Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Note to the Idiot


Arny said


It hasn't been a cheap ride. Why don't you post your equipment list,
sockpuppet wheel?



I said


Cheap is relative.
Forsell Air Reference turntable with airbearing flywheel
Koetsu Rosewood Signature cartridge
Audio Research SP 10 pre amp
Audio Research D 115 Mk II power amp
Martin Logan CLS IIz speakers
Vandersteen 2W subwoofer



Arny said


Obviously a system belonging to someone who thinks that nothing worthwhile
happened in audio since about 1983, and that very little happened at all
since 1993. Such equipment in this list that came out since 1983 is just
retreads of pre-existing retro-technology.


More sour grapes from the nerd boy suffering from class envy. I see all you
have to offer is vague attacks on technology in general with no substantial
specifics. Nice to see you think electrostatic speakers and subwoofers are
retro technology. You continue to amaze me with your stupidity. Some things are
simply good enough to stand the test of time. I guess someone whose hobby is
collecting cheap sound cards wouldn't understand that.

I said


Why don't you post your equipment list Arny?



Arny said


Been there, done that, many times.


Obviously you are too embarrassed to do so now.


  #202   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Note to the Idiot

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Arny said


It hasn't been a cheap ride. Why don't you post your equipment
list, sockpuppet wheel?


I said


Cheap is relative.


Who said anything about cheap?

Forsell Air Reference turntable with airbearing flywheel
Koetsu Rosewood Signature cartridge
Audio Research SP 10 pre amp
Audio Research D 115 Mk II power amp
Martin Logan CLS IIz speakers
Vandersteen 2W subwoofer


Arny said


Obviously a system belonging to someone who thinks that nothing
worthwhile happened in audio since about 1983, and that very little
happened at all since 1993. Such equipment in this list that came
out since 1983 is just retreads of pre-existing retro-technology.


More sour grapes from the nerd boy suffering from class envy.


Why would I envy someone who is in a lower social, intellectual,
professional and economic class?

I see all you have to offer is vague attacks on technology in general

with
no substantial specifics.


The specifics should be obvious to all who are interested.

Nice to see you think electrostatic
speakers and subwoofers are retro technology.


So that's all that is REALLY in your system and the toobs and black vinyl
have all been sold off?

You continue to amaze
me with your stupidity. Some things are simply good enough to stand
the test of time. I guess someone whose hobby is collecting cheap
sound cards wouldn't understand that.


So you think that LynxONE and LynxTWO are "cheap sound cards", eh
sockpuppet?

LOL!

I said


Why don't you post your equipment list Arny?


Arny said


Been there, done that, many times.



Well sockpuppet, if you admit that you're as illiterate at using Google

as
you are at using English, I'll do the searching for you and post a URL or
Message ID. You do know what to do with URLs and message IDs, right


Obviously you are too embarrassed to do so now.


Obviously sockpuppet, you are too embarrassed to admit that google, URLs and
Message IDs are all over your head.

You're not worth typing it all in for, again.


  #203   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Note to the Idiot

I said


I said


Cheap is relative.


Arny siad


Who said anything about cheap?


You did dumb****.

I said


Forsell Air Reference turntable with airbearing flywheel
Koetsu Rosewood Signature cartridge
Audio Research SP 10 pre amp
Audio Research D 115 Mk II power amp
Martin Logan CLS IIz speakers
Vandersteen 2W subwoofer



Arny said


Obviously a system belonging to someone who thinks that nothing
worthwhile happened in audio since about 1983, and that very little
happened at all since 1993. Such equipment in this list that came
out since 1983 is just retreads of pre-existing retro-technology.



I said


More sour grapes from the nerd boy suffering from class envy.


Arny said


Why would I envy someone who is in a lower social, intellectual,
professional and economic class?


You wouldn't. Your sour grapes and class envy are directed at people who own
better equipent than you , people who have more interesting and better paying
jobs than you, and people who are far more inteligent and honest than you are.
That leaves the field wide open for your class envy.

I said


I see all you have to offer is vague attacks on technology in general

with
no substantial specifics.


Arny said


The specifics should be obvious to all who are interested.


Prove it.

I said


Nice to see you think electrostatic
speakers and subwoofers are retro technology.



Arny said


So that's all that is REALLY in your system and the toobs and black vinyl
have all been sold off?


Thank goodness no! I've listened to the Martin Logans on cheap SS equipment
with a CD source. It is one of the best examples of garbage in garbage out. You
can't know how good the Martin Logans really are until youvé heard them with
top notch tubes and vinyl playback. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

I said


You continue to amaze
me with your stupidity. Some things are simply good enough to stand
the test of time. I guess someone whose hobby is collecting cheap
sound cards wouldn't understand that.



So you think that LynxONE and LynxTWO are "cheap sound cards", eh
sockpuppet?

LOL!


Cheap compared to the Forsell for sure. And, unlike the Forsell, destined to be
obsolete in a year or two. Like I said you wouldn't understand anything about
equipment designed and built to stand the test of time.


I said


Why don't you post your equipment list Arny?




Arny said


Been there, done that, many times.


I said


Obviously you are too embarrassed to do so now.



Arny said


You're not worth typing it all in for, again.


I would suspect that your system isn't worth typing in at all. It obviously is
too embarrassing for you to do so. You are obviously proud of those soon to be
obsolete sound cards though. That says a lot about your standards of
excellence. It says even more about a system that embarrasses you. Wow.
  #204   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Note to the Idiot



S888Wheel said to ****-for-Brains:

Why don't you post your equipment list Arny?


Been there, done that, many times.


Obviously you are too embarrassed to do so now.


Not necessarily. Since he doesn't actually use any of it for listening
to music, he may simply have forgotten what's in those boxes sitting
in the closet getting dusty.



  #205   Report Post  
Ernst Raedecker
 
Posts: n/a
Default Note to the Idiot

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:12:07 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Interesting stuff. You have supported very well one of my original
comments that there is near infinite depth of detail to measurements
which can be explored.

I think it is far easier to first confirm audible differences
and then pursue validating those differences through measurement.


The real problem is that it is not at all easy "to confirm audible
differences" in a hearing test. The reason for that is that hearing
consists basically of two rather different operations:

(1) collecting of audio data in the ear
(2) processing of audio data in the brain.

When you do a hearing test, you predominantly measure (if you measure
anything sensible at all) the workings of the data processing in the
brain, and NOT so much what gets into the ear.

It is not at all difficult to set up a test that DEMONSTRATES that two
persons "hear" a **different** thing, when both receive, collect at
their ears, totally the **same** audio data, for example by playing
the same tape to both persons.
In that case the test will confirm a difference, where "objectively"
no difference exists.

So the point is NOT that the hearing test may fail to confirm a
possibly "minute" difference between two sources. The point is that
two persons will actually hear a difference when there is none.

Is any of the two persons, or both, biased? No. Why then do they hear
different things?

Because they process the data differently. They have a different
ability to retrieve information from the data.

So your hearing test tells you how people process audio data, NOT what
data they collect at their ears, whether the same or not.

Hard Line Objectivists have the tendency to attribute such differences
in hearing results to "bias", possibly "sighted bias". That's wrong.
There are all kinds of biases, including sighted biases, okay. But the
real point is that the hearing system ITSELF is different in both
persons.

How on earth are you going to test whether there are real audible
differences between two sources, when people already hear differences
when there is only one source?

My pet example is one tape with a person speeking Greek, and two
listeners to this one tape, one native speaker of English and one
native speaker of Greek.

Both listeners receive EXACTLY THE SAME DATA.
Both listeners hear COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Generally the English speaker will not understand a word. Indeed, he
will not even be able to **separate** the words in the flow of sounds,
or hear the vowels correctly, or hear the consonants correctly, let
alone make out what is being said.

For the native speaker of Greek, on the other hand, everything is
"immediately obvious". The words, the vowels, the consonants, the
meaning of the words, everything.

It may take the English speaker SOME FIVE YEARS OR MORE to learn to
understand the spoken Greek text. Just to hear the words, the
consonants, the vowels correctly.

It shows that hearing ONLY PARTLY DEPENDS on receiving audio data. The
processing part is much more important.

Hearing depends also on:
* knowledge of the world
* knowledge of current situation
* knowledge of context
* memory of a huge amount of well known sounds
* memory of a huge amount of well known sound emanating objects
* knowledge and memory of well known distortions & mutations to sound,
e.g. distortions brought about by the pinna and the head, which allow
us some idea of directionality.
* visual clues as to the current situation.

Contrary to what Hard Line Objectivists want us to believe, for normal
seeing persons vision is ESSENTIAL to hearing. Which means that "blind
tests" DEPRIVE the hearing system of essential information.

We all depend on lip reading when we follow a conversation. A person
with hearing disabilities can tell you that he depends even MORE on
lip reading. It is not that the lip reading adds "extra information",
next to the info received from "the hearing process". That is a
completely wrong idea.

It is the SEEING ITSELF that sharpens the hearing acuity. By seeing,
the deaf person "hears" the consonants, the vowels, and the words
better. If he looks in another direction, what he hears changes to
"wlawlawla".
Also the CONTEXT OF MEANING of a discussion is very important to the
deaf person. Because of the context he knows what words to expect, so
he will hear them. If he loses track, then again the words become
muddle.

This all is NOT a matter of "bias". It is an essential part of the
hearing system itself. We hear, partly, with our eyes.

Recently, with the help of MRI scans, it has become clear that in due
course the visual cortex itself DIRECTLY INFLUENCES the auditory
cortex. That is, the information from the eyes DIRECTLY GUIDES the
auditory cortex into the creating of the audio image that we finally
"hear". It's the eyes that make us hear, partly.

Hard Line Objectivists do not like this way the auditory system of the
brain works. They prefer an auditory system that discards visual
information. They want us to hear in a different way than we do.

They want nature to be different than it is. I advise them, and
especially Krueger and Nousaine, to register a complaint with the Lord
Almighty, that He should have created Man differently.

The auditory system will use ALL INFORMATION it can lay its hands on.
Of course it will, it tries to work as efficiently as it can.

Hard Line Objectivists don't like that. They want to have us hear
INEFFICIENTLY. Therefore they design tests that ONLY ALLOW LIMITED
HEARING. They call that "objective" and all the rest "bias".

They have no idea of, and no interest in, how hearing goes.

If it takes you five years or more to know enough of Greek to hear
that what is "immediately obvious" to the native speaker, how many
years will it take you to learn to hear the "immediately obvious"
problems in transistor amplification?
Could well be five years or more of intensive study.

That's the problem with hearing tests.

Without the listening tests, there is still no demonstration that
measurement differences are in fact audible or not.


I repeat:

So your hearing test tells you how people process audio data, NOT what
data they collect at their ears, whether the same or not.

I cannot understand why clowns like Nousaine prefer to do silly
hearing tests for years and years on end, WITHOUT showing any
knowledge or appreciation of HOW HEARING ACTUALLY GOES.

Please don't repeat Krueger in saying that we have a body of knowledge
of 100 years and more on the subject of psychoacoustics, because we
have NOT. We have had THEORIES for well over hundred years, but we
have only started accumulating KNOWLEDGE on how hearing goes in the
last 20 years.

Even on the subject of the mechanics of the ear, we have only started
some 50 years ago, not 100 years ago, with very humble beginnings.

For example, for a long time scientists believed that the vibrations
of the basilar membrane in the cochlea was brought about by a STANDING
wave (say Helmholtz's theory), a very plausible theory. After all, an
organ pipe or a blown trumpet or clarinet etc also produce standing
waves.

Only in the 1940s it became clear that what went into the cochlea was
a TRAVELING wave, not a standing wave. In 1960 Von Bekesy got the
Nobel prize for this discovery. So much for "a body of knowledge of a
hundred years".

It then became clear that the basilar membrane, due to heavy damping,
did not allow for detailed pitch discrimination. As we can, in
reality, quite well hear pitch differences (also measurable via the
tuning curve), the new theory was that there was some sharpening up
process going on, probably due to pitch sensitivity of hearing cells
and neurons. Not a bad idea, as this happens in quite a few animals.

Only in the1980s it became clear that the basilar membrane allowed for
much sharper pitch dicrimination than as thought before. It turned out
that the membrane deteriorated rapidly outside the living body. So
they started testing with heavily sedated animals. It turned out that
the heavy sedation also brought about a serious deterioration of the
functioning of the membrane, and that the less the sedation is, the
sharper the membrane allows pitch discrimination.

So the new idea of the 1990s is that we do NOT need so much this
sharpening up theory. So much for a "hundred years of established
knowledge" in hearing theory. It's only TEN years of knowledge, NOT
hundred years.

When Gold came with the idea of otoacoustic emissions in the late
1940s, nobody believed him. When dr. Kemp ACTUALLY MEASURED them in
the mid 1970s, he couldn't get his article published in the "audio
magazines", these being the very serious scientific papers. His
article was FINALLY published in 1978:

Kemp DT (1978) Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human
auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 64: 1386-1391

Nobody believed him.

Nowadays otoacoustic emissions tests are used ON A DAILY BASIS with
newborn infants to test whether they have hearing problems. Nobody
doubts their existence.

So much for "hundred years of well established knowledge".

But what does Nousaine know of hearing? Nothing. What does he care?
Nothing. The same with the rest of them. Incompetent clowns, all of
them.

Ernesto.

"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel
like it. So you can forget the whole business if
it is too much mental strain, which it usually is."

Richard Feynman


  #209   Report Post  
cwvalle
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Listening Experience (was: Note to the Idiot)


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
Oh dear......here we go again.


But the most pleasant thing to do ( within the realm of audio, that
is!) is to kludge around with transformers, resistors, caps, tubes and
transistors, a big soldering iron and associated material in order to
create something just by myself. There's not much more satisfying as
doing that :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy


I agree with everything you have said.

There are however, some fanatics who insist upon imposing their personal
views on this hobby. They must believe that 'audio' must be limited to a
single set of parameters, which they wish to use a smallish bit of science
to support. Anyone who claims otherwise, they will call names, or attack
with other socio-demographic slanders and with a great gnashing of teeth
(from behind a keyboard) they will proclaim themselves master arbiter of
audiodom.

The best bet with these persons (a loosely applied word) is to now and again
throw them a bone, such as for example, a claim that a certain LP sounds
better than it's re-master on digital, or perhaps that you can hear a
significant difference after replacing speaker wires (without mentioning
that you replaced a blown midrange fuse at the same time). These types of
seemingly insignificant remarks will send these 'scientist'
audio-computer-soundcard freaks into sheer fits of excruciating anger as
they rip the flesh from their nail-bitten fingertips stomping out insult
after insult on their computers. (If you look at their keyboards, you will
see that the "F" key is almost worn completely away)

The only benefit to be derived from this activity is that it keeps them in
their computer rat holes and out of the Radio Shack store.

Carl


  #210   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Listening Experience

Sander deWaal a écrit :

But the most pleasant thing to do ( within the realm of audio, that
is!) is to kludge around with transformers, resistors, caps, tubes and
transistors, a big soldering iron and associated material in order to
create something just by myself. There's not much more satisfying as
doing that :-)


Music sublimation up to material auto-da-fé...
Olé !



  #211   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Listening Experience

Lionel said:

Sander deWaal a écrit :


But the most pleasant thing to do ( within the realm of audio, that
is!) is to kludge around with transformers, resistors, caps, tubes and
transistors, a big soldering iron and associated material in order to
create something just by myself. There's not much more satisfying as
doing that :-)


Music sublimation up to material auto-da-fé...
Olé !


Hasta La Vista baby !
BTW, none of my amplifiers or other contraptions ever catched fire.
Some blew up, though.
I never was able to get one of them in stationary orbit, too bad!

BTW 2: just threw out the XM and added another CX to the collection:
a '88 CX 25 RD.
1 liter of cheap diesel per 18 kms, how's that? Laughing all the way
to the tank :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy
  #212   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Listening Experience

Sander deWaal a écrit :

Lionel said:


Sander deWaal a écrit :



But the most pleasant thing to do ( within the realm of audio, that
is!) is to kludge around with transformers, resistors, caps, tubes and
transistors, a big soldering iron and associated material in order to
create something just by myself. There's not much more satisfying as
doing that :-)



Music sublimation up to material auto-da-fé...
Olé !



Hasta La Vista baby !
BTW, none of my amplifiers or other contraptions ever catched fire.
Some blew up, though.
I never was able to get one of them in stationary orbit, too bad!

BTW 2: just threw out the XM and added another CX to the collection:
a '88 CX 25 RD.
1 liter of cheap diesel per 18 kms, how's that? Laughing all the way
to the tank :-)


Laughing at Kyoto agreement ? ;-)

  #213   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Listening Experience

Lionel said:

BTW 2: just threw out the XM and added another CX to the collection:
a '88 CX 25 RD.
1 liter of cheap diesel per 18 kms, how's that? Laughing all the way
to the tank :-)


Laughing at Kyoto agreement ? ;-)


Hey, it passed the particle test!
I'm trying to get subsidized by the government for keeping pieces of
antique running, so far I'm not very succesfull ........
I'm thinking of converting the engine to an Elsbett engine, that way I
can use environment-friendly biogas!

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy
  #214   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Listening Experience

Sander deWaal wrote:
Lionel said:


BTW 2: just threw out the XM and added another CX to the collection:
a '88 CX 25 RD.
1 liter of cheap diesel per 18 kms, how's that? Laughing all the way
to the tank :-)



Laughing at Kyoto agreement ? ;-)



Hey, it passed the particle test!


With a sifter for sand ?

I'm trying to get subsidized by the government for keeping pieces of
antique running, so far I'm not very succesfull ........


Are you speaking about car or about amplifier ? :-)

I'm thinking of converting the engine to an Elsbett engine, that way I
can use environment-friendly biogas!


This remember me something I've forgotten.
I have an 80 years old uncle who like you is a Citroën fan. He still
keep in a garage is DS 21 Palace from 1972.
The car is perfect with shiny chromes, "king" blue color, leather seats...
Do you want I arrange something for you ? ;-)


--
"Keep the bugs off your glass and the bears off your ass"
Bad Plus

  #215   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Note to the Idiot

"=(8888)=" wrote in message

"ScottW" emitted :

I would like to see DBTs become part of the standard review
protocol for select categories of equipment.


I see a few fundamental problems with this idea:


For one, Dormer knows that DBT results challenge many of his cherished
beliefs about audio. Readers should note that Dormer is an erstwhile
manufacturer of perfectionist audio cables.

1) Who is going to fund the human resources required? Let's not
underestimate the amount of time and resources required to perform a
PROPER DBT. Now consider that the gross additional cost merely
produces a binary result (in the case of ABXism) one of two outcomes -
"SAME" or "DIFFERENT". [Statistics relating to the test itself are
primarily academic.] This is a spectacularly low return of information
for such a heavy investment.

It's not economically viable.


Besides, the results would contradict how many years of posturing by the
high end press?

2) Many readers don't have a clue what a "DBT" is. The subject, and
particularly it's application to consumer products, is highly
debatable. What do you propose? Several pages of explanation in each
and every issue so readers can make up their own minds? What makes you
think readers are in a position to judge the relative merits of DBTs?
What makes you think YOU are in a position to judge?


It's not comprehensible to the layman.


Yes, those laymen are very, very stupid, particularly if they believe
Dormer's posturing.

3) As with drug trials, it would be misleading to extrapolate from the
subjective response of ONE individual to an entire population
(readership). How many subjects would you require per product trial?
2? 10? 7600?


It's totally impractical.


Notice that Dormer has no problems with extrapolating the subjective
response of ONE individual to an entire population, if a sighted evaluation
is used.

There's more, that'll do for starters..


Three strikes and Dormer is out.





  #216   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Listening Experience

Lionel said:

Hey, it passed the particle test!


With a sifter for sand ?


Heheh :-)
Like France, we too have a Controle Technique each year, which
includes a particle test for dangerous emission.
It passed the (admittedly, not too hefty) test without problems.

I'm trying to get subsidized by the government for keeping pieces of
antique running, so far I'm not very succesfull ........


Are you speaking about car or about amplifier ? :-)


Tube amps are even more common than fine running CX-es.
But both would be nice *grin*

This remember me something I've forgotten.
I have an 80 years old uncle who like you is a Citroën fan. He still
keep in a garage is DS 21 Palace from 1972.
The car is perfect with shiny chromes, "king" blue color, leather seats...
Do you want I arrange something for you ? ;-)


As a Frenchman, you should be aware that it's spelled "Pallas" :-)
The color is most likely 'Blue Royal", a color that isn't often seen
on a DS. A rare car, and probably worth a lot of dough.
And, if I may be so blunt, I'm guessing you could find more DS-s in
good shape in Holland than in France, strangely enough.
Just tell your uncle to drive safely and to let you inherit the DS.
It's hard to find a more comfortable car these days!

I still have a DS packed away in pieces, which I'm planning to build
up after the 3 CX-es are ready.
A good thing we Europeans have so much free time :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy
  #217   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Listening Experience

Sander deWaal a écrit :

Lionel said:


Hey, it passed the particle test!



With a sifter for sand ?



Heheh :-)
Like France, we too have a Controle Technique each year, which
includes a particle test for dangerous emission.
It passed the (admittedly, not too hefty) test without problems.


I'm trying to get subsidized by the government for keeping pieces of
antique running, so far I'm not very succesfull ........



Are you speaking about car or about amplifier ? :-)



Tube amps are even more common than fine running CX-es.
But both would be nice *grin*


This remember me something I've forgotten.
I have an 80 years old uncle who like you is a Citroën fan. He still
keep in a garage is DS 21 Palace from 1972.
The car is perfect with shiny chromes, "king" blue color, leather seats...
Do you want I arrange something for you ? ;-)



As a Frenchman, you should be aware that it's spelled "Pallas" :-)


It's not a passion for me. You confirm that you perfectly know your
subject. ;-)

The color is most likely 'Blue Royal", a color that isn't often seen
on a DS. A rare car, and probably worth a lot of dough.
And, if I may be so blunt, I'm guessing you could find more DS-s in
good shape in Holland than in France, strangely enough.
Just tell your uncle to drive safely and to let you inherit the DS.
It's hard to find a more comfortable car these days!


Alas I have 3 cousins.

I still have a DS packed away in pieces, which I'm planning to build
up after the 3 CX-es are ready.
A good thing we Europeans have so much free time :-)


Small appointment but important free time. :-)

  #218   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Listening Experience

Sander deWaal a écrit :

And, if I may be so blunt, I'm guessing you could find more DS-s in
good shape in Holland than in France, strangely enough.


Salt on the road in winter ?

  #219   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Listening Experience

Lionel said:

And, if I may be so blunt, I'm guessing you could find more DS-s in
good shape in Holland than in France, strangely enough.


Salt on the road in winter ?


Oh no mon ami, we treat our cars with respect.
During the winter, we drive XMs and other disposable recent cars :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy
  #220   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Listening Experience

Sander deWaal a écrit :

Lionel said:


And, if I may be so blunt, I'm guessing you could find more DS-s in
good shape in Holland than in France, strangely enough.



Salt on the road in winter ?



Oh no mon ami, we treat our cars with respect.
During the winter, we drive XMs and other disposable recent cars :-)


Ooops, it was just an attempt to explain.
I know that usually Dutch people are very cautious... ;-)
I was just suggesting that in your country perhaps there is less salt on
the road in winter. This would explain why there's more DS in good shape.



  #221   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default Note to the Idiot


"=(8888)=" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" emitted :

I would like to see DBTs become part of the standard review
protocol for select categories of equipment.


I see a few fundamental problems with this idea:

1) Who is going to fund the human resources required? Let's not
underestimate the amount of time and resources required to perform a
PROPER DBT. Now consider that the gross additional cost merely
produces a binary result (in the case of ABXism) one of two outcomes -
"SAME" or "DIFFERENT". [Statistics relating to the test itself are
primarily academic.] This is a spectacularly low return of information
for such a heavy investment.


At the risk if repeating myself,

If the magazine properly equipped it reviewers with a semiautomated ABx
system the resources and time required wouldn't be substantially more than
what I hope a reviewer already commits to familiarizing themselves with
the equipment under review.

It's not economically viable.


I disagree. A minor capital investment to recreate
semiautomated systems that have been done before.
This would allow the reviewer to self conduct
DBTs. Some latitude of trust would be required.
I can think of numerous ways to add security to
such a system if required.


2) Many readers don't have a clue what a "DBT" is. The subject, and
particularly it's application to consumer products, is highly
debatable. What do you propose? Several pages of explanation in each
and every issue so readers can make up their own minds? What makes you
think readers are in a position to judge the relative merits of DBTs?
What makes you think YOU are in a position to judge?

It's not comprehensible to the layman.


So provide a reference to the archives where DBTs have been
outlined and debated endlessly. A short paragraph of results
is good enough for me.


3) As with drug trials, it would be misleading to extrapolate from the
subjective response of ONE individual to an entire population
(readership). How many subjects would you require per product trial?
2? 10? 7600?


Again, I only ask one subject. The reviewer who is providing their
subjective professional appraisal of the sound of the subject equipment.
It would be interesting to know if they are full of it, or not.

It's totally impractical.


I disagree.

ScottW


  #222   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Note to the Idiot



Yappity-yappity yap.

It's totally impractical.


More than that, it's useless and worthless and loathsome.

I disagree.


You are The Idiot.



  #223   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Listening Experience

Lionel said:

I was just suggesting that in your country perhaps there is less salt on
the road in winter. This would explain why there's more DS in good shape.


I wish that were true.
When temperatures drop to under 3 deg. C., they already start
spreading the @#$%^&* salt!
What I tried to say is that it seems to me that the French aren't that
aware of the cultural value of old cars, or maybe they just don't
care. Hence, they seem not to be bothered by rust, dents or damage.
When living in Paris, I can imagine

In Europe, Citroen has the most admirers in the lowlands.
There are about 8000 DS' in fine running condition around.
The CX is becoming very popular in recent years, values are going up
almost every day. But compared to the DS, they are rare.
My '87 GTi aut. will be taxed about 15.000 euros (admittedly, after a
complete overhaul and restauration and loaded with options, like
leather seats, airco, cruise control, electric mirrors etc. You might
remember all that wasn't too common in those years).

The lowlife 25 RD would be about 1000 euros, though :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google Proof of An Unprovoked Personal Attack from Krueger Bruce J. Richman Audio Opinions 27 December 11th 03 06:21 AM
Note to Krooger George M. Middius Audio Opinions 1 October 22nd 03 07:57 AM
Note to the Krooborg George M. Middius Audio Opinions 17 October 16th 03 11:53 PM
Note to Marc Phillips Lionel Chapuis Audio Opinions 9 September 11th 03 06:07 PM
Note on Google Groups URLs George M. Middius Audio Opinions 19 September 8th 03 11:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"