| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote
More like the recording came out of someone's back-side. You look foolish making comments like this while refusing to give permission for its release. but what's new..... |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
Surf wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote More like the recording came out of someone's back-side. You look foolish making comments like this while refusing to give permission for its release. How can I give permission for the release of something about me that I can't hear? |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: John Atkinson wrote: The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to: http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ The web page itself is both funny and more than a little factual: "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John Atkinson was a pathetic girly man." Hyperbole, anybody? Bad theology aside, I have to admit that posting this article on the web puts John Atkinson in my "Good Loser" hall of fame for all audio history, and foreseeable future times. I can now why RAO's self-proclaimed subjectivist clique are whining about the debate. Their champion got his clock cleaned, pure and simple. Not even close. I say it was a draw. a 0-0 tie. Neither speaker was effective. Even if that judgement is accepted, it doesn't bode well for good ol' JA: he had home-field advantage, a crowd sympathetic to his BS and was both moderator and participant in the debate. And, according to you, he still only managed a scoreless draw with Arny??? Time for a new "champion", Art! |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
I say it was a draw. a 0-0 tie. Given the alleged disadvantages I had coming in the door, that's really an insult to Atkinson. Neither speaker was effective. I would have been more effective had I been able to display my presentation. It appears that overcame that disadvantage quite nicely, too. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote
Given that Atkinson has stepped forward as worldwide distributor of the tape... If there is a tape, Graham has it. John doesn't have "the tape". There is no "the tape". It's a flippin recording. It's a file. It's a recording of you once again making an ass of yourself. Your voice sounds like that of a teenage nerd. It's the same voice we hear in "The Debate". Most of us think you sound like a goon. Malesweski doesn't hear it. He thinks you sound fine. But he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf hippy with issues. But he loves you, so he's ok. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
Surf wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote Given that Atkinson has stepped forward as worldwide distributor of the tape... If there is a tape, Graham has it. John doesn't have "the tape". There is no "the tape". It's a flippin recording. It's a file. Your mastery of the obvious is quite amazing given your demonstrated stupidity, Surf. It's a recording of you once again making an ass of yourself. Go argue with Art - he says it was draw. Or are you saying that Atkinson was also making an ass of himself? Your voice sounds like that of a teenage nerd. Flattery will get you nowhere. That's the only measure of a man - the sound of his voice. It's the same voice we hear in "The Debate". Prove it. Most of us think you sound like a goon. As compared to how you sound, bozo-breath? Malesweski doesn't hear it. He thinks you sound fine. But he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf hippy with issues. But he loves you, so he's ok. Who is Maliesweski and why should I care who he is or what he did? |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: John Atkinson wrote: The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to: http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ The web page itself is both funny and more than a little factual: "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John Atkinson was a pathetic girly man." Hyperbole, anybody? Bad theology aside, I have to admit that posting this article on the web puts John Atkinson in my "Good Loser" hall of fame for all audio history, and foreseeable future times. I can now why RAO's self-proclaimed subjectivist clique are whining about the debate. Their champion got his clock cleaned, pure and simple. Not even close. I say it was a draw. a 0-0 tie. Neither speaker was effective. Even if that judgement is accepted, it doesn't bode well for good ol' JA: he had home-field advantage, a crowd sympathetic to his BS and was both moderator and participant in the debate. And, according to you, he still only managed a scoreless draw with Arny??? Time for a new "champion", Art! Or time for better debaters. It was just so unfocused. And Arny certainly left his debating trade manual at home. He would have been better off boning up on his Schropenhauer than worrying about any powerpoint presentation! It was a nonevent, more than being a competition. And I thought the audience was very very polite to Arny, I certainly would not call it a hostile crowd. He got a good reception both before and after the 'debate'. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... ScottW wrote: Agreed, but if you consider comparing Arny's argument to his schtick on RAO.... he clearly failed to support his position. Thanks for showing that you can't read very well, Scott. Me and how many others? You got it when you heard me say it on the recording, despite all the times you failted to get it when I posted it on RAO. I seriously doubt John would have bothered paying your way to NY if he knew how impotent your argument would be. In fact he apparently left John quite perplexed by agreeing that differences are a matter of degree. No, I asserted that unlike what Stereopile and the rest say, some things sound different, some things don't. Earth shattering! Then you thoroughly lost your point by pontificating uselessly about your procedure to demonstrate sonic signatures. His argument became a semantic one. That's what it has always been, once the HE press posturing is cut away. His = Arny ScottW |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
In , Surf wrote :
...he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf hippy with issues... Are you speaking about Dave Weil ? |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote
Surf wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote More like the recording came out of someone's back-side. You look foolish making comments like this while refusing to give permission for its release. How can I give permission for the release of something about me that I can't hear? It's not about you. It is you. Give permission and you can hear it. duh.... |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote
Malesweski doesn't hear it. He thinks you sound fine. But he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf hippy with issues. But he loves you, so he's ok. Who is Maliesweski and why should I care who he is or what he did? He's your little lapdog, torrie****s. The guy with his lips on your ass........... Do try to keep up. |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . com,
says... wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: whosbest54 wrote: Not that there's anything wrong with the straight listening you did for your amp decision, if that's what you want to do and it makes you happy. But to use is as a basis for discounting DBTs is simply... questionable. I agree with that. But it is a completely valid reason for his choice to buy the tube amp. Hi Scott, what everyone seems to be ignoring is my point for mentioning this anecdote. Which was that all the non-sighted factors worked _against_ my becoming dissatisfied with the Quad. The solid-state amp was cheaper, smaller, more powerful, ran cooler, and offered, in my opinion, better industrial design. So, if these factors were going to have any influence on my listening, as the "objectivists" repeatedly claim, they would all have persuaded me that the amplifier was fine. However, as my increasing disatisfaction was real and I was having to work harder to appreciate the music through the amplifier, it was this cognitive dissonance that proved to be the tipping point at which I changed from a hard-line objectivist -- see an editorial I wrote in a 1978 issue of HFN for an example -- into someone who realized the value of listening. John, I think the point Arny and I have been trying to make is that your approach isn't a scientifically valid way of proving the amps sounded different. I'm sure you were sure you heard what you heard, and I don't doubt it. But it's not scientifically proven that the SS amp sounded different than the tube amp. I grant you that they, in fact, might have. The fact that the original blind test didn't provide that result may have been due to the way that test was conducted or designed. I don't think your story invalidates the properly designed and conducted double blind test as a valid scientific method for determining if amps, wires or audio codecs sound different. Besides, you should have been concentrating on your speakers, listening room acoutics and the quality of your source material before goofing around with changing amps. If you did, then I give you credit for trying to optimize what really matters most. whosbest54 -- The flamewars are over...if you want it. Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide: http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/ Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide: http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
whosbest54 wrote: In article . com, says... Not that there's anything wrong with the straight listening you did for your amp decision, if that's what you want to do and it makes you happy. But to use is as a basis for discounting DBTs is simply...questionable. I agree with that. But it is a completely valid reason for his choice to buy the tube amp. But alas, this is the very thing you guys decry when push comes to shove. You loathe reviews that draw the same conclusions. And I said it was fine for him to make that decision if it made him happy. Straight listening has a place in determining if you personally like something and want to buy it - I agree it should be part of the equipment purchase process. My point is that it's not a scientifically valid process for determining if the amps sound different and that was one of Arny's points at the debate. It is a pointless point since no one is touting sighted reviews as scientifically valid or anything other than perosnal opinions. The question is whether it is better to depend on scientifically valid methods or not to determine if _certain_ equipment sounds different. Clearly, in this case, it was better not to depend on the dbt since it wrought a result that ended in owner dissatisfatcion. As I have said on my web site, there are places for both a subjective and objective approaches in evaluating audio equipment. For example, I think subjective listening is better suited to selecting speakers for a system. Why? They are every bit as subject to sighted bias effects? Why would you not want to avoid those ill effects then? Seems rather random choice to me. Objective testing is better suited to determining if there is a difference in sound between wires, amps or audio codecs. But, when selecting equipment one should always do straight listening to everything you plan to buy and look at audio equipment reviews to see if the equipment does what it says it does as far as specs go. The audio magazines should do scientifically valid testing to check specs. Straight listening to amps or wires is of little value in my opinion as far as discerning differences. You are entitled to that opinion and you are free to skip that part of a review. How would *that* view have helped Jon in his situation with the Quad amp? And, again, in many instances those differences can exist but may not be that important. Purchasers need to understand that and should concentrate on listening to the parts of their system and setup that really affect sound - not the amps or wires but the speakers, speaker placement and room acoustics. They also need to understand that the quality of the source material has a huge affect on their system's sound quality as well. whosbest54 -- The flamewars are over...if you want it. Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide: http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/ Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide: http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html Scott Wheeler |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote Signal wrote: "Lionel" emitted : It's not illegal. Even if the so-called recording has been done behind Krueger's back ? Correct. More like the recording came out of someone's back-side. Hellloo. I've listen to the recorded Debate this a.m. but couldn't make out what the question ask by the audience where. Maybe it has been pointed out what those question where among the threads here regarding the Debate. I hope that it had been. Well...... been so busy lately. This Debate is important because it address why audio newsgroups are, at the moment, in total wreck. But you knew that. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , "whosbest54"
wrote: The audio magazines should do scientifically valid testing to check specs. Straight listening to amps or wires is of little value in my opinion as far as discerning differences. True. But note there is little "testing" that can relate to human hearing. Little is known about how the ear/brain system works so many of the measurements propounded by the audio industry means little in any evaluation. |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: John Atkinson wrote: what everyone seems to be ignoring is my point for mentioning this anecdote. Which was that all the non-sighted factors worked _against_ my becoming dissatisfied with the Quad. Horsefeathers. How sad, another objectivist is forced to deny circumstances. Horsefeathers is a very compelling argument Arny. Use it on all subjectivists when they relate their experiences to you. The converts will just pile up. Arny is obviously getting rattled. We've already had him issue the usual sockpuppet accusations. Pretty soon, Tom Nousaine will appear on the scene mumbling about capacitor tests. :-) The solid-state amp was cheaper, smaller, more powerful, ran cooler, and offered, in my opinion, better industrial design. Failure to note the endemic high end predjudice against of all of these factors noted. Failure to acknowledge JA's position on those factors at the time. How come no-one gets the point of this anecdote, which is that it pits two core beliefs of the believers in "scientism" against each other? 1) That a blind test reveals the true situation about audible amplifier differences; 2) that sighted listening is dominated by non-audio factors, the so-called "Placebo Effect." To explain my Damascene experience, you have to accept that either the blind test was flawed, in which case all the reports that cited that 1978 test as "proving" the amplifiers sounded the same were wrong, or that the non-audio factors were irrelevant, in which case the criticisms of sighted listening based on that factor are wrong. you are now forced to call him a liar or claim you know what was in his head better than he did. Well, there is always _that_ possibility. But note that in person even Arny refrained from calling me a liar to my face. Now he's back behind the safety of his PC, he returns to his usal form. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: John Atkinson wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: How about proof positive that Atkinson has posted as Jamie Benchimol? ;-) Ancient Chines proverb says that when Arny Krueger gets rattled, out comes the accusations of sockpuppetting on the part of those doing the rattling. :-) No Mr. Krueger, not only have I not posted as "Jamie Benchimol," I haven't posted under any name other than my own. And despite your repeated accusations along these lines, it is fair to point out that you have never, ever offered one shred of proof to support those accusations. Proof positive - Jamie Benchemol was doing British humor schtick. No, not only have you not offered any evidence that Jamie Benchimol and I were doing "British humor schtick," but even if we did, that would only reduce the possibility that we were the same person to around one in 100 million. I find it sad but typical, Mr. Krueger, that while you were polite to me in person in NY, now you're back behind the safety of your PC monitor, you resort to the insults and the accusations of lying. It appears that despite the bluster, you're just another Internet blowhard, after all. :-( John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson wrote:
I find it sad but typical, Mr. Krueger, that while you were polite to me in person in NY, now you're back behind the safety of your PC monitor, you resort to the insults and the accusations of lying. Look John, my behavious in New Your was what it was because in New York you were a somewhat brain-dead, incompetent, flustered but still maginally polite person. Now John, you've turned completely nasty again, so you're getting just a fraction what you give. |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson wrote:
How come no-one gets the point of this anecdote, which is that it pits two core beliefs of the believers in "scientism" against each other? 1) That a blind test reveals the true situation about audible amplifier differences; 2) that sighted listening is dominated by non-audio factors, the so-called "Placebo Effect." Because it doesn't. There's no reliable evidence at all that the Quad 405 had any technical problems at all. Ironically, the Quad 405 may have been having technical problems, but appropriate evidence was never gathered. Or, perhaps the replacement tubed amp had audible technical problems that Atkinson happens to like the sound of, as are evidenced by SET amplifiers that his magazine tirelessly promotes. |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bruce C. Miller wrote: John Atkinson wrote: The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to: http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ Will there be a video version of this or not? No, we didn't video the debate. Sorry. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
"whosbest54" wrote in message ... John, I think the point Arny and I have been trying to make is that your approach isn't a scientifically valid way of proving the amps sounded different. That's not the point. Not at all. BTW, your propellor is out of synch. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
In , Signal wrote :
"Lionel" said to Surf: ...he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf hippy with issues... Are you speaking about Dave Weil ? No he wasn't, but *you* are. Nyah-nyah-nyah! :-) NYA HA HA ! NYA HA HA ! NYA HA HA ! ;-) |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson wrote:
Bruce C. Miller wrote: John Atkinson wrote: The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to: http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ Will there be a video version of this or not? No, we didn't video the debate. Sorry. I thought this was good, because the pictures of John make him look bad enough. BTW John, is that just a bad comb-over or a hairpiece? |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:31:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: John Atkinson wrote: Bruce C. Miller wrote: John Atkinson wrote: The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to: http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ Will there be a video version of this or not? No, we didn't video the debate. Sorry. I thought this was good, because the pictures of John make him look bad enough. BTW John, is that just a bad comb-over or a hairpiece? I don't know but did you steal your outfit from a pinp? If so, you forgot the wide-brimmed hat and mink coat. |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 10 May 2005 04:41:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote: In , Surf wrote : ...he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf hippy with issues... Are you speaking about Dave Weil ? Still can't get the wife to orgasm I see. |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote
John Atkinson wrote: I find it sad but typical, Mr. Krueger, that while you were polite to me in person in NY, now you're back behind the safety of your PC monitor, you resort to the insults and the accusations of lying. Look John, my behavious in New Your was what it was because in New York you were a somewhat brain-dead, incompetent, flustered but still maginally polite person. No Arny, John's correct. You're a chicken **** coward. You say things and behave on the Internet in a way you wouldn't in person. You're about as brave as your little buddy torrie****s was before we found out where he lives and who he cares about. |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote
BTW John, is that just a bad comb-over or a hairpiece? Oh - how brave you are now! |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
EddieM wrote: I've listen to the recorded Debate this a.m. but couldn't make out what the question ask by the audience where. Hi Eddie, the audience questions occurred at approximately 31:10, 40:35; 45:00; 47:45; 50:50; 54:00; 55:25; 57:05; and 61:10. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: John Atkinson wrote: How come no-one gets the point of this anecdote, which is that it pits two core beliefs of the believers in "scientism" against each other? 1) That a blind test reveals the true situation about audible amplifier differences; 2) that sighted listening is dominated by non-audio factors, the so-called "Placebo Effect." Because it doesn't. Well, actually it does. Whether or not Jon's reaction to the Quad amp was based on actual sound or a placebo effect the objectivist position does not offer hima solution where as the subjectivist position , judge components based on how you actually use them did solve his problem. There's no reliable evidence at all that the Quad 405 had any technical problems at all. And there is no reliable evidnece that says it sounded the same. The problem is either way Jon still had a problem with the Quad. If you can find a better solution than the one Jon found via a subjectivist method please fill us in. Ironically, the Quad 405 may have been having technical problems, but appropriate evidence was never gathered. Ironically that was irrelevat to the problem or the solution to that problem. Or, perhaps the replacement tubed amp had audible technical problems that Atkinson happens to like the sound of, as are evidenced by SET amplifiers that his magazine tirelessly promotes. Now that would be a straw man since Jon had not yet used the tube amp in his system before having a problem with the Quad amp. But if this were the case then there would have been audible differences and the blind test simply failed him as he claims in his quest for better sound. Scott Wheeler P.S. since your objectivist approach to audio offers no solutions to this problem I would expect the usual posturing, name calling and accusations of falsehoods to follow. Who knows maybe you'll find typos and spelling errors to harp on. I will bet you can offer no real solution to the problem Jon faced when he found the Quad unsatisfying. Feel free to prove me wrong. |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote: Bruce C. Miller wrote: John Atkinson wrote: The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to: http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ Will there be a video version of this or not? No, we didn't video the debate. Sorry. I thought this was good, because the pictures of John make him look bad enough. BTW John, is that just a bad comb-over or a hairpiece? Only being a part-time audiophile and not a member of the generation that most people who post here are from, I've not really followed the arguing on this NG until I listened to this file. Since not many people seem to be giving the proper credit, I'll just say I thought you did an excellent job at this debate. I haven't really thought much about the objectivist vs subjectivist argument, but I'm pretty convinced the subjectivist approach is not for me, especially after listening to both sides. I picked up a subscription to Stereophile when I got into the hobby less than a year ago (someone recommended I subscribe), and was rather shocked at the rather ridiculous vocabulary of adjectives assigned to components like amps and cables. After a couple months, I found myself just reading the first few paragraphs of reviews that would describe the products in general and looking at the pretty pictures, because the listening reports were pratically meaningless to me. Anyway, keep up the good work. |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
John "unctuous" Atkinson wrote: snipped I find it sad but typical, Mr. Krueger, that while you were polite to me in person in NY, now you're back behind the safety of your PC monitor, you resort to the insults and the accusations of lying. It appears that despite the bluster, you're just another Internet blowhard, after all. :-( Gee, John, I didn't hear you asking Arny if he "had something to say to [your] face" at the debate. Instead, you were polite and civil. Arny responded in kind. If he's an "internet blowhard", so are you. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "You can fool some of the people all of the time, those are the people we're after." - excerpted from the $tereopile mission statement |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" said:
Or, perhaps the replacement tubed amp had audible technical problems that Atkinson happens to like the sound of, You call it problems, another calls it "character". This is the root of the difference between sub and ob. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: John Atkinson wrote: How come no-one gets the point of this anecdote, which is that it pits two core beliefs of the believers in "scientism" against each other? 1) That a blind test reveals the true situation about audible amplifier differences; 2) that sighted listening is dominated by non-audio factors, the so-called "Placebo Effect." Because it doesn't. Well, actually it does. Na-na-na-na. Whether or not Jon's reaction to the Quad amp was based on actual sound or a placebo effect the objectivist position does not offer him a solution where as the subjectivist position , judge components based on how you actually use them did solve his problem. This paragraph is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. First off, John's name isn't Jon, but that's just a symptom of Scotty's ongoing inability to get even the simplest detail right. Secondly, my position is not the objectivist position. In fact my position is a logical combination of most of the elements of the true (not Atkinson's self-serving and commercialized version of the) subjectivist position, and most of the elements of the true not Atkinson's self-serving and commercialized version of the) objectivist position Thirdly, the meeting of objectivist and subjectivist positions that I laid out at the beginning of the debate does offer him a reliable general solution. Fourthly, Atkinson's self-serving and commercialized version of the subjectivist position does not provide a reliable general solution. There's no reliable evidence at all that the Quad 405 had any technical problems at all. And there is no reliable evidnece that says it sounded the same. Never said it did. Furthermore, if I do any tests of any kind with a 405 that I can borrow, there's no guarantee that they would be representative of the 405 that Atkinson had. AFAIK he never did any comprehensive testing of it at the time he was making decisions about it, subjective or with test equipment. The problem is either way Jon still had a problem with the Quad. He had a problem but we don't have a clue what the true nature of that problem was. It could have been a defective unit, all Quad 405s could be substandard, or maybe all that was happening is that something was going on in Atkinson's head. If you can find a better solution than the one Jon found via a subjectivist method please fill us in. The better solution would involve applyling "10 Requirements for a Sensitive and Reliable Listening Test" as found at www.pcabx.com . Ironically, the Quad 405 may have been having technical problems, but appropriate evidence was never gathered. Ironically that was irrelevat to the problem or the solution to that problem. I'm quite sure that it wasn't irrelevat, since there is no such word. Or, perhaps the replacement tubed amp had audible technical problems that Atkinson happens to like the sound of, as are evidenced by SET amplifiers that his magazine tirelessly promotes. Now that would be a straw man since Jon had not yet used the tube amp in his system before having a problem with the Quad amp. That would be a red herring. We don't know what Atkinson's experiences with tubed amps were up until that point. Since only the comparison of the performance of the two amps is germaine to our discussion, past events need not be considered. But if this were the case then there would have been audible differences and the blind test simply failed him as he claims in his quest for better sound. The bottom line is that: (1) Atkinson presumed a problem but did not adequately prove that it existed in the first place. (2) Atkinson presumed a solution to his alleged problem but did not adequately prove that it efficacious. (3) Atkinson then merged his unfounded presumptions into a life's philosophy. (4) This all happened so long ago that almost everything relevant has changed substantially since then. For example, nobody in his right mind would build an amp like the origional Quad 405 today. Simple application of modern technology would result in a vastly better amplifier. |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
Surf wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote BTW John, is that just a bad comb-over or a hairpiece? Oh - how brave you are now! I see that John is jumping right up to address the issue! ;-) |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com,
says... My point is that it's not a scientifically valid process for determining if the amps sound different and that was one of Arny's points at the debate. It is a pointless point since no one is touting sighted reviews as scientifically valid or anything other than perosnal opinions. Are you sure about this? I think it's clear that John's point is that a scientifically valid approach isn't valid and can be replaced by a non-scientific one for the same purposes - to see if 2 amps sound different. The question is whether it is better to depend on scientifically valid methods or not to determine if _certain_ equipment sounds different. Clearly, in this case, it was better not to depend on the dbt since it wrought a result that ended in owner dissatisfatcion. Then the question is why did that occur in John's case. There may have been problems with the blind testing that was done. There are other possible reasons it occurred. The point is this isn't a reason to throw out a scientifically valid method and only depend on straight (sighted) listening, which is what John did. As I have said on my web site, there are places for both a subjective and objective approaches in evaluating audio equipment. For example, I think subjective listening is better suited to selecting speakers for a system. Why? They are every bit as subject to sighted bias effects? Why would you not want to avoid those ill effects then? Seems rather random choice to me. Yes, you are right for the purposes of doing a scientific test to determine if 2 sets of speakers sound different. But the majority of hom audio purchasers won't have the ability to do so when selecting speakers. I was parphrasing my web guide. The guide is aimed at the majority of home audio enthusiasts for the circumstances when they are out looking at equipment and selecting what they want to purchase. They should do straight listening to speakers, ideally in the location where they will reside, which unfortunately isn't always easy to setup. Objective testing is better suited to determining if there is a difference in sound between wires, amps or audio codecs. But, when selecting equipment one should always do straight listening to everything you plan to buy and look at audio equipment reviews to see if the equipment does what it says it does as far as specs go. The audio magazines should do scientifically valid testing to check specs. Straight listening to amps or wires is of little value in my opinion as far as discerning differences. You are entitled to that opinion and you are free to skip that part of a review. How would *that* view have helped Jon in his situation with the Quad amp? For example, bench testing results for the 2 amps would tell you if they deliver the power they are rated at. I'm sure John wouldn't want to be selecting an amp that didn't meet the power requirements for the speakers he wanted to drive. whosbest54 -- The flamewars are over...if you want it. Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide: http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/ Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide: http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
In , dave weil wrote :
On Tue, 10 May 2005 04:41:02 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , Surf wrote : ...he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf hippy with issues... Are you speaking about Dave Weil ? Still can't get the wife to orgasm I see. You see ? Good perhaps you will use 2 kleenex tonight. ;-) |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:33:06 +0200, Lionel
wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Tue, 10 May 2005 04:41:02 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , Surf wrote : ...he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf hippy with issues... Are you speaking about Dave Weil ? Still can't get the wife to orgasm I see. You see ? Good perhaps you will use 2 kleenex tonight. ;-) Oh, are you planning to blow Arnold again? You'll only need me to loan you one kleenex. |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
whosbest54 wrote: In article .com, says... My point is that it's not a scientifically valid process for determining if the amps sound different and that was one of Arny's points at the debate. It is a pointless point since no one is touting sighted reviews as scientifically valid or anything other than perosnal opinions. Are you sure about this? I'm pretty sure. But if you know any subjective reviewers that claim their opinions are somthing more than just opinions please point them out. I'll get right in line to tell them they are full of it. I think it's clear that John's point is that a scientifically valid approach isn't valid and can be replaced by a non-scientific one for the same purposes - to see if 2 amps sound different. I think Jon's point was that an objectivist method of selecting amps failed him as an audiophile trying to enjoy listening to music at home. The subjectivist method fixed the problem. Again, if you can find a solution for the problem Jon cited please feel free to present it. So far all any objectivists have offered is inferences and accusations of dishonesty on Jon's part or alternative explinations of cause that offer nothing as a solution. The question is whether it is better to depend on scientifically valid methods or not to determine if _certain_ equipment sounds different. Clearly, in this case, it was better not to depend on the dbt since it wrought a result that ended in owner dissatisfatcion. Then the question is why did that occur in John's case. No the question is how does an audiophile solve this problem. Jon did it by using subjectivists methods. There may have been problems with the blind testing that was done. Which would be a failure of the objectivist method. This is a possible problem that is present in every dbt but particularly present when in the hands of amatuers. There are other possible reasons it occurred. True, but what was the objectivist solution to the problem? The point is this isn't a reason to throw out a scientifically valid method and only depend on straight (sighted) listening, which is what John did. You mean he should have settled for the dissatisfying sound he was stuck with? No thank you. As I have said on my web site, there are places for both a subjective and objective approaches in evaluating audio equipment. For example, I think subjective listening is better suited to selecting speakers for a system. Why? They are every bit as subject to sighted bias effects? Why would you not want to avoid those ill effects then? Seems rather random choice to me. Yes, you are right for the purposes of doing a scientific test to determine if 2 sets of speakers sound different. But the majority of hom audio purchasers won't have the ability to do so when selecting speakers. I see if it's hard then we don't bother worrying about the effects of sighted bias. I was parphrasing my web guide. The guide is aimed at the majority of home audio enthusiasts for the circumstances when they are out looking at equipment and selecting what they want to purchase. They should do straight listening to speakers, ideally in the location where they will reside, which unfortunately isn't always easy to setup. Maybe they should do it for all components so they don't run into the same problem as did Jon. Objective testing is better suited to determining if there is a difference in sound between wires, amps or audio codecs. But, when selecting equipment one should always do straight listening to everything you plan to buy and look at audio equipment reviews to see if the equipment does what it says it does as far as specs go. The audio magazines should do scientifically valid testing to check specs. Straight listening to amps or wires is of little value in my opinion as far as discerning differences. You are entitled to that opinion and you are free to skip that part of a review. How would *that* view have helped Jon in his situation with the Quad amp? For example, bench testing results for the 2 amps would tell you if they deliver the power they are rated at. I'm sure John wouldn't want to be selecting an amp that didn't meet the power requirements for the speakers he wanted to drive. And when the Quad proves to be powerful enough what then? He still buys the Quad by your method and still ends up dissatisfied. You haven't solved the problem with objevctivist methods. OTOH I'm pretty sure that Jon would advise audiophiles to buy amps that meet the speakers minimum requirements for power. I think he would say that then and now. Scott Wheeler |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| F.S. tons of studio/keyboard/rack gear | Pro Audio | |||
| Powerful Argument in Favor of Agnosticism and Athetism | Audio Opinions | |||
| Lots Of Great Tubes For Sale | Marketplace | |||
| Lots Of Great Audio Tubes For Sale! | Marketplace | |||
Linear Mode
