Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
B&D wrote:
On 12/13/04 7:50 PM, in article , "Chung" wrote: B&D wrote: On 12/12/04 11:23 AM, in article , "Billy Shears" wrote: In article , B&D wrote: Which is what you have not yet addressed. Questions about Randi's 'honesty' are a red herring. Not exactly - a scientists only asset is honesty. A necessary asset perhaps, but obviously not the only one. Fair enough. Without honesty, all the knowledge in the world won't matter. And if your only asset is honesty, well, god bless you. You are definitely not going to be a scientist. And if you aren't honest - you aren't going to be a scientist ... For very long anyway. Leaving aside the absurdity of the statement "a scientist's only asset is honesty" for the moment, you think that a scientist who cheats on his wife, or who cheats on his income tax, or who cheats in golf, is not a scientist? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"B&D" wrote in message
... On 12/13/04 11:13 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: snip not germane to the following I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom cabling specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old bastion of non-voodoo cables .... Belden. Belden is an excellent cable manufacturer - they do even more than audio, too! Wonderful folks! Back in the early seventies, an associate and I spent tens of hours wiring up a whole trunk full of mic cables using the heaviest duty shielded Belden cable (can't remember the number, but recommended by Gotham Audio). All phase tested. Never had a single problem in the field...except that every time we worked with other audio technicians they either tried to steal or did steal our cables and left their own pitiful cables behind. Not only that, but Steve throws one hell of an AES party! |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
B&D wrote:
On 12/13/04 7:53 PM, in article , "---MIKE---" wrote: Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers because they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products. Sure - and why shouldn't they do that? It is a good business plan than to staisfy a bunch of NG posters that seem implacable to begin with, and a very limited # of subscribers to boot. I couldn't give a ____ about Stereophile's business plan. What about the truth? Are you interested? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 12/14/2004 8:26 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 12/13/04 11:13 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Michael McKelvy wrote: "Tip" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of reader responses, he ends on his part the recent series on his blog. http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11 In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner about the absence of Stereophile's type of "techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo" cables, power conditioners, etc... Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was given to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if you are given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it. I see that MIT touts their cabl;es use by Skywalker, and there's praise of its voodoo properties from the B&W guy,...but I have yet to see testimony from Skywalker folk about the *sound* of MIT cables. Shunyata products were found to reduce noise and buzzing -- quite non-voodoo applications in a complex electrical environment. I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom cabling specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old bastion of non-voodoo cables .... Belden. Belden is an excellent cable manufacturer - they do even more than audio, too! Wonderful folks! Not only are they wonderful folks but they may also actually "manufacture" wire (draw copper) which as far as I can tell no high-end "maker" does. Indeed check out the Monster cable site and see if you can find a listing or photographs of their manufacturing facilities. As far as I can tell no high-end "manufacturer" does more than put terminations, or maybe networks, on the cables and it seems that many of them don't even go that far. If you have specific information I wish you would share it. Witout it this looks like speculation. Any cable company that does this ought to be exposed for doing it. I wonder where the magic sound quality improvements get manufactured when the wire may be nothing more than a currently available wire dressed upand sold as audio cabling. I don't know of any cable companies claiming this. But I don't know of any cable companies that charge a premium and advertise their product as cheap cable with fancy dressing. If that is what is going on then it should be specifically cited to expose it. I say this because I once had an enthusiast examine Tara Labs RSC speaker wires and exclaim "Hey I know this stuff; we used to use it at XXX when we wound starter motors." That's what I'm talking about. There is a company called triple X? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... B&D wrote: On 12/13/04 11:13 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Michael McKelvy wrote: "Tip" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of reader responses, he ends on his part the recent series on his blog. http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11 In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner about the absence of Stereophile's type of "techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo" cables, power conditioners, etc... Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was given to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if you are given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it. I see that MIT touts their cabl;es use by Skywalker, and there's praise of its voodoo properties from the B&W guy,...but I have yet to see testimony from Skywalker folk about the *sound* of MIT cables. Shunyata products were found to reduce noise and buzzing -- quite non-voodoo applications in a complex electrical environment. I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom cabling specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old bastion of non-voodoo cables .... Belden. Belden is an excellent cable manufacturer - they do even more than audio, too! Wonderful folks! Not only are they wonderful folks but they may also actually "manufacture" wire (draw copper) which as far as I can tell no high-end "maker" does. Indeed check out the Monster cable site and see if you can find a listing or photographs of their manufacturing facilities. As far as I can tell no high-end "manufacturer" does more than put terminations, or maybe networks, on the cables and it seems that many of them don't even go that far. I wonder where the magic sound quality improvements get manufactured when the wire may be nothing more than a currently available wire dressed upand sold as audio cabling. I say this because I once had an enthusiast examine Tara Labs RSC speaker wires and exclaim "Hey I know this stuff; we used to use it at XXX when we wound starter motors." This is a little like saying amp manufacturers are a fraud because they use steel, aluminum, transformers, etc. made by others. Presumably the manufacturers select from tens of thousands of available wire composition/configuration combinations and then incorporate it into a finished product. Presumably they choose it based on what they consider superior properties in a given finished cable configuration at a given finished price point. That is how manufacturers work. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Michael McKelvy wrote:
wrote in message ... http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm Tom Nousaine [certainly] has abundant amounts of energy when it comes to defending his blind-testing turf :-) He believes people shouldn't make false claims about what they can and can't hear. That may be true, Mr. McKelvy, but that was not the subject of the article referenced above. In his BAS Speaker piece, Mr. Nousaine was presenting his hypothesis that in blind tests involving "Same/Different" presentations, the statistical analysis should be modified because of a purported tendency for listeners to report "Different" more often that they report "Same." It is fair to note that while Mr. Nousaine is proposing this idea, it has not been adopted by other researchers, something that is noted by the editor of the BAS Speaker. Mr. Nousaine if free, of course, to present any ideas he feels relevant. But I do note that his proposal represents a "raising of the bar" when it comes to analyzing the results of blind tests. It used to be felt that a 95% probability of a specific result not being due to chance was sufficient -- note that some researchers still use this standard; Floyde Toole, for example, refers to it in a recent paper on blind comparisons of loudspeakers. But some skeptics felt that this was not sufficently rigorous, so the demand evolved for blind tests of audio components to reach the 99% confidence level, ie, 1% or less probability that the result was due to chance. I don't have any objection to this. But for Tom Nousaine, it appears that that is still not sufficient, so he calls for the bar to be raised again, regarding the results of blind tests of audio products about which he is skeptical. In the end, all one would be left with are tests that produce null results, presumably his desired result :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On 12/15/04 8:18 PM, in article ,
" wrote: B&D wrote: On 12/13/04 7:53 PM, in article , "---MIKE---" wrote: Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers because they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products. Sure - and why shouldn't they do that? It is a good business plan than to staisfy a bunch of NG posters that seem implacable to begin with, and a very limited # of subscribers to boot. I couldn't give a ____ about Stereophile's business plan. What about the truth? Are you interested? He said that he was interested in entertaining his readers. Why should he give a ___ about satisfying our non-reader sensbilities? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
B&D wrote: On 12/13/04 7:53 PM, in article , "---MIKE---" wrote: Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers because they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products. Sure - and why shouldn't they do that? It is a good business plan than to staisfy a bunch of NG posters that seem implacable to begin with, and a very limited # of subscribers to boot. I couldn't give a ____ about Stereophile's business plan. What about the truth? Are you interested? It might be useful if you noticed that this was written by Bromo in reply to Mike, and had nothing to do with anything said by John Atkinson. My, the vile do runneth over! |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... B&D wrote: On 12/13/04 7:53 PM, in article , "---MIKE---" wrote: Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers because they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products. Sure - and why shouldn't they do that? It is a good business plan than to staisfy a bunch of NG posters that seem implacable to begin with, and a very limited # of subscribers to boot. I couldn't give a ____ about Stereophile's business plan. What about the truth? Are you interested? It might be useful if you noticed that this was written by Bromo in reply to Mike, and had nothing to do with anything said by John Atkinson. My, the vile do runneth over! I certainly noticed that and it was only a comment. That you chose to interpret it as vile is evidence that you might really indeed see critics of some high end practices as enemies. A tempest in a tea pot to be sure. There are plenty of those that are more critical than I and have a lifetime of basic research about audio and human auditory perception behind them. They must be really bad guys. ;-) |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 12/14/2004 8:26 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 12/13/04 11:13 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Michael McKelvy wrote: "Tip" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of reader responses, he ends on his part the recent series on his blog. http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11 In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner about the absence of Stereophile's type of "techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo" cables, power conditioners, etc... Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was given to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if you are given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it. I see that MIT touts their cabl;es use by Skywalker, and there's praise of its voodoo properties from the B&W guy,...but I have yet to see testimony from Skywalker folk about the *sound* of MIT cables. Shunyata products were found to reduce noise and buzzing -- quite non-voodoo applications in a complex electrical environment. I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom cabling specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old bastion of non-voodoo cables .... Belden. Belden is an excellent cable manufacturer - they do even more than audio, too! Wonderful folks! Not only are they wonderful folks but they may also actually "manufacture" wire (draw copper) which as far as I can tell no high-end "maker" does. Indeed check out the Monster cable site and see if you can find a listing or photographs of their manufacturing facilities. As far as I can tell no high-end "manufacturer" does more than put terminations, or maybe networks, on the cables and it seems that many of them don't even go that far. If you have specific information I wish you would share it. Witout it this looks like speculation. Any cable company that does this ought to be exposed for doing it. See below. And have you a report from anybody who has actually visited an audio cable "manufacturer?' Any reports of smelting or drawing of copper? I wonder where the magic sound quality improvements get manufactured when the wire may be nothing more than a currently available wire dressed upand sold as audio cabling. I don't know of any cable companies claiming this. But I don't know of any cable companies that charge a premium and advertise their product as cheap cable with fancy dressing. If that is what is going on then it should be specifically cited to expose it. Of course they don't "claim" this for Pete sake. Like Pro-Wrestling that's the "secret." But that's what at least some of them do. For example check the Monster Cable website for a list of their manufacturing facitlities. I couldn't find any. When I visited Transparent ...where the real company name was Transparent Audio Marketing....the "wire" was stored in their warehouse on spools with the name New England Wire and Cable stamped on them. It is true that Transparent did make networks and terminate at least some of their cables. I say this because I once had an enthusiast examine Tara Labs RSC speaker wires and exclaim "Hey I know this stuff; we used to use it at XXX when we wound starter motors." That's what I'm talking about. There is a company called triple X? Of course not.But what does the name of a company that winds automotive starter motors have to do with anything? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Michael McKelvy wrote: wrote in message ... http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm Tom Nousaine [certainly] has abundant amounts of energy when it comes to defending his blind-testing turf :-) He believes people shouldn't make false claims about what they can and can't hear. That may be true, Mr. McKelvy, but that was not the subject of the article referenced above. In his BAS Speaker piece, Mr. Nousaine was presenting his hypothesis that in blind tests involving "Same/Different" presentations, the statistical analysis should be modified because of a purported tendency for listeners to report "Different" more often that they report "Same." I made no reference to modification. This tendency is now well known and analysis is easily compensated post test. What I object tois incomplete analysis and 'declaration' of positive results by use of partial or uncompensated analysis and reporting. It is fair to note that while Mr. Nousaine is proposing this idea, it has not been adopted by other researchers, something that is noted by the editor of the BAS Speaker. There was no need for this because now more advanced research uses the ABX or ABC/Hr protocols which are free of this bias. And, you should note that this copy was written several years ago. Mr. Nousaine if free, of course, to present any ideas he feels relevant. But I do note that his proposal represents a "raising of the bar" when it comes to analyzing the results of blind tests. The idea is to level the playing field by filtering out bias in analysis. It used to be felt that a 95% probability of a specific result not being due to chance was sufficient -- note that some researchers still use this standard; Floyde Toole, for example, refers to it in a recent paper on blind comparisons of loudspeakers. But some skeptics felt that this was not sufficently rigorous, so the demand evolved for blind tests of audio components to reach the 99% confidence level, ie, 1% or less probability that the result was due to chance. 95% was and is the standard. No one ever suggested otherwise. Even so subjectivists have never proven their case (that amps/wires/bits/parts have a sound independent of standard measurements and listening tests) and they try so infrequently that the issue is moot. Practically all the recent blind testing has been conducted on Codecs and at Harman on loudspeakers. I see no real reason for further testing on amps/wires/bits/parts because the proponents won't conduct tests either on thier own or when challenged. IMO unsubstantiated claims of sonics that have no electrical and acoustical mechanism that would alter sound quality are the responsibility of the claimant to prove. I don't have any objection to this. But for Tom Nousaine, it appears that that is still not sufficient, so he calls for the bar to be raised again, regarding the results of blind tests of audio products about which he is skeptical. In the end, all one would be left with are tests that produce null results, presumably his desired result :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Actually I'm only interested in getting at things that interfere or could improve sound quality. I'm guessing that there is so little bias controlled experimentation from the high-end industry is because they fear the results may contradict cherished myths that will interfere with the marketing and publishing end of the business. If amp or wire sound was a real phenomenon that should be easy to prove with a simple repeatable bias controlled listening test. That was true in 1976 when Toole/Masters found that there were no significant audible sound differences between power amplifiers (as published in Audio Scene of Canada) as it is now. Yet 30 years later the high-end is reduced to arguing about methods and analysis of long past experiments that should have clearly shown amp sound differences if they existed. This is the line that Alien Visitation and BigFoot advocates take....extant evidence is wrong; researchers have been biased, looked in the wrong place and refuse to conduct definitive research. I say when you're right just go ahead and prove it. Arguing about details in experiments which would have been just barely positive even when incorrectly analyzed just sounds defensive and worrying about small confidence level differences just sounds evasive. Especially after publishing a RCL where literally dozens of amplifiers are said to sound different from one another in clearly audible ways. You can't raise a bar on claimants who won't play. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in
message ... snip What about the claim that Shakti Stones can't possibly do what SP's reviewer claimed he heard them do is in your opinion, untrue? snip [Randi] seems to be making some minor errors, but the essence is correct, Shakti stones are B.S. Hi Michael, My post was a comment on how Randi, the publisher of the absolute truth, is allowed to make mistakes and not verify what he publishes, yet John Atkinson, the publisher of opinion, is not. The only thing JA needed to do is verify that the reviewer actually wrote the review and what he wrote was his actual opinion. Since the reviewer did not take measurements, there were no measurements for JA to verify. As for the Shatki Stones, I probably read the review when it appeared, but I can't remember what they are supposed to do and I don't particularly care. However, if you were waiting for my evaluation, I recommend that you don't buy them ;^) snip That's up to Mr. Atkinson. He has a faior chance to audiotion the stones or at least recomend some lab tests on Shakti Stones and demonstrate a committment to truth about the things that get reviewed. I'm sure that JA would be very grateful if you could devise a lab test for him that could measure the effectiveness of the stones (perhaps the Ghostbusters have an instrument for that). snip RAHE is acting like they think it's unreasonable to not have auditioned a simple tweak and that it is also unreasonable to not have some technical oversight. If it were an amp that had been subject to normal test bench rigors, it would still be laughable that the reviewer made the claims he did, but without the tests it's just plain snake oil endorsement. JA probably would not have time to publish the magazine if he had to audition every component reviewed by the other reviewers. JA does measure components that can be measured (and more thoroughly than anyone else I've seen), so he will be waiting eagerly for your Shatki Stone test procedures. If you remember the Wavac topic of a few months ago, we saw an example of the rave review with lousy measurements that you mentioned, and most of us had a good laugh at Mikey, but not at JA. Regards, Tip |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Having spent a few hours perusing the current issues of both Stereophile and TAS yesterday, it seems to me Randi shoudl really aim his guns as Pearson & Co -- the level of audiophoolery at TAS seems significantly higher and more pervasive than at Stereophile, if these issues are an indication of their current ideologies. Jonathan Valin's stuff alone would provide a rich vein of nonsense to mine. Hi Steven, If I remember correctly, after selling Stereophile to John Atkinson, J. Gordon Holt, the founder of Stereophile, was so ****ed at JA for adding objective measurements to the subjective reviews, that he left Stereophile and joined their arch-rival TAS. TAS founder Harry Pearson started TAS because he got fed up waiting for JGH to publish the next issue of Stereophile, which had a very erratic schedule in its early years. The original Stereophile had no measurements (because JGH could hear differences between components that measured the same), and had no advertisements. I believe in an issue of Fi magazine some years ago, Jonathan Valin's suggestion for a $10,000 system was composed of a $1500 pair of speakers, $3500 worth of electronics, and $5000 cables! Last year in a review of cable "elevators" in TAS, he said cable elevators made a bigger improvement than digital room EQ (I use cables I bought in India - they self-levitate :^). Regards, Tip |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message ... B&D wrote: On 12/13/04 7:53 PM, in article , "---MIKE---" wrote: Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers because they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products. Sure - and why shouldn't they do that? It is a good business plan than to staisfy a bunch of NG posters that seem implacable to begin with, and a very limited # of subscribers to boot. I couldn't give a ____ about Stereophile's business plan. What about the truth? Are you interested? It might be useful if you noticed that this was written by Bromo in reply to Mike, and had nothing to do with anything said by John Atkinson. My, the vile do runneth over! I certainly noticed that and it was only a comment. That you chose to interpret it as vile is evidence that you might really indeed see critics of some high end practices as enemies. A tempest in a tea pot to be sure. There are plenty of those that are more critical than I and have a lifetime of basic research about audio and human auditory perception behind them. They must be really bad guys. ;-) There is enough gutter language and gutter temperament in this world...we don't need it in RAHE. And we certainly don't need it as a gratuitous "comment" to the wrong people, just for effect. There are also people out there who question aspects of the conventional wisdom. I would suggest that they are seen as the "enemies" by those who accept the conventional wisdom. It is always difficult to tolerate recalcitrants when one is *sure* one is right. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Dec 2004 21:22:31 GMT, "Tip" wrote:
If I remember correctly, after selling Stereophile to John Atkinson, He didn't sell it to JA. He sold it to Larry Archibald. Kal |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
There is enough gutter language and gutter temperament in this world...we don't need it in RAHE. And we certainly don't need it as a gratuitous "comment" to the wrong people, just for effect. Perhaps the moderators should reject posts that use blanks in respect of those who might fill them in with gutter language. ;-) Nonetheless, I apologize for any offense. There are also people out there who question aspects of the conventional wisdom. I would suggest that they are seen as the "enemies" by those who accept the conventional wisdom. It is always difficult to tolerate recalcitrants when one is *sure* one is right. I'm not personally sure I'm 'right' more than anyone else. But there are probablistic odds that need to be pointed out on occasion when discussing sensory perceptions (or the lack thereof) and how the brain may interpret such. It can be disturbing sometimes, but eliminating it reduces broad understanding of the whole picture. Can there be overall progress without it? As a musician and one who has built musical instruments, I have difficulty accepting that audio systems are musical instruments. If they are, they are exceptionally crude because the stimulus is a recording with all the inherent limitations thereof. There are musical instrurment builders that use style limitation to create and/or enhance beauty, but that is not the same concept. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 12/16/2004 7:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 12/14/2004 8:26 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 12/13/04 11:13 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Michael McKelvy wrote: "Tip" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of reader responses, he ends on his part the recent series on his blog. http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11 In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner about the absence of Stereophile's type of "techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo" cables, power conditioners, etc... Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was given to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if you are given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it. I see that MIT touts their cabl;es use by Skywalker, and there's praise of its voodoo properties from the B&W guy,...but I have yet to see testimony from Skywalker folk about the *sound* of MIT cables. Shunyata products were found to reduce noise and buzzing -- quite non-voodoo applications in a complex electrical environment. I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom cabling specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old bastion of non-voodoo cables .... Belden. Belden is an excellent cable manufacturer - they do even more than audio, too! Wonderful folks! Not only are they wonderful folks but they may also actually "manufacture" wire (draw copper) which as far as I can tell no high-end "maker" does. Indeed check out the Monster cable site and see if you can find a listing or photographs of their manufacturing facilities. As far as I can tell no high-end "manufacturer" does more than put terminations, or maybe networks, on the cables and it seems that many of them don't even go that far. If you have specific information I wish you would share it. Witout it this looks like speculation. Any cable company that does this ought to be exposed for doing it. See below. I did. naming the xxx company sure would have added some credibility to your story. And have you a report from anybody who has actually visited an audio cable "manufacturer?' Any reports of smelting or drawing of copper? I don't have any reports either way. I wonder where the magic sound quality improvements get manufactured when the wire may be nothing more than a currently available wire dressed upand sold as audio cabling. I don't know of any cable companies claiming this. But I don't know of any cable companies that charge a premium and advertise their product as cheap cable with fancy dressing. If that is what is going on then it should be specifically cited to expose it. Of course they don't "claim" this for Pete sake. Like Pro-Wrestling that's the "secret." Well for someone who seems eager to bust the cable companies there's nothing like exposing the secret with hard and complete facts. Why not do so? I am all for it. But that's what at least some of them do. For example check the Monster Cable website for a list of their manufacturing facitlities. I couldn't find any. That doesn't prove anything. If they are taking cheap wire and repacakging it with claims of proprietary manufacturing that should be easy enough to prove if you already know this based on provable facts. It would also be the right thing to do. Again, I am all for this so long as you use facts to prove your assertion. When I visited Transparent ...where the real company name was Transparent Audio Marketing....the "wire" was stored in their warehouse on spools with the name New England Wire and Cable stamped on them. Would that be this cable company? http://www.ce-mag.com/suppliers/co/01/103.html I'm not sure that helps your argument since they seem to make custom cables. I suppose one could call them and ask them if the cables they make for Transparent Audio are a proprietary design and unique products. It is true that Transparent did make networks and terminate at least some of their cables. I say this because I once had an enthusiast examine Tara Labs RSC speaker wires and exclaim "Hey I know this stuff; we used to use it at XXX when we wound starter motors." That's what I'm talking about. There is a company called triple X? Of course not.But what does the name of a company that winds automotive starter motors have to do with anything? It's about credibilitry and varifiablity of your story. I see no reason for you to not name the company. So why not just name names and not leave any doubts? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Nousaine wrote:
wrote: It is fair to note that while Mr. Nousaine is proposing this idea, it has not been adopted by other researchers, something that is noted by the editor of the BAS Speaker. There was no need for this because now more advanced research uses the ABX or ABC/Hr protocols which are free of this bias. And, you should note that this copy was written several years ago. Yes, it was dated December 1990, but the article also includes a note that you added further thoughts in 2002, from which I concluded that you still stood by the proposal. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
It seems to me after reading 2 books - "Mind Hacks" and "Mind Wide Open"
that the brain is not especially good at being objective with respect to sensory input - and sound is especially bad (though sight isn't especially good). If that is true - then both subjectivists and objectivists are BOTH missing some really big issues. Objectivists are using repeatable measures and discarding a lot of other influences that would be required to get the sound of a "live performance" Subjectivists are way too trusting of impressions without isolating other factors (mood, mental state, etc.). IN essence, I completely agree that it is possible to "hear" a difference when none exists in any kind of measurable way. But I also think the converse is true - one may convince onesself that a difference is NOT there when one really is at least measurably so. Aside from the minutiae of specific testing types (I don't intend this to be a discussion of DBT. ABX or whatever) - what do you guys think? Is it time for a new way - something that acknowledges the way people perceive and process data into a "live music experience?" For an extreme example, if one could hire a hypnotist, and get hypnotized into thinking that the sound studio at Skywalker Ranch sounds the same as a cheap boombox, and then hypnotized to think a cheap boombox sounded the same as Skywalker Ranch. Various variations of this game can be done - but the mind is either the strongest or weakest link in a modern audio chain, I am thinking (but who knows, I *may* have been hypnotized! :-) ) What do you guys think? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 17 Dec 2004 21:22:31 GMT, "Tip" wrote: If I remember correctly, after selling Stereophile to John Atkinson, He didn't sell it to JA. He sold it to Larry Archibald. That's correct. The timeline was: 1982 - Gordon sells Stereophile to Larry Archibald, but stays on as an employee. 1986 - I join Stereophile and buy into the company. 1998 - Stereophile Inc. is sold to Petersen Publishing. 1999 - Gordon Holt resigns as a fulltime employee of Stereophile, not over my policy of publishing measurements but primarily over my rejection of his wish for Stereophile to abandon two-channel audio in favor of multichannel. All this is doumented in the free on-line archives at www.stereophile.com Gordon left TAS at the beginning of 2004, BTW, and according to an email exchange I had with him a few weeks back is content to be retired. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Dec 2004 21:21:39 GMT, "Tip" wrote:
My post was a comment on how Randi, the publisher of the absolute truth And just when and where has Randi ever claimed to be the "publisher of the absolute truth"? In fact I've read his stuff for years and it's rather the opposite. So perhaps the poster will provide a reference, or admit that he is just name calling. I won't be holding my breath while I wait though. Ed Seedhouse |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Dec 2004 21:26:07 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
There are also people out there who question aspects of the conventional wisdom. I would suggest that they are seen as the "enemies" by those who accept the conventional wisdom. It is always difficult to tolerate recalcitrants when one is *sure* one is right. I would suggest that they are not seen as enemies at all, simply as misguided! :-) For those of us who accept conventional wisdom, there is absolutely no problem with those who do not - all they have to do is prove their case, and we'll all be very happy. Indeed, we are so happy with this that a bunch of us clubbed together to raise a prize fund of about $5,000, to help out those doubters who could actually prove their case. So far, in around six years, not one single 'questioner of conventional wisdom' has seen fit to put his questioning to the test and claim the prize. Unusual behaviour for those who keep telling the rest of us that they really, really do hear differences among cables and amplifiers, dontcha think? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
B&D wrote:
Objectivists are using repeatable measures and discarding a lot of other influences that would be required to get the sound of a "live performance" What "influences" are we discarding? All we are discarding are things like the visual appearance of the playback equipment, and knowledge of the brand of amplification used. How are these required to get the sound of a live performance? Subjectivists are way too trusting of impressions without isolating other factors (mood, mental state, etc.). IN essence, I completely agree that it is possible to "hear" a difference when none exists in any kind of measurable way. But I also think the converse is true - one may convince onesself that a difference is NOT there when one really is at least measurably so. So what? Aside from the minutiae of specific testing types (I don't intend this to be a discussion of DBT. ABX or whatever) - what do you guys think? Is it time for a new way - something that acknowledges the way people perceive and process data into a "live music experience?" Depends on what you want to know. If what you want to know is whether two sounds are distinguishable, then we seem to have perfectly adequate tools to test that. Sadly, too many people would rather argue about those tools than use them, or the knowledge gleaned from them. If what you want to know is, what does it take to make a recording sound like a live musical performance, you'd first need some general agreement about what "a live musical performance" sounds like. I doubt that's achievable. I suspect everyone has his own idea--or, since a recording can never sound like a live performance, everyone is willing to overlook different imperfections in the recording/playback. Researchers on speaker sound seem to focus not on the "live" question, but a much simpler one: What do listeners tend to prefer? Using objective techniques you pooh-pooh above, they have discovered that there are certain characteristics of reproduction that matter more than others. Again, it's not clear that testing methodologies are holding us back here. bob |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
B&D wrote:
It seems to me after reading 2 books - "Mind Hacks" and "Mind Wide Open" that the brain is not especially good at being objective with respect to sensory input - and sound is especially bad (though sight isn't especially good). If that is true - then both subjectivists and objectivists are BOTH missing some really big issues. Objectivists are using repeatable measures and discarding a lot of other influences that would be required to get the sound of a "live performance" Subjectivists are way too trusting of impressions without isolating other factors (mood, mental state, etc.). IN essence, I completely agree that it is possible to "hear" a difference when none exists in any kind of measurable way. But I also think the converse is true - one may convince onesself that a difference is NOT there when one really is at least measurably so. But failing an controlled comparison does not necessarily lead one to *stop* hearing differences between the two components under test. All it can really do is make one more aware of the possibility that what one is hearing, isn't 'true'. From my own experiences with inadvertant 'phantom switching' -- where I thought something had changed, with a concomitant 'obvious' change in sound, only to find that nothign had really changed -- I know that having experienced it once doens't mean I never experience it again! Aside from the minutiae of specific testing types (I don't intend this to be a discussion of DBT. ABX or whatever) - what do you guys think? Is it time for a new way - something that acknowledges the way people perceive and process data into a "live music experience?" Do you know of any controlled comparison where the subjects actually reported or gave evidence of being 'convinced' of no difference, *before* the test? All of the ones I know of seem to consist of people trying very hard to confirm a perceived difference. In fact, an ABX test starts with listening to A and B, in order for the listener to determine whether, in fact , he hears a difference when he *knows* the input is different. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Nousaine of Sound & Vision, The Audio Critic, and The
Sensible Sound wrote: wrote: It used to be felt that a 95% probability of a specific result not being due to chance was sufficient -- note that some researchers still use this standard; Floyde Toole, for example, refers to it in a recent paper on blind comparisons of loudspeakers. But some skeptics felt that this was not sufficently rigorous, so the demand evolved for blind tests of audio components to reach the 99% confidence level, ie, 1% or less probability that the result was due to chance. 95% was and is the standard. No one ever suggested otherwise. First, I didn't respond to this in my earlier response, because I needed to do some research. Second, for an example of someone using the 95% confidence level, in the Toole paper I referred to above, Floyd writes that "The tiny lines on top of the bars show the 95% confidence intervals. If the differences in the ratings are greater than these lines, the differences are probably statistically significant, and not due to chance." (See http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121, http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf) But you have said otherwise, Mr. Nousaine, that the normally accepted 95% confidence level _is_ inappropriate for use in some listening tests. Now, indeed you then go on to say that: IMO unsubstantiated claims of sonics that have no electrical and acoustical mechanism that would alter sound quality are the responsibility of the claimant to prove. And it was in this context that you said that the confidence limits should be raised to 99%, and then, in the case of Same/Different tests, that the bar should be raised further, as described in your 1990 BAS Speaker article. And this is presumably one reason why you felt my scoring of 13/16 correct in a 1985 blind test involving series electrolytic capacitors should be rejected, even though this exceeds the 95% level and approaches the 99%. And also presumably one of the reasons you rejected the results of a blind test I took in 1984 using an ABX box where I identified absolute polarity 18 times out of 20, which exceeds the 99% confidence level. (You have discussed both of these tests at length on r.a.h-e and r.a.o., so I don't feel more specific references are necessary.) As I said, if you keep raising the bar for the results of tests that contradict your opinions, you will indeed end up with a situation where nothing is proved audible. But this is bad science. But what I fail to understand is how the statistics _know_ what the device under test is? How, when testing loudspeakers for example, a 95% probability of the results not being due to random guessing can be taken as probably meaning there is a real sonic difference, but in the case of amplifiers it cannot. Yes, in your _opinion_, Mr. Nousaine, there is no reason for amplifiers to sound different, but as has been pointed out before, your opinion carries no special weight over anyone else's. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
There is only one way that the average person can come close to the
sound of a live performance. That is using earphones with a binaural recording. Any other way adds the variables of the room and speakers plus what the recording engineers did. Perhaps in a setting like the Skywalker Ranch studio, a realistic presentation is possible - depending on the recording. What a high end system CAN provide (or any reasonable system for that matter) is a good sounding facsimile of the original performance. Many years ago I went to a showing of Cinerama in Boston. The sound of the orchestra was so realistic that it seemed live. Of course, everything was carefully set up to sound this way. This is far beyond what is practical for the average audiophile. ---MIKE--- |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Ed,
"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message ... On 17 Dec 2004 21:21:39 GMT, "Tip" wrote: My post was a comment on how Randi, the publisher of the absolute truth And just when and where has Randi ever claimed to be the "publisher of the absolute truth"? In fact I've read his stuff for years and it's rather the opposite. So perhaps the poster will provide a reference, or admit that he is just name calling. I won't be holding my breath while I wait though. That was the impression I got from those here who have such high esteem for him. I never stated that Randi himself made such a claim (so perhaps the poster will provide a reference...). If that's what you consider to be name-calling, then I admit it, though it appears that you have insulted him more than I ;^) I encourage Randi in his endeavors; I just think he (and others) could have handled this better. Sorry if I got your dander up. Regards, Tip |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... Tom Nousaine of Sound & Vision, The Audio Critic, and The Sensible Sound wrote: wrote: It used to be felt that a 95% probability of a specific result not being due to chance was sufficient -- note that some researchers still use this standard; Floyde Toole, for example, refers to it in a recent paper on blind comparisons of loudspeakers. But some skeptics felt that this was not sufficently rigorous, so the demand evolved for blind tests of audio components to reach the 99% confidence level, ie, 1% or less probability that the result was due to chance. 95% was and is the standard. No one ever suggested otherwise. First, I didn't respond to this in my earlier response, because I needed to do some research. Second, for an example of someone using the 95% confidence level, in the Toole paper I referred to above, Floyd writes that "The tiny lines on top of the bars show the 95% confidence intervals. If the differences in the ratings are greater than these lines, the differences are probably statistically significant, and not due to chance." (See http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121, http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf) But you have said otherwise, Mr. Nousaine, that the normally accepted 95% confidence level _is_ inappropriate for use in some listening tests. Now, indeed you then go on to say that: IMO unsubstantiated claims of sonics that have no electrical and acoustical mechanism that would alter sound quality are the responsibility of the claimant to prove. And it was in this context that you said that the confidence limits should be raised to 99%, and then, in the case of Same/Different tests, that the bar should be raised further, as described in your 1990 BAS Speaker article. And this is presumably one reason why you felt my scoring of 13/16 correct in a 1985 blind test involving series electrolytic capacitors should be rejected, even though this exceeds the 95% level and approaches the 99%. And also presumably one of the reasons you rejected the results of a blind test I took in 1984 using an ABX box where I identified absolute polarity 18 times out of 20, which exceeds the 99% confidence level. (You have discussed both of these tests at length on r.a.h-e and r.a.o., so I don't feel more specific references are necessary.) As I said, if you keep raising the bar for the results of tests that contradict your opinions, you will indeed end up with a situation where nothing is proved audible. But this is bad science. But what I fail to understand is how the statistics _know_ what the device under test is? How, when testing loudspeakers for example, a 95% probability of the results not being due to random guessing can be taken as probably meaning there is a real sonic difference, but in the case of amplifiers it cannot. Yes, in your _opinion_, Mr. Nousaine, there is no reason for amplifiers to sound different, but as has been pointed out before, your opinion carries no special weight over anyone else's. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile It's all probability. Nothing sudden happens at the 95% confidence level. But if it's difficult or expensive to run tests, there is a premium on getting results as soon as possible. For this reason statisticians have more or less agreed to accept results with a 95% confidence as indicative of positive results. Note, however, that if 13 people take such a test, there's an even chance that at least one of them is going to have positive results to the 95% level--even if there's nothing there! So, if you keep taking blind tests, hoping to get positive results to the 95% confidence level, you will likely be rewarded with such results within the first 13 attempts. Norm Strong |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
On 12/19/04 11:06 AM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: On 18 Dec 2004 23:32:41 GMT, wrote: But what I fail to understand is how the statistics _know_ what the device under test is? How, when testing loudspeakers for example, a 95% probability of the results not being due to random guessing can be taken as probably meaning there is a real sonic difference, but in the case of amplifiers it cannot. Yes, in your _opinion_, Mr. Nousaine, there is no reason for amplifiers to sound different, but as has been pointed out before, your opinion carries no special weight over anyone else's. I can't speak for Tom, but there has been in existence for about six years, a $5,000 prize awaiting anyone who can differentiate two cables in a level-matched DBT, in any system of their choice and with any music of their choice. The bar has been set at 15 or more correct out of 20 trials, and that has not changed. Interestingly, despite many claims of 'night and day' differences, there have been no contenders. Perhaps Randi should review the experiment write up and cut the check? |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Dec 2004 16:00:12 GMT, "Tip" wrote:
My post was a comment on how Randi, the publisher of the absolute truth And just when and where has Randi ever claimed to be the "publisher of the absolute truth"? That was the impression I got from those here who have such high esteem for him. I've read all those posts and didn't get any such impression. I don't think that any reasonably rational person who read them without predjudice could get any such impression. In fact I'd say myself that it's the purveyors of so-called "subjectivism" here, if anyone, who claim to be the "purveyors of absolute truth". They have beliefs about sound quality that, it appears to me, they won't change no matter how much evidence accumulates against them. Randi, on the other hand, is willing to let these people convince him otherwise by a simple and straightforward test. He's willing to change his mind if the evidence supports that. So are all the so-called "objectivists" here as far as I can see. All they ask for is some actual evidence. Evidence which the other viewpoint seems to be willing to go to great lengths of rhetoric to justify not providing. If that's what you consider to be name-calling, then I admit it I think any reasonably disinterested party familiar with the common falacies of argument would call it that. though it appears that you have insulted him more than I ;^) Huh? I encourage Randi in his endeavors; I just think he (and others) could have handled this better. In retrospect, on just about any issue at all, it will virtually unanimously be seen that all sides could have handled things better. Thus, your comment above appears to me to be devoid of content. Sorry if I got your dander up. My "dander" has nothing to do with it. Your name calling did. Ed |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Dec 2004 15:56:47 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 12/18/04 6:32 PM, in article , " wrote: ABX box where I identified absolute polarity 18 times out of 20, which exceeds the 99% confidence level. Isn't 18/20 90%? Still not a bad result, and one that I would start paying attention to absolute polarity, BTW, but what is 99% confidence? No, you need to look up basic statistics. 18 correct out of twenty 'coin tosses' is *way* better than 90% probability of a detectable difference. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
B&D wrote:
On 12/18/04 6:32 PM, in article , " wrote: ABX box where I identified absolute polarity 18 times out of 20, which exceeds the 99% confidence level. Isn't 18/20 90%? Still not a bad result, and one that I would start paying attention to absolute polarity, BTW, but what is 99% confidence? It is a concept of statistics, and has nothing to do with the percentage you get right. What 99% confidence means is that we can be 99% sure that you did not get that great score by mere lucky guessing. 95% and 99% are the most commonly used benchmarks. (A basic rule of statistics is that you have to declare what confidence level you will accept *before* you do the test.) I'm going from memory here, but I think that for 20 trials, 15 correct would pass the 95% confidence level, and 16 the 99% confidence level. It's important to remember that someone does occasionally guess very lucky. And, as Norm says, the more people who try, the more likely it is that someone will guess lucky enough to top the confidence level. When someone does score very high, it's a good idea to re-test them to see if it was just a fluke. bob |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
What you say is true but binaural has spatial errors that ruin it for me. The
available binaural recordings and even recordings made with my onw ears and HRTF only work satisfactorily when the sound is in the rear hemisphere (where the sound is behind the listener.) Otherwise there is no specificity to the spatial characteristics; you cannot tell where the source is in the frontal plane. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
B&D wrote:
On 12/19/04 11:06 AM, in article , "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: On 18 Dec 2004 23:32:41 GMT, wrote: But what I fail to understand is how the statistics _know_ what the device under test is? How, when testing loudspeakers for example, a 95% probability of the results not being due to random guessing can be taken as probably meaning there is a real sonic difference, but in the case of amplifiers it cannot. Yes, in your _opinion_, Mr. Nousaine, there is no reason for amplifiers to sound different, but as has been pointed out before, your opinion carries no special weight over anyone else's. I can't speak for Tom, but there has been in existence for about six years, a $5,000 prize awaiting anyone who can differentiate two cables in a level-matched DBT, in any system of their choice and with any music of their choice. The bar has been set at 15 or more correct out of 20 trials, and that has not changed. Interestingly, despite many claims of 'night and day' differences, there have been no contenders. Perhaps Randi should review the experiment write up and cut the check? Why would Randi cut the check? Does this have anything to do with Shatki stones? Note that no one even attempts to pass this simple cable blind test and claim the $5K. As a self-claimed engineer, do you believe that Shatki stones make a sonic difference? Do you believe that Randi would have to cut the check because someone passes the test? And tell us why. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Tom Nousaine of Sound & Vision, The Audio Critic, and The Sensible Sound wrote: wrote: It used to be felt that a 95% probability of a specific result not being due to chance was sufficient -- note that some researchers still use this standard; Floyde Toole, for example, refers to it in a recent paper on blind comparisons of loudspeakers. But some skeptics felt that this was not sufficently rigorous, so the demand evolved for blind tests of audio components to reach the 99% confidence level, ie, 1% or less probability that the result was due to chance. 95% was and is the standard. No one ever suggested otherwise. First, I didn't respond to this in my earlier response, because I needed to do some research. Second, for an example of someone using the 95% confidence level, in the Toole paper I referred to above, Floyd writes that "The tiny lines on top of the bars show the 95% confidence intervals. If the differences in the ratings are greater than these lines, the differences are probably statistically significant, and not due to chance." (See http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121, http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf) But you have said otherwise, Mr. Nousaine, that the normally accepted 95% confidence level _is_ inappropriate for use in some listening tests. Now, indeed you then go on to say that: IMO unsubstantiated claims of sonics that have no electrical and acoustical mechanism that would alter sound quality are the responsibility of the claimant to prove. And it was in this context that you said that the confidence limits should be raised to 99%, and then, in the case of Same/Different tests, that the bar should be raised further, as described in your 1990 BAS Speaker article. And this is presumably one reason why you felt my scoring of 13/16 correct in a 1985 blind test involving series electrolytic capacitors should be rejected, even though this exceeds the 95% level and approaches the 99%. And also presumably one of the reasons you rejected the results of a blind test I took in 1984 using an ABX box where I identified absolute polarity 18 times out of 20, which exceeds the 99% confidence level. (You have discussed both of these tests at length on r.a.h-e and r.a.o., so I don't feel more specific references are necessary.) Nice job of obfuscation. I don't accept your 13/16 as useful "evidence" because as you have pointed out there were clear signs of bias in the experiment. This is a different issue. Further those results were part of a larger body of data and you were apparently searching for piece data that fit your preferred outcome in a null experiment to make a declaration of positive. That's a technique that paranormal psychology advocates employ. Further you alone appeared to be able to "hear" capacitors .... in an experiment that YOU designed. And those results have never been replicated. Further isn't it interesting that you alone took the test twice (in subsequent sessions as I recall) and even YOU called for more research at the time BUT later you want everybody ELSE to accpet those results as a definitive example of capacitor sound. Yet, you seem quite amenable to re-casting these results as though it were a positive experiment when at best it could be said that this experiment did no more than point to further experimentation. As to absolute polarity exactly what sources were used. How was the experiment time-sync administered. You repeated the experiment and what were your results then? And why didn't Dick Greiner's work on absolute polarity (where recordings were made to assure the polarity was completely documented) confirm those results? You are so concerned in arguing significance levels that you conveniently gloss over other important issues. And you fail to consider that IF a certain sound quality were indeed acoustically based then there is noreason that a fair unbiased experiment with selected program material shouldn't be able to return a 99% confidence level. But I accept 95% as a reasonable confidence interval. As I said, if you keep raising the bar for the results of tests that contradict your opinions, you will indeed end up with a situation where nothing is proved audible. But this is bad science. What is bad science is digging through data in search of bits of data that seem to point toward a preferred outcome and then declaring results that aren't supported by the actual data. And failure to note following experiments that haven't replicated those results. But what I fail to understand is how the statistics _know_ what the device under test is? How, when testing loudspeakers for example, a 95% probability of the results not being due to random guessing can be taken as probably meaning there is a real sonic difference, but in the case of amplifiers it cannot. Not sure of what your beef might be here.? If you cpuld produce an unbiased experiment that is replicable to support your case that'sfine with me (95% OK.) But in the last 30 years experimental results do not support your hoped-for outcomes. That's not my problem and because the high-end has never been able to conduct experiments that do that's uour problem and my advice is that you stop arguing over 15 year old experiments and get busy with some research. Yes, in your _opinion_, Mr. Nousaine, there is no reason for amplifiers to sound different, but as has been pointed out before, your opinion carries no special weight over anyone else's. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile The published results are not my opinion. And these issues are about real evidence and just because you don't like it means it's your obligation to produce some and stop re-interpreting history and suggesting that your "opinion" carries special weight. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Randi look at Stereophile message exchange | High End Audio | |||
Stereophile Tries To Come Clean About The DiAural Fiasco | Audio Opinions | |||
Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions |