| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Nousaine wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news  Gp2b.255383$YN5.175306@sccrnsc01..."Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mv82b.184354$cF.62105@rwcrnsc53... *for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al when testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack of close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration comparative blind testing (no statistical difference). (1) There were other significant differences in Oohashi tests than just the ones just stated. For example, the alternatives compared included different loudspeaker systems, which not surprisingly had different measured frequency response in the normal audible range. (2) Many blind tests related to the same issue have been done under highly relaxed conditions and there are no known positive results. See my reply to Steven. I understand the test needs to be replicated to be taken more seriously...but I would like to see some acknowledgement that there may be a crack in the orthodoxy. For if there is, then "undisputable scientific evidence" no longer is so "undisputable". How about acknowledging just a smidge of uncertainty? :-) Harry seems to want to get the camel's nose under the corner of the tent. Subjectivists will do this. "Please acknowledge just a iota of uncertainty ..." and if they get this on even one minor point then ALL the old baggage gets dragged out of the closet as if it's been confirmed. I'm happy to acknowledge an iota of uncertainty optimal *implementation of* controlled listening protocols, if subjectivists acknowledge the boulder of uncertainty sighted comparison, that derives from the mountain of data verifying the existence of perceptual bias. Now, given the status quo of audiophile reviewing practice, which rhetorical deficiency is in more pressing need of fixing? And Harry knows that Oohashi's results have been discussed here before, including reasons why some could be skeptical of them. -- -S. |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
ludovic mirabel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ... ludovic mirabel wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote in message .net... Between the horrors of invincible sighted bias that has been "proven" (no?) to afflict everyone , but everyone equally:- experienced or not experienced, an unamplified music concert goer with good taste (sorry, no chapter about that in the electronics manual, no study in JAES) or a rock fan, chamber music lover or car audio fan- and the horrors of invariable "They all sound the same" ABX earmuffs give me the subjectivist impressions of sighted J.Gordon Holt any time. Personally I'm not frightened of such straw men, merely irritated that you keep creating them. "You're creating a strawman" appears to be a favourite strawman argument in RAHE. "Strawman" thus used is a diversion away from the topic under discussion to replace a rational argument. No, it's shorthand for: 'you have presented your opponents' arguments inaccurately, apparently to make them seem absurd" Namely, that argument that bias 'affects everyone equally' (as opposed to the accurate claim: 'bias affects everyone'). Namely, that "they all sound the same' (as opposed to the actual argument, that for certain classes of device X, nominally competent X operating under normal conditions should sound the same) There's no reason to 'debate' straw man arguments; one need only *correct* them, and move on to debate of the *actual* claims. However, your penchant seems to be to resurrect the same straw men over and over, so the value of 'debating' you seems questionable. As has been noted before. -- -S. |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Nousaine" wrote in message
Actually these magazines had detailed descriptions of newer technolgies (CD, DAT, phono carts, DCC, Mini-Disc, Mp3, Elcassette years before any of the high-end magazines even acknowledged their existance. I am only glad Stereophile didn't waste my time with elcassette or MP3. As for all the others, they did some very detailed reports on them. Whether they were the first or not I don't know. I do know you folks talk about straw men. About intentional or incompe- tent misdirection. Stereophile wasn't years behind on DAT, DCC, or any of the mediums that might matter in quality audio. And as a matter of fact had some of the best reports done on these. And in a timely matter. As in available to read just as the equip- ment was close to being available for consumer purchase. They also featured detailed technical pieces on speaker placement, room interaction, digital recording technology, bias conntrolled listenign tests and other aspects of audio that have never appeared or even been examined by the boutique magazines Yet another untruth. Each and every topic in your above paragraph have in fact been done by Stereophile. If you are going to criticize them at least use the truth. Not your biased fantasy Mr. Nousaine. I also suspect that many of those reviews in those other magazines consisted of a quick listen, and some measurements. Not the extended use done by SP and TAS. Extended work? It is true that Stereophile has been providing extensive measurements in the past decade or more but Stereo Review and Audio were always ahead of them. TAS has never engaged in 'extended' work other than claiming to spend a lot of time 'hearing' inaudible differences. Also read what I wrote. Not what you want to read. I used the term "extended use", not 'extended work'. Stereophile seemingly has never met an amplifier it didn't like. How many of the amplifiers reviewed in 2001 and 2002 appeared on the RCL? All of them. This is certainly not true. Yes it is. Check out the January issue of the products reviewed and compare it to the April RCL. That's what I did. Now you are guilty of more intentional misrepresentation. After I made it clear I wasn't referring to recent years of the magazine. You go right back and refer to it again. I made it quite clear I didn't like the current way the magazine is done because they like everything they review. A confirmation of what you said, but beside the point as I was referring to years ago. When they most definitely did not like all items reviewed. So Mr. Nouisane, other than cheap debating tactics what is your point? The magazine is still being edited by one of the primary principles. You mean that he's NOT using the same criteria for reviews and RCL that held before? I'm pretty sure that the descriptions in the book haven't said that they now recommend products that were 'unrecommendable' by past standards. Again, not relevent to what I have said here. Regardless of who is now editing the magazine it clearly is different from when it wasn't owned by a big conglomerate publishing company. Again what is your point? It's all very interesting and quite frankly IMO Stereo Review (now Sound & Vision) has always done the best job of managing the field, providing useful information (not just product evaluation) and keeping enough advertisers happy that subscription prices have always been reasonable. Well SR now S&V certainly are cheap. They certainly give you the best collection of brochure like treatments of equipment. They certainly keep advertisers quite happy. Which certainly kept pricing down. And for more in depth info on usefulness they aren't much use. Dennis |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
Tom said
Sighted tests yield 'difference' 3/4 of the time when subjects are given 2 identical sound presentations. When was the last time anyobe ever heard someone say aloud during an aduio salon presentation "they sounded alike to me." I said Last weekend. Tom said That's pretty cool. IME unusual as well. My experience is that many people might remain silent (indicating prehaps no difference) but then one or two will say what they "heard" which may be conflicting. Most of my comparisons are done with the help of one friend. We try to do some comparisons blind and some sighted. Mostly because i opperate the equipment. We usually have something to say. We usually hear the same things more or less. we occasionally don't. Our differences in opinion when they happen usually are more in the preference than in the analysis of what we hear. Tom said The the 'host" usually a salesman or system owner will say "OK let's try again with different material." After another round the participants will then 'negotiate' what they 'heard.' It's quite common for silent participants to speak up after a 2nd round. I don't spend much times in stereo shops these days and in most of my comparisons, i am the host. Tom said But usually those who will not acknowledge a difference are simply ignored. In my comparisons no one is ignored. Tom said Often people are asked "what did you hear?' or 'what do you think?' and then any remark will be considered a statement of difference. When i am doing comparisons blind or sighted with my friend the question is usually "What do you think?" I guess that would be in the same vein as "what did you hear?" |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
On 27 Aug 2003 17:09:13 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message Actually these magazines had detailed descriptions of newer technolgies (CD, DAT, phono carts, DCC, Mini-Disc, Mp3, Elcassette years before any of the high-end magazines even acknowledged their existance. I am only glad Stereophile didn't waste my time with elcassette or MP3. Actually, Elcaset had a lot going for it, combining twice the track width and twice the speed of Musicassette, with all the same noise reduction technologies. Also, MP3 at high bit rates is an excellent technology. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Stereophile seemingly has never met an amplifier it didn't like. How many of the amplifiers reviewed in 2001 and 2002 appeared on the RCL? All of them. This is certainly not true. Yes it is. Check out the January issue of the products reviewed and compare it to the April RCL. That's what I did. Now you are guilty of more intentional misrepresentation. After I made it clear I wasn't referring to recent years of the magazine. No, he made a precise statement which is true. What is *your* point? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news Gp2b.255383$YN5.175306@sccrnsc01..."Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mv82b.184354$cF.62105@rwcrnsc53... *for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al when testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack of close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration comparative blind testing (no statistical difference). (1) There were other significant differences in Oohashi tests than just the ones just stated. For example, the alternatives compared included different loudspeaker systems, which not surprisingly had different measured frequency response in the normal audible range. (2) Many blind tests related to the same issue have been done under highly relaxed conditions and there are no known positive results. See my reply to Steven. I understand the test needs to be replicated to be taken more seriously...but I would like to see some acknowledgement that there may be a crack in the orthodoxy. For if there is, then "undisputable scientific evidence" no longer is so "undisputable". How about acknowledging just a smidge of uncertainty? :-) Harry seems to want to get the camel's nose under the corner of the tent. Subjectivists will do this. "Please acknowledge just a iota of uncertainty ...." and if they get this on even one minor point then ALL the old baggage gets dragged out of the closet as if it's been confirmed. Don't feel so *threatened* Tom. Your reaction is almost like "if we let just one move into the neighborhood......." In this case there seems to be little uncertainty that is of interest in that experiment to everyday enthusiasts making purchase and deployment decisions. I suspect the fact that a listening test technique that closely paralleled the typical audiophiles home evaluation (comfortable setting, delibertely soothing environment, whole piece of music to listen to, after-the-fact evaluation based on that whole piece) appered to be more sensitive* would definitely interest them if it were more widely known. * the test showed statistically significant differences in the two test variables when listened to blind and evaluation on a scale afterward. According to the authors, conventional blind a-b testing showed no difference. |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Stewart Pinkerton"
Now you are guilty of more intentional misrepresentation. After I made it clear I wasn't referring to recent years of the magazine. No, he made a precise statement which is true. What is *your* point? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Sorry Stewart. He wrote a precise statement which was true and irrelevant. I had precisely stated already, I was not referring to recent years of the publication to which he again brings up recent years of the publication. Make any sense to you? Dennis |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
et... Nousaine wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news Gp2b.255383$YN5.175306@sccrnsc01..."Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mv82b.184354$cF.62105@rwcrnsc53... *for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al when testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack of close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration comparative blind testing (no statistical difference). (1) There were other significant differences in Oohashi tests than just the ones just stated. For example, the alternatives compared included different loudspeaker systems, which not surprisingly had different measured frequency response in the normal audible range. (2) Many blind tests related to the same issue have been done under highly relaxed conditions and there are no known positive results. See my reply to Steven. I understand the test needs to be replicated to be taken more seriously...but I would like to see some acknowledgement that there may be a crack in the orthodoxy. For if there is, then "undisputable scientific evidence" no longer is so "undisputable". How about acknowledging just a smidge of uncertainty? :-) Harry seems to want to get the camel's nose under the corner of the tent. Subjectivists will do this. "Please acknowledge just a iota of uncertainty ..." and if they get this on even one minor point then ALL the old baggage gets dragged out of the closet as if it's been confirmed. I'm happy to acknowledge an iota of uncertainty optimal *implementation of* controlled listening protocols, if subjectivists acknowledge the boulder of uncertainty sighted comparison, that derives from the mountain of data verifying the existence of perceptual bias. Now, given the status quo of audiophile reviewing practice, which rhetorical deficiency is in more pressing need of fixing? And Harry knows that Oohashi's results have been discussed here before, including reasons why some could be skeptical of them. Those expressed skepticisms had to do with the audibility of ultrasonic frequencies. they simply have no bearing on the test technique used. After all, if some of the reservations about equipment were correct, it should actually give the edge to one variable or the other in quick switch, direct comparison testing. |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
"Nousaine" wrote in message news: True they do not focus on 'high-end' (although many people will consider a $10k projector or a $10k surround processor as such) but appeal more directly to the serious enthusiast who is more interested in sheer performance than brand-names and urban legends. Nousaine, To say S&V appeals to a more 'serious' enthusiast than SP doesn't make sense. You may not agree with that readership, but as a group they are far more serious than S&V readers. The word "serious" is subjective, so what does it mean? I think it means whatever the writer thinks it means, no? I can construct an argument that says that a person who walks around with a MP3 player blasting in his ear hours every day is a more serious music lover and music listener than another person who listens only in a dedicated listening room filled with high end equipment for an hour a week. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
|
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Excepting the opinion about engineering principles, I also agree with
Mike's comments. Although the tenor of those comments probably invite the ire of those with opposing views. With respect to DBTs, I have closely followed discussions about this topic in this forum for more than 4 years. I believe that all but a fraction of audiophiles don't care one way or another about DBTs. Certainly there is nothing wrong at all about being in the minority. But I have come to the conclusion (for me) that while there may be useful purposes for DBTs in research and other esoteric applications I have never seen any illustration in this forum or elsewhere how DBTs can be of *practical* use to mainstream audiophiles. Audiophiles seem to love to talk about DBts but won't or can't apply them to the real world of buying/comparing audio equipment for the purposes of listening to real music. Even staunch disciples of DBTs that I have quizzed in this forum over the years don't use DBTs in there audio equipment purchases even though they may lambast those who believe DBts to be irrevocably flawed. It's not that they are not principled with respect to their belief in DBTs. It's that DBTs are not a practical tool for even zealots who care about them. And at the risk of a non sequitur, it is sort of like what I have been grappling with respect to solar energy. Solar energy is a great ideal, at least until you attempt to apply it. The obstacles and upfront expense turn back all but a sliver of those who, otherwise, think it is a great alternative energy source. And while I have decided to take the plunge with respect to solar energy, I have found arguments for DBTs to be far less convincing and far too "petri dish" for my audio hobby tastes. Robert C. Lang "Jerry C." wrote in message news:27f5b.337583$o%2.155694@sccrnsc02... Richard D Pierce wrote: Mkuller wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: The audiophile review press should be 1) educating readers about relevant engineering principles and These are for engineers, not audiophiles. Most of us don't care about engineering principles. This hobby is about enjoying music. 2) employing proper measurements in reviews and Stereophile does this. Do you think if they only did this only and stopped printing the reviews anyone would read it? 3) employing proper comparison techniques in reviews and What does this mean - DBTs. Audiophiles don't care. Mike, once again, you seem to think you speak for "audiophiles." When did this election occur or is it a blood-line rise to the throne? Also, you seem also to have taken on the task of defining "audiophile" as anyone who agrees with your position. You would seem to assume that anyone who does not agree with you can therefore not be an audiophile. You have put strict limits on who is or is not a member of your club. So, do the members of your little club have a salute? Do they get to wear badges and all? I am an audiophile (not an engineer enthusiast or audio journalist) and Mike not only speaks for me but I believe that he speaks for most audiophile listeners. His comments are merely common sense. One can disagree without disparaging bombast. Not surprisingly, I strongly disagree with you. If you believe the above is the role of the audio press, then why don't you start a magazine to do all those things. I'll tell you why - no one would be interested in reading it. Really, NO ONE? Mike actually qualified his "no one" as you already acknowledged below, so why take his words out of context? Mike is right. Such a proposed magazine would fail miserably due to an infinitessimally small subscription base. I would be willing to bet on that. Again, how do you know this. YOU might not be interested in reading it, but gee, the world consists of something other than Mike clones. Okay maybe a handful of zealots here would buy it, but that's about it. A handful of zealots. Gee, that seems to describe YOUR definition of exclusionary audiophilic bigotry quite well. Perhaps "enthusiasts" is a more acceptable term than "zealots", but in general, that statement is accurate. Jerry Cipriano |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Robert Lang wrote:
Excepting the opinion about engineering principles, I also agree with Mike's comments. Although the tenor of those comments probably invite the ire of those with opposing views. With respect to DBTs, I have closely followed discussions about this topic in this forum for more than 4 years. I believe that all but a fraction of audiophiles don't care one way or another about DBTs. Certainly there is nothing wrong at all about being in the minority. But I have come to the conclusion (for me) that while there may be useful purposes for DBTs in research and other esoteric applications I have never seen any illustration in this forum or elsewhere how DBTs can be of *practical* use to mainstream audiophiles. How about the fact that no one has passed a properly conducted DBT on two cables with similar measurements? I would think that every mainstream audiophile should find this result very practical. Or how about reading that a well-known high-end salesman could not tell, in a DBT, a Pass amp from a Yamaha integrated amp, even though the the former costs more than 10 times the latter? Why wouldn't you, as an audiophile, find that result very interesting and practical? Audiophiles seem to love to talk about DBts but won't or can't apply them to the real world of buying/comparing audio equipment for the purposes of listening to real music. Now you are contradicting yourself. You said that "all but a fraction of audiophiles don't care one way or another about DBTs", and then you said audiophiles love to talk about DBT's. Which is it? Even staunch disciples of DBTs that I have quizzed in this forum over the years don't use DBTs in there audio equipment purchases even though they may lambast those who believe DBts to be irrevocably flawed. Why is that strange? There is a difference between not doing a test for practical reasons, and saying that the test is flawed. No one has been lambasted for not doing a DBT. One does not have to do a DBT to understand the principles behind the DBT. It's not that they are not principled with respect to their belief in DBTs. It's that DBTs are not a practical tool for even zealots who care about them. No one has said that you have to do a DBT to choose equipment. And at the risk of a non sequitur, it is sort of like what I have been grappling with respect to solar energy. Solar energy is a great ideal, at least until you attempt to apply it. The obstacles and upfront expense turn back all but a sliver of those who, otherwise, think it is a great alternative energy source. And while I have decided to take the plunge with respect to solar energy, I have found arguments for DBTs to be far less convincing and far too "petri dish" for my audio hobby tastes. But you wouldn't say that solar energy is a flawed concept, right? Robert C. Lang |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Robert Lang wrote:
Excepting the opinion about engineering principles, I also agree with Mike's comments. Although the tenor of those comments probably invite the ire of those with opposing views. With respect to DBTs, I have closely followed discussions about this topic in this forum for more than 4 years. I believe that all but a fraction of audiophiles don't care one way or another about DBTs. Certainly there is nothing wrong at all about being in the minority. But I have come to the conclusion (for me) that while there may be useful purposes for DBTs in research and other esoteric applications I have never seen any illustration in this forum or elsewhere how DBTs can be of *practical* use to mainstream audiophiles. They coudl be of the same -- or IMO, far more -- *practical* use as any other review in the *Audiophile Press* (which is the subject of this thread) if the *Audiophile Press* would use DBTs in their reviews. Audiophiles seem to love to talk about DBts but won't or can't apply them to the real world of buying/comparing audio equipment for the purposes of listening to real music. How do audiophiles compare audio equipment in the real world? Even staunch disciples of DBTs that I have quizzed in this forum over the years don't use DBTs in there audio equipment purchases even though they may lambast those who believe DBts to be irrevocably flawed. They also lambaste those who make claims of *audible difference* from non DBT comparisons of cables and certain other classes of equipment. That is entirely reasonable given the objecvitist premise. THey *also* recognize that people purchase audio components for reasons that *include* , but are not *restricted to*, their sound. And, if you believe that cables ,CD players and solid state amps are likely to sound the same in normal use, then those *other reasons* -- such as features, power, reliability, etc. -- become paramount. This, too, is entirely reasonable. It's not that they are not principled with respect to their belief in DBTs. It's that DBTs are not a practical tool for even zealots who care about them. If that's the case, it does not logically imply that non-DBT methods become any *more* valid for discerning audible difference. Sighted listening does not become a 'better' means of determinign audible difference just because msot people dont' have an ABX box. Similarly, msot high-enders don't have ready access to multiple components for comparison, or to test or to test equipment -- which is why they read rags like TAS or Stereophile in the hope of finding such data. And *that'* why it's TAS, Stereophile et al who shoudlalso be using the *best* comparison methods, as determined by *science*, not folklore. And at the risk of a non sequitur, it is sort of like what I have been grappling with respect to solar energy. Solar energy is a great ideal, at least until you attempt to apply it. The obstacles and upfront expense turn back all but a sliver of those who, otherwise, think it is a great alternative energy source. And while I have decided to take the plunge with respect to solar energy, I have found arguments for DBTs to be far less convincing and far too "petri dish" for my audio hobby tastes. This view makes no logical sense. The argument for DBT remain just as compelling regardless of whether home listeners can employ them. Similarly, jsut because people can't run randomized double-blind trials of medicine at home, doesn't make the argument for such controls any less compelling. Would you discount the use of DBT in medicine simply because doctors who advocate them don't preform them *at home*? DBT may not be *practical* for you, but it is still objectively the *best* means of comparison. And sighted comparison remains *essentially* flawed. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
"Robert Lang" wrote in message
With respect to DBTs, I have closely followed discussions about this topic in this forum for more than 4 years. I believe that all but a fraction of audiophiles don't care one way or another about DBTs. Certainly there is nothing wrong at all about being in the minority. But I have come to the conclusion (for me) that while there may be useful purposes for DBTs in research and other esoteric applications I have never seen any illustration in this forum or elsewhere how DBTs can be of *practical* use to mainstream audiophiles. Audiophiles seem to love to talk about DBts but won't or can't apply them to the real world of buying/comparing audio equipment for the purposes of listening to real music. Even staunch disciples of DBTs that I have quizzed in this forum over the years don't use DBTs in there audio equipment purchases even though they may lambast those who believe DBts to be irrevocably flawed. It's not that they are not principled with respect to their belief in DBTs. It's that DBTs are not a practical tool for even zealots who care about them. And at the risk of a non sequitur, it is sort of like what I have been grappling with respect to solar energy. Solar energy is a great ideal, at least until you attempt to apply it. The obstacles and upfront expense turn back all but a sliver of those who, otherwise, think it is a great alternative energy source. And while I have decided to take the plunge with respect to solar energy, I have found arguments for DBTs to be far less convincing and far too "petri dish" for my audio hobby tastes. Robert C. Lang Mr. Lang, I think you are making one of the most important points. DBT's for normal equipment choices are not very practical. And there aren't offered good alternatives that I can think of reading about here. Which prompted some large, but useless threads about what is good enough equipment etc. So hopefully some objectivists will offer an alternative here. Or some more manageable method of comparison. I recently asked for info on the best accurate amp for some Soundlabs. No response to speak of so far. Yet this is a common situation one faces. You have some speakers, what amps to consider. Power levels are reasonably easy to determine. So what next. Is a large Adcom as good sonically as anything? If not how do you know, what is a better choice? If you wish to buy a CD/SACD/DVD player, are any of them sonically accurate? Which don't make the cut, and how do you figure that out? How much even roughly gets you enough quality not to worry about the quality or accuracy of the signal the disc player will provide? Dennis |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
|
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
"Robert Lang" wrote in message
et... Excepting the opinion about engineering principles, I also agree with Mike's comments. Although the tenor of those comments probably invite the ire of those with opposing views. With respect to DBTs, I have closely followed discussions about this topic in this forum for more than 4 years. I believe that all but a fraction of audiophiles don't care one way or another about DBTs. Certainly there is nothing wrong at all about being in the minority. But I have come to the conclusion (for me) that while there may be useful purposes for DBTs in research and other esoteric applications I have never seen any illustration in this forum or elsewhere how DBTs can be of *practical* use to mainstream audiophiles. Audiophiles seem to love to talk about DBts but won't or can't apply them to the real world of buying/comparing audio equipment for the purposes of listening to real music. Even staunch disciples of DBTs that I have quizzed in this forum over the years don't use DBTs in there audio equipment purchases even though they may lambast those who believe DBts to be irrevocably flawed. It's not that they are not principled with respect to their belief in DBTs. It's that DBTs are not a practical tool for even zealots who care about them. And at the risk of a non sequitur, it is sort of like what I have been grappling with respect to solar energy. Solar energy is a great ideal, at least until you attempt to apply it. The obstacles and upfront expense turn back all but a sliver of those who, otherwise, think it is a great alternative energy source. And while I have decided to take the plunge with respect to solar energy, I have found arguments for DBTs to be far less convincing and far too "petri dish" for my audio hobby tastes. Robert C. Lang Golly, is it that bad? I don't consider myself a zealot, but I use DBT any time I can. I've run DBT on bi-wiring v. mono-wiring; several acoustic suspension bookshelf speakers; CDs v. CD-R copies of the CD. I've run DBT of frozen CDs. All of these were practical tests run for the purpose of component selection. I've run SBT of vinyl playback v. a digital copy of the vinyl playback. Etc. etc. None of these tests were "petri dish". All were for practical use. Norm Strong |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Mr. Lang said:
Even staunch disciples of DBTs that I have quizzed in this forum over the years don't use DBTs in there audio equipment purchases even though they may lambast those who believe DBts to be irrevocably flawed. Actually, this is very perceptive. The arguments here invariably start with someone proclaiming those supposed flaws, not with anyone trying to force DBTs on people who aren't interested in doing them. It's not that they are not principled with respect to their belief in DBTs. It's that DBTs are not a practical tool for even zealots who care about them. I find the word zealots in this context to be rude, condescending, belittling and denigrating, and am shocked that the normally competent moderators have allowed such language to intrude into RAHE. bob I wonder why Mr. Marcus saw fit to appeal to the moderators about Mr. Lang's literate and civilised posting putting forward his view that ABX is of limited interest to audiophiles at large Perhaps Mr. Lang's accurate remark that many of those who are ready to die for DBTs clam up when asked how THEY used it and what was the result, excited his ire. While we're at it I wonder why this appeal for censorship appeared here and not in the "discuss" forum where it clearly belongs. But it did- so I'm answering it here. If the new guidelines will result in a string of complaints about every figure of speech then I foresee emasculation of this forum- the only moderate audio forum with any debates at all- to the blandness level of a textbook. I think Mr. Marcus should forget occasionally his well-known scrupulousness in debate and allow an inoffensive metaphor in. He can always answer to the subject and in kind. Zealot means a true believer. I'd quote the insinuation that "subjectivists" ( what a silly demeaning name!) are antiscientific old believers from several recent posts but why should I? Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
chung wrote in message news:V5U5b.266586$cF.83849@rwcrnsc53...
Robert Lang wrote: Excepting the opinion about engineering principles, I also agree with Mike's comments. Although the tenor of those comments probably invite the ire of those with opposing views. With respect to DBTs, I have closely followed discussions about this topic in this forum for more than 4 years. I believe that all but a fraction of audiophiles don't care one way or another about DBTs. Certainly there is nothing wrong at all about being in the minority. But I have come to the conclusion (for me) that while there may be useful purposes for DBTs in research and other esoteric applications I have never seen any illustration in this forum or elsewhere how DBTs can be of *practical* use to mainstream audiophiles. How about the fact that no one has passed a properly conducted DBT on two cables with similar measurements? I would think that every mainstream audiophile should find this result very practical. Or how about reading that a well-known high-end salesman could not tell, in a DBT, a Pass amp from a Yamaha integrated amp, even though the the former costs more than 10 times the latter? Why wouldn't you, as an audiophile, find that result very interesting and practical? The reason for Robert Lang's attitude is quite simple. You assume an unproven hypothesis: " DBT/ABX is THE proven test for testing differences in music reproduction between audio components" You quote no properly conducted, scientific, peer reviewed, validation test for your hypothesis. You know why? Because there isn't any. Quoting research in other fields proves that it works in other fields. Period. Of course you're free to hold any belief you like. Of course sceptics are free to point out to you that such a test with repeatable validity for a billion different audio listeners, trained and untrained, young or old, those who never listened to an unamplified instrument and chamber music devotees is as likely as a flying saucer landing in New Mexico. That you claim SCIENCE is on your side is irrelevant. Everybody does- it adds prestige to scientogy and aroma therapy. In the meantime if a connoisseur friend, whose good taste I trust tells me that HE hears the difference between Yamaha and Pass amp I'll try to educate my ears to his standard. Even if you and the "well-known high-end salesman" are out of the love of humanity, trying to save my money. ABX does not work for me. It does not mean that it does not work for you. We are all different- we're all "subjective subjects" Ludovic Mirabel P.S. The remainder of your text quoted below validates that DBT as a universally applicable audiophile "test"is a belief not a fact Audiophiles seem to love to talk about DBts but won't or can't apply them to the real world of buying/comparing audio equipment for the purposes of listening to real music. Now you are contradicting yourself. You said that "all but a fraction of audiophiles don't care one way or another about DBTs", and then you said audiophiles love to talk about DBT's. Which is it? Even staunch disciples of DBTs that I have quizzed in this forum over the years don't use DBTs in there audio equipment purchases even though they may lambast those who believe DBts to be irrevocably flawed. Why is that strange? There is a difference between not doing a test for practical reasons, and saying that the test is flawed. No one has been lambasted for not doing a DBT. One does not have to do a DBT to understand the principles behind the DBT. It's not that they are not principled with respect to their belief in DBTs. It's that DBTs are not a practical tool for even zealots who care about them. No one has said that you have to do a DBT to choose equipment. And at the risk of a non sequitur, it is sort of like what I have been grappling with respect to solar energy. Solar energy is a great ideal, at least until you attempt to apply it. The obstacles and upfront expense turn back all but a sliver of those who, otherwise, think it is a great alternative energy source. And while I have decided to take the plunge with respect to solar energy, I have found arguments for DBTs to be far less convincing and far too "petri dish" for my audio hobby tastes. But you wouldn't say that solar energy is a flawed concept, right? Robert C. Lang |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
On 5 Sep 2003 15:56:15 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote: I think you are making one of the most important points. DBT's for normal equipment choices are not very practical. And there aren't offered good alternatives that I can think of reading about here. Which prompted some large, but useless threads about what is good enough equipment etc. So hopefully some objectivists will offer an alternative here. Or some more manageable method of comparison. What is 'unmanageable' about DBTs? Yes, they are something of a pain to set up and perform, but would you buy a new car without test driving several alternatives? Audio is a *hobby* for many contributors to this forum, and no one questions other hobbyists about how much trouble they take with their chosen pursuits. Personally, I don't consider a few days of effort thrown into running DBTs to be much of a chore when set against the many years of use which I expect to get out of my chosen components. Of course, for sufferers from audiophilia nervosa upgraditis (or simple fashion victims!) who just *must* have the latest toy which has received rave reviews in the ragazines, then DBTs may well be a pointless exercise. I recently asked for info on the best accurate amp for some Soundlabs. No response to speak of so far. Perhaps because any amp which can put out more than 200 watts, and is stable into a 2-ohm load, will suffice? Try the excellent Bryston 4BSST, or any of its competitors from Aragon, Adcom, Parasound, Krell etc. Yet this is a common situation one faces. You have some speakers, what amps to consider. Power levels are reasonably easy to determine. So what next. Is a large Adcom as good sonically as anything? The 5802 is indeed a fine amplifier. If not how do you know, what is a better choice? Depends what you want. People don't just buy on sound quality - indeed we can prettty much discount that aspect from the reputable makers. How do we know this? From conducting DBTs.................. If you wish to buy a CD/SACD/DVD player, are any of them sonically accurate? Almost all of them, according to Arny and Tom! Of course, some self-acclaimed 'high end' models are *deliberately* degraded, in order to make them sound *different* from 'the common herd'. Which don't make the cut, and how do you figure that out? How much even roughly gets you enough quality not to worry about the quality or accuracy of the signal the disc player will provide? I'd peg that at whatever an Arcam CD82 costs. Arny and Tom would go lower. To be fair, the Sony NS900V is probably as good as anyone will ever need - and it plays movies too! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message ...
DBT's for normal equipment choices are not very practical. And there aren't offered good alternatives that I can think of reading about here. Good point, but you don't have to do a research-quality DBT to improve on the usual sighted, long-delay approach. It's not too challenging to do a blind, level-matched A-B comparison. All it takes is a friend who knows how to use a voltmeter to set it up for you. You don't eliminate every possible perceptual bias this way, but you mitigate a number of them. Which prompted some large, but useless threads about what is good enough equipment etc. Those particular threads were probably worse than useless. So hopefully some objectivists will offer an alternative here. Or some more manageable method of comparison. I recently asked for info on the best accurate amp for some Soundlabs. No response to speak of so far. Yet this is a common situation one faces. You have some speakers, what amps to consider. Power levels are reasonably easy to determine. So what next. Is a large Adcom as good sonically as anything? If not how do you know, what is a better choice? Excellent questions, not easily answered (at least by a non-technical type like me). Even the question of how much power you need depends on a lot of factors. The best suggestion I can give is to try the blind A-B comparison I suggested above. If two amps sound pretty much the same, they're probably both adequate to the job. If "adequate" isn't good enough for you, and you want "the best," then it's going to cost you. You either have to take the trouble to do a really good ABX test, or invest in the equipment to properly measure component performance, or both. If you wish to buy a CD/SACD/DVD player, are any of them sonically accurate? Which don't make the cut, and how do you figure that out? How much even roughly gets you enough quality not to worry about the quality or accuracy of the signal the disc player will provide? Maybe some of our engineers can offer a few suggestions for "easy measurements you can do at home." bob |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
|
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
|
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 5 Sep 2003 15:56:15 GMT, "Dennis Moore" wrote: I think you are making one of the most important points. DBT's for normal equipment choices are not very practical. And there aren't offered good alternatives that I can think of reading about here. Which prompted some large, but useless threads about what is good enough equipment etc. So hopefully some objectivists will offer an alternative here. Or some more manageable method of comparison. What is 'unmanageable' about DBTs? Yes, they are something of a pain to set up and perform, but would you buy a new car without test driving several alternatives? Stewart, I never said unmanageable. I asked for something more manageable. You comments about unmanageable look like a straw man. Shame on you Stewart. Yes, before buying something I likely would test it. But test driving cars is more like sighted listening than DBT's. You go drive it in some way similar to how you normally use the car. You aren't likely to go do skidpad tests for roadholding, drag strip tests for acceleration and top speed runs for max speed, and fuel economy runs for gas mileage. You drive it around get the feel of it and see what you think. To do the other tests like DBT's isn't very practical. It is possible, just not practical for most people. DBTs may well be a pointless exercise. I recently asked for info on the best accurate amp for some Soundlabs. No response to speak of so far. Perhaps because any amp which can put out more than 200 watts, and is stable into a 2-ohm load, will suffice? Try the excellent Bryston 4BSST, or any of its competitors from Aragon, Adcom, Parasound, Krell etc. Perhaps, perhaps not. You suggest trying several different brands. Which doesn't help much at all. I would like to know how to parse that list some. I might also comment that it takes more than any amp stable into 2 ohm loads of 200 watts to be accurate which is what I asked for in the first place. I believe some of those you mention might have response variations at the speaker exceeding .1 db meaning they aren't accruate in frequency response. They may not those all do have pretty output impedance. But I do know some amps stable into 2 ohm loads do exhibit excessive frequency response variations. Depends what you want. People don't just buy on sound quality - indeed we can prettty much discount that aspect from the reputable makers. How do we know this? From conducting DBTs.................. Well maybe people don't, but I would like to buy based upon sound quality. Most bang for the buck. Some equipment has other convenience aspects. And amps even may have issues beyond sound quality based upon size or how much waste heat they produce. But again Stewart, the straw man of what other people do, rather than answering my question. Dennis |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
"Robert Lang" wrote in message news:Vyo6b.374548$o%2.
They are not necessarily the same audiophiles. I believe most audiophiles don't care onw way or the other about DBTs. But there are other audiophiles that love to talk about the subject. To them I say its one thing to *talk* about DBTs; it is something much more to practice what you preach. I recently said I was changing camps, becoming an objectivist. And I meant it. But Mr. Lang is asking the same questions I have and that seem not to be answered here. Do you really do DBT's for your equipment choices? If not, then you are doing one of two things I can see. You are looking at some set of specs that make the DBT unnecessary if so what are they. Or you are taking it on some sort of faith that DBT's would support your choices, if so then how are you really deciding on these equipment choices. You aren't apparently doing DBT's for everything. How do you know when to bother with a DBT and when not to bother. And it is a bother to do this type of testing. I recently was told by Mr. Pinkerton I could get any 200 watt amp stable into a 2 ohm load and it would suffice for accurate amplification of my Soundlab speakers. This is not true. Many amps fitting his description would make some sound, but fail to be accurate due to frequency response variations caused by impedance characteristics of the Soundlab speakers. So how do you objectivists really choose an objectively accurate high fidelity piece of equipment for your music reproduction at home? It would be helpful if you (or anyone who advocate DBTs) describe your audio equipment and describe how DBTs factored in your decision for each component. Robert C. Lang I too would find the above descriptions were given. Or has every one been so polarized here they cannot do this simple thing? Dennis |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 08:01:11 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote: Zealot means a true believer. And, now, Mr. Ludovic is the arbiter of the meaning of words. From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, anyone, including the good Mr. Ludovic, can read: zeal ot 1 cap: a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century A. D. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine. 2: a zealous person, esp. a fanatical partisan zeal ot ry : ecess of zeal, fanatical devotion Is it once again possible that Webster, Collier, and the well-intentioned people at the Oxford English dictionary are wrong and our good Mr. Ludovic is right? Or maybe it's that Mr. Ludovic knows what Webster, Collier, and OED MEANT, even though that's not what they said? Or, is there, perchance, another possibility? Seems to be a trend here. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
|
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
|
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ...
(Robert Lang) wrote in message . net... It's not that they are not principled with respect to their belief in DBTs. It's that DBTs are not a practical tool for even zealots who care about them. I find the word zealots in this context to be rude, condescending, belittling and denigrating, and am shocked that the normally competent moderators have allowed such language to intrude into RAHE. bob Well, your interpretation is 180 degrees from what I intended. I'll take some responsibility for that. There is no question that I purposely added a bit of spice to my post. Not to be arugumentative, but to help steer (draw) this particular part of the DBT discussion toward more usefully *practical* applications and dialog, something that the "people" can understand, and away from the esoteric, that is the common denominator of almost all DBT threads. And although the dictionary clearly backs me up in my use of "zealot", it is probably stronger that it needed to be to make my point. Robert C. Lang |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
In article ,
(Robert Lang) wrote: (Bob Marcus) wrote in message ... (Robert Lang) wrote in message . net... It's not that they are not principled with respect to their belief in DBTs. It's that DBTs are not a practical tool for even zealots who care about them. I find the word zealots in this context to be rude, condescending, belittling and denigrating, and am shocked that the normally competent moderators have allowed such language to intrude into RAHE. bob Well, your interpretation is 180 degrees from what I intended. I'll take some responsibility for that. There is no question that I purposely added a bit of spice to my post. Not to be arugumentative, but to help steer (draw) this particular part of the DBT discussion toward more usefully *practical* applications and dialog, something that the "people" can understand, and away from the esoteric, that is the common denominator of almost all DBT threads. And although the dictionary clearly backs me up in my use of "zealot", it is probably stronger that it needed to be to make my point. Robert C. Lang This is a reasonably gracious concession, and I grant you some good will for making it, but I am rather puzzled. As a non-zealot (by _any_ dictionary definition, no matter how far down you have to go to avoid the mostly rather nasty innuendo that the term really _does_ convey), I see the DBT results as _compelling_ evidence for absolute malfeasance on the part of most "high- end" reviews in Stereophile and elsewhere. I don't need to be able to conduct DBT tests on the equipment I am planning on purchasing for this to be true -- though if there _were_ any store in my area that made ABX component tests possible for their customers, THAT STORE WOULD GET MY BUSINESS. I absolutely _loathe_ the uncertainties and dubiousness of comparisons in my local shops -- despite some of them trying very hard to allow a "decent" subjective comparison of their offerings. I don't believe these folks are trying to "con" me -- but I also don't think they are doing anything but playing to their own biases. I recently started shopping for upgrades to a rather minimally adequate, and aging, system -- starting with speakers and going on to amps and possibly other components. So I started googling around for "reviews". It was really quite amazing. Even after forcing myself through the totally irrelevant self-congratulatory (even masturbational) prose wherein the reviewer makes _sure_ you know how incredibly well hung ^h, sorry, how absolutely exquisite and expensive his (always his, of course -- this _is_ a penis comparison, after all) "reference" system is, he will go on to make various mostly indefinable and incoherent comments (almost all positive, with just a scattering of equally incoherent negatives, mostly in regards to just how awesome his _real_ penis ^h reference system is), and getting to the "bottom line" (which essentially always "recommends" what is being reviewed, at least if you aren't man enough to buy the reference system), I came down to the curious question of _why_ there is _never_ a comparison to any other component in the same price range, even when such have been reviewed in the last couple of issues by the same reviewer. That **** is essentially worthless, unless you are so totally insecure about things that you "need" someone to say a positive word or two to "justify" your purchase -- and you get this in a context which is guaranteed to suggest to the insecure that they should "really" just spend huge amounts of money, instead. The interconnects thing is _particularly_ important here. A few references to DBT showing NO differences cuts through a huge pile of absolute CRAP that is pushed by the "high end" rags. The amplifier results are (in my own case, as I noted above) even more to the point for someone like me in the market for a "competent" amplifier -- when the high-end rags simply push equivalent bull**** in this arena. I am _not_ disposed to give any weight to reviewers of amplifiers who seem unaware of how utterly bogus their whole line of blather comes across as. A few of them have the grace to distance themselves from the claims that they nonetheless advance with effectively ZERO comprehension from the marketing departments of the items they review. But at this stage, three or four months into my investigation -- hell, my SHOPPING -- I have concluded that I get NOTHING of any value from the "high end" reviews. They might as well not exist. Indeed, better if they didn't. Once you boil the text down, and skim off the scum (the reviewer's ego that always comes to the top), there is nothing left but water. Nothing of any nourishment or substance whatsoever, except the message to spend as much money as possible. |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message ...
So how do you objectivists really choose an objectively accurate high fidelity piece of equipment for your music reproduction at home? It would be helpful if you (or anyone who advocate DBTs) describe your audio equipment and describe how DBTs factored in your decision for each component. Robert C. Lang I too would find the above descriptions were given. Or has every one been so polarized here they cannot do this simple thing? Dennis, you *have* been told! By TWO authorities Mr. Marcus shared his expertise with you on the 6th (message 15). He shared with you his own shortened version of ABX. Kindly and without showing a trace of impatience he gave you simple and clear instructions: First you must search for a friend who will know how to handle this advanced electronic instrument called VOLTMETER (look it up!): ( a switch, two terminations, and a dial). On the other hand Mr. Pinkerton (same day) couldn't see why you or anyone else shouldn't invest in an ABX switch and get on with the orthodox ABX protocol. Both of them omitted one detail: To quote for one example the local psychometry guru JJ. ("Cable madness" message 128, 2nd. Nov, '01): "While there are some people who can't learn how to take an ABX test, they are in my experience uncommon, and most of the rest of the population, allowed time and training tends to gravitate to consistent results". He didn;t say how long the training should be (you'd think different periods for different people). His background of course was research with an introduced artefact a verifiable, simple end point. You know it is there, you either guess right or not. Quite, quite different from comparing musical reproduction by different components. How would you know when you were ready? What should you think if you hear no differences: are you one of the few who never will learn or should you keep on training? With whom? No precedents, no "literature" to look up because no proper research exists. Nothing but Messrs. Marcus and Pinkerton. Ludovic Mirabel Snipped text follows: "Robert Lang" wrote in message news:Vyo6b.374548$o%2. They are not necessarily the same audiophiles. I believe most audiophiles don't care onw way or the other about DBTs. But there are other audiophiles that love to talk about the subject. To them I say its one thing to *talk* about DBTs; it is something much more to practice what you preach. I recently said I was changing camps, becoming an objectivist. And I meant it. But Mr. Lang is asking the same questions I have and that seem not to be answered here. Do you really do DBT's for your equipment choices? If not, then you are doing one of two things I can see. You are looking at some set of specs that make the DBT unnecessary if so what are they. Or you are taking it on some sort of faith that DBT's would support your choices, if so then how are you really deciding on these equipment choices. You aren't apparently doing DBT's for everything. How do you know when to bother with a DBT and when not to bother. And it is a bother to do this type of testing. I recently was told by Mr. Pinkerton I could get any 200 watt amp stable into a 2 ohm load and it would suffice for accurate amplification of my Soundlab speakers. This is not true. Many amps fitting his description would make some sound, but fail to be accurate due to frequency response variations caused by impedance characteristics of the Soundlab speakers. |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Dennis Moore wrote:
"Robert Lang" wrote in message news:Vyo6b.374548$o%2. They are not necessarily the same audiophiles. I believe most audiophiles don't care onw way or the other about DBTs. But there are other audiophiles that love to talk about the subject. To them I say its one thing to *talk* about DBTs; it is something much more to practice what you preach. I recently said I was changing camps, becoming an objectivist. And I meant it. But Mr. Lang is asking the same questions I have and that seem not to be answered here. Do you really do DBT's for your equipment choices? Apparently, several proponents of DBTs here *do*. Interesting to read. If not, then you are doing one of two things I can see. You are looking at some set of specs that make the DBT unnecessary if so what are they. Or you are taking it on some sort of faith that DBT's would support your choices, if so then how are you really deciding on these equipment choices. OR you are acknowledging that what differences you may perceive between amps, CD players, and cables, sound-wise, might *not* hold up under DBT ...and you're confortable living with that *uncertainty* and acknowledging that *uncertainty* when making claims about what you heard. Because it's quite possible to spend much more productive time on things taht *ARE* likely to produce audible difference, like speaker choice, room treatment and speaker placement, and exploring digital sound processors. The endless debates here aren;'t about what tests are done when buying compoenents; they're about what *claims of audible difference* are made, and what *support* there is for such claims. -- -S. |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
|
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
|
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
On 7 Sep 2003 17:11:11 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 5 Sep 2003 15:56:15 GMT, "Dennis Moore" wrote: I recently asked for info on the best accurate amp for some Soundlabs. No response to speak of so far. Perhaps because any amp which can put out more than 200 watts, and is stable into a 2-ohm load, will suffice? Try the excellent Bryston 4BSST, or any of its competitors from Aragon, Adcom, Parasound, Krell etc. Perhaps, perhaps not. You suggest trying several different brands. Which doesn't help much at all. I would like to know how to parse that list some. You miss the point. Any of them will do the job equally well. I might also comment that it takes more than any amp stable into 2 ohm loads of 200 watts to be accurate which is what I asked for in the first place. You might do, but that doesn't make it true, particularly in the case of the amps mentioned above. I believe some of those you mention might have response variations at the speaker exceeding .1 db meaning they aren't accruate in frequency response. I believe they won't. They may not those all do have pretty output impedance. But I do know some amps stable into 2 ohm loads do exhibit excessive frequency response variations. Not the ones I mentioned above. Depends what you want. People don't just buy on sound quality - indeed we can prettty much discount that aspect from the reputable makers. How do we know this? From conducting DBTs.................. Well maybe people don't, but I would like to buy based upon sound quality. Most bang for the buck. Some equipment has other convenience aspects. And amps even may have issues beyond sound quality based upon size or how much waste heat they produce. But again Stewart, the straw man of what other people do, rather than answering my question. You seem obsessed by the possibility of scoring cheap shots (however far you have to reach for them), rather than actually reading the advice you'ce been given. *Any* amp from a reputable maker such as those listed, which can put out more than 200 watts into 8 ohms, and is stable into a 2-ohm load, will perform the function you require, if your criterion is sound quality. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
On 7 Sep 2003 17:12:21 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote: I recently was told by Mr. Pinkerton I could get any 200 watt amp stable into a 2 ohm load and it would suffice for accurate amplification of my Soundlab speakers. This is not true. Aside from the fact that I also specified a list of reputable makers, how do you that this is not true? Mere assertion is not good proof. Many amps fitting his description would make some sound, but fail to be accurate due to frequency response variations caused by impedance characteristics of the Soundlab speakers. How do you know? Have you measured them? So how do you objectivists really choose an objectively accurate high fidelity piece of equipment for your music reproduction at home? I use a combination of measurements and DBTs. It would be helpful if you (or anyone who advocate DBTs) describe your audio equipment and describe how DBTs factored in your decision for each component. You have seen my equipment described several times, it's all on display at http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/ One does not of course use DBTs for speaker choice, since DBTs are for the revelation of *subtle* differences. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Linear Mode
