I get the feeling that these guys should possibly stick to the digital
stuff, which they do very well

If they can't understand Ohm's Law, how the hell are they going
to get something substantially more complicated right?

That's like saying "these guys should stick to hypersonic
aerodynamics, because they can't get walking and chewing gum
right."

I understand your concern

KE

In article ,
All Ears wrote:
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
.net...
In article WZg1b.220954$Ho3.29139@sccrnsc03,
All Ears wrote:
Dick,

Please excuse me my ignorence. If I were an expert, I really did not need
to
ask you guys.

I try to understand things from what I think is logical or could be
possible.

But without an understanding of the basic fundamentals of the
way things work, how can one sort out the real stuff from the
nonsense. What we have before us is a person, you, who is
tossing around technical terms like "current amplifier" or
"current source" or "self-damping" used in ways that are, to be
honest, nonsensical and contradictory.

I understand if you expect a certain level of basic understanding from the
people posting here.

I expect no such thing. What I would hope is that non-experts do
not pretend to be experts by pretending to make expert
pronouncements. The issue is not whether non-epxerts
participate: the vast majority of people here ARE NOT experts in
this field. What the problem is is non-experts making statements
that are outside their realm of expertise, and then complaining
when an expert tells them the statements are not correct.

It think RAHE should be the right place to discuss new products, ideas,
theories or maybe even tries things, that would not seem logical from a
conventional engineering point of view.

I have no objection to the discussion of new ideas. The problem
being is that, again, no disrespect intended, the ideas you have
presented regarding this amplifier you've been talking about are
not new, worse, they are not good. The manufacturer is
presenting them as some sort of miraculuous thing, yet all the
evidence points strongly in the direction of either neive
incompetence or outright hucksterism.

I like keeping my mind open, and maybe try to do, or even does, things
people says cannot be done. Doing the "impossible" has always been one of
the biggest thrills to me.

Well, here some impossible things you can try:

1. Using nothing more than a compass, a drafting square, a
straightedge and a pencial and all the paper you want, can you
draw a square and a circle that have the same enclosed area?

2. Can you construct the 6th regular polyhedron in 3 dimension
orthogonal space? Currently there are only 5:

tetrahedron (4 equilateral triangles)
hexahedron (6 squares)
octahedron (8 equilateral triangles)
dodecahedran (12 regular pentagons)
icosahedron (20 equilateral triangles)

These are two impossible tasks. Indeed, they have been proven
impossible via rigorous proofs.

Of course, nothing can replace good engineering, I respect that. What I
oppose to, is some sort of general too big a loyalty towards the "rules" ,
which means that the engineering "one optimal solution to one particular
problem" approach, should never rule out doing things differently, just to
try.

NO, it does NOT mean that at all. PLease, as a person who is a
non-expert in the field of engineering, do not pretend to know
what the rules of engineering are.

The "rules" include the law of conservation of energy, the law
of conservation of electrical charge (forming, for example, the
basis of Kirschoff's current and voltage laws), Ohm's law, and
much more.

This is precisely my objection, you, as a non-expert in
engineering, have now made a pronouncement about how engineering
works. And you are wrong. And, if you do as you have earlier,
you will refuse to accept the consequences of being wrong on an
engineering point: that conclusions drawn from a wrong point are
wrong.

There's a tremendous amount of wiggle room in engineering, but,
ultimately, behind all that room you WILL encounter a set of
VERY rigid boundaries not set, as you claim, by some good-old-
boy network of engineers, but by the fundamental limitations of
physics itself. No amount of wishfull thinking is going to make
those barriers go away or even bend a little.

It IS impossible for a loudspeaker to have an impedance phase
angle in excess of +-90 degrees. Period. It's not something a
bunch of us got together and passed a rule and said we don't
want anyone to do this, it is a matter of PHYSICAL impossibility
because it requires a passive network to have negative linear
resistances. That's just impossible.

It IS impossible for a speaker to have a purely capacitive
impedance. Many people have made this claim, but such a
loudspeaker cannot make any sound. That's no rule we got
together and made, it's the basic law of conservation of energy.

It IS impossible for a speaket to be completely self-damping,
i.e., to have no change in damping whether or not it is hooked
to an amplifier or no matter what the output impedance of the
amplifier is. To do otherwise violates the conservation of
enrgy. It's not because I said so, it's because you can't make
energy appear where none was. You don't like the good-ol-boys
engineers who tell you this because you don't like hearing the
facts. But the facts are there, whether you like them or not.

It frankly IS insulting and not a small amount disrespectful to
have a person who admits to not knowing much at all about
engineering and physics to be telling us how engineering and
physics work. I think we have been very patient, but YOU need to
understand that whatever the lmitations of knowledge of someone
in the engineering business might be, the limits placed on
people who are NOT in the business are much more strict.

I would, on the other hand, once again encourage you and
everyone else to try to educate yourselves more on how this
stuff works. It IS really fascinating and can lead to all sorts
of new and wonderful insights.

And, by the the way, about that open mind thing: an open mind is
a good thing, just as long as your brain doesn't fall out.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Chris Johnson wrote:
In article ,
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
Alternatively, and more rationally, one might say that the true 'high
end' lies in speakers and in room architecture, since the electronics
end seems to have pretty well peaked, with only features and styling
to differentiate good-quality players and amps. Cable of course, is
just cable.

It's a bit of a problem if 'subjectivists' are obligated to qualify
their statements with "gee, I could be wrong" but 'objectivists' get to
make unqualified general statements like this.


Stewart wrote 'seems to have pretty well'...really, that's all it takes,
as far as qualification. When subjectivists start employing the word *seems*
regularly, they'll get less flak from me, at least.

Cable is, of course, just cable, unless it's specifically designed
not to be transparent, so there's no need to qualify that. And the rest
of your post didn't seem to refer to cable, so I presume you agree.


--
-S.

Dennis Moore wrote:

Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to
rec.audio.dbt?

Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end
up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence
you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers
and non-believers etc. etc.

How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end
when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly
denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to
be high-enders for the most part.

[Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD]

A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too.

Seriously,
Dennis


I agree with Dennis. I am a lurker and not a contributer. I have
frequently come here in the past looking for what I would consider Audio
high end discussions. I have found very little discussion of value, but
most of the arguments are non-constructive and repetitive between the
same combatants. I've read a number of the previous responses to this
post and they are, for the most part, contributed by the regulars who
love this never-ending, repetitive, and inconclusive arguing. Any
question posed by a newbie is easily turned back to debating dbts or
something else similar and esoteric. However, I agree with the poster
that says RAHE is not audiophile friendly. Going further, most newbies
that post a question are likely to get their thread hijacked and their
question never answered. Another regular poster responded that there
are plenty of other forums for people to go to if they are not happy
with the "high end" discussions here. I am familiar with other options
and I found few other forums and no newsgroups that answer my questions
about "high end" audio. RAHE could potentially appeal to a larger
audience, but it is currently a closed poker game. Dennis' proposal
addresses that issue.

Jerry Cipriano

On 22 Aug 2003 17:39:58 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

Sure, but these products are readily identifiable, because they can be
*proven* to be both sensibly designed and effective.

To the majority of audiophiles the reviews in the audio magazines are the
closest thing to product performance information and comparison that are
available.

Sad, but true. The likes of Ken Kessler and Martin Colloms (for very
different reasons) do nothing to encourage real advances in
performance. :-(

Do you refer to proofs that are possible for each audiophile to
discover on his own, or is there some source where results are to be found?

The former. Never trust anyone elses results.

As a 'high end' brand, Meridian is the obvious example.

Obvious to you, but not to me. What makes it obvious to you?

They are engineering led products, not fashion victims. They probably
represent the *real* cutting edge of audio technology, and do not rely
on technobabble for their sales pitch.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 22 Aug 2003 17:39:29 GMT, Chris Johnson wrote:

In article ,
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
Alternatively, and more rationally, one might say that the true 'high
end' lies in speakers and in room architecture, since the electronics
end seems to have pretty well peaked, with only features and styling
to differentiate good-quality players and amps. Cable of course, is
just cable.

It's a bit of a problem if 'subjectivists' are obligated to qualify
their statements with "gee, I could be wrong" but 'objectivists' get to
make unqualified general statements like this.

It's not unqualified, did you miss 'good-quality'? Cable of course,
*is* just cable, an unqualified but correct statement which remains to
be disproved by *anyone*.

After all, it's not even true- if you assume no possible interaction
with the amp and the speaker load, you could say that, but that's not
real-world! I might suggest the qualifier "if you limit your amplifier
choices exclusively to ones that don't have weird ill-behaved
interactions with unusual loads".

That would of course *not* be a qood-quality amp, now would it? While
there's a lot of rubbish around - and it seems to get *worse* as the
prices skyrocket - there's also plenty of good stuff around.

To you that may be a given, but
there's no reason to assume such weird and ill-designed amplifiers don't
produce euphonic effects for some.

Euphonic distortions have been well-understood for many decades, even
if the 'valves 'n vinyl' brigade refuse to accept them for what they
are. They have nothing to do with *high fidelity* music reproduction.

ANY divergence from ideal accuracy is
a distortion, even divergences in the nature of 'making bad recordings
sound nice' or 'making limited recordings sound more like they're in an
acoustic space'.

Quite so.

Once you're dealing with audio voodoo of that nature, anything's fair
game, and it could well be that the amp you like best is ill-behaved and
subject to interactions with other components, even if it 'should not'.
It's a double-bind (NOT 'blind' ) because if you go to the
well-behaved amplifiers, you could be losing some particular alteration
of the sound that translates it better to your environment in practice.
None of us live in anechoic chambers or listen to test tones for fun...

Funny how people always try to bring up that old argument - ah yes,
but suppose we had fifteen mutually cancelling distortions at work
here................

Occam's Razor suggests sticking with low distortion components all the
way to the speaker/room interface.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Wylie Williams wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

Sure, but these products are readily identifiable, because they can be
*proven* to be both sensibly designed and effective.

To the majority of audiophiles the reviews in the audio magazines are the
closest thing to product performance information and comparison that are
available.

And that's the shame of it.

Do you refer to proofs that are possible for each audiophile to
discover on his own, or is there some source where results are to be found?

The audiophile review press should be

1) educating readers about relevant engineering principles and
2) employing proper measurements in reviews and
3) employing proper comparison techniques in reviews and
4) maintaining databases of the results

to provide *maximum* useful information to 'high-end' consumers.

--
-S.

Chris Johnson wrote:
It's a bit of a problem if 'subjectivists' are obligated to qualify
their statements with "gee, I could be wrong" but 'objectivists' get to
make unqualified general statements like this.

Objectivists are subject to precisely the same skeptical
scrutiny as everyone else. Whether some self-proclaimed
subjectivist does or, it seems, more likely does not avail him
or herself of the opportunity to skeptically scrutinize the
claims is another matter altogether. Maybe it is the mere fact
that they DO NO have the same skeptical outlook is really where
the difference lies, and the labels "objectiovist" and
"subjectivist" are just inaccuare monikers slapped on people by
those who are unaware of the subtleties involved or have one or
another personal adjendas that need feeding.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

snip

I understand if you expect a certain level of basic understanding from
the
people posting here.

I expect no such thing. What I would hope is that non-experts do
not pretend to be experts by pretending to make expert
pronouncements. The issue is not whether non-epxerts
participate: the vast majority of people here ARE NOT experts in
this field. What the problem is is non-experts making statements
that are outside their realm of expertise, and then complaining
when an expert tells them the statements are not correct.

I don't claim to have a patent on the "truth", nor do I purposly give out
false statements. I may say things incorrectly, but that is merely because I
may need further knowledge about certain issues.

It think RAHE should be the right place to discuss new products, ideas,
theories or maybe even tries things, that would not seem logical from a
conventional engineering point of view.

I have no objection to the discussion of new ideas. The problem
being is that, again, no disrespect intended, the ideas you have
presented regarding this amplifier you've been talking about are
not new, worse, they are not good. The manufacturer is
presenting them as some sort of miraculuous thing, yet all the
evidence points strongly in the direction of either neive
incompetence or outright hucksterism.

Well, it was one of my goals to see the general reaction, to a such product.

I like keeping my mind open, and maybe try to do, or even does, things
people says cannot be done. Doing the "impossible" has always been one of
the biggest thrills to me.

Well, here some impossible things you can try:

1. Using nothing more than a compass, a drafting square, a
straightedge and a pencial and all the paper you want, can you
draw a square and a circle that have the same enclosed area?

2. Can you construct the 6th regular polyhedron in 3 dimension
orthogonal space? Currently there are only 5:

tetrahedron (4 equilateral triangles)
hexahedron (6 squares)
octahedron (8 equilateral triangles)
dodecahedran (12 regular pentagons)
icosahedron (20 equilateral triangles)

These are two impossible tasks. Indeed, they have been proven
impossible via rigorous proofs.

Well, there are certain impossible things, that my common sense will keep
from attempting to solve

Of course, nothing can replace good engineering, I respect that. What I
oppose to, is some sort of general too big a loyalty towards the "rules"
,
which means that the engineering "one optimal solution to one particular
problem" approach, should never rule out doing things differently, just
to
try.

NO, it does NOT mean that at all. PLease, as a person who is a
non-expert in the field of engineering, do not pretend to know
what the rules of engineering are.

The "rules" include the law of conservation of energy, the law
of conservation of electrical charge (forming, for example, the
basis of Kirschoff's current and voltage laws), Ohm's law, and
much more.

This is precisely my objection, you, as a non-expert in
engineering, have now made a pronouncement about how engineering
works. And you are wrong. And, if you do as you have earlier,
you will refuse to accept the consequences of being wrong on an
engineering point: that conclusions drawn from a wrong point are
wrong.

There's a tremendous amount of wiggle room in engineering, but,
ultimately, behind all that room you WILL encounter a set of
VERY rigid boundaries not set, as you claim, by some good-old-
boy network of engineers, but by the fundamental limitations of
physics itself. No amount of wishfull thinking is going to make
those barriers go away or even bend a little.

It IS impossible for a loudspeaker to have an impedance phase
angle in excess of +-90 degrees. Period. It's not something a
bunch of us got together and passed a rule and said we don't
want anyone to do this, it is a matter of PHYSICAL impossibility
because it requires a passive network to have negative linear
resistances. That's just impossible.

It IS impossible for a speaker to have a purely capacitive
impedance. Many people have made this claim, but such a
loudspeaker cannot make any sound. That's no rule we got
together and made, it's the basic law of conservation of energy.

It IS impossible for a speaket to be completely self-damping,
i.e., to have no change in damping whether or not it is hooked
to an amplifier or no matter what the output impedance of the
amplifier is. To do otherwise violates the conservation of
enrgy. It's not because I said so, it's because you can't make
energy appear where none was. You don't like the good-ol-boys
engineers who tell you this because you don't like hearing the
facts. But the facts are there, whether you like them or not.

It frankly IS insulting and not a small amount disrespectful to
have a person who admits to not knowing much at all about
engineering and physics to be telling us how engineering and
physics work. I think we have been very patient, but YOU need to
understand that whatever the lmitations of knowledge of someone
in the engineering business might be, the limits placed on
people who are NOT in the business are much more strict.

Seems like you are interpreting my words against my intentions. As I said, I
have great respect for good engineering, and knows there are no replacement
for math and physics


I would, on the other hand, once again encourage you and
everyone else to try to educate yourselves more on how this
stuff works. It IS really fascinating and can lead to all sorts
of new and wonderful insights.

Well, if I were'nt interested in learning more, I'd probably not be here....

KE


And, by the the way, about that open mind thing: an open mind is
a good thing, just as long as your brain doesn't fall out.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

In article NJQ1b.238289$uu5.47499@sccrnsc04, Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
The audiophile review press should be

1) educating readers about relevant engineering principles and

These are for engineers, not audiophiles. Most of us don't care about
engineering principles. This hobby is about enjoying music.

2) employing proper measurements in reviews and

Stereophile does this. Do you think if they only did this only and stopped
printing the reviews anyone would read it?

3) employing proper comparison techniques in reviews and

What does this mean - DBTs. Audiophiles don't care.

Mike, once again, you seem to think you speak for "audiophiles."
When did this election occur or is it a blood-line rise to the
throne? Also, you seem also to have taken on the task of
defining "audiophile" as anyone who agrees with your position.
You would seem to assume that anyone who does not agree with you
can therefore not be an audiophile. You have put strict limits
on who is or is not a member of your club.

So, do the members of your little club have a salute? Do they
get to wear badges and all?

Not surprisingly, I strongly disagree with you. If you believe the above is
the role of the audio press, then why don't you start a magazine to do all
those things. I'll tell you why - no one would be interested in reading it.

Really, NO ONE?

Again, how do you know this. YOU might not be interested in
reading it, but gee, the world consists of something other than
Mike clones.

Okay maybe a handful of zealots here would buy it, but that's about it.

A handful of zealots. Gee, that seems to describe YOUR
definition of exclusionary audiophilic bigotry quite well.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Steven said

At core, it seems to me that there's an unwillingness on the part of
*subjectivists* to acknowledge uncertainty. If subjectivists were
to write, 'SACDs sound great! Don't know if it's the format or the
mastering, though" or "These new cables certainly seem to make a
difference!
difference!
I could be wrong, though."


I said


I think you paint subjectivists with a bit of a broad brush here.

Steven said


When they start acknowledging the possibility of perceptual bias when they
make their endless reports of audible difference, maybe I'll narrow
it down. IME , the number who do is a miniscule fraction of the breed.


Don't forget that you experience is also subject to biases and selective
memory. Do you really take note every time some one says things like one amp
"seemed" better than another? Do you assume that when one doesn't qualify an
opinion with the note that their impressions may have been influenced by visual
cues that they don't believe it is possible?

Steven said


They'd almost certainly get *no*
flak from skeptics.


I said


Wouldn't that be nice.

Steven said


Subjectivists seem simply unwilling to
acknowledge the existence of perceptual error.


I said


Some, certainly. All, certainly not.

Steven said


Well, there's a reason I didn't write the word *all*

The words imply all to me. You name a group and make no qualifications. Are you
not some what guilty of the same thing you are complaining about then? You want
every subjectivist to qualify every claim of perception if they haven't done
bias controled tests but it just ends up being extra verbosity. You could have
said "some subjectivists" or "many subjectivists "but you simply said
"subjectivists seem simply unwilling...". That includes all of them if you fail
to qualify the claim.OTOH if I say I like a car or a kind of food or an amp IMO
the logical qualification that it is an opinion that carries no scientific
weight would be understood.

I said

One could say the same of some
objectivists who seem to feel any comment on the sound of almost any
component
besides a speaker isn't just subject to lack of certainty but is certain to
be
meaningless. Both sides of this debate seem to have their militant
radicals.

Steven said

Well, let's see, we have speakers, cartridges, digital players, amps,
preamps,
and cables. Those are the essence of most 'high end' systems today.

Along with turntables and pickup arms to make the allow th cartridges to work .

Steven said

Of those,
only speakers and cartridges can be *expected* from physical principles to
sound
different given competent design and normal use. And the others *are*
expected to
produce 'uncertain' results in sighted tests.

An opinion held by some and not others.

Steven said


"Objectivists" are unwilling to acknowledge that (sighted)
'hearing is believing' in many cases. But in this case, they
have good scientific backing for it: the mounds of data
confirming the existence of perceptual error.

I said

Uncertain perceptions are not the same as wortless ones. Science does
support
the notion that sighted biases can influence one's perceptions. It does not
support the notion, some seem to hold, that such influence renders all
sighted
sonic impressions meaningless.

Steven said


What 'meaning' do they have?

Something between no meaning and perfectly reliable meaning.

Steven said

The 'impressions' might be accurate; or they might not
be. That's as far as you can get, without some *other* principle or data to
support the
comment.

They are not as likely to be accurate as one would get in bias controlled tests
and they are not is inaccurate as random results. There are people who make big
bucks dealing with such kinds of uncertainties. Uncetainty is managable.

Steven said

Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar
'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are.

Again, lack of certainty is a managable problem. Gee even objectivists have to
deal with biases when evaluating speakers. It seems most of them live with it.

Steven said


As far I know, *I'm* the only one on any forum I've seen who has called such
impressions 'meaningless' btw. And I *always* try to couch my own
'impressions' of
component sound in terms that acknoweldge uncertainty.

Actually, IMO you are far more polite about your opinions than many other
objectivists.

S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said

At core, it seems to me that there's an unwillingness on the part of
*subjectivists* to acknowledge uncertainty. If subjectivists were
to write, 'SACDs sound great! Don't know if it's the format or the
mastering, though" or "These new cables certainly seem to make a
difference!
difference!
I could be wrong, though."


I said


I think you paint subjectivists with a bit of a broad brush here.

Steven said


When they start acknowledging the possibility of perceptual bias when they
make their endless reports of audible difference, maybe I'll narrow
it down. IME , the number who do is a miniscule fraction of the breed.


Don't forget that you experience is also subject to biases and selective
memory. Do you really take note every time some one says things like one amp
"seemed" better than another?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. It's so rare, you see.

Do I *record* each instance? No, sorry.

Do you assume that when one doesn't qualify an
opinion with the note that their impressions may have been influenced by visual
cues that they don't believe it is possible?

Only when the context seems to indicate it...which seems to be often.
Then there's is the frequency with which 'subjectivists'
get bent out of shape when the possibility is brought up.

IME, of course.


Well, there's a reason I didn't write the word *all*

The words imply all to me.

Then let me reassure you: they don't mean *all*.

You name a group and make no qualifications. Are you
not some what guilty of the same thing you are complaining about then? You want
every subjectivist to qualify every claim of perception if they haven't done
bias controled tests but it just ends up being extra verbosity. You could have
said "some subjectivists" or "many subjectivists "but you simply said
"subjectivists seem simply unwilling...". That includes all of them if you fail
to qualify the claim.OTOH if I say I like a car or a kind of food or an amp IMO
the logical qualification that it is an opinion that carries no scientific
weight would be understood.

I'm usually pretty careful about how I phrase things, but I'm sure I slip
up occasionally.

Of those,
only speakers and cartridges can be *expected* from physical principles to
sound
different given competent design and normal use. And the others *are*
expected to
produce 'uncertain' results in sighted tests.

An opinion held by some and not others.

And the difference between what the 'some' and the 'others' understand about
the physical principles in question, is often the key.

Uncertain perceptions are not the same as wortless ones. Science does
support
the notion that sighted biases can influence one's perceptions. It does not
support the notion, some seem to hold, that such influence renders all
sighted
sonic impressions meaningless.

Steven said


What 'meaning' do they have?

Something between no meaning and perfectly reliable meaning.

Sighted, reports of difference between CDs and amps and cables
only become 'reliable' when there's other data, much less 'perfectly'
reliable.

be. That's as far as you can get, without some *other* principle or data to
support the
comment.

They are not as likely to be accurate as one would get in bias controlled tests
and they are not is inaccurate as random results.

They are more likely to be the latter than the former.

There are people who make big
bucks dealing with such kinds of uncertainties. Uncetainty is managable.

Yes, we know ways to reduce it. For validating the existence of audible difference,
controlled audition is considered the best by scientists and even a few
audio component manufacterers.

Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar
'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are.

Again, lack of certainty is a managable problem. Gee even objectivists have to
deal with biases when evaluating speakers. It seems most of them live with it.

Lack of certainty shoudl be acknowledged more often in audiophilia.
It also could and should be 'managed' far, far better than it usually is.

As far I know, *I'm* the only one on any forum I've seen who has called such
impressions 'meaningless' btw. And I *always* try to couch my own
'impressions' of
component sound in terms that acknoweldge uncertainty.

Actually, IMO you are far more polite about your opinions than many other
objectivists.

That's because I am suffused with pity for others. ;

--
-S.

"Dennis Moore" wrote in message .net...
"Steven Sullivan"
The audiophile review press should be

1) educating readers about relevant engineering principles and
2) employing proper measurements in reviews and
3) employing proper comparison techniques in reviews and
4) maintaining databases of the results

to provide *maximum* useful information to 'high-end' consumers.

--
-S.

Well the reason those magazines are done the way they are
makes sense. They do with lots of equipment what most
audiophiles can do at home. Hook it up, listen to it, and
evaluate it in sighted listening. Live with it a few weeks or
months, and give you their opinion at that time. Few if any
audiophiles are set up or would set up to do DBT comparisons
of equipment.

A magazine that did extensive useful tests would be helpful,
other than no one seems to agree on what kind of tests would
let you know what something sounds like. Unless it is equipment
you have tested with DBT's and decide it does nothing wrong.
I am sure there would be many thrilled subscribers looking at
this months tests of equipment to see it all had been found
indistinguishable from other equipment. Waiting anxiously
no doubt for each months list of approved indistinguishable
equipment. I guess that would only leave speakers.

Yep that would be a runaway publishing success.

Dennis

Correction Dennis- for all that anyone knows speakers are exempted
only from "they all sound the same under ABX" rule because no one
thought as yet of getting an audiophile panel together to ABX them.
Ludovic Mirabel

Dennis Moore wrote:
"Steven Sullivan"
The audiophile review press should be

1) educating readers about relevant engineering principles and
2) employing proper measurements in reviews and
3) employing proper comparison techniques in reviews and
4) maintaining databases of the results

to provide *maximum* useful information to 'high-end' consumers.

--
-S.



Well the reason those magazines are done the way they are
makes sense. They do with lots of equipment what most
audiophiles can do at home. Hook it up, listen to it, and
evaluate it in sighted listening. Live with it a few weeks or
months, and give you their opinion at that time. Few if any
audiophiles are set up or would set up to do DBT comparisons
of equipment.

I know what they do. And like audiophiles at home, their
conclusions from sighted listening are highly questionable
for certain classes of components.

I've been told that an ABX comparator cost about $600.
Compare that to what audiophiles routinely spend on
equipment. Surely Stereophile can spend that to add an
ABX box to its test arsenal.

A magazine that did extensive useful tests would be helpful,
other than no one seems to agree on what kind of tests would
let you know what something sounds like.

For several classes of componets, that really doesn't matter
until you can first establish that component B sounds
*different from* reference component A.
It would make all the subsequent blather about 'detail'
and 'involvement' ever so much more plausible.

Unless it is equipment
you have tested with DBT's and decide it does nothing wrong.
I am sure there would be many thrilled subscribers looking at
this months tests of equipment to see it all had been found
indistinguishable from other equipment.

So, your argument is, the truth may be unmarketable?

Waiting anxiously
no doubt for each months list of approved indistinguishable
equipment. I guess that would only leave speakers.

Speakers, LP-related gear, and possibly tubed vs SS amps.
And room treatments. Speakers comprise a huge fraction
of reviews, I've noticed.

Yep that would be a runaway publishing success.

No audiophile magazine is currently a 'runaway
publishing success' AFAICT, so why should that be
a special concern of a 'zine that uses DBT (which, btw,
some reviewers at Sound and Vision and Sensible SOund
*do* use)?

Arguing that an objective review format might be unpopular
to true believers essentially concedes that it's a faith-based
hobby, not one interested in accuracy or scientific truth.

I suspect a more likely reason DBT-based reviews would not
become the norm, is the loss of advertising revenue it
might entail. That, too, is another argument from the
*marketplace*, not a compelling argument against the
*principles* of controlled comparison.

--
-S.

Bob Marcus wrote:
"Jerry C." wrote in message ...
Dennis Moore wrote:

Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to
rec.audio.dbt?

Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end
up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence
you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers
and non-believers etc. etc.

How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end
when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly
denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to
be high-enders for the most part.

[Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD]

A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too.

Seriously,
Dennis


I agree with Dennis. I am a lurker and not a contributer. I have
frequently come here in the past looking for what I would consider Audio
high end discussions. I have found very little discussion of value, but
most of the arguments are non-constructive and repetitive between the
same combatants.

If you scroll back through Google's listing of active threads for the
last month, you'll find that the vast majority of threads are not
devoted to this tired old debate at all. And if you check into the
many other threads, you will find that few if any degenerate into
shouting matches about DBTs and such (in part because there's a strict
rule against it).

Damn you and your *facts*.

It's easy to get the perception that that's all anybody talks about
around here, but it's not. Just in the last couple of days there have
been questions raised about amps, loudspeakers, impedance
matching--even digital cables, for god's sake, and they've all gotten
polite and informative responses.

I've read a number of the previous responses to this
post and they are, for the most part, contributed by the regulars who
love this never-ending, repetitive, and inconclusive arguing.

I doubt anybody loves it. I wish the folks who start those threads
would cease and desist.

As I have demonstrated, the 'starters' tend to be anti-DBT/ABX
adherents. Perhaps they should all be put on probation until
they learn to behave.

But most other audio discussion sites on the
Web ban the subject, so they come over here (and then complain that
the discussions elsewhere are much more informative).

Or, like Jerry, complain that discussion here isn't informative
*enough*! Sheesh.

--
-S.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:lpW1b.239607$YN5.162514@sccrnsc01...
S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said

At core, it seems to me that there's an unwillingness on the part of
*subjectivists* to acknowledge uncertainty. If subjectivists were
to write, 'SACDs sound great! Don't know if it's the format or the
mastering, though" or "These new cables certainly seem to make a
difference!
difference!
I could be wrong, though."


I said


I think you paint subjectivists with a bit of a broad brush here.

Steven said


When they start acknowledging the possibility of perceptual bias when
they
make their endless reports of audible difference, maybe I'll narrow
it down. IME , the number who do is a miniscule fraction of the breed.


Don't forget that you experience is also subject to biases and selective
memory. Do you really take note every time some one says things like one
amp
"seemed" better than another?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. It's so rare, you see.

Do I *record* each instance? No, sorry.

Do you assume that when one doesn't qualify an
opinion with the note that their impressions may have been influenced by
visual
cues that they don't believe it is possible?

Only when the context seems to indicate it...which seems to be often.
Then there's is the frequency with which 'subjectivists'
get bent out of shape when the possibility is brought up.

IME, of course.


It seems to me that we get bent out of shape when our critics forget the
difference within the two following sets of logic:

Set 1

tradional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias
my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test
therefore my opinion may be vulnerable to sight-induced bias

vs

traditional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias
my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test
therefore my opinion is simply my imagination and the testing is worthless

Moreover we get bent out of shape when you and others continue to ignore the
*huge* difference in conclusion that a simple additional (and true*)
statement makes to the following logic:

Set 2

traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield
"difference"
traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias
therefore defacto the traditional blind test must be the true difference, in
this case no difference

vs

traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield
"difference"
traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias
traditional blind test vulnerability to non-sight-induced,
perception-distorting biases has not been adequately tested*
therefore we cannot conclude which test reveals the true difference

*for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al when
testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a
proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack of
close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration
comparative blind testing (no statistical difference).


Well, there's a reason I didn't write the word *all*

The words imply all to me.

Then let me reassure you: they don't mean *all*.

You name a group and make no qualifications. Are you
not some what guilty of the same thing you are complaining about then?
You want
every subjectivist to qualify every claim of perception if they haven't
done
bias controled tests but it just ends up being extra verbosity. You
could have
said "some subjectivists" or "many subjectivists "but you simply said
"subjectivists seem simply unwilling...". That includes all of them if
you fail
to qualify the claim.OTOH if I say I like a car or a kind of food or an
amp IMO
the logical qualification that it is an opinion that carries no
scientific
weight would be understood.

I'm usually pretty careful about how I phrase things, but I'm sure I slip
up occasionally.

Of those,
only speakers and cartridges can be *expected* from physical principles
to
sound
different given competent design and normal use. And the others *are*
expected to
produce 'uncertain' results in sighted tests.

An opinion held by some and not others.

And the difference between what the 'some' and the 'others' understand
about
the physical principles in question, is often the key.

Uncertain perceptions are not the same as wortless ones. Science does
support
the notion that sighted biases can influence one's perceptions. It
does not
support the notion, some seem to hold, that such influence renders
all
sighted
sonic impressions meaningless.


A succinct exposition of Set's 1 and 2 above.

Steven said


What 'meaning' do they have?

Something between no meaning and perfectly reliable meaning.

Sighted, reports of difference between CDs and amps and cables
only become 'reliable' when there's other data, much less 'perfectly'
reliable.

be. That's as far as you can get, without some *other* principle or
data to
support the
comment.

They are not as likely to be accurate as one would get in bias
controlled tests
and they are not is inaccurate as random results.

They are more likely to be the latter than the former.

There are people who make big
bucks dealing with such kinds of uncertainties. Uncetainty is managable.

Yes, we know ways to reduce it. For validating the existence of audible
difference,
controlled audition is considered the best by scientists and even a few
audio component manufacterers.

Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar
'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are.

Again, lack of certainty is a managable problem. Gee even objectivists
have to
deal with biases when evaluating speakers. It seems most of them live
with it.

Lack of certainty shoudl be acknowledged more often in audiophilia.
It also could and should be 'managed' far, far better than it usually is.

As far I know, *I'm* the only one on any forum I've seen who has called
such
impressions 'meaningless' btw. And I *always* try to couch my own
'impressions' of
component sound in terms that acknoweldge uncertainty.

Actually, IMO you are far more polite about your opinions than many
other
objectivists.

That's because I am suffused with pity for others. ;

Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Jerry C. wrote:

RAHE could potentially appeal to a larger
audience, but it is currently a closed poker game. Dennis' proposal
addresses that issue.

The 'closed poker game' metaphor is silly. It's an open forum, as long
as you abide by the rules...which, fortunately, do NOT ban expressions
of skepticism of audiophile folklore. Neitehr do they ban the posting
of such folklore. Boy does that irritate me.

Actually, there's nothing to stop someone from posting here, "When I
switched from copper to silver interconnects I found that I got a much
greater emotional experience when listening to music."

This statement cannot be contradicted, and won't be. And even if
someone replies that your results might be different if you compared
the two blind, so what? It's indisputably true, as both sides concede.
Why it's true is a matter of dispute, but since the original post
makes no claims for why it's true, that question shouldn't come
up--unless someone else takes umbrage at the response.

As I've said before, I understand why someone might get the impression
that they can't post here without being attacked. But I think if they
try, they'll be surprised at how benign we all are, under most
circumstances.

I suspect a more likely reason DBT-based reviews would not
become the norm, is the loss of advertising revenue it
might entail. That, too, is another argument from the
*marketplace*, not a compelling argument against the
*principles* of controlled comparison.

--
-S.


I suspect the loss of revenue argument doesn't hold water. Now
that TAS and Stereophile are owned by other companies that may
indeed by how they are being handled.

What I first liked about both was they were unique among consumer
level publications at telling some truth as the end user would find
it. As in if something broke they told you. As in if they didn't like
something it was clear. Not everything they reviewed was liked.
Both were also growing and successful when they did this. They
don't much do it now, and they also both appear to be shrinking in
appeal. Though there are many, many other contributing factors.

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote in message
...
Jerry C. wrote:

RAHE could potentially appeal to a larger
audience, but it is currently a closed poker game. Dennis' proposal
addresses that issue.

The 'closed poker game' metaphor is silly. It's an open forum, as long
as you abide by the rules...which, fortunately, do NOT ban expressions
of skepticism of audiophile folklore. Neitehr do they ban the posting
of such folklore. Boy does that irritate me.

Actually, there's nothing to stop someone from posting here, "When I
switched from copper to silver interconnects I found that I got a much
greater emotional experience when listening to music."

This statement cannot be contradicted, and won't be. And even if
someone replies that your results might be different if you compared
the two blind, so what? It's indisputably true, as both sides concede.
Why it's true is a matter of dispute, but since the original post
makes no claims for why it's true, that question shouldn't come
up--unless someone else takes umbrage at the response.

As I've said before, I understand why someone might get the impression
that they can't post here without being attacked. But I think if they
try, they'll be surprised at how benign we all are, under most
circumstances.

Well its a nice fantasy, and devoutly to be wished. But I see nothing in
the track record of this group to suggest that somebody wouldn't reply that
the increased emotional satisfaction was only imaginary since the switch was
obviously known, and that if the two cables were compared using a dbt or
more specifically abx, then there would be no difference and accordingly the
increased emotional investment would of necessity be imaginary, and btw, I'm
only telling you this for your own good. If the poster was lucky the tone
would be respectful; if not, well.....

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mv82b.184354$cF.62105@rwcrnsc53...

It seems to me that we get bent out of shape when our critics forget the
difference within the two following sets of logic:

Set 1

tradional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias
my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test
therefore my opinion may be vulnerable to sight-induced bias

vs

traditional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias
my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test
therefore my opinion is simply my imagination and the testing is worthless

This is a fair point, but it blames only one side. It is my impression
that a very common situation is that your "critics" post some form of
the first, but it is interpreted by your "friends" as the second.

If we're going to improve the civility around here, we're going to
have to learn to read--as well as write--with more care and
sensitivity.

bob

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
It seems to me that we get bent out of shape when our critics forget the
difference within the two following sets of logic:

Set 1

tradional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias
my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test
therefore my opinion may be vulnerable to sight-induced bias

vs

traditional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias
my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test
therefore my opinion is simply my imagination and the testing is worthless

Well, that's a curious view, but it's not mine, nor is it anyone's I've seen
here, AFAIR. *I* consider sighted anecdoates about amp and cable and CD differences
to be worthless because
1) they *cannot be distinguished from* imaginary effects, on their own merits, and
2) there is compelling reason to believe they *could* be imaginary

not because I *know* they are imaginary.

They do nothing to settle an issue one way or another, from an objective
stance.

Moreover we get bent out of shape when you and others continue to ignore the
*huge* difference in conclusion that a simple additional (and true*)
statement makes to the following logic:

Set 2

traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield
"difference"
traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias
therefore defacto the traditional blind test must be the true difference, in
this case no difference

vs

traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield
"difference"

Indeed.

traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias

INdeed.

traditional blind test vulnerability to non-sight-induced,
perception-distorting biases has not been adequately tested*

THe last statement is untrue from a scientific standpoint.
The existence of perceptual bias, and hte need for controls to
ameliorate its effects in experiments, has been accepted
for decades in science. 'Sight' is not literally necessary.
*Knowledge* of which treamtent is in force, is what induces
bias.

*for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al when
testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a
proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack of
close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration
comparative blind testing (no statistical difference).

'For example' or 'here's the only case I know of, and it's unreplicated'?
Aside from which, how on God's green earth could Oohashi's 'proto-monadic'
results be construed as support for *sighted* results? *Every* sighted
results would *still* have to be verified by blind comparison. Oohashi's
results don't point ot he nonexistence of perceptual bias.

And btw, Harry, you're the *only* anti_Abxer who I've ever seen cite Oohashi,
so I really , really doubt this is a sore point for most true believers.
To mention it as if it's the main thing that's getting subjectivists 'bent
out of shape' over anti-ABX claims, is absurd. It's a result taht doesn't
even support the anti-ABX side.

Yes, we know ways to reduce it. For validating the existence of audible
difference,
controlled audition is considered the best by scientists and even a few
audio component manufacterers.

Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar
'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are.

Again, lack of certainty is a managable problem. Gee even objectivists
have to
deal with biases when evaluating speakers. It seems most of them live
with it.

Lack of certainty shoudl be acknowledged more often in audiophilia.
It also could and should be 'managed' far, far better than it usually is.

No comments on any of this, Harry?

It is rather central to my view, after all.

--
-S.

Steven Sullivan wrote in message .net...

Between the horrors of invincible sighted bias that has been "proven"
(no?) to afflict everyone , but everyone equally:- experienced or not
experienced, an unamplified music concert goer with good taste (sorry,
no chapter about that in the electronics manual, no study in JAES) or
a rock fan, chamber music lover or car audio fan- and the horrors of
invariable "They all sound the same" ABX earmuffs give me the
subjectivist impressions of sighted J.Gordon Holt any time.
As for myself if I have to I'll have someone cover the brand names and
have him play my favourite music.. Presto; $ 600:00 saved AND
differences heard if any. The savings include the expense for a pink
noise generator.
Ludovic Mirabel

Dennis Moore wrote:
"Steven Sullivan"
The audiophile review press should be

1) educating readers about relevant engineering principles and
2) employing proper measurements in reviews and
3) employing proper comparison techniques in reviews and
4) maintaining databases of the results

to provide *maximum* useful information to 'high-end' consumers.

--
-S.



Well the reason those magazines are done the way they are
makes sense. They do with lots of equipment what most
audiophiles can do at home. Hook it up, listen to it, and
evaluate it in sighted listening. Live with it a few weeks or
months, and give you their opinion at that time. Few if any
audiophiles are set up or would set up to do DBT comparisons
of equipment.

I know what they do. And like audiophiles at home, their
conclusions from sighted listening are highly questionable
for certain classes of components.

I've been told that an ABX comparator cost about $600.
Compare that to what audiophiles routinely spend on
equipment. Surely Stereophile can spend that to add an
ABX box to its test arsenal.

A magazine that did extensive useful tests would be helpful,
other than no one seems to agree on what kind of tests would
let you know what something sounds like.

For several classes of componets, that really doesn't matter
until you can first establish that component B sounds
*different from* reference component A.
It would make all the subsequent blather about 'detail'
and 'involvement' ever so much more plausible.

Unless it is equipment
you have tested with DBT's and decide it does nothing wrong.
I am sure there would be many thrilled subscribers looking at
this months tests of equipment to see it all had been found
indistinguishable from other equipment.

So, your argument is, the truth may be unmarketable?

Waiting anxiously
no doubt for each months list of approved indistinguishable
equipment. I guess that would only leave speakers.

Speakers, LP-related gear, and possibly tubed vs SS amps.
And room treatments. Speakers comprise a huge fraction
of reviews, I've noticed.

Yep that would be a runaway publishing success.

No audiophile magazine is currently a 'runaway
publishing success' AFAICT, so why should that be
a special concern of a 'zine that uses DBT (which, btw,
some reviewers at Sound and Vision and Sensible SOund
*do* use)?

Arguing that an objective review format might be unpopular
to true believers essentially concedes that it's a faith-based
hobby, not one interested in accuracy or scientific truth.

I suspect a more likely reason DBT-based reviews would not
become the norm, is the loss of advertising revenue it
might entail. That, too, is another argument from the
*marketplace*, not a compelling argument against the
*principles* of controlled comparison.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Bob Marcus wrote:

in message ...

Dennis Moore wrote:

Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to
rec.audio.dbt?

Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end
up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence
you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers
and non-believers etc. etc.
How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end
when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly
denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to
be high-enders for the most part.

[Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD]

A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too.

Seriously,
Dennis

"Jerry C." wrote
I agree with Dennis. I am a lurker and not a contributer. I have
frequently come here in the past looking for what I would consider Audio
high end discussions. I have found very little discussion of value, but
most of the arguments are non-constructive and repetitive between the
same combatants.


If you scroll back through Google's listing of active threads for the
last month, you'll find that the vast majority of threads are not
devoted to this tired old debate at all. And if you check into the
many other threads, you will find that few if any degenerate into
shouting matches about DBTs and such (in part because there's a strict
rule against it).


Damn you and your *facts*.


It's easy to get the perception that that's all anybody talks about
around here, but it's not. Just in the last couple of days there have
been questions raised about amps, loudspeakers, impedance
matching--even digital cables, for god's sake, and they've all gotten
polite and informative responses.

"Jerry C" wrote:
I've read a number of the previous responses to this
post and they are, for the most part, contributed by the regulars who
love this never-ending, repetitive, and inconclusive arguing.


I doubt anybody loves it. I wish the folks who start those threads
would cease and desist.

Perhaps "love" is a poorly chosen word.

As I have demonstrated, the 'starters' tend to be anti-DBT/ABX
adherents. Perhaps they should all be put on probation until
they learn to behave.


But most other audio discussion sites on the
Web ban the subject, so they come over here (and then complain that
the discussions elsewhere are much more informative).


Or, like Jerry, complain that discussion here isn't informative
*enough*! Sheesh.

Actually Mr. Sullivan, I didn't "complain" here and I didn't say or
infer that "discussion here isn't informative enough". I supported the
original poster's implications (he implied much more than he said) after
he was contradicted by a number of the regulars here. I think that I am
being constructive if the regulars would be interested in knowing how
many non-regulars perceive this (I am being presumptive to speak for
others, I know). I would wager (but can't prove in a dbt) that many
lurkers agree with me. BTW, I do believe that many of the regulars are
very informed and knowledgeable about what they speak. I just wish they
would answer more of the questions directly without digressing to
tangential subjects. As I originally said, I hope that RAHE takes this
as intended constructively. I do not wish to criticise pointlessly.

Respectfully,
Jerry Cipriano

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:mv82b.184354$cF.62105@rwcrnsc53...

*for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al
when
testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a
proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack of
close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration
comparative blind testing (no statistical difference).

(1) There were other significant differences in Oohashi tests than just the
ones just stated. For example, the alternatives compared included different
loudspeaker systems, which not surprisingly had different measured frequency
response in the normal audible range.

(2) Many blind tests related to the same issue have been done under highly
relaxed conditions and there are no known positive results.

"Harry Lavo" wrote:




"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote in message
...
Jerry C. wrote:

RAHE could potentially appeal to a larger
audience, but it is currently a closed poker game. Dennis' proposal
addresses that issue.

The 'closed poker game' metaphor is silly. It's an open forum, as long
as you abide by the rules...which, fortunately, do NOT ban expressions
of skepticism of audiophile folklore. Neitehr do they ban the posting
of such folklore. Boy does that irritate me.

Actually, there's nothing to stop someone from posting here, "When I
switched from copper to silver interconnects I found that I got a much
greater emotional experience when listening to music."

This statement cannot be contradicted, and won't be. And even if
someone replies that your results might be different if you compared
the two blind, so what? It's indisputably true, as both sides concede.
Why it's true is a matter of dispute, but since the original post
makes no claims for why it's true, that question shouldn't come
up--unless someone else takes umbrage at the response.

As I've said before, I understand why someone might get the impression
that they can't post here without being attacked. But I think if they
try, they'll be surprised at how benign we all are, under most
circumstances.

Well its a nice fantasy, and devoutly to be wished. But I see nothing in
the track record of this group to suggest that somebody wouldn't reply that
the increased emotional satisfaction was only imaginary since the switch was
obviously known, and that if the two cables were compared using a dbt or
more specifically abx, then there would be no difference and accordingly the
increased emotional investment would of necessity be imaginary, and btw, I'm
only telling you this for your own good. If the poster was lucky the tone
would be respectful; if not, well.....

What would be even more wonderful would be that subjectivists would be more
respectful when one of us goes to the trouble of attempting to verify claims of
amp/wire/bit sound with a truly unbiased acoustical test. Instead we get a
plethora of insults about our methods, motives, equipment, listening skills and
hearing when the results don't support contemporary Urban Legend.

On the other hand, practically ANY supporting observation, no matter how
outlandish, gets taken as gospel by subjectivists who then want to claim insult
by nothing more than being faced with the extant evidence on the subject.

"Dennis Moore" wrote:

I suspect a more likely reason DBT-based reviews would not
become the norm, is the loss of advertising revenue it
might entail. That, too, is another argument from the
*marketplace*, not a compelling argument against the
*principles* of controlled comparison.

--
-S.


I suspect the loss of revenue argument doesn't hold water. Now
that TAS and Stereophile are owned by other companies that may
indeed by how they are being handled.

What I first liked about both was they were unique among consumer
level publications at telling some truth as the end user would find
it.

As in if something broke they told you. As in if they didn't like
something it was clear.

Actually the breaking news was always covered in Audio, High Fidelity or Stereo
Review well before it ever hit SP or TAS.

Not everything they reviewed was liked.
Both were also growing and successful when they did this. They
don't much do it now, and they also both appear to be shrinking in
appeal. Though there are many, many other contributing factors.

Stereophile seemingly has never met an amplifier it didn't like. How many of
the amplifiers reviewed in 2001 and 2002 appeared on the RCL? All of them.

That also seems to be true for practically every product category. The List up
until the very last one, claimed "700 Recommended Components" on the cover yet
a page by page stroke count turns up less than 550.

Even so with a yearly review count of about 150 a 700 RCL would mosty likely
contain nearly every product covered in the past 2-3 years. And, no surprise,
it does.

So much for that appeal.

"Bob Marcus" wrote.

As I've said before, I understand why someone might get the impression
that they can't post here without being attacked. But I think if they
try, they'll be surprised at how benign we all are, under most
circumstances.

Bob, it's all a matter of point of view. From the viewpoint of someone
accustomed to the ways of RAHE you are correct. But from the viewpoint of
the vast majority of audiophiles who are not accustomed to the ways of RAHE
you are wrong. Virtually all audiophiles have been reared in the
subjectivist school so when they make a post on RAHE and are pulled up short
they are shocked. This is a new experience, totally different that what they
expect. If they were to be aware in advance of the nature of RAHE they could
learn exactly how to phrase their posts to be "safe", but there is no one to
coach them on the PC of RAHE. They walk into a newsgroup they assume is
composed of like minded people, make statements that would be acceptable
anywhere else on the net, and they catch a load of crap. I may not have
known many audiophiles, but almost all of the ones I have known have been
people of gentle spirits. They are very much taken aback by unexpected
insults on their intelligence, and will usually flee rather than fight. If
they do attempt a defense, as amatuers against pros they are quickly
dispatched in the ensuing debate. What is sparring to a pro is a mugging to
the amateur.
Wylie Williams

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
newslf2b.188865$Oz4.51393@rwcrnsc54...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:mv82b.184354$cF.62105@rwcrnsc53...

It seems to me that we get bent out of shape when our critics forget the
difference within the two following sets of logic:

Set 1

tradional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to
sight-induced
bias
my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test
therefore my opinion may be vulnerable to sight-induced bias

vs

traditional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to
sight-induced
bias
my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test
therefore my opinion is simply my imagination and the testing is
worthless

This is a fair point, but it blames only one side. It is my impression
that a very common situation is that your "critics" post some form of
the first, but it is interpreted by your "friends" as the second.

If we're going to improve the civility around here, we're going to
have to learn to read--as well as write--with more care and
sensitivity.


Can't disagree with that. But its also important that we read (and
importantly inspect what we write) for "tone". It is possible for the words
to say one thing objectively, but the tone imply something broader.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:VBf2b.251126$Ho3.32930@sccrnsc03...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
It seems to me that we get bent out of shape when our critics forget the
difference within the two following sets of logic:

Set 1

tradional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to
sight-induced
bias
my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test
therefore my opinion may be vulnerable to sight-induced bias

vs

traditional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to
sight-induced
bias
my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test
therefore my opinion is simply my imagination and the testing is
worthless

Well, that's a curious view, but it's not mine, nor is it anyone's I've
seen
here, AFAIR. *I* consider sighted anecdoates about amp and cable and CD
differences
to be worthless because
1) they *cannot be distinguished from* imaginary effects, on their own
merits, and
2) there is compelling reason to believe they *could* be imaginary

not because I *know* they are imaginary.

They do nothing to settle an issue one way or another, from an objective
stance.

Moreover we get bent out of shape when you and others continue to ignore
the
*huge* difference in conclusion that a simple additional (and true*)
statement makes to the following logic:

Set 2

traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests
yield
"difference"
traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to
sight-induced
bias
therefore defacto the traditional blind test must be the true
difference, in
this case no difference

vs

traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests
yield
"difference"

Indeed.

traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induc
ed
bias

INdeed.

traditional blind test vulnerability to non-sight-induced,
perception-distorting biases has not been adequately tested*

THe last statement is untrue from a scientific standpoint.
The existence of perceptual bias, and hte need for controls to
ameliorate its effects in experiments, has been accepted
for decades in science. 'Sight' is not literally necessary.
*Knowledge* of which treamtent is in force, is what induces
bias.

*for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al
when
testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a
proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack
of
close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration
comparative blind testing (no statistical difference).

'For example' or 'here's the only case I know of, and it's unreplicated'?
Aside from which, how on God's green earth could Oohashi's 'proto-monadic'
results be construed as support for *sighted* results? *Every* sighted
results would *still* have to be verified by blind comparison. Oohashi's
results don't point ot he nonexistence of perceptual bias.


I didn't say it was support for sighted tests. I said it was support for
the contentions of "subjectivists" in the DBT debates over the years that
evaluating music is best done in a relaxed, "take it all in" state which
allows for relaxed listening, then picking up on details that make themselfs
known, then doing comparative listening, then going back to all-inclusive
listening, etc...all in a relaxed state (mentally, physically). And taking
notes. Then finally, drawing some overall conclusions. The Oohashi et al
group deliberately set up conditions as relaxed and conducive to normal
listening as they could, then have people take notes (monadic ratings). The
tests were so blind the people had no idea what was being tested. But
nonetheless they heard statistically significant differences under these
conditions, both objectively and emotionally as revealed in their ratings.
While ealier this same group claimed to have tried to do the traditional
quick-switch a-b test, then choose system and found "no difference".
Subjectivists have long claimed that the blind a-b test conditions
themselves worked against proper musical evaluation. The research is a
piece of "hard evidence" that this POV may be somewhat correct. Obviously it
is not proven science until/unless replicated but most subjectivisist have
been skeptical all along. This is why they resist accepting the conclusion
that since blind abx tests show "no difference" that means all the
differences that seem fairly obvious in sighted testing are imaginary.


And btw, Harry, you're the *only* anti_Abxer who I've ever seen cite
Oohashi,
so I really , really doubt this is a sore point for most true believers.
To mention it as if it's the main thing that's getting subjectivists 'bent
out of shape' over anti-ABX claims, is absurd. It's a result taht doesn't
even support the anti-ABX side.


The main thing is the belief that blind a-b (and especially abx) testing is
done under such dissimlar conditions from normal listening that the test
itself interferes. Oohashi et al lend some support to that assertion.

I understand why this shakes the objectivist orthodoxy so, but to just
assume it is mistaken research and blithely ignore it shows closed minds,
not open ones.


Yes, we know ways to reduce it. For validating the existence of
audible
difference,
controlled audition is considered the best by scientists and even a
few
audio component manufacterers.

Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar
'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are.

Again, lack of certainty is a managable problem. Gee even
objectivists
have to
deal with biases when evaluating speakers. It seems most of them
live
with it.

Lack of certainty shoudl be acknowledged more often in audiophilia.
It also could and should be 'managed' far, far better than it usually
is.

No comments on any of this, Harry?

It is rather central to my view, after all.


By not commenting I was showing I have no disagreement. But as noted above,
this needs to apply to objectivists as well as subjectivists.

ludovic mirabel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message .net...

Between the horrors of invincible sighted bias that has been "proven"
(no?) to afflict everyone , but everyone equally:- experienced or not
experienced, an unamplified music concert goer with good taste (sorry,
no chapter about that in the electronics manual, no study in JAES) or
a rock fan, chamber music lover or car audio fan-
and the horrors of
invariable "They all sound the same" ABX earmuffs give me the
subjectivist impressions of sighted J.Gordon Holt any time.

Personally I'm not frightened of such straw men, merely irritated
that you keep creating them.

As for myself if I have to I'll have someone cover the brand names and
have him play my favourite music.. Presto; $ 600:00 saved AND
differences heard if any.

Quite so.

The savings include the expense for a pink
noise generator.

Indeed. Do a blind comparison using your favorite music. If the results
indicate audible difference, pick the component that sounded best to you.
I'd only suggest that you also make sure the comparison is level-matched.

Jerry C. wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Or, like Jerry, complain that discussion here isn't informative
*enough*! Sheesh.

Actually Mr. Sullivan, I didn't "complain" here and I didn't say or
infer that "discussion here isn't informative enough". I supported the
original poster's implications (he implied much more than he said) after
he was contradicted by a number of the regulars here. I think that I am
being constructive if the regulars would be interested in knowing how
many non-regulars perceive this (I am being presumptive to speak for
others, I know). I would wager (but can't prove in a dbt) that many
lurkers agree with me. BTW, I do believe that many of the regulars are
very informed and knowledgeable about what they speak. I just wish they
would answer more of the questions directly without digressing to
tangential subjects. As I originally said, I hope that RAHE takes this
as intended constructively. I do not wish to criticise pointlessly.

Respectfully,
Jerry Cipriano


Since you've failed to specify just *what* the implications
in question were, I've pasted the original post and your
reply to it below. Rereading it, I stand by my assertion
that you complained that this newsgroup isn't informative
enough.



//


Dennis Moore wrote:

Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to
rec.audio.dbt?

Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end
up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence
you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers
and non-believers etc. etc.

How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end
when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly
denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to
be high-enders for the most part.

[Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD]

A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too.

Seriously,
Dennis


I agree with Dennis. I am a lurker and not a contributer. I have
frequently come here in the past looking for what I would consider Audio
high end discussions. I have found very little discussion of value, but
most of the arguments are non-constructive and repetitive between the
same combatants. I've read a number of the previous responses to this
post and they are, for the most part, contributed by the regulars who
love this never-ending, repetitive, and inconclusive arguing. Any
question posed by a newbie is easily turned back to debating dbts or
something else similar and esoteric. However, I agree with the poster
that says RAHE is not audiophile friendly. Going further, most newbies
that post a question are likely to get their thread hijacked and their
question never answered. Another regular poster responded that there
are plenty of other forums for people to go to if they are not happy
with the "high end" discussions here. I am familiar with other options
and I found few other forums and no newsgroups that answer my questions
about "high end" audio. RAHE could potentially appeal to a larger
audience, but it is currently a closed poker game. Dennis' proposal
addresses that issue.


--
-S.

Sighted tests yield 'difference' 3/4 of the time when subjects are given 2
identical sound presentations. When was the last time anyobe ever heard someone
say aloud during an aduio salon presentation "they sounded alike to me."


Last weekend.

Actually the breaking news was always covered in Audio, High Fidelity or
Stereo
Review well before it ever hit SP or TAS.

I read all three for years. And never remember, but one report
of breaking equipment in one Audio issue. I may of course have
missed them. But they were far from common. I also suspect
that many of those reviews in those other magazines consisted
of a quick listen, and some measurements. Not the extended
use done by SP and TAS.

Stereophile seemingly has never met an amplifier it didn't like. How many
of
the amplifiers reviewed in 2001 and 2002 appeared on the RCL? All of them.

This is certainly not true. And I 2001 and 2002 fit into the
recent issues, after being owned by large companies. Which I clearly
differentiated in my post from the earlier years.

Even so with a yearly review count of about 150 a 700 RCL would mosty
likely
contain nearly every product covered in the past 2-3 years. And, no
surprise,
it does.

So much for that appeal.


Exactly, the last 2-3 years while owned by large companies.
And why this appeal is a thing of the past for the most part.
Since I said as much in my post on this, what was your point.
They seem to like everything now? I agree, and don't like it.
You no longer seem to know what the reviewer really thought.
All reviews say things like ,"if you are looking for a 100 watt
amp in this price range, you might wish to consider this one."
Well no kidding, I knew that before reading the review. But
hey, this is only an emulation of Stereo Review, the world's
most successful magazine.

I once saw the perfect summation of a Julian Hirsch review.
"Of all the equipment like this I have reviewed. This is one
of them."

Dennis

Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:VBf2b.251126$Ho3.32930@sccrnsc03...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

With your permission I'll begin at the end. You say:
Yes, we know ways to reduce it (ie. uncertainty in audio). For
validating the existence of audible
difference controlled audition is considered the best by scientists and even a few audio component manufacterers.

Re "scientists". Apples and oranges. Scientists do not test for
musical differences between components. They introduce a KNOWN
artefact: distortion, frequency bumps, codecs whatever. The subject
either hears it or he does not. There is a verifiable reference point.
The subjects are hand-picked, selected and rejected if untalented,
then trained and retrained to do that well-defined and relatively
simple task.
Compare listening for differences between components as to how
they reproduce music. The subjects SHOULD not be hand-picked, selected
and rejected if not talented, trained and retrained. Audiophile
consumers are not. They are a motley crew of different ages, different
musical interests and experience; from those who never but never
listen to unamplified instruments to chamber music lovers. Of course
you can try to have a series of tests with matched subjects and
different kinds of musical signal for significant results. Good luck.
And what will their results mean to each other?
You have a mother of all biases built in.
You might say that at least any single person doing the test and
failing to hear differences saved himself money. OR he shut himself
from improving his sensitivity by further exposure and training.
You have a false dichotomy: Sighted listening bad- DBT good. Sighted
listening is bad if you're a willing prey to marketing. It is less bad
if you know how to resist it and even less bad if you know what you
want and have experience to go after it.
In other words its hazards vary from individual to individual. Just
like DBTs or any other kind of infallible "test" for "testing" sensory
perception in individual brains. By all means DBT or not if you get
fun and pleasure either way. Don't imagine you have a key that others
must use.
As for what "manufacturers" do and believe- you don't know, nor do
I. Gossip is not evidence.
Ludovic Mirabel

It seems to me that we get bent out of shape when our critics forget the
difference within the two following sets of logic:


Set 1

tradional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias
my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test
therefore my opinion may be vulnerable to sight-induced bias

vs

traditional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias
my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test
therefore my opinion is simply my imagination and the testing is worthless

Well, that's a curious view, but it's not mine, nor is it anyone's I've seen
here, AFAIR. *I* consider sighted anecdoates about amp and cable and CD differences
to be worthless because
1) they *cannot be distinguished from* imaginary effects, on their own merits, and
2) there is compelling reason to believe they *could* be imaginary

not because I *know* they are imaginary.

They do nothing to settle an issue one way or another, from an objective
stance.

Moreover we get bent out of shape when you and others continue to ignore the
*huge* difference in conclusion that a simple additional (and true*)
statement makes to the following logic:

Set 2

traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield
"difference"
traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias
therefore defacto the traditional blind test must be the true difference, in
this case no difference

vs

traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield
"difference"

Indeed.

traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced
bias

INdeed.

traditional blind test vulnerability to non-sight-induced,
perception-distorting biases has not been adequately tested*

THe last statement is untrue from a scientific standpoint.
The existence of perceptual bias, and hte need for controls to
ameliorate its effects in experiments, has been accepted
for decades in science. 'Sight' is not literally necessary.
*Knowledge* of which treamtent is in force, is what induces
bias.

*for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al when
testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a
proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack of
close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration
comparative blind testing (no statistical difference).

'For example' or 'here's the only case I know of, and it's unreplicated'?
Aside from which, how on God's green earth could Oohashi's 'proto-monadic'
results be construed as support for *sighted* results? *Every* sighted
results would *still* have to be verified by blind comparison. Oohashi's
results don't point ot he nonexistence of perceptual bias.

And btw, Harry, you're the *only* anti_Abxer who I've ever seen cite Oohashi,
so I really , really doubt this is a sore point for most true believers.
To mention it as if it's the main thing that's getting subjectivists 'bent
out of shape' over anti-ABX claims, is absurd. It's a result taht doesn't
even support the anti-ABX side.

Yes, we know ways to reduce it. For validating the existence of audible
difference,
controlled audition is considered the best by scientists and even a few
audio component manufacterers.

Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar
'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are.

Again, lack of certainty is a managable problem. Gee even objectivists
have to
deal with biases when evaluating speakers. It seems most of them live
with it.

Lack of certainty shoudl be acknowledged more often in audiophilia.
It also could and should be 'managed' far, far better than it usually is.

No comments on any of this, Harry?

It is rather central to my view, after all.

Julian Hirsch did a review of a Counterpoint tube preamp in Stereo review back
in the mid eighties. It cost 3,000 dollars and had no tone controls.
Surprisingly enough, he really liked it. One could get a SS preamp for a tenth
the price at the time with more inputs and tone controls with no tubes to
change out over time and Julian Hirch still heaped praise on the Counterpoint.
To this day I am surprised by that review. He even talked about how much he
enjoyed listening to it though he never claimed it sounded any different than
any other preamp.

(Nousaine) wrote:
Stereophile seemingly has never met an amplifier it didn't like. How many of
the amplifiers reviewed in 2001 and 2002 appeared on the RCL? All of them.


You don't understand how reviewers for these magazines operate. Most of the
time reviewers request to review products they are interested in or a component
that has impressed them. No one wants to write a review of a bad product or
one they don't like (it's too much work). The exception to this is a product a
manufacturer has been begging to get reviewed or something that has been
getting a lot of press which will then be assigned to a reviewer. That's why
most of the reviews you read are positive.
Regards,
Mike

"Dennis Moore" wrote:

Actually the breaking news was always covered in Audio, High Fidelity or
Stereo
Review well before it ever hit SP or TAS.

I read all three for years. And never remember, but one report
of breaking equipment in one Audio issue. I may of course have
missed them. But they were far from common.

Actually these magazines had detailed descriptions of newer technolgies (CD,
DAT, phono carts, DCC, Mini-Disc, Mp3, Elcassette years before any of the
high-end magazines even acknowledged their existance.

They also featured detailed technical pieces on speaker placement, room
interaction, digital recording technology, bias conntrolled listenign tests and
other aspects of audio that have never appeared or even been examined by the
boutique magazines

I also suspect
that many of those reviews in those other magazines consisted
of a quick listen, and some measurements. Not the extended
use done by SP and TAS.

Extended work? It is true that Stereophile has been providing extensive
measurements in the past decade or more but Stereo Review and Audio were always
ahead of them. TAS has never engaged in 'extended' work other than claiming to
spend a lot of time 'hearing' inaudible differences.


Stereophile seemingly has never met an amplifier it didn't like. How many
of
the amplifiers reviewed in 2001 and 2002 appeared on the RCL? All of them.

This is certainly not true.

Yes it is. Check out the January issue of the products reviewed and compare it
to the April RCL. That's what I did.

And I 2001 and 2002 fit into the
recent issues, after being owned by large companies. Which I clearly
differentiated in my post from the earlier years.

I started examining this in 1999 and thus far have found very few products
reviewed that did not end up on the RCL. It's damn near 100%.


Even so with a yearly review count of about 150 a 700 RCL would mosty
likely
contain nearly every product covered in the past 2-3 years. And, no
surprise,
it does.

So much for that appeal.


Exactly, the last 2-3 years while owned by large companies.

The magazine is still being edited by one of the primary principles. You mean
that he's NOT using the same criteria for reviews and RCL that held before? I'm
pretty sure that the descriptions in the book haven't said that they now
recommend products that were 'unrecommendable' by past standards.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Compare the list of products
reviewed against the RCL.

And why this appeal is a thing of the past for the most part.
Since I said as much in my post on this, what was your point.
They seem to like everything now? I agree, and don't like it.
You no longer seem to know what the reviewer really thought.
All reviews say things like ,"if you are looking for a 100 watt
amp in this price range, you might wish to consider this one."
Well no kidding, I knew that before reading the review. But
hey, this is only an emulation of Stereo Review, the world's
most successful magazine.

So you think they are on the bandwagon, eh? I do to. And they've been on it
for a long time, a fact that lots of readers have let slip by.

I once saw the perfect summation of a Julian Hirsch review.
"Of all the equipment like this I have reviewed. This is one
of them."

Dennis

What's interesting about product evaluations is that no one is ever happy with
them. Manufacturers are terminally paranoid and fret incessantly if the most
minor detail isn't fully described in great prose.I fit ain't a 'rave' it ain't
good enough and the book is not doing its job. And, of course, anything
positive that may be said about the competition is discriminatory.

Readers complain that you haven't covered the last thing they've purchased or
are thinking about getting. OR if you 'expose' a recent purchase, watch out.

It's all very interesting and quite frankly IMO Stereo Review (now Sound &
Vision) has always done the best job of managing the field, providing useful
information (not just product evaluation) and keeping enough advertisers happy
that subscription prices have always been reasonable.

BTW Sound & Vision seems to have the darkest dividing line between publishing
and editorial of any magazine large or small, high-end or mainstream, ........

If they didn't "Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?", "Subwoofer Secrets", "To
Tweak or Not to Tweak" would never have seen the light of a morning sun on an
open page.

In article , (Mkuller)
wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote:
Stereophile seemingly has never met an amplifier it didn't like. How many of
the amplifiers reviewed in 2001 and 2002 appeared on the RCL? All of them.


You don't understand how reviewers for these magazines operate. Most of the
time reviewers request to review products they are interested in or a component
that has impressed them. No one wants to write a review of a bad product or
one they don't like (it's too much work). The exception to this is a product
a manufacturer has been begging to get reviewed or something that has been
getting a lot of press which will then be assigned to a reviewer. That's why
most of the reviews you read are positive.

Indeed, Stereo Review had a similar rational for its predominately
positive evaluations.

Stephen

Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message .net...

Between the horrors of invincible sighted bias that has been "proven"
(no?) to afflict everyone , but everyone equally:- experienced or not
experienced, an unamplified music concert goer with good taste (sorry,
no chapter about that in the electronics manual, no study in JAES) or
a rock fan, chamber music lover or car audio fan-
and the horrors of
invariable "They all sound the same" ABX earmuffs give me the
subjectivist impressions of sighted J.Gordon Holt any time.

Personally I'm not frightened of such straw men, merely irritated
that you keep creating them.

"You're creating a strawman" appears to be a favourite strawman
argument in RAHE. "Strawman" thus used is a diversion away from the
topic under discussion to replace a rational argument.
I seldom heard it in any debate I witnessed or took part in with
the frequency I heard it since joining RAHE.
In the circumstances "irritation" is understandable.
Ludovic Mirabel

As for myself if I have to I'll have someone cover the brand names and
have him play my favourite music.. Presto; $ 600:00 saved AND
differences heard if any.

Quite so.

The savings include the expense for a pink
noise generator.

Indeed. Do a blind comparison using your favorite music. If the results
indicate audible difference, pick the component that sounded best to you.
I'd only suggest that you also make sure the comparison is level-matched.

(S888Wheel) wrote:





Sighted tests yield 'difference' 3/4 of the time when subjects are given 2
identical sound presentations. When was the last time anyobe ever heard
someone
say aloud during an aduio salon presentation "they sounded alike to me."


Last weekend.

That's pretty cool. IME unusual as well.

My experience is that many people might remain silent (indicating prehaps no
difference) but then one or two will say what they "heard" which may be
conflicting.

The the 'host" usually a salesman or system owner will say "OK let's try again
with different material." After another round the participants will then
'negotiate' what they 'heard.' It's quite common for silent participants to
speak up after a 2nd round.

But usually those who will not acknowledge a difference are simply ignored.

Often people are asked "what did you hear?' or 'what do you think?' and then
any remark will be considered a statement of difference.