percieving what he percieved. That is ridiculous. That
position basically demands that audiophiles ignore their perceptions
because they may not fit within the objectivist model of audio.

Nicely put. I'd only add that for Them ('borgs, not objectivists),
maintaining religious faith is more important than enjoying music.

So you guys really think that his experience demonstrates that the DBT of
the Quad John sited[sic] must have failed to detect small but real sonic
differences? It's this conclusion that I cannot accept. Speakers is far
too large a variable for me to accept left uncontrolled.

"Tests" are idiotic for consumers. There is no "science" involved in
choosing your toys. Give John credit for realizing that early on despite his
education and vocation. Your problem is obviously based on the prices of
stuff, not on its performance.

ScottW wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scott said:

No objectivist has offered a solution to the problem his "case"
presents. Instead you guys dance around the problem and find the
error
in John for percieving what he percieved. That is ridiculous. That
position basically demands that audiophiles ignore their
perceptions
because they may not fit within the objectivist model of audio.

Nicely put. I'd only add that for Them ('borgs, not objectivists),
maintaining religious faith is more important than enjoying music.

So you guys really think that his experience demonstrates that the
DBT of
the Quad John sited must have failed to detect small but real sonic
differences?


I don't know. Too many variables. I do believe that he followed the
protocols widely accepted and promoted by objectivists as *the* way to
make a determination about amplifier sound and in effect amplifier
choice. I do believe that John fully expected to be satisfied with the
results of the test and the choice of amplifier based on that
experience and prior beliefs. I believe John when he says he was no
longer satisfied with his choice that was made by following
objectivists protocols based on listening to his system with the Quad
amp.



It's this conclusion that I cannot accept. Speakers is far
too large a variable for me to accept left uncontrolled.



He changed speakers? I thought the only thing John changed in his
system was the amp.



Scott Wheeler

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scottieborg said:

No objectivist has offered a solution to the problem his "case"
presents. Instead you guys dance around the problem and find the error
in John for percieving what he percieved. That is ridiculous. That
position basically demands that audiophiles ignore their perceptions
because they may not fit within the objectivist model of audio.

Nicely put. I'd only add that for Them ('borgs, not objectivists),
maintaining religious faith is more important than enjoying music.

So you guys really think that his experience demonstrates that the DBT
of
the Quad John sited[sic] must have failed to detect small but real sonic
differences? It's this conclusion that I cannot accept. Speakers is
far
too large a variable for me to accept left uncontrolled.

"Tests" are idiotic for consumers.

Agreed but John is hardly a mere consumer now, is he?

There is no "science" involved in
choosing your toys.

There can be for those who choose, I don't condemn those who don't though.

Give John credit for realizing that early on despite his
education and vocation. Your problem is obviously based on the prices of
stuff, not on its performance.

Yeah, that's it George...obviously.

ScottW

wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scott said:

No objectivist has offered a solution to the problem his "case"
presents. Instead you guys dance around the problem and find the
error
in John for percieving what he percieved. That is ridiculous. That
position basically demands that audiophiles ignore their
perceptions
because they may not fit within the objectivist model of audio.

Nicely put. I'd only add that for Them ('borgs, not objectivists),
maintaining religious faith is more important than enjoying music.

So you guys really think that his experience demonstrates that the
DBT of
the Quad John sited must have failed to detect small but real sonic
differences?


I don't know. Too many variables. I do believe that he followed the
protocols widely accepted and promoted by objectivists as *the* way to
make a determination about amplifier sound and in effect amplifier
choice. I do believe that John fully expected to be satisfied with the
results of the test and the choice of amplifier based on that
experience and prior beliefs.

I don't know anyone who thinks speakers aren't the overriding factor in
system sound. The subtlety of amp changes can't be extrapolated to a
different system. If he wants to claim PCABX has flaws... then he must
accept his conclusion is flawed by a masking factor equal to any in PCABX.

I believe John when he says he was no
longer satisfied with his choice that was made by following
objectivists protocols based on listening to his system with the Quad
amp.



It's this conclusion that I cannot accept. Speakers is far
too large a variable for me to accept left uncontrolled.



He changed speakers? I thought the only thing John changed in his
system was the amp.

The test was with different speakers than those in his system.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scott said:

No objectivist has offered a solution to the problem his "case"
presents. Instead you guys dance around the problem and find
the
error
in John for percieving what he percieved. That is ridiculous.
That
position basically demands that audiophiles ignore their
perceptions
because they may not fit within the objectivist model of audio.

Nicely put. I'd only add that for Them ('borgs, not
objectivists),
maintaining religious faith is more important than enjoying
music.

So you guys really think that his experience demonstrates that the
DBT of
the Quad John sited must have failed to detect small but real
sonic
differences?


I don't know. Too many variables. I do believe that he followed the
protocols widely accepted and promoted by objectivists as *the* way
to
make a determination about amplifier sound and in effect amplifier
choice. I do believe that John fully expected to be satisfied with
the
results of the test and the choice of amplifier based on that
experience and prior beliefs.

I don't know anyone who thinks speakers aren't the overriding
factor in
system sound.


John's speakers didn't change though. Just the amp.




The subtlety of amp changes can't be extrapolated to a
different system.


I would agree. However common objectivist opinion of the time and for
the most part to this day runs contrary to that belief. At worst there
is the old "they all sound the same until clipping" mantra to the "they
all sound the same until clipping with odd exceptions of amp/speaker
mismatch" mantra. Was there any reason to believe that there was a
mismatch between John's speakers and the Quad amp that would lead an
objectivist to expect a different sound from the Quad amp? The Quad
certianly wasn't the sort of amp that objectivists like to brand as
"incompetent" such OTLs or SETs.



If he wants to claim PCABX has flaws... then he must
accept his conclusion is flawed by a masking factor equal to any in
PCABX.



I think he does accept that his conclusion is anecdotal and that there
are alternative possible explinations. The problem for objectivists is
their protocols do nothing to solve the problem whether John's
conclusions were accuracte or eroneous. So I'm not sure that it really
matters whether his conclusion was the correct conclusion or not.
Unless one wants to question his honesty (something some idiots seem to
want to do) there is no questioning his intiial claim of
dissatisfaction. you can only question his conclusion as for the cause.




I believe John when he says he was no
longer satisfied with his choice that was made by following
objectivists protocols based on listening to his system with the
Quad
amp.



It's this conclusion that I cannot accept. Speakers is far
too large a variable for me to accept left uncontrolled.



He changed speakers? I thought the only thing John changed in his
system was the amp.

The test was with different speakers than those in his system.


Something that has plagued every objectivist demonstration of the
nonexistance of amp sound. But it has never stopped that group from
pronouncing amp sound is a myth and one need not worry about amp sound
when considering the purchase of any "competent" amp with enough power
to drive the speakers in question. *That* was the conclusion that
*reenforced* from that single blind test but they (including John) held
those beliefs on a more universal level prior to taking the test. John,
as an objectivist, already believed that all amps sound the same when
used within their power limmits. The test just drove the point home and
lead him to believe he should save money by buying the less expensive
Quad amp.




Scott Wheeler

wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scott said:

No objectivist has offered a solution to the problem his "case"
presents. Instead you guys dance around the problem and find
the
error
in John for percieving what he percieved. That is ridiculous.
That
position basically demands that audiophiles ignore their
perceptions
because they may not fit within the objectivist model of audio.

Nicely put. I'd only add that for Them ('borgs, not
objectivists),
maintaining religious faith is more important than enjoying
music.

So you guys really think that his experience demonstrates that the
DBT of
the Quad John sited must have failed to detect small but real
sonic
differences?


I don't know. Too many variables. I do believe that he followed the
protocols widely accepted and promoted by objectivists as *the* way
to
make a determination about amplifier sound and in effect amplifier
choice. I do believe that John fully expected to be satisfied with
the
results of the test and the choice of amplifier based on that
experience and prior beliefs.

I don't know anyone who thinks speakers aren't the overriding
factor in
system sound.


John's speakers didn't change though. Just the amp.




The subtlety of amp changes can't be extrapolated to a
different system.


I would agree. However common objectivist opinion of the time and for
the most part to this day runs contrary to that belief. At worst there
is the old "they all sound the same until clipping" mantra to the "they
all sound the same until clipping with odd exceptions of amp/speaker
mismatch" mantra. Was there any reason to believe that there was a
mismatch between John's speakers and the Quad amp that would lead an
objectivist to expect a different sound from the Quad amp? The Quad
certianly wasn't the sort of amp that objectivists like to brand as
"incompetent" such OTLs or SETs.



If he wants to claim PCABX has flaws... then he must
accept his conclusion is flawed by a masking factor equal to any in
PCABX.



I think he does accept that his conclusion is anecdotal and that there
are alternative possible explinations. The problem for objectivists is
their protocols do nothing to solve the problem whether John's
conclusions were accuracte or eroneous. So I'm not sure that it really
matters whether his conclusion was the correct conclusion or not.
Unless one wants to question his honesty (something some idiots seem to
want to do) there is no questioning his intiial claim of
dissatisfaction. you can only question his conclusion as for the cause.




I believe John when he says he was no
longer satisfied with his choice that was made by following
objectivists protocols based on listening to his system with the
Quad
amp.



It's this conclusion that I cannot accept. Speakers is far
too large a variable for me to accept left uncontrolled.



He changed speakers? I thought the only thing John changed in his
system was the amp.

The test was with different speakers than those in his system.


Something that has plagued every objectivist demonstration of the
nonexistance of amp sound. But it has never stopped that group from
pronouncing amp sound is a myth and one need not worry about amp sound
when considering the purchase of any "competent" amp with enough power
to drive the speakers in question. *That* was the conclusion that
*reenforced* from that single blind test but they (including John) held
those beliefs on a more universal level prior to taking the test. John,
as an objectivist, already believed that all amps sound the same when
used within their power limmits. The test just drove the point home and
lead him to believe he should save money by buying the less expensive
Quad amp.

You keep extrapolating beyond my position which is simple... the rejection
of the DBT protocol was not justified by the argument put forth in the
debate.

It was touted as a debate, so I am critiquing the debate. IMO, John failed
to justify his rejection of the DBT protocol. Arny failed to point this
out in rebuttal. Lose-lose.

All this other mantra about what was generally believed etc isn't relevant
to my statement nor was substantially put forth in the debate.
But, in support of John's experience it has been shown that the Quad amp
wasn't all that competent so perhaps the speakers in the test didn't have
sufficient clarity to reveal what he grew to hate at home. We'll never know
for sure.

If you want to argue that DBT of amps and inaudibility or audibility of
differences can be extrapolated to substantially different listening
conditions and equipment... then you're diving into the realm that is
addressed by that spec Arny references all the time. Perhaps it is possible
to establish rigorous enough control of test conditions and protocols to be
able to do that. I don't know, but that is a completely different argument.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in
message
...


Scott said:

No objectivist has offered a solution to the problem his
"case"
presents. Instead you guys dance around the problem and find
the
error
in John for percieving what he percieved. That is
ridiculous.
That
position basically demands that audiophiles ignore their
perceptions
because they may not fit within the objectivist model of
audio.

Nicely put. I'd only add that for Them ('borgs, not
objectivists),
maintaining religious faith is more important than enjoying
music.

So you guys really think that his experience demonstrates that
the
DBT of
the Quad John sited must have failed to detect small but real
sonic
differences?


I don't know. Too many variables. I do believe that he followed
the
protocols widely accepted and promoted by objectivists as *the*
way
to
make a determination about amplifier sound and in effect
amplifier
choice. I do believe that John fully expected to be satisfied
with
the
results of the test and the choice of amplifier based on that
experience and prior beliefs.

I don't know anyone who thinks speakers aren't the overriding
factor in
system sound.


John's speakers didn't change though. Just the amp.




The subtlety of amp changes can't be extrapolated to a
different system.


I would agree. However common objectivist opinion of the time and
for
the most part to this day runs contrary to that belief. At worst
there
is the old "they all sound the same until clipping" mantra to the
"they
all sound the same until clipping with odd exceptions of
amp/speaker
mismatch" mantra. Was there any reason to believe that there was a
mismatch between John's speakers and the Quad amp that would lead
an
objectivist to expect a different sound from the Quad amp? The Quad
certianly wasn't the sort of amp that objectivists like to brand as
"incompetent" such OTLs or SETs.



If he wants to claim PCABX has flaws... then he must
accept his conclusion is flawed by a masking factor equal to any
in
PCABX.



I think he does accept that his conclusion is anecdotal and that
there
are alternative possible explinations. The problem for objectivists
is
their protocols do nothing to solve the problem whether John's
conclusions were accuracte or eroneous. So I'm not sure that it
really
matters whether his conclusion was the correct conclusion or not.
Unless one wants to question his honesty (something some idiots
seem to
want to do) there is no questioning his intiial claim of
dissatisfaction. you can only question his conclusion as for the
cause.




I believe John when he says he was no
longer satisfied with his choice that was made by following
objectivists protocols based on listening to his system with the
Quad
amp.



It's this conclusion that I cannot accept. Speakers is far
too large a variable for me to accept left uncontrolled.



He changed speakers? I thought the only thing John changed in
his
system was the amp.

The test was with different speakers than those in his system.


Something that has plagued every objectivist demonstration of the
nonexistance of amp sound. But it has never stopped that group from
pronouncing amp sound is a myth and one need not worry about amp
sound
when considering the purchase of any "competent" amp with enough
power
to drive the speakers in question. *That* was the conclusion that
*reenforced* from that single blind test but they (including John)
held
those beliefs on a more universal level prior to taking the test.
John,
as an objectivist, already believed that all amps sound the same
when
used within their power limmits. The test just drove the point home
and
lead him to believe he should save money by buying the less
expensive
Quad amp.

You keep extrapolating beyond my position which is simple... the
rejection
of the DBT protocol was not justified by the argument put forth in
the
debate.



Well I don't think that is quite what John did. I think what John did
was reject the objectivist protocol for choosing components, a protocol
that insists audiophiles either 1. accept that all amps sound the same
under *normal* conditions and not consider anything but power and cost
or 2. prove via dbts that there are audible differences between amps
before expressing a subjective opinion about their sound. I don't think
he suggested that medical research or science abandon db protocols in
their work. You see his conclusions were quite specific to the hobby of
audio and how an audiophile makes buying choices and were not a
reflection of his broader opinions on dbts in general.





It was touted as a debate, so I am critiquing the debate. IMO, John
failed
to justify his rejection of the DBT protocol.


Again I don't think *that* is quite what he did. When Arny asserted
that Stereophile's subjective review protocols were "wrong" John,
assuming that Arny was in favor of age old objectivsts protocols,
offered his reason for rejecting *objectivist protocols* in favor of
the current Stereophile protocols. It just so happens that objectivist
protocols demand proof of audiophiles via dbts that components sound
different before they express an opinion and/or a preference for one
component over another based on sound. John believed in objectivism and
followed the objectivist protocols. It failed him. That is in arguable.
*Why* it failed him may not be agreed upon but that doesn't change the
fact that he was dissatisfied with the results of following the
objectivist approach to component selection. No objectivist has offered
any solution to this failure of objectivists protocols that remain
within the objectivist philosophy. Instead objectivists are simply
claiming John's conclusions were unsupported, unproven or simply not
true. That is a legitimate critique on his second conclusion, that the
blind test failed to reveal real audible differences, but it does not
address his first claim, that of dissatisfaction with the quad amp. His
choice to buy that Quad amp was based on strict objectivists beliefs
and protocols. He didn't do anything or believe anything that did not
follow objectivism in his proccess that lead him to buy the Quad amp.
Yet that choice wrought dissatisfaction. There is nothing in the
objectivist belief system or protocols that addresses *this* problem.
Arny's primary point in his opening statement basically claimed that
Stereophiles approach to subjective reviewing were basically wrong. The
gist of John's anecdote was that he turned to the Stereophile approach
to reviewing because *those* protocols worked for him when the
objectivist protocols failed him. They have contined to work for him in
his quest for better sound and satisfaction with the audiophile
experience. Arny never supported his assertions nor did he do anything
to rebut this key point.




Arny failed to point this
out in rebuttal. Lose-lose.


He also never offered any support of his basic assertion that
Stereophile is doing things wrong. He had no evidence to support his
claims and John easily rebutted those claims with sound bite zingers
that pointed out Arny's lack of evidencial support.




All this other mantra about what was generally believed etc isn't
relevant
to my statement nor was substantially put forth in the debate.


It is when you reconsider the meaning of John's anecdote. It simply
wasn't a universal rejection of db protocols as you seem to make it out
to be. The rejection was very specific to his personal experience with
the effectiveness of objectivist beliefs and protocols in choosing
components for audio. OTOH if John had never offered his personal
theory that the dbt failed to reveal real differences the point of his
story probably would not have been so easy to dance around. He offered
an easy distraction from the point of his story and that was a big
mistake IMO.




But, in support of John's experience it has been shown that the Quad
amp
wasn't all that competent so perhaps the speakers in the test didn't
have
sufficient clarity to reveal what he grew to hate at home. We'll
never know
for sure.


I agree that we will never know for sure about *why* John was
dissatisfied with the Quad. I think the objectivst philosophy and
protocols that lead to that purchase decision are pretty
incontrvertable and I think the resulting dissatifaction with that
purchase is pretty incontrvertable. That is the bigger point and IMO
trhe important one in this debate. A debate that allowed Arny to choose
the subject, That being Stereophile's protocols for subjective review
are basically wrong.







If you want to argue that DBT of amps and inaudibility or audibility
of
differences can be extrapolated to substantially different listening
conditions and equipment... then you're diving into the realm that is

addressed by that spec Arny references all the time. Perhaps it is
possible
to establish rigorous enough control of test conditions and protocols
to be
able to do that. I don't know, but that is a completely different
argument.



I don't see how it is a different argument when objectivists have been
doing this for years, taking specific anecdotal dbts and then claiming
universal truths about component sound or lack there of. I think the
real question is, in light of Arny's critique of Stereophiles protocols
for subjective reviewing, that they are basically wrong, what would
Arny propose as a better, right way of doing things? John pretty much
nipped that question in the bud IMO when he illustrated the failings of
the long held objectivist approach in his life as an audiophile. That's
not to say it fails for everyone. But clearly it fails for some. No
one, not Arny, not any of his likeminded friends have offered an answer
to that problem. *That* problem is reason J Gordon Holt created
Stereophile and it's protocols for component review. IMO *That* problem
is the base reason Stereophile has survived and thrived.



Scott Wheeler

wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in
message
...


Scott said:

No objectivist has offered a solution to the problem his
"case"
presents. Instead you guys dance around the problem and find
the
error
in John for percieving what he percieved. That is
ridiculous.
That
position basically demands that audiophiles ignore their
perceptions
because they may not fit within the objectivist model of
audio.

Nicely put. I'd only add that for Them ('borgs, not
objectivists),
maintaining religious faith is more important than enjoying
music.

So you guys really think that his experience demonstrates that
the
DBT of
the Quad John sited must have failed to detect small but real
sonic
differences?


I don't know. Too many variables. I do believe that he followed
the
protocols widely accepted and promoted by objectivists as *the*
way
to
make a determination about amplifier sound and in effect
amplifier
choice. I do believe that John fully expected to be satisfied
with
the
results of the test and the choice of amplifier based on that
experience and prior beliefs.

I don't know anyone who thinks speakers aren't the overriding
factor in
system sound.


John's speakers didn't change though. Just the amp.




The subtlety of amp changes can't be extrapolated to a
different system.


I would agree. However common objectivist opinion of the time and
for
the most part to this day runs contrary to that belief. At worst
there
is the old "they all sound the same until clipping" mantra to the
"they
all sound the same until clipping with odd exceptions of
amp/speaker
mismatch" mantra. Was there any reason to believe that there was a
mismatch between John's speakers and the Quad amp that would lead
an
objectivist to expect a different sound from the Quad amp? The Quad
certianly wasn't the sort of amp that objectivists like to brand as
"incompetent" such OTLs or SETs.



If he wants to claim PCABX has flaws... then he must
accept his conclusion is flawed by a masking factor equal to any
in
PCABX.



I think he does accept that his conclusion is anecdotal and that
there
are alternative possible explinations. The problem for objectivists
is
their protocols do nothing to solve the problem whether John's
conclusions were accuracte or eroneous. So I'm not sure that it
really
matters whether his conclusion was the correct conclusion or not.
Unless one wants to question his honesty (something some idiots
seem to
want to do) there is no questioning his intiial claim of
dissatisfaction. you can only question his conclusion as for the
cause.




I believe John when he says he was no
longer satisfied with his choice that was made by following
objectivists protocols based on listening to his system with the
Quad
amp.



It's this conclusion that I cannot accept. Speakers is far
too large a variable for me to accept left uncontrolled.



He changed speakers? I thought the only thing John changed in
his
system was the amp.

The test was with different speakers than those in his system.


Something that has plagued every objectivist demonstration of the
nonexistance of amp sound. But it has never stopped that group from
pronouncing amp sound is a myth and one need not worry about amp
sound
when considering the purchase of any "competent" amp with enough
power
to drive the speakers in question. *That* was the conclusion that
*reenforced* from that single blind test but they (including John)
held
those beliefs on a more universal level prior to taking the test.
John,
as an objectivist, already believed that all amps sound the same
when
used within their power limmits. The test just drove the point home
and
lead him to believe he should save money by buying the less
expensive
Quad amp.

You keep extrapolating beyond my position which is simple... the
rejection
of the DBT protocol was not justified by the argument put forth in
the
debate.



Well I don't think that is quite what John did. I think what John did
was reject the objectivist protocol for choosing components, a protocol
that insists audiophiles either 1. accept that all amps sound the same
under *normal* conditions and not consider anything but power and cost
or 2. prove via dbts that there are audible differences between amps
before expressing a subjective opinion about their sound. I don't think
he suggested that medical research or science abandon db protocols in
their work. You see his conclusions were quite specific to the hobby of
audio and how an audiophile makes buying choices and were not a
reflection of his broader opinions on dbts in general.





It was touted as a debate, so I am critiquing the debate. IMO, John
failed
to justify his rejection of the DBT protocol.


Again I don't think *that* is quite what he did.

Then we agree to disagree.

ScottW