| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Product comparisons
Product comparisons are not scientific experiments. It is pointless to
try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a full scientific protocol be carried our. If the prospective purchaser hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making criticisms. If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so on your time and your dime. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: Product comparisons are not scientific experiments. Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise. It is pointless to try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a full scientific protocol be carried our. Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand. If the prospective purchaser hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making criticisms. Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about how things sound to them. Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical assessments and claims. For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a statement like: The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products themselves are responsible for these phenomena. (Post: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a7d9bd4?hl=en&) When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it here. bob Hello, The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was "I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a consistent lack of difference between products. The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products themselves are responsible for these phenomena." I agree with his statement. The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest explanation for this is that products have sonic differences. Otherwise you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything you like. -- Michael Mossey "Correctly functioning amps and cd players have dramatic, audible differences in subjective effect." |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: wrote: Product comparisons are not scientific experiments. Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise. It is pointless to try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a full scientific protocol be carried our. Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand. If the prospective purchaser hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making criticisms. Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about how things sound to them. Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical assessments and claims. For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a statement like: The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products themselves are responsible for these phenomena. (Post: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a7d9bd4?hl=en&) When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it here. bob Hello, The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was "I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a consistent lack of difference between products. The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products themselves are responsible for these phenomena." I agree with his statement. The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest explanation for this is that products have sonic differences. It depends entirely upon other circumstances. What were the products? What were the listening conditions? And does the 'reality' stand up to investigation at the *objective* level? Otherwise you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything you like. You're ignoring, of course, the distinct possibility of self-reinforcing perception. And the fact that various forms of perceptual bias are a *given*. What made you decide , a priori that these are *less* likely than real difference? -- -S |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: wrote: Product comparisons are not scientific experiments. Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise. It is pointless to try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a full scientific protocol be carried our. Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand. If the prospective purchaser hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making criticisms. Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about how things sound to them. Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical assessments and claims. For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a statement like: The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products themselves are responsible for these phenomena. (Post: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a7d9bd4?hl=en&) When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it here. bob Hello, The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was "I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a consistent lack of difference between products. The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products themselves are responsible for these phenomena." I agree with his statement. The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest explanation for this is that products have sonic differences. You seem to not understand the difference between simple and simplistic. Otherwise you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything you like. Not at all. It' a shame you've never studied psychology. It's an evolving field, but it can explain an awful lot. -- Michael Mossey "Correctly functioning amps and cd players have dramatic, audible differences in subjective effect." ....so dramatic, in fact, that you could hear them with your eyes closed? bob |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: Product comparisons are not scientific experiments. Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise. It is pointless to try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a full scientific protocol be carried our. Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand. If the prospective purchaser hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making criticisms. Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about how things sound to them. Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical assessments and claims. For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a statement like: The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products themselves are responsible for these phenomena. (Post: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a7d9bd4?hl=en&) When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it here. bob Hello, The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was "I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a consistent lack of difference between products. The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products themselves are responsible for these phenomena." I agree with his statement. The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest explanation for this is that products have sonic differences. It depends entirely upon other circumstances. What were the products? What were the listening conditions? And does the 'reality' stand up to investigation at the *objective* level? Otherwise you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything you like. You're ignoring, of course, the distinct possibility of self-reinforcing perception. And the fact that various forms of perceptual bias are a *given*. 'Bias' isn't creative, and it requires a detailed explanation, to account for peculiarly consistent results. In other words, you have to give an account that explains how 'bias' can produce consistent effects, when it appears at first blush to be incapable of such. After all, if our brains are so easily fooled by 'bias' that they can produce these interesting effects, what is to constrain them from time to time? What makes them produce the SAME sound on an amplifier last heard heard MONTHS ago? EVERY time that I listened to a given amp (several trials, months apart) it sounded the same, and different from my then-current amp. I also had a friend come over and listen with me. The expression on his face told me that I was not imagining things, when I hooked up the Sony TA-N88B, which, by the way, is a very ordinary-looking amp. What made you decide , a priori that these are *less* likely than real difference? -- -S |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Product comparisons are not scientific experiments. Well, they can be performed with scientific controls for bias in place, as is done in marketing research and product development. The rationale for this is the the same as it is for basic scientific research. It is pointless to try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a full scientific protocol be carried our. Indeed. And I haven't in fact seen anyone insist that. I have seen loads of audiophiles concluding that two things sound different, simply because they did a nonscientific product comparison. Often this isn't sufficient evidence for such a claim. Sufficient for WHOM? And what qualifies as 'scientific'? That in itelf is controversial. I listen under conditions that meet MY criteria. That includes a rather quiet, late-night environment, no illumination, and excellent, familiar, recordings. If any differences are there to be heard, they will be heard under those conditions or else they're too subtle to be worthwhile. Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely uncontroversial fact, to a scientist. That's irrelevant, because we're not acting as scientists, nor are we claiming to. What scientists think here is irrelevant to our purposes. Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or scientific organization. People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern. ("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93 octane gas gives better performance.") Why do you fixate on audio? What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this sort of response? If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me that I'm wasting my money? It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they should be. They need be only as rigorous as I need. Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact they were inferior to what I had. I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography. I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable for my use. I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and amplifiers. I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest explanation for this is that products have sonic differences. Otherwise you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything you like." You have it reversed. When it is observed using listening alone that knowing or not which is connected toggles the subjective effect on and off, then the explanation requires that the knowing either changes the signal at a distance or the difference resides in the observer. Given the obvious choice we have also the simplest answer. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Product comparisons are not scientific experiments. Well, they can be performed with scientific controls for bias in place, as is done in marketing research and product development. The rationale for this is the the same as it is for basic scientific research. It is pointless to try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a full scientific protocol be carried our. Indeed. And I haven't in fact seen anyone insist that. I have seen loads of audiophiles concluding that two things sound different, simply because they did a nonscientific product comparison. Often this isn't sufficient evidence for such a claim. Sufficient for WHOM? And what qualifies as 'scientific'? That in itelf is controversial. Not at all. By scientific standards, a sighted claim of audible difference, absent any independent support, is simply inadequate as proof of real difference. I listen under conditions that meet MY criteria. That includes a rather quiet, late-night environment, no illumination, and excellent, familiar, recordings. If any differences are there to be heard, they will be heard under those conditions or else they're too subtle to be worthwhile. How would you verify this? Or do you believe that error is impossible under these circumstances? Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely uncontroversial fact, to a scientist. That's irrelevant, because we're not acting as scientists, nor are we claiming to. What scientists think here is irrelevant to our purposes. But when audiophiles start talking about *why* they heard what they heard, they move directly into the realm of science. Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or scientific organization. Of course not. But the reasons you publicly provide for that choice can either be make scientific sense, or not. Buying a red car because you like red more than other colors, is uttely unobjectionable from a scientific standpoint. Buying a red car because you think red makes a car go faster, is quite objectionable from a scientific standpoint. Audiophile claims tend to be of the latter type, alas. People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern. ("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93 octane gas gives better performance.") All of those are verifiable scientifically, so the could certainly cause concern among those who care. And I expect that they do. Why do you fixate on audio? On rec.audio.high-end? It seems to make a certain sense. What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this sort of response? Probably the same thing that brings out this sort of response when quack medical claims are made on other forums. If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me that I'm wasting my money? Depends on your stated reason for using 94 octane. If you happen to simply like the number '94', I certainly won't tell you you're wasting your money. But if you claim to use 94 octane because it makes your car perform better, and there is good reason to believe it doesn't, then I'll be happy to inform you of that. But more likely, I'd leave that sort of education to Stewart P. He knows loads more about cars than I do. It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they should be. ; And who are you to tell me what my place is? They need be only as rigorous as I need. If you are upset when people question your claims on a public forum and the logic behind them, might I suggest you either refrain from making such claims, or else ensuring that they are unobjectionable? Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact they were inferior to what I had. Well, there's the thing...you don't know 'in fact' if they were inferior in any objective sense. I'm afraid you don't even know if they really sounded different. I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography. I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable for my use. I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and amplifiers. Many things *are* of course really different. But it is also the case that not everything we *perceive* as different, really is. I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972. Quite possibly so. But that doesn't mean you have become immune to psychological bias. -- -S |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Sufficient for WHOM? And what qualifies as 'scientific'? That in itelf is controversial. Not at all. By scientific standards, a sighted claim of audible difference, absent any independent support, is simply inadequate as proof of real difference. You use the term 'scientific' when the term itself is undefined, and when exactly what constitutes a 'scientific' audio/listening test is itself controversial. But I think we must agree that such a comparison must be 'objective' and 'sensitive'. This means that the same (familiar) conditions used to listen to Product A must be used to listen to Product B, and that the system's other components must be of high overall quality. To listen in an unfamiliar environment is a recipe for disaster. I listen under conditions that meet MY criteria. That includes a rather quiet, late-night environment, no illumination, and excellent, familiar, recordings. If any differences are there to be heard, they will be heard under those conditions or else they're too subtle to be worthwhile. How would you verify this? Or do you believe that error is impossible under these circumstances? I don't believe error is impossible, but I believe that taking the precautions I did take were sufficient to assure a high degree of reliability in the results. I listened in the dark and repeated the comparisons over several evenings. The results were consistent and unmistakable. Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely uncontroversial fact, to a scientist. That's irrelevant, because we're not acting as scientists, nor are we claiming to. What scientists think here is irrelevant to our purposes. But when audiophiles start talking about *why* they heard what they heard, they move directly into the realm of science. There is a difference between forming an hypothesis and conducting a full-blown examination of that hypothesis on the one hand, and performing a 'casual' comparison for evaluating a potential purchase on the other. Such a comparison does not warrant a full-blown 'scientific' protocol (whatever that is). It merely needs to be 'objective' and 'sensitive'. The hypothesis police are not needed or wanted. Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or scientific organization. Of course not. But the reasons you publicly provide for that choice can either be make scientific sense, or not. That is a matter of some controversy in itself. We all know that even the most rigorous research is not always conclusive and without error. But, even if someone happens to be wrong about a whether a particular product (cables or amplifiers) 'REALLY' is better, what difference does it make to YOU? Making a purchase is not the same sort of thing as submitting a research paper to a peer-reviewed journal, now is it? You're applying a standard where it has no place. It's quite literally none of your business. Buying a red car because you like red more than other colors, is utterly unobjectionable from a scientific standpoint. Buying a red car because you think red makes a car go faster, is quite objectionable from a scientific standpoint. No, it is not. People are permitted to believe anything they want, however nonsensical it may appear to you or me. If, however, they want to publish such a claim in 'Nature', then you certainly have a valid point, and there are mechanisms in place to weed out such foolishness. It's all a matter of context. Audiophile claims tend to be of the latter type, alas. They are not 'claims' in the same sense as a submission to 'Nature'. There are different levels of 'seriousness' in claims. I play tennis, and I string my racquets with natural beef gut. There are players I run into who swear it makes no difference, or 'is not worth the cost' and I politely ignore them. They are mistaken: Cheap, and mistaken. I do not believe it is my solemn duty to harangue them every time I see them at the courts and tie up their time arguing about the superiority of gut, and how cheap they are. It's impolite. The same applies here. People come here to discuss high-end audio. Constantly haranguing them about 'DBT protocol' and the like is frankly impolite. It is NOT educative. People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern. ("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93 octane gas gives better performance.") All of those are verifiable scientifically, so the could certainly cause concern among those who care. And I expect that they do. But that's not the point. These claims are not being made in a research paper being submitted to 'Nature', are they? They are 'informal' claims. They are in principle, refutable. So are claims about audio amplifiers and cables, but the process is inherently subjective and not without controversy. It involves an observer whose only way of making the determination is by listening. Why do you fixate on audio? On rec.audio.high-end? It seems to make a certain sense. HUH? What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this sort of response? Probably the same thing that brings out this sort of response when quack medical claims are made on other forums. If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me that I'm wasting my money? Depends on your stated reason for using 94 octane. No, it does not. If you happen to simply like the number '94', I certainly won't tell you you're wasting your money. But if you claim to use 94 octane because it makes your car perform better, and there is good reason to believe it doesn't, then I'll be happy to inform you of that. I didn't ask you. But more likely, I'd leave that sort of education to Stewart P. He knows loads more about cars than I do. It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they should be. ; And who are you to tell me what my place is? The one making the purchase. This seems, shall we say, obvious, nicht wahr? They need be only as rigorous as I need. If you are upset when people question your claims on a public forum and the logic behind them, might I suggest you either refrain from making such claims, or else ensuring that they are unobjectionable? No, that's not the problem. This is a discussion group whose purpose is to serve those who wish to discuss high-end audio products. It was never intended to serve those who want to turn such discussions into a peer-reviewed process like for journal 'Nature'. It's impolite to do so. Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact they were inferior to what I had. Well, there's the thing...you don't know 'in fact' if they were inferior in any objective sense. Says who? And why do you care? It's none of your business. I'm afraid you don't even know if they really sounded different. It does not matter. It's MY money. I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography. I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable for my use. I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and amplifiers. Many things *are* of course really different. But it is also the case that not everything we *perceive* as different, really is. It does not matter. The time and expense necessary to determine whether or not it is or isn't, is not warranted in the context under discussion. In any case, no harm is done to anyone, as no-one is required to buy expensive cables or amplifiers. I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972. Quite possibly so. But that doesn't mean you have become immune to psychological bias. It does not matter. I have been happy with my purchase of every audio product I have made (for a while, at least). I have made the purchases based on comparisons in my home, and I feel strongly that each purchase decision is more than fully justified given the performance levels achieved with the new product, AND that the procedure used to perform the comparison was objective and sensitive. I cannot be sure that the people who have been subjected to DBT or ABX tests are as good at listening in THAT environment as I am in MY environment, and therefore their ability or inability to identify cables or amplifiers under those conditions is of absolutely no validity or applicability in MY environment. I have no interest in indulging those who insist that I be subjected to such a test, when I all I am going to do is to listen in MY environment. In other words, all that matters is what the product 'sounds like' in MY environment. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: Product comparisons are not scientific experiments. Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise. It is pointless to try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a full scientific protocol be carried our. Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand. If the prospective purchaser hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making criticisms. Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about how things sound to them. Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical assessments and claims. For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a statement like: The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products themselves are responsible for these phenomena. (Post: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a7d9bd4?hl=en&) When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it here. bob Hello, The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was "I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a consistent lack of difference between products. The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products themselves are responsible for these phenomena." I agree with his statement. The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest explanation for this is that products have sonic differences. It depends entirely upon other circumstances. What were the products? What were the listening conditions? And does the 'reality' stand up to investigation at the *objective* level? Otherwise you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything you like. You're ignoring, of course, the distinct possibility of self-reinforcing perception. And the fact that various forms of perceptual bias are a *given*. What made you decide , a priori that these are *less* likely than real difference? I haven't decided a priori. I've taken this theory, that what I hear is influenced by non-sonic factors and put it against the evidence. I track my expectations and, later, my experiences of the sound. They usually don't match. But let's take me as an example. Lets say I've had N listening sessions in my life. Let's say that I had taken notes on all my reactions, so call the set of my reactions R (which contain R_i for i = N). Let's also say we could somehow quantify and qualify the context of each listening session-- that is, we could somehow write down all the non-audible factors that influenced me, such as my expectations, the appearance of the equipment, my knowledge of its design, what my friends had said to me on the way over, etc. Let's call the set of contexts C (which contains C_i for i = N). Now let us suppose ALL of the equipment in my N listening sessions was identical in sound, according to psycho-acoustics. So where do all my reactions R come from? Are they in any way correlated to C? There are some experiments that can correlate some things. For example, we know that if you let someone listen briefly, then throw a fake switch and tell them how much better it will sound, and let them listen again, very likely they will report it sounds better. So that part of the context C-- the "fake switch"/short session context-- can be correlated with R. However, there's a heck of a lot in R that you haven't said anything about, since most of my experience is not the "fake switch" nor short session kind. It would seem to me that you should either make a stab at explaining it quantitatively, or admit that R is random and meaningless. The problem with deciding that R is random and meaningless, is that you've removed all responsibility for explaining anything in R. Then there's no way of checking your psycho-acoustic theories again real listening experiences. Mike |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Sep 2005 02:18:02 GMT, wrote: 'Bias' isn't creative, and it requires a detailed explanation, to account for peculiarly consistent results. You'll find that explanation in any psy texbook. We are hardwired to detect difference - even when it is not present. Better to jump out of the way of a tiger that isn't there, than to sit still when one leaps at you. What's curious is that you are describing a quick reaction. Someone gets a sudden feeling that a tiger is there. The audio "fake switch" experiment also involves brief listening and a quick reaction (as I've always seen it described). For that matter, the placebo effect in medicine reveals itself in relatively short studies (compared to the long time that people with chronic illness take medicines). My experience is that I can get I variety of brief reactions to equipment. I can think momentarily that the sound is one way or another. But living with a component leads to a more stable sense of its sound. I understand that humans are hard-wired to detect differences. However, in living with a component, I'm not comparing it to anything. I'm not detecting its difference from anything. I'm detecting what it sounds like, taken on its own and not compared to something else. Do me a favor and point me to the dozens or hundreds of blind tests involving people who lived with equipment for several days during each trial. Since you claim to understand very well how the ear behaves in such situations, and since you find it important to support beliefs with evidence, surely you must know of dozens (at least, to claim we have really looked at what's going on) of blind tests that involved the participants living with a component for, say, two days during each trial. Mike |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... Product comparisons are not scientific experiments. But listening for differences can be. It is pointless to try to insist that they are. It is pointless to try and refute that they are, especially since so many people who do research in the area of audio, rely on them. How do you think cel phones or hearing aids got better? When someone is listening to different products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a full scientific protocol be carried our. Please cite a quote from someone who has said that should happen. If the prospective purchaser hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making criticisms. Unless they make the extraordinary claim that things that should sound the same, don't. If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so on your time and your dime. The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in the filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound perception. They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they know they can't get them from sighted lsitening. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Sep 2005 02:19:24 GMT, wrote: Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or scientific organization. Unless you built it yourself (including the engine), it has in fact been sanctioned by upwards of a dozen scientific organisations, who won't let you choose one which does not meet their standards. You miss the point. You ALWAYS miss the point. People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern. ("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93 octane gas gives better performance.") Why do you fixate on audio? What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this sort of response? Propably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK.......... Really? If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me that I'm wasting my money? I use 97. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising. Snide remark? Who said I was unaware of that? I am indeed aware of that. It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they should be. So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear. I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'. They need be only as rigorous as I need. Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact they were inferior to what I had. As it happens, I also use a mid-fi Sony, The CDP-715E from 1995, which has stood up against all-comers to date. Not of course by beiong 'better', but by being *the same* as other good players. We agree on Sony, then? I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography. I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable for my use. I use Zeiss, and you wouldn't win. This argument is of course *much* older than anything in audio! :-) This is so funny I can't control myself....over the years, Leitz had Zeiss do some designs for them, which had to be reworked to meet the (higher) Leitz quality standards. The new 15mm Super-Elmarit-R f2,8, designed by Schneider with input from Leica (Leica rejected the first design attempts), replaces an older f/3,5 Zeiss design in the Leica line-up. http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/...kolumne/28.pdf "The Super-Elmarit-R is an original Schneider design. It is worth stressing that Leica did not accept the design as Schneider provided initially but commented on the quality and wanted a performance that is in line with the Leica philosophy. I have studied the original design and the major change is in the shape and curvature of the second lens element. Whoever designed and manufactures the lens is of minor importance, compared to the required performance parameters. The imagery is as Leica wants it to be, given their own goals and aspirations." Zeiss makes good lenses, but Leitz makes the best.... I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and amplifiers. OTOH, I have about 7,000 Kodachrome 25 slides in my archive, and perhaps a dozen of them have images whose quality is limited by lens resolution and geometry. I don't follow you. EVERY image is limited by the lens quality, even if the camera is jerked during exposure. The contrast and brilliance of superior optics is always available regardless of the circumstances. This is why I laugh at people who believe that using a tripod with their cheap lens makes it as good as a more expensive lens used without a tripod. OTGH, I have yet to encounter *anyone* who can hear differences among cables, despite many baseless assertions to the contrary. You're talking to him. Now. I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972. I am sure that's true - but you still can't hear differences among cables. False. I can and have done so. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message
... snip If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so on your time and your dime. The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in the filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound perception. They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they know they can't get them from sighted lsitening. Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet test resulted in a "null". |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 10 Sep 2005 03:22:07 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Sep 2005 02:18:02 GMT, wrote: 'Bias' isn't creative, and it requires a detailed explanation, to account for peculiarly consistent results. You'll find that explanation in any psy texbook. We are hardwired to detect difference - even when it is not present. Better to jump out of the way of a tiger that isn't there, than to sit still when one leaps at you. What's curious is that you are describing a quick reaction. Someone gets a sudden feeling that a tiger is there. The audio "fake switch" experiment also involves brief listening and a quick reaction (as I've always seen it described). It need not. Part of my own 'Damascene revelation' was the discovery that for several hours I had been relaxing to the smooth clean sound of my new Krell - but actually it was my old Audiolab that was connected! I only realised this when I tracked down the hot smell to the Audiolab heatsinks.................... For that matter, the placebo effect in medicine reveals itself in relatively short studies (compared to the long time that people with chronic illness take medicines). 'Relatively short' generally being weeks or months, so you're hardly making a good case here. BTW, current studies indicate that 'holistic' medicine is bunk, but hopefully we already knew that......... My experience is that I can get I variety of brief reactions to equipment. I can think momentarily that the sound is one way or another. But living with a component leads to a more stable sense of its sound. But not necessarily one that is more accurate......... I understand that humans are hard-wired to detect differences. However, in living with a component, I'm not comparing it to anything. I'm not detecting its difference from anything. I'm detecting what it sounds like, taken on its own and not compared to something else. Ah yes, Harry's favourite 'monadic' testing. Fine, do that - but do it *blind*. Do me a favor and point me to the dozens or hundreds of blind tests involving people who lived with equipment for several days during each trial. If you're so curious, and since this requires no extraneous equipment, why don't don't you just *do* one? Since you claim to understand very well how the ear behaves in such situations, and since you find it important to support beliefs with evidence, surely you must know of dozens (at least, to claim we have really looked at what's going on) of blind tests that involved the participants living with a component for, say, two days during each trial. Why so? Where is *your* evidence to support your own assertion? Youy're the one making the extraordinary claim here, as it is standard knowledge that quick-switched 'snippet' tests are more sensitive than longer tests, especially ones with pauses between listening sessions. That's why quick-switching is used by acoustic researchers and the audio industry. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Sep 2005 02:19:24 GMT, wrote: Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or scientific organization. Unless you built it yourself (including the engine), it has in fact been sanctioned by upwards of a dozen scientific organisations, who won't let you choose one which does not meet their standards. You miss the point. You ALWAYS miss the point. So far as I can see, you have yet to *make* a valid point. People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern. ("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93 octane gas gives better performance.") Why do you fixate on audio? What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this sort of response? Probably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK.......... Really? Yes. Your 'regular' 87 octane fuel is the equivalent of about 92 RON in Europe. UK 'regular' fuel is 95 RON, with 98 RON (the equivalent of your 93) being available for high-performance engines. Note that most European engines have their power ratings quoted for 98 RON fuel - it *does* make a difference. If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me that I'm wasting my money? I use 98. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising. Snide remark? Who said I was unaware of that? I am indeed aware of that. So why imply that it is only snake oil - like 'high-end' audio cables, which definitely *are* a waste of money? It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they should be. So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear. I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'. You do *not* hear anything which exists in the physical sound field. This is a mere assertion, and will not become true no matter how often you repeat it. They need be only as rigorous as I need. Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact they were inferior to what I had. It's extremely unlikely that they sounded different, despite what you might *think* in sighted listening. As it happens, I also use a mid-fi Sony, The CDP-715E from 1995, which has stood up against all-comers to date. Not of course by beiong 'better', but by being *the same* as other good players. We agree on Sony, then? And all other decently-designed modern players. It's pretty hard to find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end' player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream' players. I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography. I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable for my use. I use Zeiss, and you wouldn't win. This argument is of course *much* older than anything in audio! :-) This is so funny I can't control myself....over the years, Leitz had Zeiss do some designs for them, which had to be reworked to meet the (higher) Leitz quality standards. The new 15mm Super-Elmarit-R f2,8, designed by Schneider with input from Leica (Leica rejected the first design attempts), replaces an older f/3,5 Zeiss design in the Leica line-up. You really do just swallow everything you read in marketing literature, don't you? Ever stop to consider *why* Leitz had to buy in lens designs from Zeiss and Schneider? http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/...kolumne/28.pdf "The Super-Elmarit-R is an original Schneider design. It is worth stressing that Leica did not accept the design as Schneider provided initially but commented on the quality and wanted a performance that is in line with the Leica philosophy. I have studied the original design and the major change is in the shape and curvature of the second lens element. Whoever designed and manufactures the lens is of minor importance, compared to the required performance parameters. The imagery is as Leica wants it to be, given their own goals and aspirations." Zeiss makes good lenses, but Leitz makes the best.... I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and amplifiers. OTOH, I have about 7,000 Kodachrome 25 slides in my archive, and perhaps a dozen of them have images whose quality is limited by lens resolution and geometry. I don't follow you. EVERY image is limited by the lens quality, even if the camera is jerked during exposure. No, it may be limited by grain, or by wrong focussing, or by camera shake, or by flare. Flare is often a problem with cheap lenses, but resolution is seldom the limit on real photographs. The contrast and brilliance of superior optics is always available regardless of the circumstances. Depends on the subject, and 'brilliance' is not a standard term. BTW, conrtrast and resolution are *compromises* that are played off against each other in lens design, as are centre and edge resolution. I have yet to see much evidence that the best photographs are taken with the scientifically best lenses. Of course, we are now well aware of your dogged determination that expensive is best, regardless of the reality of the situation. This is why I laugh at people who believe that using a tripod with their cheap lens makes it as good as a more expensive lens used without a tripod. Serious photographers laugh at anyone who uses a ridiculously tiny format like 35mm.................. :-) OTGH, I have yet to encounter *anyone* who can hear differences among cables, despite many baseless assertions to the contrary. You're talking to him. Now. No, just to another hand-waver who ducks out of blind testing. I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972. I am sure that's true - but you still can't hear differences among cables. False. I can and have done so. No, you can't, but you do cling firmly to your baseless *belief* that you can. You could of course prove your claim quite easily, but like all the others, you seem strangely reluctant to do so. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because science turns from a path of research when basic claims about some
notion can't be established, there have been no such as you propose. The thing that comes closest is one who claims that long experience with some gear leads them to say they can spot it with great certainty, which makes long exposure to another bit of gear unnecessary. One example discussed here at length is the hifi dealer whose experience with a top of the line pass labs amp led him to the above view. Using an older integrated yamaha amp he was unable to spot his amp in his system using his music sources at a level above that of chance. With results such as this the cry to do as suggested tends to become a strawman and the potential that the path suggested has even less possible fruit to bear increases greatly. At the same time the burden to the contrary increases in proportion to show results otherwise. "Do me a favor and point me to the dozens or hundreds of blind tests involving people who lived with equipment for several days during each trial. Since you claim to understand very well how the ear behaves in such situations, and since you find it important to support beliefs with evidence, surely you must know of dozens (at least, to claim we have really looked at what's going on) of blind tests that involved the participants living with a component for, say, two days during each trial." |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Sep 2005 02:19:24 GMT, wrote: Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or scientific organization. Unless you built it yourself (including the engine), it has in fact been sanctioned by upwards of a dozen scientific organisations, who won't let you choose one which does not meet their standards. You miss the point. You ALWAYS miss the point. So far as I can see, you have yet to *make* a valid point. Assumes facts not yet in evidence. People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern. ("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93 octane gas gives better performance.") Why do you fixate on audio? What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this sort of response? Probably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK.......... Really? Yes. Your 'regular' 87 octane fuel is the equivalent of about 92 RON in Europe. UK 'regular' fuel is 95 RON, with 98 RON (the equivalent of your 93) being available for high-performance engines. Note that most European engines have their power ratings quoted for 98 RON fuel - it *does* make a difference. Of course, I use the better fuel, and it does make a difference. If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me that I'm wasting my money? I use 98. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising. Snide remark? Who said I was unaware of that? I am indeed aware of that. So why imply that it is only snake oil - like 'high-end' audio cables, which definitely *are* a waste of money? According to whom? On whose authority? YOURS? It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they should be. So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear. I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'. You do *not* hear anything which exists in the physical sound field. This is a mere assertion, and will not become true no matter how often you repeat it. Proof? They need be only as rigorous as I need. Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact they were inferior to what I had. It's extremely unlikely that they sounded different, despite what you might *think* in sighted listening. Proof? As it happens, I also use a mid-fi Sony, The CDP-715E from 1995, which has stood up against all-comers to date. Not of course by beiong 'better', but by being *the same* as other good players. We agree on Sony, then? And all other decently-designed modern players. Hogwash. I have listened to many mid-price ($600-800) players over trhe years, and they all sounded inferior to my Sony 1988 model. It's pretty hard to find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end' player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream' players. Mark Levinson? I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography. I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable for my use. I use Zeiss, and you wouldn't win. This argument is of course *much* older than anything in audio! :-) This is so funny I can't control myself....over the years, Leitz had Zeiss do some designs for them, which had to be reworked to meet the (higher) Leitz quality standards. The new 15mm Super-Elmarit-R f2,8, designed by Schneider with input from Leica (Leica rejected the first design attempts), replaces an older f/3,5 Zeiss design in the Leica line-up. You really do just swallow everything you read in marketing literature, don't you? Nope, I believe my eyes. Ever stop to consider *why* Leitz had to buy in lens designs from Zeiss and Schneider? Yes, because Leitz is a small company. In order to offer a wider range of lenses they sometimes out-source design work for low-volume lenses. It uis difficult to design a whole bunch of lenses at once. Leitz did take the Zeiss, Schneider, and other designs and tweak them. The Leitz criteria are so strict, however, that the original designs are often modified. The point is tghat the final product bears the "Leitz" name and meets the "Leitz" quality standrdas, which are the best in the industry. http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/...kolumne/28.pdf "The Super-Elmarit-R is an original Schneider design. It is worth stressing that Leica did not accept the design as Schneider provided initially but commented on the quality and wanted a performance that is in line with the Leica philosophy. I have studied the original design and the major change is in the shape and curvature of the second lens element. Whoever designed and manufactures the lens is of minor importance, compared to the required performance parameters. The imagery is as Leica wants it to be, given their own goals and aspirations." Zeiss makes good lenses, but Leitz makes the best.... I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and amplifiers. OTOH, I have about 7,000 Kodachrome 25 slides in my archive, and perhaps a dozen of them have images whose quality is limited by lens resolution and geometry. I don't follow you. EVERY image is limited by the lens quality, even if the camera is jerked during exposure. No, it may be limited by grain, or by wrong focussing, or by camera shake, or by flare. Flare is often a problem with cheap lenses, but resolution is seldom the limit on real photographs. It is always a factor. ALL lenses have flare. The contrast and brilliance of superior optics is always available regardless of the circumstances. Depends on the subject, and 'brilliance' is not a standard term. It is a term used to describe the freedom from flare. 'Contrast' is also used, and is equivalent. BTW, conrtrast and resolution are *compromises* that are played off against each other in lens design, as are centre and edge resolution. Yes, of course. Do you think I was unaware of that? I have yet to see much evidence that the best photographs are taken with the scientifically best lenses. What are you talking about? Of course, we are now well aware of your dogged determination that expensive is best, regardless of the reality of the situation. No, I mean to argue that Leitz/Leica generally speaking make the best optics on the planet. This is why I laugh at people who believe that using a tripod with their cheap lens makes it as good as a more expensive lens used without a tripod. Serious photographers laugh at anyone who uses a ridiculously tiny format like 35mm.................. :-) Oh, yeah. right. Large-format snob? Take this with your 8x10 camera: http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~ruiz/Lesson...isenstaedt.jpg OTGH, I have yet to encounter *anyone* who can hear differences among cables, despite many baseless assertions to the contrary. You're talking to him. Now. No, just to another hand-waver who ducks out of blind testing. I have no interest in blind testing. I am interested in comparing products in the same way I listen to them. I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972. I am sure that's true - but you still can't hear differences among cables. False. I can and have done so. No, you can't, but you do cling firmly to your baseless *belief* that you can. I have no 'beliefs'. I simply report what I hear. You could of course prove your claim quite easily, but like all the others, you seem strangely reluctant to do so. You're being impolite. May I interest you in some gut string? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 10 Sep 2005 03:22:07 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Sep 2005 02:18:02 GMT, wrote: 'Bias' isn't creative, and it requires a detailed explanation, to account for peculiarly consistent results. You'll find that explanation in any psy texbook. We are hardwired to detect difference - even when it is not present. Better to jump out of the way of a tiger that isn't there, than to sit still when one leaps at you. What's curious is that you are describing a quick reaction. Someone gets a sudden feeling that a tiger is there. The audio "fake switch" experiment also involves brief listening and a quick reaction (as I've always seen it described). It need not. Part of my own 'Damascene revelation' was the discovery that for several hours I had been relaxing to the smooth clean sound of my new Krell - but actually it was my old Audiolab that was connected! I only realised this when I tracked down the hot smell to the Audiolab heatsinks.................... Me own recent self-demosntration: I was listening to what I thought was a 'remastered' version of an tape-to-digital transfer I'd done, and delighting in the results of my remastering work, which I'd spent hours on a few days previously. Imagine my chagrin to find after the listening session that I'd actually loaded the 'unremastered' safety copy. -- -S |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... " wrote in message ... snip If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so on your time and your dime. The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in the filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound perception. They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they know they can't get them from sighted lsitening. Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet test resulted in a "null". Please list them. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Product comparisons are not scientific experiments. Well, they can be performed with scientific controls for bias in place, as is done in marketing research and product development. The rationale for this is the the same as it is for basic scientific research. It is pointless to try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a full scientific protocol be carried our. Indeed. And I haven't in fact seen anyone insist that. I have seen loads of audiophiles concluding that two things sound different, simply because they did a nonscientific product comparison. Often this isn't sufficient evidence for such a claim. Sufficient for WHOM? And what qualifies as 'scientific'? That in itelf is controversial. There's nothing controversial about controlling bias, and listening blind. I listen under conditions that meet MY criteria. Which have been repeatedly pointed out as being completely unreliable. That includes a rather quiet, late-night environment, no illumination, and excellent, familiar, recordings. If any differences are there to be heard, they will be heard under those conditions or else they're too subtle to be worthwhile. Again, repeatedly you have been informed of the unreliablity ofsuch comparisons. Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely uncontroversial fact, to a scientist. That's irrelevant, because we're not acting as scientists, nor are we claiming to. What scientists think here is irrelevant to our purposes. It sholdn't be, at least if you're trying to obtain the best sound. Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. Claims of difference where no known mechanism exists for them, do. My choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or scientific organization. They already have been, usually by a government agency. People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern. That probably depends on the person(s) hearing the claim. ("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93 octane gas gives better performance.") Easily testable claims. Why do you fixate on audio? Perhaps becuase so many audiophiles set themselves up to be challenged, by making claims that don't hold water. What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this sort of response? So many of them are not in line with reality, such as claims about cables. If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me that I'm wasting my money? It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for constant badgering. And there wouldn't be, if they'd just not shout them on a NG populated with people who know them to be specious. Listening comparisons are not intended to be rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they should be. They need be only as rigorous as I need. I don't understand why you don't think you should have the best, most accurate information. Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact they were inferior to what I had. Opinion unsupported by facts. The stores let you take stuff becuase they know the odds are in their favor you'll buy something. I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography. I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable for my use. AFAIK good camera equipment doesn't have the wide variety in price that audio equipment does, especially for equipment that is identical in performance. I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my own satisfaction and that of others. You have picked a preference where actual differences exist. Most of the claimed audio differences don't meet that criteria, they are sonically indistinguishable when one uses only one's ears. I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972. And yet there is no basis for your claim. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 10 Sep 2005 16:49:08 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
" wrote in message ... snip If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so on your time and your dime. The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in the filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound perception. They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they know they can't get them from sighted lsitening. Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet test resulted in a "null". Name one. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Sep 2005 01:58:22 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, wrote: snip reams of bluster You miss the point. You ALWAYS miss the point. So far as I can see, you have yet to *make* a valid point. Assumes facts not yet in evidence. We're still waiting for *any* facts from you. So why imply that it is only snake oil - like 'high-end' audio cables, which definitely *are* a waste of money? According to whom? On whose authority? YOURS? No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof. It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they should be. So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear. I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'. You do *not* hear anything which exists in the physical sound field. This is a mere assertion, and will not become true no matter how often you repeat it. Proof? You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear. They need be only as rigorous as I need. Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact they were inferior to what I had. It's extremely unlikely that they sounded different, despite what you might *think* in sighted listening. Proof? You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear. As it happens, I also use a mid-fi Sony, The CDP-715E from 1995, which has stood up against all-comers to date. Not of course by beiong 'better', but by being *the same* as other good players. We agree on Sony, then? And all other decently-designed modern players. Hogwash. I have listened to many mid-price ($600-800) players over trhe years, and they all sounded inferior to my Sony 1988 model. Hogwash yourself, this goes in the same trash can as your claim that you can hear differences among cables. It's pretty hard to find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end' player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream' players. Mark Levinson? Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear differences among transports with that dog! Moving back to the world of properly engineered audio gear, the Benchmark DAC-1, at less than $1,000, provides SOTA performance with absolutely no chance of hearing differences among transports, as it fully reclocks the incoming data stream. Ever stop to consider *why* Leitz had to buy in lens designs from Zeiss and Schneider? Yes, because Leitz is a small company. In order to offer a wider range of lenses they sometimes out-source design work for low-volume lenses. It uis difficult to design a whole bunch of lenses at once. Leitz did take the Zeiss, Schneider, and other designs and tweak them. The Leitz criteria are so strict, however, that the original designs are often modified. The point is tghat the final product bears the "Leitz" name and meets the "Leitz" quality standrdas, which are the best in the industry. Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream' Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'..................... BTW, do you know of any professionals, say in the advertising industry where technical demands are very high, who use Leica gear? Serious photographers laugh at anyone who uses a ridiculously tiny format like 35mm.................. :-) Oh, yeah. right. Large-format snob? Take this with your 8x10 camera: http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~ruiz/Lesson...isenstaedt.jpg Reportage work never had high technical requirements, as your example illustrates. OTGH, I have yet to encounter *anyone* who can hear differences among cables, despite many baseless assertions to the contrary. You're talking to him. Now. No, just to another hand-waver who ducks out of blind testing. I have no interest in blind testing. I am interested in comparing products in the same way I listen to them. Yes, we've all heard that old strawman before. Bascically, you know that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up, there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected? Why do you not trust your ears alone? I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972. I am sure that's true - but you still can't hear differences among cables. False. I can and have done so. No, you can't, but you do cling firmly to your baseless *belief* that you can. I have no 'beliefs'. I simply report what I hear. No, that is definitely *not* what you report. You could of course prove your claim quite easily, but like all the others, you seem strangely reluctant to do so. You're being impolite. May I interest you in some gut string? Lack of response noted. I use synthetic, because I need an excuse for my lack of ability on the tennis court....... :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, wrote: snip Probably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK.......... Really? Yes. Your 'regular' 87 octane fuel is the equivalent of about 92 RON in Europe. UK 'regular' fuel is 95 RON, with 98 RON (the equivalent of your 93) being available for high-performance engines. Note that most European engines have their power ratings quoted for 98 RON fuel - it *does* make a difference. If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me that I'm wasting my money? I use 98. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising. I'm unaware and skeptical of your 'scientific facts' about high octane petrol. http://www.answers.com/topic/petrol http://www.fact-sheets.com/cars/high_octane_gas/ .. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ... snip If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so on your time and your dime. The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in the filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound perception. They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they know they can't get them from sighted lsitening. Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet test resulted in a "null". Please list them. Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yo****aka Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama, and Hiroshi Shibasaki |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 10 Sep 2005 16:49:08 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: " wrote in message ... snip If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so on your time and your dime. The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in the filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound perception. They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they know they can't get them from sighted lsitening. Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet test resulted in a "null". Name one. See my reply to NYOB |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... wrote: (Irrelevancies snipped) AFAIK good camera equipment doesn't have the wide variety in price that audio equipment does, especially for equipment that is identical in performance. Most of the Japanese equipment is fairly close in performance and price, because the prices asked do not support the kind of engineering and manufacturing quality that a company like Leica strives for. I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my own satisfaction and that of others. You have picked a preference where actual differences exist. Most of the claimed audio differences don't meet that criteria, they are sonically indistinguishable when one uses only one's ears. You mean ALL CD players and ALL ampls sound the same? Hogwash. Not all, just most of them. The ones designed to be accurate, which being trivially easy, and cheap, is done routinely. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
So why imply that it is only snake oil - like 'high-end' audio cables, which definitely *are* a waste of money? According to whom? On whose authority? YOURS? No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof. I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the possibility of halucination is remote. It is possible to induce halucinations through sleep deprivation: http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...b=5&o=0&fpart= It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they should be. So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear. I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'. You do *not* hear anything which exists in the physical sound field. This is a mere assertion, and will not become true no matter how often you repeat it. Proof? You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear. Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'. We have gone over this before. No-one in philosophy or any science would call listening to cables and reporting audible differences 'making an extraordinary claim'. I am not claiming that the cables violate any laws of nature. The class of all things natural exceeds the class of all things measurable. An 'extraordinary claim' violates some commonly-accepted truth of nature (e.g., once men die, they don't come back to life), or invokes some wild explanation (aliens from outer space) that assumes facts not in evidence. Aliens cannot be used to explain your 'abduction' because the existence of aliens is itself unsupported and remotely unlikely. You cannot use something even less-well established to prove something that is highly dubious itself. Claiming to hear differences in aduo cables, amps, or CD players is not by any stretch of the imagination 'making an extraordinary claim'. http://www.rednova.com/news/science/... ry_evidence/ They need be only as rigorous as I need. Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact they were inferior to what I had. It's extremely unlikely that they sounded different, despite what you might *think* in sighted listening. Proof? You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear. False on its face. I am not the only one who makes such a claim, and you know it. Even if others have not, since I don't know what kind of equipment they are using, how am I to treat such a negative result? Using a high-resolution system such as I did (with Stax electrostatic headphones and Rogers Studio One speakers) whose components are of recognized quality enables me to hear certain aspects of the performance that others may miss. Their negative results are therefore irrelevant. As it happens, I also use a mid-fi Sony, The CDP-715E from 1995, which has stood up against all-comers to date. Not of course by beiong 'better', but by being *the same* as other good players. We agree on Sony, then? And all other decently-designed modern players. Hogwash. I have listened to many mid-price ($600-800) players over trhe years, and they all sounded inferior to my Sony 1988 model. Hogwash yourself, this goes in the same trash can as your claim that you can hear differences among cables. I DID. There is no way for you to argue my experience out of existence. This is not subject to debate. The only question is WHY, not WHETHER, I heard differences. I DID. It's pretty hard to find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end' player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream' players. Mark Levinson? Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear differences among transports with that dog! I heard the whole set-up (transport and DAC) and the combo sounded quite beautiful. Moving back to the world of properly engineered audio gear, the Benchmark DAC-1, at less than $1,000, provides SOTA performance with absolutely no chance of hearing differences among transports, as it fully reclocks the incoming data stream. Ever stop to consider *why* Leitz had to buy in lens designs from Zeiss and Schneider? Yes, because Leitz is a small company. In order to offer a wider range of lenses they sometimes out-source design work for low-volume lenses. It uis difficult to design a whole bunch of lenses at once. Leitz did take the Zeiss, Schneider, and other designs and tweak them. The Leitz criteria are so strict, however, that the original designs are often modified. The point is tghat the final product bears the "Leitz" name and meets the "Leitz" quality standrdas, which are the best in the industry. Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream' Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'..................... Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance, and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but redesigns. BTW, do you know of any professionals, say in the advertising industry where technical demands are very high, who use Leica gear? Very little advertising work is shot on 35mm, and you know it. Most is done with larger formats: 120 and 4x5 or larger. Serious photographers laugh at anyone who uses a ridiculously tiny format like 35mm.................. :-) Oh, yeah. right. Large-format snob? Take this with your 8x10 camera: http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~ruiz/Lesson...isenstaedt.jpg Reportage work never had high technical requirements, as your example illustrates. That's right. The ability to capture a spotaneous moment is more important in reportage. I doubt that Dr Goebbels would have allowed this rat-like expression to show through if he had to sit still for a formal photograph. It was possible only with a Leica or similar inconspicuous camera. OTGH, I have yet to encounter *anyone* who can hear differences among cables, despite many baseless assertions to the contrary. You're talking to him. Now. No, just to another hand-waver who ducks out of blind testing. I have no interest in blind testing. I am interested in comparing products in the same way I listen to them. Yes, we've all heard that old strawman before. You don't even know what a straw-man is. It is a caricature of an argument made by one's opponent, which is so absurd that no-one would accept it. Bascically, you know that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up, there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected? Why do you not trust your ears alone? I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system, because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully conducted. I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of 'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972. I am sure that's true - but you still can't hear differences among cables. False. I can and have done so. No, you can't, but you do cling firmly to your baseless *belief* that you can. I have no 'beliefs'. I simply report what I hear. No, that is definitely *not* what you report. I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told. You could of course prove your claim quite easily, but like all the others, you seem strangely reluctant to do so. You're being impolite. May I interest you in some gut string? Lack of response noted. I use synthetic, because I need an excuse for my lack of ability on the tennis court....... :-) Why am I not surprised.... I'm sure you believe that: 'All string plays the same...' |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Sep 2005 22:29:13 GMT, "Gary Vander Schel"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, wrote: snip Probably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK.......... Really? Yes. Your 'regular' 87 octane fuel is the equivalent of about 92 RON in Europe. UK 'regular' fuel is 95 RON, with 98 RON (the equivalent of your 93) being available for high-performance engines. Note that most European engines have their power ratings quoted for 98 RON fuel - it *does* make a difference. If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me that I'm wasting my money? I use 98. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising. I'm unaware and skeptical of your 'scientific facts' about high octane petrol. http://www.answers.com/topic/petrol http://www.fact-sheets.com/cars/high_octane_gas/ Perhaps you should try reading some modern literature on the subject. Most European cars have their power outputs quoted for 98RON fuel, the equivalent of your 93, and certainly do produce less power with lower octane fuel. Basically, the modern engine management system sets up the engine to give best results with whatever fuel is in the tank. My own car (Audi A3 3.2) has a compression ratio of 11.3:1, and definitely does benefit from the best fuel I can find. Similarly, turbocharged engines like that In my wife's TT will adjust boost levels to suit the available fuel and atmospheric conditions. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ... snip If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so on your time and your dime. The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in the filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound perception. They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they know they can't get them from sighted lsitening. Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet test resulted in a "null". Please list them. Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yo****aka Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama, and Hiroshi Shibasaki Ah yes, the notorious Pioneer-backed attempt to prove that we really need 100kHz bandwidth. Got any Europeans or Americans? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Free Ipods | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Nothing but 100% Pure Audiogon Customer Satisfaction | Marketplace | |||
| FS: AMPS $25 SPEAKERS $19 PAIR - FREE SHIPPING | Pro Audio | |||
| Market Your Product? | Audio Opinions | |||
| Yet another DBT post | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
