Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. the units ----== 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 =---- |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp down. **That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a short circuit is not zero Ohms? As one real expert posted previously, yes, it is not zero ohms. But for all practical purposes, when it is in parallel with a speaker load it might as well be zero. **Without knowing the nature of the short circuit, it is not possible to state this with any certainty. But you'd know that, if you knew anything about electronics. Of course, you don't, so you continue to make fundamental errors. First, I served four years in the USAF as an electronics technician, and so I do know something about electronics. Not college level, but not chopped-liver level, either. Second, I know that if you put a speaker in parallel with a load that is but a small fraction of an ohm no significant sound will come from that speaker. How could it when the vast bulk of the current flow is heading through that borderline short? **Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the amplifiers I referred you to. Good. That means they sound like all other good amps, at least up to their respective clipping levels. If you say otherwise, you are a con artist. **Indeed. They sound identical to other amplifiers which measure identically to them. There has never been any argument over this point. Yeah, but below a certain point ultra-super measurements are gilding the lily. I claim that even a good, mid-priced receiver will have as good an amplifier sound as your exotic amp. Add to that the existence of a preamp section, surround sound (still more channels) and a tuner, and the receiver wins the contest, hands down. Your amp is a money pit. Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you. I know enough about them to realize that when somebody like you claims that a super-duper amp he is dealing with sounds superior to all others that individual is pulling a sales scam. **IF I had said such a thing (which I have not), then you would be entitled to say so. OK, so your amp sounds like all other good amps. Good for it. Glad we have reached this agreement. Is that opposed to retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem? At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an audible advantage over thick lamp cord. **Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times. Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp. **Actually, not that far. Depending on the speaker, of course. And that is the difference between you and me. You state, unequivocally, that speaker cables are all the same. I argue that certain systems can benefit from low inductance cables. IOW: You are wrong. Such speaker systems are too problematic to fool with. Just how long a speaker run are we talking about, by the way. At least I do not con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth fairy. **Sure you do. You rave about the books you write. Interestingly, so have others raved about them. In any case, getting into a insult-trading contest here is doing you a hell of a lot more damage than it is doing me. **I'm not insulting you. I'm simply stating fact. Actually, you are getting into a ****ing contest here that is doing you not a lot of good out there in the business world. Believe me, you have a lot more to lose here than I. Yet you have no in-depth knowledge about the topic. I know enough to be able to spot a con artist in action. **You may well do so. You are also incapable of spotting people who actually know their business, however. Yeah, and that ain't you. Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia, are you sure you care to continue? **I have no problem with allowing you to make a complete idiot of yourself. Well, they will do me no harm, whatsoever. On the other hand, you will at least lose some points in your home area because of your performance here. I suggest you cut and run while you have the chance. All you understand is the superficial stuff. For guys like you, amp and wire scams are "superficial stuff." **Are they? I presume you have some actual evidence? A Google cite will be fine. Common sense works better. You and your comments lack any kind of credibility. This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is because there is something seriously wrong with it. **And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others. I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are conventional amps out there that are also able to handle rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is still nothing exotic about their design. **How would you know? They sounded the same as all the others, tweako. What else do you want other than they all sounded the same? Actually, the Son of Ampzilla unit I recently reviewed was bulletproof. However, with normal speaker loads it sounded no better than a rather old Yamaha integrated amp I had on hand. Admittedly, the speaker load was not particularly demanding. You have no experience with the amp in question anyway. I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong with it. **IOW: You don't know. Well, you are the guy who claims that the amp sounds "better" than most of the competition. If the competition all sounds pretty much the same, I think that we can conclude that those amps sound that way because they have inaudible distortion. I mean what is the chance that all of those somewhat different topologies all had identical audible distortions? If your amp sounds different from the crowd, as far as I am concerned it is less accurate than they. Go study up on the Dewey Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us. Why on earth would you want to learn about a library cataloging system that went out of date decades ago? **Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak. I can spot a con artist, and it this day and age that is more important than the ability to spout technical jargon and rave about one's experience repairing and installing gear. **It is very important, when discussing why an amp shuts down, when turned up to moderate levels. And it is in this area where your knowledge is sadly lacking. Hey, I never said it would not shut down. I simply said that at any level it would not be able to put any sound into the speakers. This would be the case, because the VAST bulk of the current flow would be through the shorted-together lead in parallel with the speaker. OK, here is your chance to repent. **Repent what, exactly? Be precise and use Google quotes as often as you feel necessary. Just follow the guide I wrote below. Admit that all good amps sound the same up to their respective clipping points when driving normal speaker loads and admit that for home-audio applications good, **I will admit that all amps, which demonstrate identical specs, do, indeed, sound identical. And now I suppose you are going to say that your very special amp has specs that are superior to all (or at least most) others. My contention, however, is that once you get below a certain audibility threshold all amps, including yours, assuming it is properly designed, sound the same - at least with standard speaker loads and below clipping levels. The funny thing about you is that you probably sell people speakers that require an amp like yours. You basically force people into a situation where they have to purchase an exotic amp to power those oddball speaker loads. Yeah, I am sure you do not do this all the time, but when the opportunity knocks you step up to the plate and take a swing at the ball. decently thick lamp cord works as well as exotic speaker wire. **For most systems, yes. For SOME systems, no. Systems that nobody would use in a typical home-listening environment. Tell me, just how often do you recommend heavy lamp cord for typical home installations? Do you push the exotic stuff even in those more mundane situations, as well as in these situations that involve SOME systems? If you say that I will apologize for what I have written about you. **No, you won't. You're pig-ignorant. You will NEVER apologise to me. Well, not now I won't. Howard Ferstler |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. the units This is baloney. You either hear differences or you do not. Howard Ferstler |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. the units This is baloney. You either hear differences or you do not. you don't need the test to do that! ----== 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 =---- |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. the units This is baloney. You either hear differences or you do not. you don't need the test to do that! But you do need to properly level match, and you also need to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior. If you do not employ the DBT protocol there is no way to tell if the participant is hearing differences or simply imagining things - or saying that he hears differences in order to sell a product. Well, we have all gone over this many times before. Howard Ferstler |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: you don't need the test to do that! But you do need to properly level match, and you also need to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior. That's the point, it only neuters one set of preconceotions And if the person has preconceptions that they will sound the same, the test WILL NOT neuter those preconceptions. DBT tests for audio are actually designed to provide a biased result of there being no difference. you do not employ the DBT protocol there is no way to tell if the participant is hearing differences or simply imagining things - or saying that he hears differences in order to sell a product. See, you are using a test for the purpose of arriving at a predetermined result. It is NOT a proper test. The DBT test is no way to tell if those that have a predetermined bias against hearing differences are actually NOT hearing differences, or if they are merely 'deluding' themselves in ignoring differences that actually exist! Well, we have all gone over this many times before. And you are as wrong as ever!!! ----== 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 =---- |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"ric" wrote in message ... Gordon wrote: Arny ,a quick question ,as you are in Michigan why do you feel the need to post in an Austalian newsgroup. Gordon, read your headers! This thread has been crossposted to FOUR newsgroups, only one of which is Aussie. My appologies , in this case , but most of the Ozzy posters will know what I was getting at. Gordon |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
You can buy a lot of cheap players for what one exotic costs and as long as it works OK it will sound as good as any of them. ** You're paying for what you get. Just like you can not expect Proton's vehicles to give you the same driving experience as Lexus vehicles- regarless of physical appearances. Cheers Dean |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Better made players last longer, play marginal discs better, and are
nicer to use. If you want okay for cheap buy a $39 Apex at WalMart. It will work about a year then buy another. If you don't need DVD-A or SACD, and don't mind the nasty smell it gives off-why,I'm not sure, but it has no toobs and Margaret can't possibly put out enough slime to smell that many of them up-and don't mind the fact you will have to dismantle it and use a 9V battery to open the drawer to get the last CD it plays because it will trap your disc when it dies, well, go for it. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:18:41 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. Indeed - that's why the tests are done blind........... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:13:32 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. Clyde, don't you know that "expectation effects" only apply to those of us who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no difference. :-) And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in. It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!! ABX is hideously flawed. Bull****. What you mean is that ABX doesn't support your absolute knowledge that 'high-end' designer label gear *must* sound better than 'Chinky cheapies'. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:32:56 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: you don't need the test to do that! But you do need to properly level match, and you also need to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior. That's the point, it only neuters one set of preconceotions And if the person has preconceptions that they will sound the same, the test WILL NOT neuter those preconceptions. DBT tests for audio are actually designed to provide a biased result of there being no difference. Bull****. They're used every day by mainstream manufacturers to determine whether design changes had any *real* audible effect. Like most of the 'subjectivists', you're ignoring reality to push your own prejudices, and bitching about ABX because it doesn't support your fantasising about the sound of 'high-end' equipment. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:58:50 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia, Wrong, Howard. In Australia we're wise enough to skip over posts marked "Howard Ferstler". |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:26:35 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton" wrote calcerise wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. And indeed the good ones *do*, if we're talking about *listening* tests. I have a Sony CDP-715E, one of the best-performing players Sony ever made, although lacking the 'battleship' build of the XA7ES, I have access to a Meridian 588, probably the finest 'high tech' SOTA CD player on the planet, and I also own a Pioneer DV-575A 'universal' player that cost less than the quoted price of a new laser assembly for the XA7ES. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Any reasonable person would most likely also ask that ... when you were performing a level-matched blind listening test among your three cd players namely: 1. Sony CDP-715E 2. Meridian 588 3. Pioneer DV-575A Were you also comparing their sounds from each other? I have no idea what that means. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:11:27 -0700, ric wrote:
Gordon, read your headers! This thread has been crossposted to FOUR newsgroups, only one of which is Aussie. This one was, but Arnie DOES post here specifically though from time to time. The question is valid. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
On 12 Jul 2005 03:04:26 -0700, "Sonic" wrote:
I remember when the XA5 and 7ES came out, had some of the first ones to try out. Found them to be bright as anything, especially the XA5ES, even using the digital out it proved to be bright. Well, that's about as dumb a comment as it gets................. I also remember Greg Borrowmans first review on the 5, he couldnt bring himself to say it but read between the lines and he basically was saying its bright as all buggery! LOL Yeah, riggghht. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:28:29 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Some sound different in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons. This is worryingly vague, Arnie. You sound like a criminal on the verge of a confession but still hedging. But most listeners would never hear those differences when listening to musical source material, particularly for pleasure. Howard, many CD player can't be listened to for pleasure. That's the point. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
On 12 Jul 2005 07:25:52 -0700, George Middius
wrote: This is how I ended up with a Pioneer 676a that sounds exactly like a Sony XA7ES. Will the blessings never cease flowing to us from the good old US of A? Actually, they're both Japanese. I was referring to the advice, George, not the products. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Gordon wrote:
Gordon, read your headers! This thread has been crossposted to FOUR newsgroups, only one of which is Aussie. My appologies , in this case , but most of the Ozzy posters will know what I was getting at. How about the Black Sabbath ones? ;-) -- --Scot www.RonnieJamesDio.org www.SMCProductions.org www.CraigGoldy.org www.TonyIommi.org www.ScotClayton.org http://scotclayton.blogspot.com/ |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: you don't need the test to do that! But you do need to properly level match, and you also need to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior. That's the point, it only neuters one set of preconceotions That's what you've got Art - "preconceotions". |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"dean" wrote in message
You can buy a lot of cheap players for what one exotic costs and as long as it works OK it will sound as good as any of them. ** You're paying for what you get. Not at all. A lot of the $kilobuck players have the same operational guts as the $200 players. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp down. **That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a short circuit is not zero Ohms? As one real expert posted previously, yes, it is not zero ohms. But for all practical purposes, when it is in parallel with a speaker load it might as well be zero. **Without knowing the nature of the short circuit, it is not possible to state this with any certainty. But you'd know that, if you knew anything about electronics. Of course, you don't, so you continue to make fundamental errors. First, I served four years in the USAF as an electronics technician, and so I do know something about electronics. Not college level, but not chopped-liver level, either. **Unless you studied circuit analysis (which, it is abundantly obvious, you did not) you know only the barest superficial stuff. Second, I know that if you put a speaker in parallel with a load that is but a small fraction of an ohm no significant sound will come from that speaker. How could it when the vast bulk of the current flow is heading through that borderline short? **Go and study up on Thevenin's Theorem and get back to me. However, that is not the issue. And you (should) know it. The poster who began this whole fiasco, which allowed you to demonstrate your incredible lack of knowledge said nothing about the sound coming from the speaker with the short on the speaker cable. I explained to you at the time (an explanation which you ridiculed, BTW) that it was highly liklely that the protection system was not activated until moderate levels (just as the poster suggested) because all the other channels were still operating. I patiently explained to you that this was, indeed, very possible, given the likely protection systems used in most commercial amplifiers. You denied that my explanation made any sense. Of course, your suggestion that I was incorrect held no weight with any reader on any forum, given your complete ignorance of modern electronic devices and their technical features. It is this point where I am most incensed. You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd. **Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the amplifiers I referred you to. Good. That means they sound like all other good amps, at least up to their respective clipping levels. If you say otherwise, you are a con artist. **Indeed. They sound identical to other amplifiers which measure identically to them. There has never been any argument over this point. Yeah, but below a certain point ultra-super measurements are gilding the lily. I claim that even a good, mid-priced receiver will have as good an amplifier sound as your exotic amp. **You may make as many claims as you wish. You're still operating from a point of ignorance. Add to that the existence of a preamp section, surround sound (still more channels) and a tuner, and the receiver wins the contest, hands down. Your amp is a money pit. **Really? Let's talk about obsolescence sometime. See how much a 5 year old receiver sells for. Then go price a 10 year old Krell. The Krell will have hled more of it's value than your 5 year old receiver. Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you. I know enough about them to realize that when somebody like you claims that a super-duper amp he is dealing with sounds superior to all others that individual is pulling a sales scam. **IF I had said such a thing (which I have not), then you would be entitled to say so. OK, so your amp sounds like all other good amps. **No. It sounds like all other amps which posses IDENTICAL specs. Good for it. Glad we have reached this agreement. **Don't count your chickens. Is that opposed to retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem? At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an audible advantage over thick lamp cord. **Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times. Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp. **Actually, not that far. Depending on the speaker, of course. And that is the difference between you and me. You state, unequivocally, that speaker cables are all the same. I argue that certain systems can benefit from low inductance cables. IOW: You are wrong. Such speaker systems are too problematic to fool with. **That is an opinion you get to have. It is not one shared by many listeners. Just how long a speaker run are we talking about, by the way. **Is that a question, Mr Professional Writer? At least I do not con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth fairy. **Sure you do. You rave about the books you write. Interestingly, so have others raved about them. In any case, getting into a insult-trading contest here is doing you a hell of a lot more damage than it is doing me. **I'm not insulting you. I'm simply stating fact. Actually, you are getting into a ****ing contest here that is doing you not a lot of good out there in the business world. Believe me, you have a lot more to lose here than I. **I doubt it. Yet you have no in-depth knowledge about the topic. I know enough to be able to spot a con artist in action. **You may well do so. You are also incapable of spotting people who actually know their business, however. Yeah, and that ain't you. **See what I mean? I prove you wrong. Completely, utterly wrong and you insult me. That is what I am talking about. You are a nasty individual. Try and stay on topic and keep to the facts. I proved you wrong. You know (or shoudl know it) and everyone else knows it. You should cut your losses and admit it. Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia, are you sure you care to continue? **I have no problem with allowing you to make a complete idiot of yourself. Well, they will do me no harm, whatsoever. **Very likely true. You are already a laughing stock. You can't sink much lower. On the other hand, you will at least lose some points in your home area because of your performance here. I suggest you cut and run while you have the chance. **You know very little about me. I don't cut and run from someone who is wrong. I will continue to attack, until you admit your mistakes and apologise. I will not stop. All you understand is the superficial stuff. For guys like you, amp and wire scams are "superficial stuff." **Are they? I presume you have some actual evidence? A Google cite will be fine. Common sense works better. **Your lack of evidence is duly noted. And expected. You and your comments lack any kind of credibility. This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is because there is something seriously wrong with it. **And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others. I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are conventional amps out there that are also able to handle rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is still nothing exotic about their design. **How would you know? They sounded the same as all the others, tweako. **I'll ask the question again: How would you know? What else do you want other than they all sounded the same? Actually, the Son of Ampzilla unit I recently reviewed was bulletproof. However, with normal speaker loads it sounded no better than a rather old Yamaha integrated amp I had on hand. Admittedly, the speaker load was not particularly demanding. You have no experience with the amp in question anyway. I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong with it. **IOW: You don't know. Well, you are the guy who claims that the amp sounds "better" than most of the competition. If the competition all sounds pretty much the same, I think that we can conclude that those amps sound that way because they have inaudible distortion. I mean what is the chance that all of those somewhat different topologies all had identical audible distortions? **Very high, since all use similar topologies, WRT Global NFB. If your amp sounds different from the crowd, as far as I am concerned it is less accurate than they. **And again, you speak from a position of ignorance. Go study up on the Dewey Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us. Why on earth would you want to learn about a library cataloging system that went out of date decades ago? **Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak. I can spot a con artist, and it this day and age that is more important than the ability to spout technical jargon and rave about one's experience repairing and installing gear. **It is very important, when discussing why an amp shuts down, when turned up to moderate levels. And it is in this area where your knowledge is sadly lacking. Hey, I never said it would not shut down. I simply said that at any level it would not be able to put any sound into the speakers. **The poster said that the amp did not shut down 'till moderate levels were reached. You claimed that this was not possible. This would be the case, because the VAST bulk of the current flow would be through the shorted-together lead in parallel with the speaker. **The vast bulk of the output from ONE CHANNEL. The other channels would be unaffected (within reason). OK, here is your chance to repent. **Repent what, exactly? Be precise and use Google quotes as often as you feel necessary. Just follow the guide I wrote below. Admit that all good amps sound the same up to their respective clipping points when driving normal speaker loads and admit that for home-audio applications good, **I will admit that all amps, which demonstrate identical specs, do, indeed, sound identical. And now I suppose you are going to say that your very special amp has specs that are superior to all (or at least most) others. My contention, however, is that once you get below a certain audibility threshold all amps, including yours, assuming it is properly designed, sound the same - at least with standard speaker loads and below clipping levels. **What is a "standard speaker load"? How can you guarantee that an amp remains below clipping at ALL times? The funny thing about you is that you probably sell people speakers that require an amp like yours. **Wrong. Again. You basically force people into a situation where they have to purchase an exotic amp to power those oddball speaker loads. **Supposition, based on a faulty line of logic. Your usual stock-in-trade. Yeah, I am sure you do not do this all the time, but when the opportunity knocks you step up to the plate and take a swing at the ball. decently thick lamp cord works as well as exotic speaker wire. **For most systems, yes. For SOME systems, no. Systems that nobody would use in a typical home-listening environment. **Wrong. Tell me, just how often do you recommend heavy lamp cord for typical home installations? **Pretty much every day, in fact. It's all most people need for their crappy surround sound systems. Anything else is massive over-kill. Do you push the exotic stuff even in those more mundane situations, as well as in these situations that involve SOME systems? **Nope. Never. In fact, I never "push" fancy speaker cables. Depending on the system, I may make a reccommendation for low inductance speaker cables. I even suggest where people can buy those cables. Dick Smith Electronics is one of the outlets I suggest. Which, of course, you'd know, if you did even a modicum of research. DSE sell the fancy, low inductance cable for 4 Bucks a Metre. Google it, if you don't beleive me. If you say that I will apologize for what I have written about you. **No, you won't. You're pig-ignorant. You will NEVER apologise to me. Well, not now I won't. **You have managed to meet my expectations of you. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
DBT tests for audio are actually designed to provide a biased result of there being no difference. Bull****. They're used every day by mainstream manufacturers to determine whether design changes had any *real* audible effect. Since everything sounds the same all the time why should any "design changes" have a "*real*" audible effect? Sice amps and CD players are at the zenith of perfection, since they can't be bettered in any way (so say your tests) why would any "mainstream manufacturers" bother to make any "design changes" ? DBT's do not work, been there done that. Simple fact. This *is* about envy with you low-income nerd types, isn't it? You imagine your yamaha metallic sound $120 receiver as sounding the same as some $5000 BAT integrated amp, yes? That's how you are able to consume that edgy, glaringly digital, transistor sound you get from your piece of **** gear. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
And now Brother Ferstler the Overly Pecunious yields the pulpit to his brethren from the U.K., Brother Pukey the Scatologically Talented. Please cup your ears, ladies and gentlemen, to make sure you can garner every syllable of wisdom from Brother Pukey. Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-) Thank you for the inspirational words, Brother Pukey. Do you need some help maintaining your posture? You look like you've been up all night. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
paul packer said: This is how I ended up with a Pioneer 676a that sounds exactly like a Sony XA7ES. Will the blessings never cease flowing to us from the good old US of A? Actually, they're both Japanese. I was referring to the advice, George, not the products. sigh How about a Rotel, then? |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"Fella" wrote in message
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: DBT tests for audio are actually designed to provide a biased result of there being no difference. Bull****. They're used every day by mainstream manufacturers to determine whether design changes had any *real* audible effect. Since everything sounds the same all the time why should any "design changes" have a "*real*" audible effect? Obviously, everything doesn't sound the same all the time, or else people would never check for them. Since amps and CD players are at the zenith of perfection, since they can't be bettered in any way (so say your tests) why would any "mainstream manufacturers" bother to make any "design changes"? Guess what Fella, audio equipment has other attributes than sound quality. Examples are size, cost, weight, appearance, reliability, ease-of-use, and so on. DBT's do not work, been there done that. Simple fact. I don't recall reading any detailed descriptions of your own personal DBTs, Fella. This *is* about envy with you low-income nerd types, isn't it? Actually, being a nerd is a pretty good way to have a high income. You imagine your yamaha metallic sound $120 receiver as sounding the same as some $5000 BAT integrated amp, yes? Interesting possibility, no? BTW Fella, there don't appear to be any such things as $120 Yamaha receivers being sold as new equipment. Does this mean that the rest of your post is equally invalid? That's how you are able to consume that edgy, glaringly digital, transistor sound you get from your piece of **** gear. I think you really need to check your facts, Fella. The $5995 BAT VK 300x integrated amplifier you mentioned has a lot of solid state and not a lot of tubes in it. Check out the article below from their web site - note the solid state power amp heat sinks on each side, the absence of *any* visible glass bottles, and the admission that the only tube that this BAT integrated amp might have is an extra-cost option? http://www.balanced.com/products/amp/Vk-300x/ |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote EddieM wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote calcerise wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. And indeed the good ones *do*, if we're talking about *listening* tests. I have a Sony CDP-715E, one of the best-performing players Sony ever made, although lacking the 'battleship' build of the XA7ES, I have access to a Meridian 588, probably the finest 'high tech' SOTA CD player on the planet, and I also own a Pioneer DV-575A 'universal' player that cost less than the quoted price of a new laser assembly for the XA7ES. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Any reasonable person would most likely also ask that ... when you were performing a level-matched blind listening test among your three cd players namely: 1. Sony CDP-715E 2. Meridian 588 3. Pioneer DV-575A Were you also comparing their sounds from each other? I have no idea what that means. I was wondering what exactly were you talking about when you said you did a *listening* test as you had mentioned above. You said that you did a *level-matched* blind listening test among the 3 players and that towards the end, you concluded that all 3 sounded the same. So I wonder how you carried out your test. Did you listen separately or did you made an active comparison using a switch during the test? And how would a person go about concluding with reasonable expectation that all three players will sound identical without having made an active comparison -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: you don't need the test to do that! But you do need to properly level match, and you also need to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior. That's the point, it only neuters one set of preconceotions That's what you've got Art - "preconceotions". WOW! impressive, Arny. I show you that ABX is built on a false premise, and all you can do is point out a typo. ----== 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 =---- |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:18:41 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message . .. On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. Indeed - that's why the tests are done blind........... Idiot, the test removes some expectation effects, but not others. It is more biased than sighted listening. ----== 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 =---- |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:13:32 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. Clyde, don't you know that "expectation effects" only apply to those of us who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no difference. :-) And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in. It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!! ABX is hideously flawed. Bull****. What you mean is that ABX doesn't support your absolute knowledge that 'high-end' designer label gear *must* sound better than 'Chinky cheapies'. -- It doesn't support it because it is inherently designed to purposefully support the opposite conclusion. It is NOT a neutral test. It does not remove the expectation effects of those who have preconceived notions that there are no differences. ----== 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 =---- |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-) That they are taken by people from both sides is irrelevant. Its the test design that skews the results, so that they tend to be the same ----== 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 =---- |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
Harry Lavo wrote: Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell. snip Would it be too much to ask the members of other Usenet groups to delete aus.hi-fi from their newsgroup lists? I think I speak for most of the members of this group when I say that we really aren't interested in your squabbling, as we have more than enough of it here already. Thanks in anticipation of your assistance. ruff |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:32:56 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: you don't need the test to do that! But you do need to properly level match, and you also need to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior. That's the point, it only neuters one set of preconceotions And if the person has preconceptions that they will sound the same, the test WILL NOT neuter those preconceptions. DBT tests for audio are actually designed to provide a biased result of there being no difference. Bull****. They're used every day by mainstream manufacturers to determine whether design changes had any *real* audible effect. Like most of the 'subjectivists', you're ignoring reality to push your own prejudices, and bitching about ABX because it doesn't support your fantasising about the sound of 'high-end' equipment. Fist of all, For the purposes of my purchase decisions, any test results derived from other subjects are completely irrelevant to my decision. I could not care less what the unknown masses do or do not hear. Now, as far as DBT and its removal of expectation effects, for the purposes of audio purchase decisions, a test subject would tend to have fairly strong preconceptions about whether there might be inherent differences between two items AS far as manufacturer's using DBT in support of parts or decsign decisions, the test subjets are likely to have minimal preconcptions over whatever is being tested. ----== 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 =---- |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Bull****. What you mean is that ABX doesn't support your absolute knowledge that 'high-end' designer label gear *must* sound better than 'Chinky cheapies'. It doesn't support it because it is inherently designed to purposefully support the opposite conclusion. This is the usual audiophilia-dupe answer, which is what we should expect from an audiophilia-dupe like Art. Please note that Art has so much confidence in his baseless accusations that he doesn't even post under his true name. Art is obviously afraid of his senseless natterings on Usenet being associated with his true identity. I know exactly how ABX was designed because I was there when it was designed almost 30 years ago. ABX was designed to be as sensitive as possible to audible differences. It is NOT a neutral test. ABX is as neutral of a test for consciiously-perceived differences as is known to exist. It does not remove the expectation effects of those who have preconceived notions that there are no differences. ABX tests and other DBTs can be used to determine when a listener is biased against hearing differences. You simply present candidate listeners with audible differences that other listeners have been able to hear in DBTs without much difficulty. If the listener develops random results when listening to differences that are known to be readily audible in DBTs or by other means, then it is proof or at least a strong indication that he is biased against hearing differences. The PCABX web site uses a "Listener Training Test" to filter out listners and listening environments that are biased against hearing differences. This facility is freely available at http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm . |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
Fist of all, Art gratuiously introduces a OT discussion of something involving a fist. What might that be? For the purposes of my purchase decisions, any test results derived from other subjects are completely irrelevant to my decision. This only makes sense if Art's hearing or Art's listening environment is so atypical that no other person's hearing or listening environment would be relevant. IOW, it suggests that Art's hearing has become vastly degraded due to his age and personal activities, and that his home audio system is full of masking noises and distortions. I could not care less what the unknown masses do or do not hear. Note that Art can't comprehend of any other individual having the same serious hearing problems that he has. Now, as far as DBT and its removal of expectation effects, for the purposes of audio purchase decisions, a test subject would tend to have fairly strong preconceptions about whether there might be inherent differences between two items. Agreed - given that retail outlets and manufacturer's have strong economic incentives to give people favorable preconceptions about the products they sell. AS far as manufacturer's using DBT in support of parts or decsign decisions, the test subjets are likely to have minimal preconcptions over whatever is being tested. At last Art correctly perceives that one of the benefits of DBTs is that they can help identify and reduce or elminate the effects of preconceptions. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: you don't need the test to do that! But you do need to properly level match, and you also need to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior. That's the point, it only neuters one set of preconceotions That's what you've got Art - "preconceotions". WOW! impressive, Arny. I show you that ABX is built on a false premise, and all you can do is point out a typo. Art, the rest of your post was just another recitation of your habitual jingoist mantra. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"EddieM" wrote in message Clyde Slick wrote Stewart Pinkerton wrote calcerise wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. Good point. There's an equal danger in missing an audible difference because you expect it to not be there, as there is a danger in falsely perceiving a difference because the listening test was done naively. So Eddie, what to do? Note that a day later, Eddie has posted to other threads but has no answer for my simple question. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
Obviously, everything doesn't sound the same all the time, Take the issue up with pinkerton there. Guess what Fella, audio equipment has other attributes than sound quality. Guess what krueger, sound quality is the foremost attribute to be taken into consideration. Then comes durability and reliability. Then comes pleasing esthetics. Then comes price, ease of use, etc. Examples are size, cost, weight, appearance, reliability, ease-of-use, and so on. Agreed. What are your priorities? Tell us. I don't recall reading any detailed descriptions of your own personal DBTs, Fella. Well take that up with your head-doctor. Actually, being a nerd is a pretty good way to have a high income. Was. You imagine your yamaha metallic sound $120 receiver as sounding the same as some $5000 BAT integrated amp, yes? Interesting possibility, no? Interesting IMpossiblity, yes. BTW Fella, there don't appear to be any such things as $120 Yamaha receivers being sold as new equipment. Why buy new? Does this mean that the rest of your post is equally invalid? So you validate all the posts around here? That's how you are able to consume that edgy, glaringly digital, transistor sound you get from your piece of **** gear. I think you really need to check your facts, Fella. BAT uses solid state fellaaaaaa.. etc. Cheap demogogy, worn out "debating-trade" bul**** snipped. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:58:52 +1000, "roughplanet"
wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message Harry Lavo wrote: Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell. snip Would it be too much to ask the members of other Usenet groups to delete aus.hi-fi from their newsgroup lists? I think I speak for most of the members of this group when I say that we really aren't interested in your squabbling, as we have more than enough of it here already. Thanks in anticipation of your assistance. ruff Seconded, Ruff. I feel like I've been dragged back down into that nightmare hell-hole known as RAO after only lately escaping it. Names I'm still trying to forget keep appearing before my startled gaze like phantoms of the underworld. Please make it stop. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: from $0.99 SONY Theater RECEIVER ($600 less!) dOUBLEdECK AND headphones HiFi awesome | Marketplace | |||
Any Sony CD Guru out there? | Tech | |||
[?]Sourcing SONY DAT recorder 7-pin connector (and lead). | Pro Audio | |||
Sony Digital Amps (and SACD) vs. Sony Analog Amps | High End Audio |