Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
Hi,
I have the Paradigm Studio 100s with Denon 3300. The purpose of an upgrade is to get better 2-channel audio. I want to add a Rotel RB-1080 200watt amp and a new CD player to improve the quality of the 2-channel CD listening sound. While the Denon sounds ok, I think its not getting the full potential out of my speakers, as in the showroom when I bought them. The sound is a bit thin and the bass is lethargic. With this setup, I can hook up the Rotel amp to the Denon pre/out and use the Denon 3300 direct mode which has analogue bypass. Thus, the CD player will go to the Denon which will in turn go to the amp. But if I was to add a comprable Rotel pre/amp to the combo, how much better would the sound be for 2-channel listening? I am buying used, so I don't have the option of going to the dealer and borrow. Any recommendations are appreciated. kind regards, George |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
wrote in message oups.com... Hi, I have the Paradigm Studio 100s with Denon 3300. The purpose of an upgrade is to get better 2-channel audio. I want to add a Rotel RB-1080 200watt amp and a new CD player to improve the quality of the 2-channel CD listening sound. While the Denon sounds ok, I think its not getting the full potential out of my speakers, as in the showroom when I bought them. The sound is a bit thin and the bass is lethargic. There is a chance that adding more power will in fact provide more "oomph" to the sound from your speakers, there's an equal chance that adding a subvwoofer woould do the same. Rotel makes a very good product but from what I'm told by a service tech, their stuff is made with parts that are custom so if there is a need for repair, it can be difficult sometimes to get them. With this setup, I can hook up the Rotel amp to the Denon pre/out and use the Denon 3300 direct mode which has analogue bypass. Thus, the CD player will go to the Denon which will in turn go to the amp. The idea for using the Denon as a preamp should work, I've done it myself with a different amp and receiver without any problem until I got a dedicated premap. But if I was to add a comprable Rotel pre/amp to the combo, how much better would the sound be for 2-channel listening? Quite possibly no difference at all unless there is something wrong with the preamp section of the Denon. I am buying used, so I don't have the option of going to the dealer and borrow. Any recommendations are appreciated. Consider this as your amp. I'll wager it will sound no different and probably cost less than the used Rotel. Plus this one is new with a warranty. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
I doubt there is anything wrong with the pre-amp section of the Denon,
it's just that I'm trying to squeeze more out of the speakers. In wide opinion, while recievers may do justice for HT or small systems, from what I read Paradigm studio 100s really come alive with a dedicated amp and seperates. At the time I was buying the speakers it was not affordable to buy seperates, now I feel I should move towards them. What amp do you recommended instead of Rotel? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
In article ,
MINe 109 wrote: give the internal DAC a chance unles you're sure of your dc player. Argh. 'cd player'. Stephen |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
wrote in message oups.com... I doubt there is anything wrong with the pre-amp section of the Denon, it's just that I'm trying to squeeze more out of the speakers. In wide opinion, while recievers may do justice for HT or small systems, from what I read Paradigm studio 100s really come alive with a dedicated amp and seperates. At the time I was buying the speakers it was not affordable to buy seperates, now I feel I should move towards them. What amp do you recommended instead of Rotel? I'm sorry, I thought I had included a link to the amp I was referring to which is: http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHA500 As you can see it's 160 WPC @ 8 ohms and 230 @4 ohms with the capability to be bridged to 500 watts @ 8 ohms in mono. At the price they are selling it for you could possibly get 2 for dual mono. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article , MINe 109 wrote: give the internal DAC a chance unles you're sure of your dc player. Argh. 'cd player'. Stephen Hey, don't sweat it. Even I make typos once in awhile. :-) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
MINe 109 wrote: In article .com, wrote: Hi, I have the Paradigm Studio 100s with Denon 3300. The purpose of an upgrade is to get better 2-channel audio. I want to add a Rotel RB-1080 200watt amp and a new CD player to improve the quality of the 2-channel CD listening sound. While the Denon sounds ok, I think its not getting the full potential out of my speakers, as in the showroom when I bought them. The sound is a bit thin and the bass is lethargic. Is it possible you've connected your speakers out of phase? That would give you the symptoms you describe. Been there, done that! ;-) Suggest you power everything down, then disconnect speaker wire from receiver and speakers. Then reconnect the wire to the receiver and speakers, making sure that speaker wire is attached correctly with receiver ground going to speaker ground, and receiver positive going to speaker positive. Connecting speakers out of phase is a very common, easy-to-make mistake, but fortunately it's also easy to fix. Another thought: Maybe you accidentally set the Denon for small speakers, not for full-range speakers? If so, your Paradigms will receive little or no bass from the Denon. Check those settings on your Denon. Also see Denon manual for possible fixes. Maybe the Denon's default settings are for small speakers, so you need to set the Denon for larger speakers like your Paradigms? (snip) Be sure to exhaust your speaker placement options before giving up on the Denon amp section. The pair I heard were several feet from the wall without any bass deficiency. IOW, your problems could be with the acoustics of your room. If the problem is the acoustics of your room, adding or replacing an amp and/or a new CD player probably won't solve your problems. Adding a new amp to your Denon may make no difference at all, other than to your wallet and to adding complexity to your system. Your Denon receiver should be able to provide plenty of power. Acoustics are extremely important, yet many hobbyists ignore acoustics. See what your Paradigm manual recommends and also experiment with different locations of the speakers in your room. If you experiment with speaker placement and that doesn't solve your problems, I suggest you consider adding a powered subwoofer, as another poster suggested. Having a powered subwoofer will give you a fuller, richer sound, with more bass, and you'll be able to adjust the subwoofer to suit your needs and taste. Stephen |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
I would of course really on the DAC of the CD-player, which in this
case would probably be along the lines of Rotel RC-1070/2 or even RC-991 if I can find a used one at a good price. I also take suggestions for other CD players. Thus, I would hook it up to the reciever using analogue inputs, use the direct mode which, according to Denon, disables some of the analogue circuity (such as tonal controls, etc) and have it go out the pre/out of the reciever to the Rotel amp. Since I want to keep the reciever (at least for now) for HT, adding a 2-channel pre/amp would be expensive and would complicate the system (since I have one set of speakers). But I am curious as to how much better would the entire system sound. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
Unfortunantely, the subwoofer we have is the rotten CSW Powered
Subwoofer (w/slave) which was bought as mass-retailer CSW. I would need to upgrade the sub to something more respectful/better. I also do not like subwoofers as I feel they add unrealistic bass to the 2-channel music. I use the sub only for movies (5.1). When I first auditioned the Paradigm Studios against others in various listening shops in Canada and here in Boston, the dealers, of course, used their top-grade seperates. While the Denon reciever sounds fine (good), the sound is not as good as in store. I checked the Denon, it is wired correctly. Again, it sounds good, but not great. When I purchased the system one combination at the dealer at which the Paradigms sounded real good was the Rotel RB991/RC991 and Rotel pre-amp. I would be suprised that adding the amp does not improve the sound; I mean, why do people then have seperates? The Denon MSRP with pre/processing, tuner, and 5-channel amplification costs as much as the Rotel 2-channel amp (MSRP). With all things being equal (placement, room, cables), it would be strange that the speakers did not sound better with the seperate amp rather than the reciever. And I am not suggesting that spending more money necessarly always yields better sound. It's often hard characterizing sound isn't it? Thank you, George |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
wrote in message oups.com... Unfortunantely, the subwoofer we have is the rotten CSW Powered Subwoofer (w/slave) which was bought as mass-retailer CSW. I would need to upgrade the sub to something more respectful/better. I also do not like subwoofers as I feel they add unrealistic bass to the 2-channel music. I use the sub only for movies (5.1). When I first auditioned the Paradigm Studios against others in various listening shops in Canada and here in Boston, the dealers, of course, used their top-grade seperates. While the Denon reciever sounds fine (good), the sound is not as good as in store. I checked the Denon, it is wired correctly. Again, it sounds good, but not great. When I purchased the system one combination at the dealer at which the Paradigms sounded real good was the Rotel RB991/RC991 and Rotel pre-amp. I would be suprised that adding the amp does not improve the sound; I mean, why do people then have seperates? Mostly becuase the BELIEVE they will be better. The main reason to have separates is for flexibility and if the tuner goes bad you just have it fixed and aren't without the rest of the system. The Denon MSRP with pre/processing, tuner, and 5-channel amplification costs as much as the Rotel 2-channel amp (MSRP). Because only one metal case is need for a reciever as opposed to 3 for separates, plus some other reasons. With all things being equal (placement, room, cables), it would be strange that the speakers did not sound better with the seperate amp rather than the reciever. Not so strange if the amplification in the Denon is good which it probably is, but added power can improve the bass becuase it will keep the amp in the Denon from clipping. You should keep in mind that at 105 wpc for the Denon a 200 wpc amp is not going to make it play much louder. 3 db of increased loudness requires 50% more amplifier power. IOW doubleing the power to 210 wpc would yield 6db of increased volume. Improvement might come from increased power if you play your stuff fairly loudly and it has a lot of bass. Bass takes much more power from an amp than a tweeter or midrange. IME more power is generally a good thing especially with speakers that are rated for 300 or 350 as the Paradigms are. If you bridge the amps I recomended and run 500wpc you will never have to worry about clipping, but you might have to worry about blowing speakers if you are heavy handed with the volume levels. And I am not suggesting that spending more money necessarly always yields better sound. Good, since there is almost no connection to price and performance in audio, except as it pertains to speakers and then it's not certain. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
The speakers are Paradigm Studio 100's v.2:
http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speak...0_1594crx.aspx Looking at most of the reviwers, they mention that a good amp should be used. They are indeed big speakers. I have the Denon reciever and I want to keep it to power the other speakers in my HT setup (5.1) I see the amp as being the logical upgrade, along with the CD player. No specific tie to the Rotel, I just remember hearing the on a Rotel RB-991 amp and liking the match. Down the line, perhaps, get rid of the reciever and move up to a pre/processor, but then I would need more amps for the other speakers. I think this upgrade would be logical for now. George |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
wrote in message oups.com... Unfortunantely, the subwoofer we have is the rotten CSW Powered Subwoofer (w/slave) which was bought as mass-retailer CSW. I would need to upgrade the sub to something more respectful/better. I also do not like subwoofers as I feel they add unrealistic bass to the 2-channel music. I use the sub only for movies (5.1). I missed the part about unrealistic bass from subwoofers for 2 channel stereo. I simply don't agree that that is true. Once a subwoofer is properly situated and an appropriate xover chosen and level set there is nothing about itthat is unnatural. If the xover is properly set the sub disappears as a source and the only thing that would make it sound unnatural would be a level mismatch. My sub is on for all music playback and for HT. I have never heard the slightest hint of unnatural sound with it on, since the level is set to 60 Hz with a 24 db/oct slope, nothing gets out that isn't actual bass and it's impossible to locate it as a source. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
wrote in message
oups.com Unfortunantely, the subwoofer we have is the rotten CSW Powered Subwoofer (w/slave) which was bought as mass-retailer CSW. OK, so you were pressed for money, or just plain made a bad choice. This one bad apple doesn't reflect accurately on subwoofers in general. I would need to upgrade the sub to something more respectful/better. I also do not like subwoofers as I feel they add unrealistic bass to the 2-channel music. I use the sub only for movies (5.1). I'm sorry that you've only encounted poor implementations. A sub done right has almost no audible effects - until you play music with extended bass content. Then there is a sense of ease and depth that would be otherwise lacking. When I first auditioned the Paradigm Studios against others in various listening shops in Canada and here in Boston, the dealers, of course, used their top-grade seperates. While the Denon reciever sounds fine (good), the sound is not as good as in store. I checked the Denon, it is wired correctly. Again, it sounds good, but not great. When I purchased the system one combination at the dealer at which the Paradigms sounded real good was the Rotel RB991/RC991 and Rotel pre-amp. I would be suprised that adding the amp does not improve the sound; I mean, why do people then have seperates? There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things as ABX tests, which some people say prove or make all amplifiers sound the same. It turns out that the first ABX test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate power amp. The results were "no differences heard". The Denon MSRP with pre/processing, tuner, and 5-channel amplification costs as much as the Rotel 2-channel amp (MSRP). With all things being equal (placement, room, cables), it would be strange that the speakers did not sound better with the seperate amp rather than the reciever. And I am not suggesting that spending more money necessarly always yields better sound. It's often hard characterizing sound isn't it? It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot easier than that. All you have to do is to somehow reliably discern a difference. There's no need for you to know that that difference is. You don't have to characterize the sound or the difference in order to obtain a positive result. This vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very sensitive to small differences. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:59:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things as ABX tests Never heard of them. which some people say prove or make all amplifiers sound the same. That's a pretty outrageous notion. Who are these people? It turns out that the first ABX test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate power amp. The results were "no differences heard". No! The Denon MSRP with pre/processing, tuner, and 5-channel amplification costs as much as the Rotel 2-channel amp (MSRP). With all things being equal (placement, room, cables), it would be strange that the speakers did not sound better with the seperate amp rather than the reciever. And I am not suggesting that spending more money necessarly always yields better sound. It's often hard characterizing sound isn't it? Only when listening through a box. It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot easier than that. All you have to do is to somehow reliably discern a difference. Yes, that's all. And for that you get a free set of steak knives. There's no need for you to know that that difference is. Don't you mean "what" that difference is? You don't have to characterize the sound or the difference in order to obtain a positive result. No, you just wait for the bell on top of the box to start clanging. This vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very sensitive to small differences. Very sensitive. That's why nobody ever hears them. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. wrote in message oups.com Unfortunantely, the subwoofer we have is the rotten CSW Powered Subwoofer (w/slave) which was bought as mass-retailer CSW. OK, so you were pressed for money, or just plain made a bad choice. This one bad apple doesn't reflect accurately on subwoofers in general. I saw an ad in a flyer from mcm electronics for a 5.1 speaker system; 5 satellites and a powered sub for $25. I couldn't imagine how you could get such a system for that price--so I bought one. It just arrived, and I must say, the quality of construction is much better than I could have imagined. The 5 satellites actually have tweeters in them, and the sub is a bandpass enclosure. Not made in China, as one might guess, but in Taiwan. I'm going to set the system up in the basement for a listening evaluation. Stay tuned. Norm Strong |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:59:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things as ABX tests Never heard of them. which some people say prove or make all amplifiers sound the same. That's a pretty outrageous notion. Who are these people? Idiots like George and Ludovic. It turns out that the first ABX test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate power amp. The results were "no differences heard". No! The Denon MSRP with pre/processing, tuner, and 5-channel amplification costs as much as the Rotel 2-channel amp (MSRP). With all things being equal (placement, room, cables), it would be strange that the speakers did not sound better with the seperate amp rather than the reciever. And I am not suggesting that spending more money necessarly always yields better sound. It's often hard characterizing sound isn't it? Only when listening through a box. It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot easier than that. All you have to do is to somehow reliably discern a difference. Yes, that's all. And for that you get a free set of steak knives. No, you just get an answer to the question, was there a difference. There's no need for you to know that that difference is. Don't you mean "what" that difference is? No need to pick nits. You don't have to characterize the sound or the difference in order to obtain a positive result. No, you just wait for the bell on top of the box to start clanging. This vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very sensitive to small differences. Very sensitive. That's why nobody ever hears them. It would kill the high end business, so they don't exactly want it publicized. That's why they fight so hard and so nasty to make people who acknowledge its efficacy look bad. In their eyes, ABX is the end of their world. Is it surprising they act like pigs in order to defend their status quo? |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
duh-Mikey borrows the Krooborg's Borganoia chip. [The aBxism torture ritual paradigm] vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very sensitive to small differences. Very sensitive. That's why nobody ever hears them. It would kill the high end business, so they don't exactly want it publicized. That's why they fight so hard and so nasty to make people who acknowledge its efficacy look bad. In their eyes, ABX is the end of their world. Is it surprising they act like pigs in order to defend their status quo? Thanks Mr. McMickey for providing concrete evidence that devotion to the aBxism cult can drive a person crazy. .. .. .. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
"George Middius" wrote in message ... duh-Mikey borrows the Krooborg's Borganoia chip. [The aBxism torture ritual paradigm] vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very sensitive to small differences. Very sensitive. That's why nobody ever hears them. It would kill the high end business, so they don't exactly want it publicized. That's why they fight so hard and so nasty to make people who acknowledge its efficacy look bad. In their eyes, ABX is the end of their world. Is it surprising they act like pigs in order to defend their status quo? Thanks Mr. McMickey for providing concrete evidence that devotion to the aBxism cult can drive a person crazy. Thanks for acknowledging you are a pig. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
paul packer said: There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things as ABX tests Never heard of them. Thanks Mr. Pecker for, admitting your lying, again, LOt"S. which some people say prove or make all amplifiers sound the same. That's a pretty outrageous notion. Who are these people? Mr. Parcek its like you thought you were alone, in the world? LOL ;-) It turns out that the first ABX test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate power amp. The results were "no differences heard". No! Thanks Mr. Prepack for admitting, you have no understanding of irony or hypocracy. It's often hard characterizing sound isn't it? Only when listening through a box. Please provide documented double-blind test results and published NTWT papers etc. or, other proof you're not lieing, again Mr. Percake. It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot easier than that. All you have to do is to somehow reliably discern a difference. Yes, that's all. And for that you get a free set of steak knives. Been there done, that. Personal attack, noted. There's no need for you to know what that difference is. Don't you mean "what" that difference is? As if you new the differince. LOL! You don't have to characterize the sound or the difference in order to obtain a positive result. No, you just wait for the bell on top of the box to start clanging. Mr. Prekce is obviously lying again. There is no bell on top of the box, or anywhere else, as you would know if you had access to this box. vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very sensitive to small differences. Very sensitive. That's why nobody ever hears them. Thanks paul for (finally) admitting you understand the purpose of ABx. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. wrote in message oups.com Unfortunantely, the subwoofer we have is the rotten CSW Powered Subwoofer (w/slave) which was bought as mass-retailer CSW. OK, so you were pressed for money, or just plain made a bad choice. This one bad apple doesn't reflect accurately on subwoofers in general. I saw an ad in a flyer from mcm electronics for a 5.1 speaker system; 5 satellites and a powered sub for $25. I couldn't imagine how you could get such a system for that price--so I bought one. It just arrived, and I must say, the quality of construction is much better than I could have imagined. The 5 satellites actually have tweeters in them, and the sub is a bandpass enclosure. Not made in China, as one might guess, but in Taiwan. I'm going to set the system up in the basement for a listening evaluation. Stay tuned. just think, if they didn't have to pack it in a cardboard box, they could knock another $5 off the price. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
In article ,
wrote: You should keep in mind that at 105 wpc for the Denon a 200 wpc amp is not going to make it play much louder. 3 db of increased loudness requires 50% more amplifier power. IOW doubleing the power to 210 wpc would yield 6db of increased volume. No, doubling the power is a 3 dB increase. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote: There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things as ABX tests, which some people say prove or make all amplifiers sound the same. It turns out that the first ABX test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate power amp. The results were "no differences heard". The claim of "over 30 years ago" would place that test no later than 1975, yet the official ABX site and other sources have claimed the first ABX test took place years later. Those sources also say what the first tested components were (amplifiers) but they do not mention any receivers. Fnally, the results of those first tests were mostly that differences _were_ detected, except for one set of trials. It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot easier than that. All you have to do is to somehow reliably discern a difference. There's no need for you to know that that difference is. You don't have to characterize the sound or the difference in order to obtain a positive result. This vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very sensitive to small differences. Actually a typical ABX test is _not_ "a test that is very sensitive to small differences". In fact, an ABX test involving 16 trials and requiring 14 or more successes is an absurdly _insensitive_ test for small differences---it will detect threshold-level performance less than 20% of the time! Of course, you _can_ make a very sensitive test using ABX, but you have to know how to choose an appropriate sample size and critical value. You need far more than 16 trials if you want the test to actually perform as well as some people claim their tests do. That's what mathematical probability theory says, and it is consistent with the real-world experience of many listeners. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
"John Corbett" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things as ABX tests, which some people say prove or make all amplifiers sound the same. It turns out that the first ABX test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate power amp. The results were "no differences heard". The claim of "over 30 years ago" would place that test no later than 1975, yet the official ABX site and other sources have claimed the first ABX test took place years later. Those sources also say what the first tested components were (amplifiers) but they do not mention any receivers. Fnally, the results of those first tests were mostly that differences _were_ detected, except for one set of trials. Do you realize that the person you're responding to is the person who developed the first audio ABX comaprator along with Mr. Carlstrom? You might also wish to visit his website www.pcabx.com where you can download your own pcabx comparator. It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot easier than that. All you have to do is to somehow reliably discern a difference. There's no need for you to know that that difference is. You don't have to characterize the sound or the difference in order to obtain a positive result. This vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very sensitive to small differences. Actually a typical ABX test is _not_ "a test that is very sensitive to small differences". In fact, an ABX test involving 16 trials and requiring 14 or more successes is an absurdly _insensitive_ test for small differences---it will detect threshold-level performance less than 20% of the time! Of course, you _can_ make a very sensitive test using ABX, but you have to know how to choose an appropriate sample size and critical value. You need far more than 16 trials if you want the test to actually perform as well as some people claim their tests do. That's what mathematical probability theory says, and it is consistent with the real-world experience of many listeners. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
In article . net,
wrote: Do you realize that the person you're responding to is the person who developed the first audio ABX comaprator along with Mr. Carlstrom? Of course I was well aware of that, but apparently it was too subtle for you. Did you not catch that Arny's mention of irony introduced a list of claims, most of which are clearly contradicted by his own postings on Usenet as well as by links from his pcabx site? You might also wish to visit his website www.pcabx.com where you can download your own pcabx comparator. DBT (Done Been There) already. BTW, he still hasn't fixed the broken links I pointed out about a year ago. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
"John Corbett" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things as ABX tests, which some people say prove or make all amplifiers sound the same. It turns out that the first ABX test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate power amp. The results were "no differences heard". The claim of "over 30 years ago" would place that test no later than 1975, yet the official ABX site and other sources have claimed the first ABX test took place years later. Wow, it was a whopping two years later. http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx.htm "May 7, 1977 SMWTMS did the first ever audio double blind subjective listening tests. An argument over the audibility of differences between amplifiers at a club meeting in November 1976 resulted in an agreement that a double blind test could settle the question." Those sources also say what the first tested components were (amplifiers) but they do not mention any receivers. The first ABX test compared the amp section of a Heath AR1500 receiver with a Dyna 400. Fnally, the results of those first tests were mostly that differences _were_ detected, except for one set of trials. No difference was detected in the first ABX test. It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot easier than that. All you have to do is to somehow reliably discern a difference. There's no need for you to know that that difference is. You don't have to characterize the sound or the difference in order to obtain a positive result. This vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very sensitive to small differences. Actually a typical ABX test is _not_ "a test that is very sensitive to small differences". In fact, an ABX test involving 16 trials and requiring 14 or more successes is an absurdly _insensitive_ test for small differences---it will detect threshold-level performance less than 20% of the time! Whose idea of threshold are we talking about here? Of course, you _can_ make a very sensitive test using ABX, but you have to know how to choose an appropriate sample size and critical value. You need far more than 16 trials if you want the test to actually perform as well as some people claim their tests do. Nahh. Once the listener gets trained, if he can't get positive results in 16 trials, the difference is probably too small to worry about. That's what mathematical probability theory says, and it is consistent with the real-world experience of many listeners. Nope and nope. Stick to your statistics books, John. They seem to be all you've got. Back in the real world... ;-) |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "John Corbett" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things as ABX tests, which some people say prove or make all amplifiers sound the same. It turns out that the first ABX test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate power amp. The results were "no differences heard". The claim of "over 30 years ago" would place that test no later than 1975, yet the official ABX site and other sources have claimed the first ABX test took place years later. Wow, it was a whopping two years later. Just more whoppers from Arny. http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx.htm "May 7, 1977 SMWTMS did the first ever audio double blind subjective listening tests. An argument over the audibility of differences between amplifiers at a club meeting in November 1976 resulted in an agreement that a double blind test could settle the question." Those sources also say what the first tested components were (amplifiers) but they do not mention any receivers. The first ABX test compared the amp section of a Heath AR1500 receiver with a Dyna 400. Fnally, the results of those first tests were mostly that differences _were_ detected, except for one set of trials. No difference was detected in the first ABX test. From the link you gave: "May 7, 1977 SMWTMS did the first ever audio double blind subjective listening tests. An argument over the audibility of differences between amplifiers at a club meeting in November 1976 resulted in an agreement that a double blind test could settle the question. Just six months later, Arny Krueger gave a lecture on his design of a double blind comparator and the first three double blind tests were done. The results include the first three listed in the Power Amplifier Comparison Table in the data." Here are data from that Power Amplifier Comparison Table: ------------------------------- May 7, 1977 The Original SMWTMS ABX Test Results Power Amplifier Comparison Result 10 Watt Tubes vs. Dyna 400 Different Paoli 60M vs. Dyna 400 Different Swartz 40* vs. Dyna 400 Same These were the first three audio double blind tests ever done. ------------------------------- As I wrote earlier, no mention of a receiver and most of the results supported claims of audible differences. Arny, it seems that either the amplifier section of your Griefkit receiver was a Swartz 40 or else you and David Carlstrom aren't talking about the same tests. In the latter case, one of you is wrong about its being the first test. But you have elsewhere written that the May 7, 1977 tests were the first tests: "I assembled the first A/B/X switch box into a steel alarm box on my living room table in a rented house on Lakewood in Detroit. Its relays had silver contacts that seemed to be as big as dimes. They were spring mounted and wiped themselves clean before every use. I filed and diamond burnished them during construction. The relay coils ran on 120 volts AC. Massive relays resounding on the heavy steel box made distinct clunking sounds that quickly lead the members to nickname it łThe Clunker˛. A coiled cord connected it to a hand-held controller that had push-buttons for advancing and resetting a stepping relay. SMWTMS used the Clunker for our first double-blind Amplifier tests at Jeff Vajgert's apartment on May 7, 1977." from " ABX, theory of (long text)" Mar 27 1998, RAO Actually a typical ABX test is _not_ "a test that is very sensitive to small differences". In fact, an ABX test involving 16 trials and requiring 14 or more successes is an absurdly _insensitive_ test for small differences---it will detect threshold-level performance less than 20% of the time! Whose idea of threshold are we talking about here? I'm referring a common psychometric idea of threshold as used in psychophysics. If you observe the response to a stimulus as that stimulus is varied over a sufficiently broad range, you see scores at one end reflecting pure guessing and at the other end essentially perfect performance. For intermediate levels of the stimulus, we may see performance that is somewhat better then totally-blind guessing, but not perfect either. But the performance we actually see in any single run of trials also displays additional random variability due to sampling error. As we increase the number of trials (while holding the stimulus level fixed) we reduce the effect of that sampling variability, so the proportion of correct responses approaches the true success rate for that stimulus level. If we could do an infinite number of trials we could determine the true success rate exactly. We can think of that ideal proportion as the probability of success for a single trial at that stimulus level. So if the test stimulus level is low enough the subject is reduced to guessing, and his probability of success would be 50%. For a very high stimulus level, the subject always detects, so he'll get 100%. But for an intermediate level he may sometimes detect and sometimes guess, so his long-term proportion of successful answers reflects that combination of detection and guessing. For example, if he detects half the time and guesses the other half of the time, in the long run half of those guesses will be correct, so he will get the correct answer 75% of the time. Such a stimulus level where response is halfway between pure chance and perfection is often taken as a threshold level for that subject's performance under the conditions of that test; threshold is then a value on the scale where we measure the stimulus level, but that threshold value is determined by the proportion of correct responses. This works even if the response function is not continuous. Since for an ABX test pure guessing would correspond to a long-term success rate of 50% and perfect detection would be 100%, we can take threshold-level performance to be 75%. It is important to remember that these performance figures involve the long-term average success rate, and not merely the observed proportion in a single run of trials. Stimulus levels above threshold are those having at least a 75% probability of correct response, corresponding to an actual detection rate of at least 50%. In other words, the stimulus is more likely to be detected than missed. Such above-threshold effect sizes are said to be "psychoacoustically significant". Note that the term "psychoacoustically significant" properly refers to an _effect size_ (i.e., stimulus level). BTW many authors (including Greenhill and Clark) have mistakenly used "psychoacoustically significant" to describe situations where the sample proportion exceeded 75%, suggesting that they did not understand what psychoacoustical significance means. Nahh. Once the listener gets trained, if he can't get positive results in 16 trials, the difference is probably too small to worry about. WRONG! If by positive results you mean 14 or more correct in 16 trials, then your claim is essentially that at the 99% confidence level the difference between pure chance guessing (50%) and getting 97% correct answers in the long run is too small to worry about! Remember that 75% long-run performance is usually regarded as substantially better than chance. (If you know what a confidence level and a confidence set are, then you should be able to verify that based on data of 13 correct in 16 trials a one-sided upper 99% confidence bound for the true success probability is about 0.971.) To be 99% confident that an effect is below-threshold (i.e., that the effect size is no more than .75 correct long term) you have to see performance with no more then 7 correct in 16 trials. Even a score of 8 correct in 16 trials is _not_ bad enough to rule out psychoacoustically significant effects. So at the 99% confidence level, a score of 14 or more is evidence that the subject is really doing better than 50% correct (long-term), and a score of 7 or less is evidence that his true long-run performance is either no better than chance or not enough better than chance to be worried about. But scores from 8 through 13 are inconclusive, as they are simultaneously consistent with pure chance and above-threshold performance. If you say that failure to get 14 or more correct in 16 trials is evidence that someone is not detecting something worth detecting, you are _vastly_ overstating your case unless you only consider gross effects as worth detecting. Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to say about the abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX tests. He described that performance as "outlandish in a search for the truth about audible differences." |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
"John Corbett" wrote in message ... Since for an ABX test pure guessing would correspond to a long-term success rate of 50% and perfect detection would be 100%, we can take threshold-level performance to be 75%. It is important to remember that these performance figures involve the long-term average success rate, and not merely the observed proportion in a single run of trials. Stimulus levels above threshold are those having at least a 75% probability of correct response, corresponding to an actual detection rate of at least 50%. In other words, the stimulus is more likely to be detected than missed. If by positive results you mean 14 or more correct in 16 trials, then your claim is essentially that at the 99% confidence level the difference between pure chance guessing (50%) and getting 97% correct answers in the long run is too small to worry about! Remember that 75% long-run performance is usually regarded as substantially better than chance. (If you know what a confidence level and a confidence set are, then you should be able to verify that based on data of 13 correct in 16 trials a one-sided upper 99% confidence bound for the true success probability is about 0.971.) To be 99% confident that an effect is below-threshold (i.e., that the effect size is no more than .75 correct long term) you have to see performance with no more then 7 correct in 16 trials. Even a score of 8 correct in 16 trials is _not_ bad enough to rule out psychoacoustically significant effects. So at the 99% confidence level, a score of 14 or more is evidence that the subject is really doing better than 50% correct (long-term), and a score of 7 or less is evidence that his true long-run performance is either no better than chance or not enough better than chance to be worried about. But scores from 8 through 13 are inconclusive, as they are simultaneously consistent with pure chance and above-threshold performance. They are more than inconclusive, they are a result that is better than chance, it is more likely a result from hearing differences than it is likely a result from chance. In terms of consumer preference, that is sufficient, the consumer does not need any more of a confidence level than 'the preponderance of evidence" in making a choice based upon a preference of perceived sonic difference. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:33:40 -0600, (John
Corbett) wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "John Corbett" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things as ABX tests, which some people say prove or make all amplifiers sound the same. It turns out that the first ABX test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate power amp. The results were "no differences heard". The claim of "over 30 years ago" would place that test no later than 1975, yet the official ABX site and other sources have claimed the first ABX test took place years later. Wow, it was a whopping two years later. Just more whoppers from Arny. http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx.htm "May 7, 1977 SMWTMS did the first ever audio double blind subjective listening tests. An argument over the audibility of differences between amplifiers at a club meeting in November 1976 resulted in an agreement that a double blind test could settle the question." Those sources also say what the first tested components were (amplifiers) but they do not mention any receivers. The first ABX test compared the amp section of a Heath AR1500 receiver with a Dyna 400. Fnally, the results of those first tests were mostly that differences _were_ detected, except for one set of trials. No difference was detected in the first ABX test. From the link you gave: "May 7, 1977 SMWTMS did the first ever audio double blind subjective listening tests. An argument over the audibility of differences between amplifiers at a club meeting in November 1976 resulted in an agreement that a double blind test could settle the question. Just six months later, Arny Krueger gave a lecture on his design of a double blind comparator and the first three double blind tests were done. The results include the first three listed in the Power Amplifier Comparison Table in the data." Here are data from that Power Amplifier Comparison Table: ------------------------------- May 7, 1977 The Original SMWTMS ABX Test Results Power Amplifier Comparison Result 10 Watt Tubes vs. Dyna 400 Different Paoli 60M vs. Dyna 400 Different Swartz 40* vs. Dyna 400 Same These were the first three audio double blind tests ever done. ------------------------------- As I wrote earlier, no mention of a receiver and most of the results supported claims of audible differences. Arny, it seems that either the amplifier section of your Griefkit receiver was a Swartz 40 or else you and David Carlstrom aren't talking about the same tests. In the latter case, one of you is wrong about its being the first test. But you have elsewhere written that the May 7, 1977 tests were the first tests: "I assembled the first A/B/X switch box into a steel alarm box on my living room table in a rented house on Lakewood in Detroit. Its relays had silver contacts that seemed to be as big as dimes. They were spring mounted and wiped themselves clean before every use. I filed and diamond burnished them during construction. The relay coils ran on 120 volts AC. Massive relays resounding on the heavy steel box made distinct clunking sounds that quickly lead the members to nickname it łThe Clunker˛. A coiled cord connected it to a hand-held controller that had push-buttons for advancing and resetting a stepping relay. SMWTMS used the Clunker for our first double-blind Amplifier tests at Jeff Vajgert's apartment on May 7, 1977." from " ABX, theory of (long text)" Mar 27 1998, RAO Actually a typical ABX test is _not_ "a test that is very sensitive to small differences". In fact, an ABX test involving 16 trials and requiring 14 or more successes is an absurdly _insensitive_ test for small differences---it will detect threshold-level performance less than 20% of the time! Whose idea of threshold are we talking about here? I'm referring a common psychometric idea of threshold as used in psychophysics. If you observe the response to a stimulus as that stimulus is varied over a sufficiently broad range, you see scores at one end reflecting pure guessing and at the other end essentially perfect performance. For intermediate levels of the stimulus, we may see performance that is somewhat better then totally-blind guessing, but not perfect either. But the performance we actually see in any single run of trials also displays additional random variability due to sampling error. As we increase the number of trials (while holding the stimulus level fixed) we reduce the effect of that sampling variability, so the proportion of correct responses approaches the true success rate for that stimulus level. If we could do an infinite number of trials we could determine the true success rate exactly. We can think of that ideal proportion as the probability of success for a single trial at that stimulus level. So if the test stimulus level is low enough the subject is reduced to guessing, and his probability of success would be 50%. For a very high stimulus level, the subject always detects, so he'll get 100%. But for an intermediate level he may sometimes detect and sometimes guess, so his long-term proportion of successful answers reflects that combination of detection and guessing. For example, if he detects half the time and guesses the other half of the time, in the long run half of those guesses will be correct, so he will get the correct answer 75% of the time. Such a stimulus level where response is halfway between pure chance and perfection is often taken as a threshold level for that subject's performance under the conditions of that test; threshold is then a value on the scale where we measure the stimulus level, but that threshold value is determined by the proportion of correct responses. This works even if the response function is not continuous. Since for an ABX test pure guessing would correspond to a long-term success rate of 50% and perfect detection would be 100%, we can take threshold-level performance to be 75%. It is important to remember that these performance figures involve the long-term average success rate, and not merely the observed proportion in a single run of trials. Stimulus levels above threshold are those having at least a 75% probability of correct response, corresponding to an actual detection rate of at least 50%. In other words, the stimulus is more likely to be detected than missed. Such above-threshold effect sizes are said to be "psychoacoustically significant". Note that the term "psychoacoustically significant" properly refers to an _effect size_ (i.e., stimulus level). BTW many authors (including Greenhill and Clark) have mistakenly used "psychoacoustically significant" to describe situations where the sample proportion exceeded 75%, suggesting that they did not understand what psychoacoustical significance means. Nahh. Once the listener gets trained, if he can't get positive results in 16 trials, the difference is probably too small to worry about. WRONG! If by positive results you mean 14 or more correct in 16 trials, then your claim is essentially that at the 99% confidence level the difference between pure chance guessing (50%) and getting 97% correct answers in the long run is too small to worry about! Remember that 75% long-run performance is usually regarded as substantially better than chance. (If you know what a confidence level and a confidence set are, then you should be able to verify that based on data of 13 correct in 16 trials a one-sided upper 99% confidence bound for the true success probability is about 0.971.) To be 99% confident that an effect is below-threshold (i.e., that the effect size is no more than .75 correct long term) you have to see performance with no more then 7 correct in 16 trials. Even a score of 8 correct in 16 trials is _not_ bad enough to rule out psychoacoustically significant effects. So at the 99% confidence level, a score of 14 or more is evidence that the subject is really doing better than 50% correct (long-term), and a score of 7 or less is evidence that his true long-run performance is either no better than chance or not enough better than chance to be worried about. But scores from 8 through 13 are inconclusive, as they are simultaneously consistent with pure chance and above-threshold performance. If you say that failure to get 14 or more correct in 16 trials is evidence that someone is not detecting something worth detecting, you are _vastly_ overstating your case unless you only consider gross effects as worth detecting. Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to say about the abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX tests. He described that performance as "outlandish in a search for the truth about audible differences." yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:10:10 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "John Corbett" wrote in message ... Since for an ABX test pure guessing would correspond to a long-term success rate of 50% and perfect detection would be 100%, we can take threshold-level performance to be 75%. It is important to remember that these performance figures involve the long-term average success rate, and not merely the observed proportion in a single run of trials. Stimulus levels above threshold are those having at least a 75% probability of correct response, corresponding to an actual detection rate of at least 50%. In other words, the stimulus is more likely to be detected than missed. If by positive results you mean 14 or more correct in 16 trials, then your claim is essentially that at the 99% confidence level the difference between pure chance guessing (50%) and getting 97% correct answers in the long run is too small to worry about! Remember that 75% long-run performance is usually regarded as substantially better than chance. (If you know what a confidence level and a confidence set are, then you should be able to verify that based on data of 13 correct in 16 trials a one-sided upper 99% confidence bound for the true success probability is about 0.971.) To be 99% confident that an effect is below-threshold (i.e., that the effect size is no more than .75 correct long term) you have to see performance with no more then 7 correct in 16 trials. Even a score of 8 correct in 16 trials is _not_ bad enough to rule out psychoacoustically significant effects. So at the 99% confidence level, a score of 14 or more is evidence that the subject is really doing better than 50% correct (long-term), and a score of 7 or less is evidence that his true long-run performance is either no better than chance or not enough better than chance to be worried about. But scores from 8 through 13 are inconclusive, as they are simultaneously consistent with pure chance and above-threshold performance. They are more than inconclusive, they are a result that is better than chance, it is more likely a result from hearing differences than it is likely a result from chance. In terms of consumer preference, that is sufficient, the consumer does not need any more of a confidence level than 'the preponderance of evidence" in making a choice based upon a preference of perceived sonic difference. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
"John Corbett" wrote in message
These were the first three audio double blind tests ever done. No, they were the first three ABX tests that were done at an official SMWTMS meeting. I set up *all* of the tests that are listed on the ABX web page, and the ones that proceeded it as well. I can tell that John Corbett has no experience with doing public events. Three words: rehearse, rehearse, rehearse. I really don't know how many ABX rehearsals preceeded the first SMWTMS tests. It appears that my recollection of which years they happened in are off by a couple, but this was like 30 years ago. However, I do clearly recall the first test that I performed after I finished building the first ABX Comparator. It was a test of the amplifier section of a Heathkit AR 1500 receiver as compared to a Dyna ST400, and the results were null. I vaguely recall a conversation with one of the other SMWTMS board members before the first tests at that club meeting. I was asked whether the equipment was ready, and I affirmed that. I was asked what I thought was going to happen and I said that it would be "interesting". Nothing more, because I didn't want to bias the outcome of the tests. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
John Corbett wrote:
Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to say about the abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX tests. He described that performance as "outlandish in a search for the truth about audible differences." And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls? *That* is the dominant paradigm here. -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
John Corbett wrote: Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to say about the abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX tests. He described that performance as "outlandish in a search for the truth about audible differences." No doubt an out-of-context quote. And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls? *That* is the dominant paradigm here. Corebett is just another Ludovic-like posturer who tries to attract attention to himself by overlooking the obvious flaws of sighted evaluations. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
Sillybot calls on audiophiles to cast out the satanic rituals of listening to music. And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls? *That* is the dominant paradigm here. You're not doing a very good job of selling your 'borg oil, Silly. The first thing you have to do is convince your intended victims their lives will be better if they join the Hive. So far you're failing miserably. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:15:37 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Sillybot calls on audiophiles to cast out the satanic rituals of listening to music. And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls? *That* is the dominant paradigm here. You're not doing a very good job of selling your 'borg oil, Silly. The first thing you have to do is convince your intended victims their lives will be better if they join the Hive. So far you're failing miserably. And his problem is that of promoting a paradigm, that by the High Priest's own admission, and his own tacit one, is materially impossible. Why would anyone find it odd that the magazines mirror real life and not some audio fundamentalist's idea of utopia? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
infinity reference 5.25 yadda yadda yadda | Car Audio | |||
Default channel EQ/dynamics settings at FOH. What do you start with? | Pro Audio | |||
center channel speaker recommendations for someone with hearing loss | Audio Opinions | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
Newbie Subwoofer questions | Audio Opinions |