| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Bad Scientist Alert!
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:13:48 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote: "StuWelwood" wrote in message ... Dick Pierce wrote: Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the "bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly (it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches) AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge testing was NOT used for figure verification. The reason I mentioned it is your preposterous claim that it would be impossible to test the optical system on the ground. Caught with your ass in the wringer again, eh Bob? :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:14:28 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote: "StuWelwood" wrote in message ... From: (Dick Pierce) Date: 10/29/2003 8:40 AM Mountain Standard Time Message-id: "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well. The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault knife-edge test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled system. Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the "bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly (it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches) AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge testing was NOT used for figure verification. Noted. He also knows little about science, engineering, or audio. The one thing that we do know about him is that he does not appear to be partlicularly enamored with Arny. Stu, I've passed the Ph.D preliminary exam in two fields: theoretical physics and electrical engineering. Noted that you claim no knowledge of optics or audio............... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:14:28 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote: "StuWelwood" wrote in message ... From: (Dick Pierce) Date: 10/29/2003 8:40 AM Mountain Standard Time Message-id: "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well. The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault knife-edge test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled system. Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the "bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly (it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches) AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge testing was NOT used for figure verification. Noted. He also knows little about science, engineering, or audio. The one thing that we do know about him is that he does not appear to be partlicularly enamored with Arny. Stu, I've passed the Ph.D preliminary exam in two fields: theoretical physics and electrical engineering. Noted that you claim no knowledge of optics or audio............... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message om... No. It's an impassioned plea for all the fakes who think they are real scientists to stop pontificating. Ah, you mean like when someone states that the 2.4 meter Hubble telescope has a diameter of 40 inches? Or that a simple "Focault knife-edge test" is the preferred method I did not say that. Mr. Morein was seen to write: "The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault knife-edge test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled system." Is Mr. Morein prepared to tell NASA that their 2.4 meter telescope is really only 40" in diameter? |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message om... No. It's an impassioned plea for all the fakes who think they are real scientists to stop pontificating. Ah, you mean like when someone states that the 2.4 meter Hubble telescope has a diameter of 40 inches? Or that a simple "Focault knife-edge test" is the preferred method I did not say that. Mr. Morein was seen to write: "The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault knife-edge test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled system." Is Mr. Morein prepared to tell NASA that their 2.4 meter telescope is really only 40" in diameter? |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:14:28 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: "StuWelwood" wrote in message ... From: (Dick Pierce) Date: 10/29/2003 8:40 AM Mountain Standard Time Message-id: "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well. The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault knife-edge test would have easily detected the aberration in the assembled system. Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the "bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly (it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches) AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge testing was NOT used for figure verification. I've confirmed this claim. Morein really did say that, and I don't see where he corrected himself or acknowledged his error. It's a clear-cut but trivial error - the sort of thing that it is best to admit, correct and move on. I don't see where Morein did that. I've made mistakes like this dozens of times on Usenet, and done exactly what I'm recommending to Morein. Furthermore, Morien responded to the attempt to correct with a deceptive-appearing post that contains number of references on the general topic. But, they don't address the specific issue. Thus, it appears that Morein IS what he says he abhors. Noted. He also knows little about science, engineering, or audio. I think Morien knows *something* but somehow when it comes to audio it's all jumbled together wrong. For example, he's criticized my technical comments about power amps by arguing that I don't own enough power amps ( I do own upwards of a dozen) to know what I'm talking about. I can't imagine how embarrassing it must have been for Morein to be nationally-known as the guy who tried to sue for a PhD from Drexel in the U.S. Supreme Court, and got rebuffed. http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm http://supreme.usatoday.findlaw.com/...022403pzor.htm l http://news.thetriangle.org/2003/03/14/morein.html http://www.pittnews.com/vnews/displa.../3e2244ff0fd15 http://www.nacua.org/jcul/JCUL_Witho...8_jcul_311.pdf Obviously there was a sharp disagreement over the value of Morein's intellectual property. Several of these articles describe Morien as being tenacious to a fault, which is something that he's accused Dick and I of. Thus, it again appears that Morein IS what he says he abhors. The one thing that we do know about him is that he does not appear to be particularly enamored with Arny. It's the price of deconstructing obvious errors and false claims. Cheap at twice the price. Stu, I've passed the Ph.D preliminary exam in two fields: theoretical physics and electrical engineering. Noted that you claim no knowledge of optics or audio............... Good thing, since Morien's ignorance of even the most basic topics in audio is apparent in just about every on-topic post he makes (of which there are thankfully, few). I'm reminded of Greg Singh's claims that he has a BSEE from a really-pretty-good midwestern school... Finally, I'm humbled to be mentioned in the same paragraph as Dick Pierce. He really knows his audio! I know a few things about audio. I think one of the strongest arguments for the idea that Morein doesn't "get it" about audio is that he mentioned the audio knowledge of Dick Pierce and Arny Krueger in the same paragraph. No comparison. I almost always bow to the audio knowledge of Dick Pierce, especially about loudspeakers. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:14:28 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: "StuWelwood" wrote in message ... From: (Dick Pierce) Date: 10/29/2003 8:40 AM Mountain Standard Time Message-id: "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well. The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault knife-edge test would have easily detected the aberration in the assembled system. Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the "bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly (it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches) AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge testing was NOT used for figure verification. I've confirmed this claim. Morein really did say that, and I don't see where he corrected himself or acknowledged his error. It's a clear-cut but trivial error - the sort of thing that it is best to admit, correct and move on. I don't see where Morein did that. I've made mistakes like this dozens of times on Usenet, and done exactly what I'm recommending to Morein. Furthermore, Morien responded to the attempt to correct with a deceptive-appearing post that contains number of references on the general topic. But, they don't address the specific issue. Thus, it appears that Morein IS what he says he abhors. Noted. He also knows little about science, engineering, or audio. I think Morien knows *something* but somehow when it comes to audio it's all jumbled together wrong. For example, he's criticized my technical comments about power amps by arguing that I don't own enough power amps ( I do own upwards of a dozen) to know what I'm talking about. I can't imagine how embarrassing it must have been for Morein to be nationally-known as the guy who tried to sue for a PhD from Drexel in the U.S. Supreme Court, and got rebuffed. http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm http://supreme.usatoday.findlaw.com/...022403pzor.htm l http://news.thetriangle.org/2003/03/14/morein.html http://www.pittnews.com/vnews/displa.../3e2244ff0fd15 http://www.nacua.org/jcul/JCUL_Witho...8_jcul_311.pdf Obviously there was a sharp disagreement over the value of Morein's intellectual property. Several of these articles describe Morien as being tenacious to a fault, which is something that he's accused Dick and I of. Thus, it again appears that Morein IS what he says he abhors. The one thing that we do know about him is that he does not appear to be particularly enamored with Arny. It's the price of deconstructing obvious errors and false claims. Cheap at twice the price. Stu, I've passed the Ph.D preliminary exam in two fields: theoretical physics and electrical engineering. Noted that you claim no knowledge of optics or audio............... Good thing, since Morien's ignorance of even the most basic topics in audio is apparent in just about every on-topic post he makes (of which there are thankfully, few). I'm reminded of Greg Singh's claims that he has a BSEE from a really-pretty-good midwestern school... Finally, I'm humbled to be mentioned in the same paragraph as Dick Pierce. He really knows his audio! I know a few things about audio. I think one of the strongest arguments for the idea that Morein doesn't "get it" about audio is that he mentioned the audio knowledge of Dick Pierce and Arny Krueger in the same paragraph. No comparison. I almost always bow to the audio knowledge of Dick Pierce, especially about loudspeakers. |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
Robert Morein wrote:
Arny claims to be protecting the consumer from himself. It is unquestionably the case that many audiophiles DO delude themselves into believing that they hear things that they don't. This usually happens as the hobby gets a little old, and they seek to repeat the thrill of discovering new things. But the hobby has many curmudgeons like myself, who own old, discarded things. I have no stake in preferring any one of my Parasounds to my Haflers to my Acoustats. I chose these amplifiers a long time ago, after passing over others. They are not new, and they do not thrill me, and when I'm done switching around, I have just as many as I started with. Arny may claim that I am still contaminated with my own humanity, but it is hard to find my motive. Alrighty, then. If you *haven't* confirmed audible differences between your preferred amps, in a level-matched DBT, as a dispassionate scientist would, then you'll agree in all humility that your preferences might not be based *at all* on difference between sounds of the amps, and abide by that ambiguity. If you *have*, you'll offer an account of your tests and results, for the benefit of the community of other aspiring dispassionate scientists. I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope. Each optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake. Mr. Krueger and others *have* done tests 'on the ground' of amps, though. Apparently these lead them to believe that amps are likely to sound the same. This is not the same as claiming that amps will never sound different, or that all amps will necessarily sound the same. Nor is it bad reasoning or a 'terrible mistake' to be *skeptical* of a claim of audible difference between certain components, given the results of 'tests on the ground* that have been done, as well as what is known about human hearing. -- -S. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
Robert Morein wrote:
Arny claims to be protecting the consumer from himself. It is unquestionably the case that many audiophiles DO delude themselves into believing that they hear things that they don't. This usually happens as the hobby gets a little old, and they seek to repeat the thrill of discovering new things. But the hobby has many curmudgeons like myself, who own old, discarded things. I have no stake in preferring any one of my Parasounds to my Haflers to my Acoustats. I chose these amplifiers a long time ago, after passing over others. They are not new, and they do not thrill me, and when I'm done switching around, I have just as many as I started with. Arny may claim that I am still contaminated with my own humanity, but it is hard to find my motive. Alrighty, then. If you *haven't* confirmed audible differences between your preferred amps, in a level-matched DBT, as a dispassionate scientist would, then you'll agree in all humility that your preferences might not be based *at all* on difference between sounds of the amps, and abide by that ambiguity. If you *have*, you'll offer an account of your tests and results, for the benefit of the community of other aspiring dispassionate scientists. I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope. Each optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake. Mr. Krueger and others *have* done tests 'on the ground' of amps, though. Apparently these lead them to believe that amps are likely to sound the same. This is not the same as claiming that amps will never sound different, or that all amps will necessarily sound the same. Nor is it bad reasoning or a 'terrible mistake' to be *skeptical* of a claim of audible difference between certain components, given the results of 'tests on the ground* that have been done, as well as what is known about human hearing. -- -S. |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
Robert Morein wrote:
From http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~vwen/cla...0/cs294-8/hw1/ from Risk Digest, Volume 15, Issue 14 There were three test rigs built for that mirror, and two of them reported the error. It happened that the third was considered the most accurate, so management -- under considerable pressure -- ignored the results from the other two. from Houston Chronicle, Nov. 28, 1990 The manufacturer, Perkin-Elmer, did not assign its best people to telescope construction and "there was a surprising lack of participation by optical experts with experience in the manufacture of large telescopes," the investigators' final report said. Portions of the report had been leaked earlier. "There were at least three cases where there was clear evidence that a problem was developing and it was missed all three times," said Dr. Lew Allen, director of the space agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who directed the study. Let's retrace why the Hubble was even brought into this thread. Earlier you chastised Mr. Krueger by likening him to Hubble scientists who had not tested their craft 'on the ground'. But here it seems the Hubble was indeed tested on the ground...and the results were ignored. -- -S. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
Robert Morein wrote:
From http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~vwen/cla...0/cs294-8/hw1/ from Risk Digest, Volume 15, Issue 14 There were three test rigs built for that mirror, and two of them reported the error. It happened that the third was considered the most accurate, so management -- under considerable pressure -- ignored the results from the other two. from Houston Chronicle, Nov. 28, 1990 The manufacturer, Perkin-Elmer, did not assign its best people to telescope construction and "there was a surprising lack of participation by optical experts with experience in the manufacture of large telescopes," the investigators' final report said. Portions of the report had been leaked earlier. "There were at least three cases where there was clear evidence that a problem was developing and it was missed all three times," said Dr. Lew Allen, director of the space agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who directed the study. Let's retrace why the Hubble was even brought into this thread. Earlier you chastised Mr. Krueger by likening him to Hubble scientists who had not tested their craft 'on the ground'. But here it seems the Hubble was indeed tested on the ground...and the results were ignored. -- -S. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
Setting up a two amp system
Robert Morein wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message [snip] Given that you don't do bias-controlled listening tests Bob, who knows? Given that you deny the experience of thousands of perceptive audiophiles with a closed mind and a contemptous attitude, you are a BAD SCIENTIST. What is the experiecne of thousands of perceptive psychoacousticians in this matter, I wonder? -- -S. |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
Setting up a two amp system
Robert Morein wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message [snip] Given that you don't do bias-controlled listening tests Bob, who knows? Given that you deny the experience of thousands of perceptive audiophiles with a closed mind and a contemptous attitude, you are a BAD SCIENTIST. What is the experiecne of thousands of perceptive psychoacousticians in this matter, I wonder? -- -S. |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
|
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
|
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
|
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
Robert Morein wrote: Arny claims to be protecting the consumer from himself. Morein is making this up as he goes along. It is unquestionably the case that many audiophiles DO delude themselves into believing that they hear things that they don't. This usually happens as the hobby gets a little old, and they seek to repeat the thrill of discovering new things. But the hobby has many curmudgeons like myself, who own old, discarded things. I have no stake in preferring any one of my Parasounds to my Haflers to my Acoustats. I chose these amplifiers a long time ago, after passing over others. They are not new, and they do not thrill me, and when I'm done switching around, I have just as many as I started with. Arny may claim that I am still contaminated with my own humanity, but it is hard to find my motive. I get this impression that Morein thinks he's on trial. He's not. In my book, what's on trial is audio equipment, not people. Since people aren't on trial, I don't have to find any motive in any person. I'm primarily interested in the audible properties of amplifiers, and that is that. Alrighty, then. If you *haven't* confirmed audible differences between your preferred amps, in a level-matched DBT, as a dispassionate scientist would, then you'll agree in all humility that your preferences might not be based *at all* on difference between sounds of the amps, and abide by that ambiguity. If Morein has done level-matched bias-controlled listening tests of his power amps, he's been doing an outstanding job of keeping it a secret. If you *have*, you'll offer an account of your tests and results, for the benefit of the community of other aspiring dispassionate scientists. I've been challenging Morein on that point for months, but he has nothing but posturing and distractions to offer. He brags about his audio expertise, but you don't have to be an audio guru to do a level-matched, bias-controlled listening test. I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope. Each optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake. Mr. Krueger and others *have* done tests 'on the ground' of amps, though. Darn right! Apparently these lead them to believe that amps are likely to sound the same. Very many power amps sound enough the same that sound quality isn't a reasonable cause for having a preference. This is not the same as claiming that amps will never sound different, or that all amps will necessarily sound the same. Right, but don't try to tell that to the DBT critics! Nor is it bad reasoning or a 'terrible mistake' to be *skeptical* of a claim of audible difference between certain components, given the results of 'tests on the ground* that have been done, as well as what is known about human hearing. I've patiently been explaining this to Morein for years. Here's an example of one Morein's typical insightful comments about my explanation of ABX back in 1998: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35...40netreach.net That was more than 5 years ago! |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
Robert Morein wrote: Arny claims to be protecting the consumer from himself. Morein is making this up as he goes along. It is unquestionably the case that many audiophiles DO delude themselves into believing that they hear things that they don't. This usually happens as the hobby gets a little old, and they seek to repeat the thrill of discovering new things. But the hobby has many curmudgeons like myself, who own old, discarded things. I have no stake in preferring any one of my Parasounds to my Haflers to my Acoustats. I chose these amplifiers a long time ago, after passing over others. They are not new, and they do not thrill me, and when I'm done switching around, I have just as many as I started with. Arny may claim that I am still contaminated with my own humanity, but it is hard to find my motive. I get this impression that Morein thinks he's on trial. He's not. In my book, what's on trial is audio equipment, not people. Since people aren't on trial, I don't have to find any motive in any person. I'm primarily interested in the audible properties of amplifiers, and that is that. Alrighty, then. If you *haven't* confirmed audible differences between your preferred amps, in a level-matched DBT, as a dispassionate scientist would, then you'll agree in all humility that your preferences might not be based *at all* on difference between sounds of the amps, and abide by that ambiguity. If Morein has done level-matched bias-controlled listening tests of his power amps, he's been doing an outstanding job of keeping it a secret. If you *have*, you'll offer an account of your tests and results, for the benefit of the community of other aspiring dispassionate scientists. I've been challenging Morein on that point for months, but he has nothing but posturing and distractions to offer. He brags about his audio expertise, but you don't have to be an audio guru to do a level-matched, bias-controlled listening test. I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope. Each optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake. Mr. Krueger and others *have* done tests 'on the ground' of amps, though. Darn right! Apparently these lead them to believe that amps are likely to sound the same. Very many power amps sound enough the same that sound quality isn't a reasonable cause for having a preference. This is not the same as claiming that amps will never sound different, or that all amps will necessarily sound the same. Right, but don't try to tell that to the DBT critics! Nor is it bad reasoning or a 'terrible mistake' to be *skeptical* of a claim of audible difference between certain components, given the results of 'tests on the ground* that have been done, as well as what is known about human hearing. I've patiently been explaining this to Morein for years. Here's an example of one Morein's typical insightful comments about my explanation of ABX back in 1998: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35...40netreach.net That was more than 5 years ago! |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:51:37 -0000, (Zipperhead)
wrote: In article , says... Stu, I've passed the Ph.D preliminary exam in two fields: theoretical physics and electrical engineering. Thats amazing...How do you pronounce you last name? Rein = Ron -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: [snip] Mr. Krueger and others *have* done tests 'on the ground' of amps, though. Apparently these lead them to believe that amps are likely to sound the same. This is not the same as claiming that amps will never sound different, or that all amps will necessarily sound the same. Nor is it bad reasoning or a 'terrible mistake' to be *skeptical* of a claim of audible difference between certain components, given the results of 'tests on the ground* that have been done, as well as what is known about human hearing. The above statement is one which I do not find violent disagreement. It is not what Arny Krueger claims. My current understanding is that Arny Krueger has tested five amplifiers which he has himself represent the upper strata of amplifiers. Having found no audible difference between these amplifiers, he calls this confirmation of the theory that "all properly operating amplifiers of an equivalent power class sound the same." As far as I know, he has never tested or owned any of the amplifiers I use. Now I am also an objective truth seeker. I believe that numbers can properly quantify amplifier performance -- provided that they are suitable parameters. Is testing five amplifiers and pronouncing the result "gold" better than not testing at all? It is a bad error to conduct what is at best a preliminary study and promote it as an authoritative result. ABX is an important methodology, and it can be useful for testing audio components. I would never advise someone not to use if if available. Recently, I suggested that if ABX is not available, which is almost always the case, then a buyer should perform sighted comparisons. If he doesn't have level matching, he should still do it. There is the widespread belief that level matching is required to obtain any useful comparison. I now recount a recent case in which I selected an amplifier for Polk LX-15 loudspeakers. The first amplifiers tried were a pair of bridged Hafler XL-280's. The presentation subjectively lacked detail unless the music was played at a level approaching 90 dB. I then tried an Acoustat TNT-200. The presentation subjectively was detailed at a listening level approximately 75 dB. In this comparison, I had to blast my ears off with one amplifier(s). With the other, I was able to enjoy the music at a quiet level. "ABX" is not a stamp of quality. It is part of an experimental procedure which has many other elements. A defect of any of these elements, including insidious prejudice by the experimenter, is likely to cause a false result. It is for this reason that I assert that Arny Krueger is a BAD SCIENTIST. |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: [snip] Mr. Krueger and others *have* done tests 'on the ground' of amps, though. Apparently these lead them to believe that amps are likely to sound the same. This is not the same as claiming that amps will never sound different, or that all amps will necessarily sound the same. Nor is it bad reasoning or a 'terrible mistake' to be *skeptical* of a claim of audible difference between certain components, given the results of 'tests on the ground* that have been done, as well as what is known about human hearing. The above statement is one which I do not find violent disagreement. It is not what Arny Krueger claims. My current understanding is that Arny Krueger has tested five amplifiers which he has himself represent the upper strata of amplifiers. Having found no audible difference between these amplifiers, he calls this confirmation of the theory that "all properly operating amplifiers of an equivalent power class sound the same." As far as I know, he has never tested or owned any of the amplifiers I use. Now I am also an objective truth seeker. I believe that numbers can properly quantify amplifier performance -- provided that they are suitable parameters. Is testing five amplifiers and pronouncing the result "gold" better than not testing at all? It is a bad error to conduct what is at best a preliminary study and promote it as an authoritative result. ABX is an important methodology, and it can be useful for testing audio components. I would never advise someone not to use if if available. Recently, I suggested that if ABX is not available, which is almost always the case, then a buyer should perform sighted comparisons. If he doesn't have level matching, he should still do it. There is the widespread belief that level matching is required to obtain any useful comparison. I now recount a recent case in which I selected an amplifier for Polk LX-15 loudspeakers. The first amplifiers tried were a pair of bridged Hafler XL-280's. The presentation subjectively lacked detail unless the music was played at a level approaching 90 dB. I then tried an Acoustat TNT-200. The presentation subjectively was detailed at a listening level approximately 75 dB. In this comparison, I had to blast my ears off with one amplifier(s). With the other, I was able to enjoy the music at a quiet level. "ABX" is not a stamp of quality. It is part of an experimental procedure which has many other elements. A defect of any of these elements, including insidious prejudice by the experimenter, is likely to cause a false result. It is for this reason that I assert that Arny Krueger is a BAD SCIENTIST. |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: [snip] Mr. Krueger and others *have* done tests 'on the ground' of amps, though. Apparently these lead them to believe that amps are likely to sound the same. This is not the same as claiming that amps will never sound different, or that all amps will necessarily sound the same. Nor is it bad reasoning or a 'terrible mistake' to be *skeptical* of a claim of audible difference between certain components, given the results of 'tests on the ground* that have been done, as well as what is known about human hearing. The above statement is one which I do not find violent disagreement. That's not at all saying that you agree with it even one iota, Morein. It is not what Arny Krueger claims. You don't get to speak for me, Morien. Sullivan has been reading my posts on RAHE for years. He's read the posts my close associate and friend Tom Nousaine makes there. He knows the true story, not the one made up by RAO trolls. My current understanding is that Arny Krueger has tested five amplifiers which he has himself represent the upper strata of amplifiers. Wrong. I' ve tested dozens of amplifiers, 5 of which I chose to portray on www.pcabx.com. Having found no audible difference between these amplifiers, he calls this confirmation of the theory that "all properly operating amplifiers of an equivalent power class sound the same." Wrong again. It turns out that the www.pcabx.com web site portrays these amplifiers in such a way that just about anybody with normal hearing and a fairly good monitoring system can hear audible differences most significantly due to audio signals being passed through them. I leave it for the listeners to determine what they will make of what they hear. You know Morein you've thoroughly discredited yourself by misrepresenting www.pcabx.com in this fashion. The web site is completely free and open to the public. It's visited by thousands of people every month. Nobody needs to be deceived by your gross misrepresentations of the web site or its contents. All they have to do is visit it and see for themselves. I would like to see just one independent party come foreword and substantiate your claims with quotes from google or the www.pcabx.com web site. As far as I know, he has never tested or owned any of the amplifiers I use. I don't even know what amplifiers you own or use. Maybe you've mentioned what they were in passing. I'm not trying to prove anything in particular with the PCABX web site except that DBTs are interesting and effective ways to hear differences and educate people about the process of hearing differences. I don't see how it is possible to visit www.pcabx.com and follow it with any degree of care and sincerity without hearing differences. Now I am also an objective truth seeker. I believe that numbers can properly quantify amplifier performance -- provided that they are suitable parameters. So Morien, do tell us what you know for sure about these parameters and how you have investigated their measurement and audibility? Is testing five amplifiers and pronouncing the result "gold" better than not testing at all? Straw man argument. This is a grotesque, nearly insane misrepresentation of my activities and statements. I It is a bad error to conduct what is at best a preliminary study and promote it as an authoritative result. As soon as you find someone who has done this Morein, give 'em heck! ABX is an important methodology, and it can be useful for testing audio components. I would never advise someone not to use if available. So, its been available to you for at least three years, Morien. Tell us about how you used it. Recently, I suggested that if ABX is not available, which is almost always the case, then a buyer should perform sighted comparisons. If he doesn't have level matching, he should still do it. Non-level matched listening tests are a travesty of the idea of a fair comparison. Furthermore Morein, given your claims about your own scientific expertise, that you haven't done your own level-matched, bias controlled test is an indictment of your own claims of expertise. There is the widespread belief that level matching is required to obtain any useful comparison. I now recount a recent case in which I selected an amplifier for Polk LX-15 loudspeakers. The first amplifiers tried were a pair of bridged Hafler XL-280's. The presentation subjectively lacked detail unless the music was played at a level approaching 90 dB. I then tried an Acoustat TNT-200. The presentation subjectively was detailed at a listening level approximately 75 dB. You're just throwing numbers around. In this comparison, I had to blast my ears off with one amplifier(s). With the other, I was able to enjoy the music at a quiet level. Speaks to state of mind or state of amplifier? "ABX" is not a stamp of quality. In fact, the use of DBTs under specific conditions is an internationally-recognized requirement for a reliable, credible listening tests. I cite EBU document BS 1116-1, available from the EBU publications web site. It is part of an experimental procedure which has many other elements. These other elements are also well-defined. A defect of any of these elements, including insidious prejudice by the experimenter, is likely to cause a false result. It is for this reason that I assert that Arny Krueger is a BAD SCIENTIST. Say what you will, Morein. Your own misleading, false words and your egregious public behavior indict you. Many would say that I do wrong by giving you even enough credibility to bother to deny your false claims in public. My apologies to them, they may well be right. |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: [snip] Mr. Krueger and others *have* done tests 'on the ground' of amps, though. Apparently these lead them to believe that amps are likely to sound the same. This is not the same as claiming that amps will never sound different, or that all amps will necessarily sound the same. Nor is it bad reasoning or a 'terrible mistake' to be *skeptical* of a claim of audible difference between certain components, given the results of 'tests on the ground* that have been done, as well as what is known about human hearing. The above statement is one which I do not find violent disagreement. That's not at all saying that you agree with it even one iota, Morein. It is not what Arny Krueger claims. You don't get to speak for me, Morien. Sullivan has been reading my posts on RAHE for years. He's read the posts my close associate and friend Tom Nousaine makes there. He knows the true story, not the one made up by RAO trolls. My current understanding is that Arny Krueger has tested five amplifiers which he has himself represent the upper strata of amplifiers. Wrong. I' ve tested dozens of amplifiers, 5 of which I chose to portray on www.pcabx.com. Having found no audible difference between these amplifiers, he calls this confirmation of the theory that "all properly operating amplifiers of an equivalent power class sound the same." Wrong again. It turns out that the www.pcabx.com web site portrays these amplifiers in such a way that just about anybody with normal hearing and a fairly good monitoring system can hear audible differences most significantly due to audio signals being passed through them. I leave it for the listeners to determine what they will make of what they hear. You know Morein you've thoroughly discredited yourself by misrepresenting www.pcabx.com in this fashion. The web site is completely free and open to the public. It's visited by thousands of people every month. Nobody needs to be deceived by your gross misrepresentations of the web site or its contents. All they have to do is visit it and see for themselves. I would like to see just one independent party come foreword and substantiate your claims with quotes from google or the www.pcabx.com web site. As far as I know, he has never tested or owned any of the amplifiers I use. I don't even know what amplifiers you own or use. Maybe you've mentioned what they were in passing. I'm not trying to prove anything in particular with the PCABX web site except that DBTs are interesting and effective ways to hear differences and educate people about the process of hearing differences. I don't see how it is possible to visit www.pcabx.com and follow it with any degree of care and sincerity without hearing differences. Now I am also an objective truth seeker. I believe that numbers can properly quantify amplifier performance -- provided that they are suitable parameters. So Morien, do tell us what you know for sure about these parameters and how you have investigated their measurement and audibility? Is testing five amplifiers and pronouncing the result "gold" better than not testing at all? Straw man argument. This is a grotesque, nearly insane misrepresentation of my activities and statements. I It is a bad error to conduct what is at best a preliminary study and promote it as an authoritative result. As soon as you find someone who has done this Morein, give 'em heck! ABX is an important methodology, and it can be useful for testing audio components. I would never advise someone not to use if available. So, its been available to you for at least three years, Morien. Tell us about how you used it. Recently, I suggested that if ABX is not available, which is almost always the case, then a buyer should perform sighted comparisons. If he doesn't have level matching, he should still do it. Non-level matched listening tests are a travesty of the idea of a fair comparison. Furthermore Morein, given your claims about your own scientific expertise, that you haven't done your own level-matched, bias controlled test is an indictment of your own claims of expertise. There is the widespread belief that level matching is required to obtain any useful comparison. I now recount a recent case in which I selected an amplifier for Polk LX-15 loudspeakers. The first amplifiers tried were a pair of bridged Hafler XL-280's. The presentation subjectively lacked detail unless the music was played at a level approaching 90 dB. I then tried an Acoustat TNT-200. The presentation subjectively was detailed at a listening level approximately 75 dB. You're just throwing numbers around. In this comparison, I had to blast my ears off with one amplifier(s). With the other, I was able to enjoy the music at a quiet level. Speaks to state of mind or state of amplifier? "ABX" is not a stamp of quality. In fact, the use of DBTs under specific conditions is an internationally-recognized requirement for a reliable, credible listening tests. I cite EBU document BS 1116-1, available from the EBU publications web site. It is part of an experimental procedure which has many other elements. These other elements are also well-defined. A defect of any of these elements, including insidious prejudice by the experimenter, is likely to cause a false result. It is for this reason that I assert that Arny Krueger is a BAD SCIENTIST. Say what you will, Morein. Your own misleading, false words and your egregious public behavior indict you. Many would say that I do wrong by giving you even enough credibility to bother to deny your false claims in public. My apologies to them, they may well be right. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: From http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~vwen/cla...0/cs294-8/hw1/ from Risk Digest, Volume 15, Issue 14 There were three test rigs built for that mirror, and two of them reported the error. It happened that the third was considered the most accurate, so management -- under considerable pressure -- ignored the results from the other two. from Houston Chronicle, Nov. 28, 1990 The manufacturer, Perkin-Elmer, did not assign its best people to telescope construction and "there was a surprising lack of participation by optical experts with experience in the manufacture of large telescopes," the investigators' final report said. Portions of the report had been leaked earlier. "There were at least three cases where there was clear evidence that a problem was developing and it was missed all three times," said Dr. Lew Allen, director of the space agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who directed the study. Let's retrace why the Hubble was even brought into this thread. Earlier you chastised Mr. Krueger by likening him to Hubble scientists who had not tested their craft 'on the ground'. But here it seems the Hubble was indeed tested on the ground...and the results were ignored. The individual components were tested, but the criticism was made that they were not tested as a system. A system test would have required a completely different setup, which would have forced redundancy in the test. It's also worth noting that the simple Focault knife-edge test could have been performed with a 100 watt lightbulb in a tin can, with a pinhole creating an approximation of a parallel beam. Richard Pierce correctly notes that this is not a true infinitely distance point source, but when used as part of an argument, it makes a fallacy. The error in the primary mirror was very large; it was easily detectable, but it was not, because the corrector used in the interference test had an equal and opposite error. The Focault test could not prove the mirror was perfect, but it could show the 50 micron error that actually occurred. I cite this as an example of overconfidence in an experimental procedure; Arny Krueger's extreme, overt bias toward the indistinguishability of "properly operating amplifiers of equal power classes" creates an atmosphere where the investigator cannot be relied upon to vigilantly search out procedural and experimental flaws that would invalidate or challenge his findings. I have read a statement in a post by Arny Krueger, which paraphrased, says "I've tested five good amplifiers. I don't have to test every amp on the planet." This statement does not demonstrate due diligence to me. Another facet of what I consider Arny Krueger's defective use of implication comes from his study and demonstration of the audibility of various types of harmonic and IM distortion, which he demonstrates via downloadable ".wav" files. These files are demonstrations of long-accepted facts, and the presentation of them is a valuable contribution. However, use of them to prove his assertion about the indistinguishability of amplifiers is bad science, because it assumes that amplifiers are adequately characterized by these parameters. This subject would not be of importance to me, were it not for easily repeatable personal experiences regarding this question. The scientific method does not allow anything to be proved by personal experience, nor does it require that a theory be invalidated. However, there are many thousands of indivduals like myself, who have these repeatable, personal experiences. As a group, we are told to disavow, to ignore, and repudiate what we personally experience, because it is in contradiction with an alleged "fact." And these experiences are not transient, fleeting phenomena. They are repeatable whenever we switch the wires. Can you see how disturbing it is that we are literally told to ignore what we hear, to pay it no heed, because it contradicts Arny Krueger's "fact" ? It is profoundly disturbing for anyone to be told he cannot hear what he heard, he cannot see what he sees, or cannot feel what he feels. This is why Arny Krueger is a constant irritant on the newsgroup rec.audio.opinion. My first course in graduate electrodynamics was used to impart some scientific philosophy. Physics is the most exact of the sciences, yet you might be surprised at the humility of physicist's claim for truth is. Physicists do not claim that the known physical laws are valid everywhere; they claim only that they appear to hold where they are measured. With a few notable exceptions, physicsts avoid the use of the term "physical law". It is considered more proper to say, simply, that "the truth is in the equations." Add no words to Maxwell's equations; the only value is in the predictive ability. The concept of force does not exist in modern physics. Now the concept of objective truth is under attack as well, as a consequence of research into qbit computing. From the physicist's point of view, Arny Krueger has put a lot of words on top of his equations. He has a table with five or so amplifiers, and results he has obtained in tests of their distinguishability, and he should leave it at that. By making sweeping statements, he has dangerously extrapolated, and made a simple table of results into a political rant. There are numerous stories of human senses that contradict the "established" limits of perception. In World War II, fighter pilots relied on visual sighting to detect enemy aircraft at a great distance. Some pilots were exceptionally good at this, spotting individual fighters at a distance of 50 miles. This is discussed in the biography of Chuck Yeager. |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: From http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~vwen/cla...0/cs294-8/hw1/ from Risk Digest, Volume 15, Issue 14 There were three test rigs built for that mirror, and two of them reported the error. It happened that the third was considered the most accurate, so management -- under considerable pressure -- ignored the results from the other two. from Houston Chronicle, Nov. 28, 1990 The manufacturer, Perkin-Elmer, did not assign its best people to telescope construction and "there was a surprising lack of participation by optical experts with experience in the manufacture of large telescopes," the investigators' final report said. Portions of the report had been leaked earlier. "There were at least three cases where there was clear evidence that a problem was developing and it was missed all three times," said Dr. Lew Allen, director of the space agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who directed the study. Let's retrace why the Hubble was even brought into this thread. Earlier you chastised Mr. Krueger by likening him to Hubble scientists who had not tested their craft 'on the ground'. But here it seems the Hubble was indeed tested on the ground...and the results were ignored. The individual components were tested, but the criticism was made that they were not tested as a system. A system test would have required a completely different setup, which would have forced redundancy in the test. It's also worth noting that the simple Focault knife-edge test could have been performed with a 100 watt lightbulb in a tin can, with a pinhole creating an approximation of a parallel beam. Richard Pierce correctly notes that this is not a true infinitely distance point source, but when used as part of an argument, it makes a fallacy. The error in the primary mirror was very large; it was easily detectable, but it was not, because the corrector used in the interference test had an equal and opposite error. The Focault test could not prove the mirror was perfect, but it could show the 50 micron error that actually occurred. I cite this as an example of overconfidence in an experimental procedure; Arny Krueger's extreme, overt bias toward the indistinguishability of "properly operating amplifiers of equal power classes" creates an atmosphere where the investigator cannot be relied upon to vigilantly search out procedural and experimental flaws that would invalidate or challenge his findings. I have read a statement in a post by Arny Krueger, which paraphrased, says "I've tested five good amplifiers. I don't have to test every amp on the planet." This statement does not demonstrate due diligence to me. Another facet of what I consider Arny Krueger's defective use of implication comes from his study and demonstration of the audibility of various types of harmonic and IM distortion, which he demonstrates via downloadable ".wav" files. These files are demonstrations of long-accepted facts, and the presentation of them is a valuable contribution. However, use of them to prove his assertion about the indistinguishability of amplifiers is bad science, because it assumes that amplifiers are adequately characterized by these parameters. This subject would not be of importance to me, were it not for easily repeatable personal experiences regarding this question. The scientific method does not allow anything to be proved by personal experience, nor does it require that a theory be invalidated. However, there are many thousands of indivduals like myself, who have these repeatable, personal experiences. As a group, we are told to disavow, to ignore, and repudiate what we personally experience, because it is in contradiction with an alleged "fact." And these experiences are not transient, fleeting phenomena. They are repeatable whenever we switch the wires. Can you see how disturbing it is that we are literally told to ignore what we hear, to pay it no heed, because it contradicts Arny Krueger's "fact" ? It is profoundly disturbing for anyone to be told he cannot hear what he heard, he cannot see what he sees, or cannot feel what he feels. This is why Arny Krueger is a constant irritant on the newsgroup rec.audio.opinion. My first course in graduate electrodynamics was used to impart some scientific philosophy. Physics is the most exact of the sciences, yet you might be surprised at the humility of physicist's claim for truth is. Physicists do not claim that the known physical laws are valid everywhere; they claim only that they appear to hold where they are measured. With a few notable exceptions, physicsts avoid the use of the term "physical law". It is considered more proper to say, simply, that "the truth is in the equations." Add no words to Maxwell's equations; the only value is in the predictive ability. The concept of force does not exist in modern physics. Now the concept of objective truth is under attack as well, as a consequence of research into qbit computing. From the physicist's point of view, Arny Krueger has put a lot of words on top of his equations. He has a table with five or so amplifiers, and results he has obtained in tests of their distinguishability, and he should leave it at that. By making sweeping statements, he has dangerously extrapolated, and made a simple table of results into a political rant. There are numerous stories of human senses that contradict the "established" limits of perception. In World War II, fighter pilots relied on visual sighting to detect enemy aircraft at a great distance. Some pilots were exceptionally good at this, spotting individual fighters at a distance of 50 miles. This is discussed in the biography of Chuck Yeager. |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
I have read a statement in a post by Arny Krueger, which paraphrased, says "I've tested five good amplifiers. I don't have to test every amp on the planet." This statement does not demonstrate due diligence to me. I denied this yesterday Morein, and you're repeating it today. How reading disabled are you, Morein? Just to make it clearer - I've tested dozens of amplifiers over the years - both with test equipment and also with listening tests. Another facet of what I consider Arny Krueger's defective use of implication comes from his study and demonstration of the audibility of various types of harmonic and IM distortion, which he demonstrates via downloadable ".wav" files. These files are demonstrations of long-accepted facts, and the presentation of them is a valuable contribution. However, use of them to prove his assertion about the indistinguishability of amplifiers is bad science, because it assumes that amplifiers are adequately characterized by these parameters. I denied this yesterday Morein, and you're repeating it today. How reading disabled are you, Morein? Just to make it clearer, my position on amplifiers is that some amplifiers sound different and some don't. This subject would not be of importance to me, were it not for easily repeatable personal experiences regarding this question. You don't match levels Morein, you don't control bias. All you've shown is that its possible to perceive that amplifiers sound different if your experimental controls are crappy enough. The scientific method does not allow anything to be proved by personal experience, nor does it require that a theory be invalidated. However the scientific method does require that a theory be falsifiable and that irrelevant variables like level matching and personal bias be controlled. You've failed again, Morein. However, there are many thousands of indivduals like myself, who have these repeatable, personal experiences. OK, two power amps playing at different levels can be distinguished when the identity of the amps can also be determined by looking at them. Don't go looking for any Nobel prizes with that kind of childish "Science" Morein. As a group, we are told to disavow, to ignore, and repudiate what we personally experience, because it is in contradiction with an alleged "fact." No Morein, you're told to clean up your own personal act if you want to pretend to be working under the banner of "Science" And these experiences are not transient, fleeting phenomena. They are repeatable whenever we switch the wires. OK, two power amps playing at different levels can be distinguished when the identity of the amps can also be determined by looking at them. Don't go looking for any Nobel prizes with that kind of childish "Science" Morein. My recollection is that a well-taught seventh grader should be able to poke holes in your work. Can you see how disturbing it is that we are literally told to ignore what we hear, to pay it no heed, because it contradicts Arny Krueger's "fact" ? Which fact of mine might that be? The one that says that some amplifiers sound different and some don't? Or is it my claim that two power amps playing at significantly different volume levels can be always be distinguished, particularly when the identity of the amps can also be determined by looking at them. It is profoundly disturbing for anyone to be told he cannot hear what he heard, he cannot see what he sees, or cannot feel what he feels. This is why Arny Krueger is a constant irritant on the newsgroup rec.audio.opinion. Morein the cause of your failure as a PhD candidate in a scientific area becomes very clear when the horrific non-science and fabrications you promote on this newsgroup are examined. My first course in graduate electrodynamics was used to impart some scientific philosophy. Physics is the most exact of the sciences, yet you might be surprised at the humility of physicist's claim for truth is. Physicists do not claim that the known physical laws are valid everywhere; they claim only that they appear to hold where they are measured. With a few notable exceptions, physicsts avoid the use of the term "physical law". It is considered more proper to say, simply, that "the truth is in the equations." Add no words to Maxwell's equations; the only value is in the predictive ability. The concept of force does not exist in modern physics. Now the concept of objective truth is under attack as well, as a consequence of research into qbit computing. That's all fine and good Morein, but how does it justify your sloppy amplifier listening evaluations, misrepresentations of my clearly stated position, and abuse of the word "Science"? From the physicist's point of view, Arny Krueger has put a lot of words on top of his equations. Except there are no equations. He has a table with five or so amplifiers, and results he has obtained in tests of their distinguishability, and he should leave it at that. In fact I have published no formal results of listening tests for those amplifiers except to claim that anybody who listens to the wave files they download from those pages will hear audible differences that are clearly traceable to musical sounds being passed through said amplifiers. By making sweeping statements, he has dangerously extrapolated, and made a simple table of results into a political rant. What is "sweeping" about saying that some amplifiers sound different and some don't? There are numerous stories of human senses that contradict the "established" limits of perception. In World War II, fighter pilots relied on visual sighting to detect enemy aircraft at a great distance. Some pilots were exceptionally good at this, spotting individual fighters at a distance of 50 miles. This is discussed in the biography of Chuck Yeager. And the point is? |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
I have read a statement in a post by Arny Krueger, which paraphrased, says "I've tested five good amplifiers. I don't have to test every amp on the planet." This statement does not demonstrate due diligence to me. I denied this yesterday Morein, and you're repeating it today. How reading disabled are you, Morein? Just to make it clearer - I've tested dozens of amplifiers over the years - both with test equipment and also with listening tests. Another facet of what I consider Arny Krueger's defective use of implication comes from his study and demonstration of the audibility of various types of harmonic and IM distortion, which he demonstrates via downloadable ".wav" files. These files are demonstrations of long-accepted facts, and the presentation of them is a valuable contribution. However, use of them to prove his assertion about the indistinguishability of amplifiers is bad science, because it assumes that amplifiers are adequately characterized by these parameters. I denied this yesterday Morein, and you're repeating it today. How reading disabled are you, Morein? Just to make it clearer, my position on amplifiers is that some amplifiers sound different and some don't. This subject would not be of importance to me, were it not for easily repeatable personal experiences regarding this question. You don't match levels Morein, you don't control bias. All you've shown is that its possible to perceive that amplifiers sound different if your experimental controls are crappy enough. The scientific method does not allow anything to be proved by personal experience, nor does it require that a theory be invalidated. However the scientific method does require that a theory be falsifiable and that irrelevant variables like level matching and personal bias be controlled. You've failed again, Morein. However, there are many thousands of indivduals like myself, who have these repeatable, personal experiences. OK, two power amps playing at different levels can be distinguished when the identity of the amps can also be determined by looking at them. Don't go looking for any Nobel prizes with that kind of childish "Science" Morein. As a group, we are told to disavow, to ignore, and repudiate what we personally experience, because it is in contradiction with an alleged "fact." No Morein, you're told to clean up your own personal act if you want to pretend to be working under the banner of "Science" And these experiences are not transient, fleeting phenomena. They are repeatable whenever we switch the wires. OK, two power amps playing at different levels can be distinguished when the identity of the amps can also be determined by looking at them. Don't go looking for any Nobel prizes with that kind of childish "Science" Morein. My recollection is that a well-taught seventh grader should be able to poke holes in your work. Can you see how disturbing it is that we are literally told to ignore what we hear, to pay it no heed, because it contradicts Arny Krueger's "fact" ? Which fact of mine might that be? The one that says that some amplifiers sound different and some don't? Or is it my claim that two power amps playing at significantly different volume levels can be always be distinguished, particularly when the identity of the amps can also be determined by looking at them. It is profoundly disturbing for anyone to be told he cannot hear what he heard, he cannot see what he sees, or cannot feel what he feels. This is why Arny Krueger is a constant irritant on the newsgroup rec.audio.opinion. Morein the cause of your failure as a PhD candidate in a scientific area becomes very clear when the horrific non-science and fabrications you promote on this newsgroup are examined. My first course in graduate electrodynamics was used to impart some scientific philosophy. Physics is the most exact of the sciences, yet you might be surprised at the humility of physicist's claim for truth is. Physicists do not claim that the known physical laws are valid everywhere; they claim only that they appear to hold where they are measured. With a few notable exceptions, physicsts avoid the use of the term "physical law". It is considered more proper to say, simply, that "the truth is in the equations." Add no words to Maxwell's equations; the only value is in the predictive ability. The concept of force does not exist in modern physics. Now the concept of objective truth is under attack as well, as a consequence of research into qbit computing. That's all fine and good Morein, but how does it justify your sloppy amplifier listening evaluations, misrepresentations of my clearly stated position, and abuse of the word "Science"? From the physicist's point of view, Arny Krueger has put a lot of words on top of his equations. Except there are no equations. He has a table with five or so amplifiers, and results he has obtained in tests of their distinguishability, and he should leave it at that. In fact I have published no formal results of listening tests for those amplifiers except to claim that anybody who listens to the wave files they download from those pages will hear audible differences that are clearly traceable to musical sounds being passed through said amplifiers. By making sweeping statements, he has dangerously extrapolated, and made a simple table of results into a political rant. What is "sweeping" about saying that some amplifiers sound different and some don't? There are numerous stories of human senses that contradict the "established" limits of perception. In World War II, fighter pilots relied on visual sighting to detect enemy aircraft at a great distance. Some pilots were exceptionally good at this, spotting individual fighters at a distance of 50 miles. This is discussed in the biography of Chuck Yeager. And the point is? |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
Robert Morein wrote:
[omitted] You appear to postulate that Arny has claimed to constitute A scientist. It would assist greatly in making sense of your thread if you could substantiate that claim. To my knowledge - based on incomplete reading of the internet - Arny comes across as a computer technician/sound engineer and as an excellent source of knowhow, but I have no recollection of him ever claiming to be a scientist. [dangling remnants of topposting discarded] Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ************************************************** *********** * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ************************************************** *********** |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
Robert Morein wrote:
[omitted] You appear to postulate that Arny has claimed to constitute A scientist. It would assist greatly in making sense of your thread if you could substantiate that claim. To my knowledge - based on incomplete reading of the internet - Arny comes across as a computer technician/sound engineer and as an excellent source of knowhow, but I have no recollection of him ever claiming to be a scientist. [dangling remnants of topposting discarded] Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ************************************************** *********** * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ************************************************** *********** |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: [omitted] You appear to postulate that Arny has claimed to constitute A scientist. It would assist greatly in making sense of your thread if you could substantiate that claim. To my knowledge - based on incomplete reading of the internet - Arny comes across as a computer technician/sound engineer and as an excellent source of knowhow, but I have no recollection of him ever claiming to be a scientist. [dangling remnants of topposting discarded] It is my impression that, as you say, Arny is a pretty competent engineer and, as you say, an excellent source of knowhow. On the group rec.audio.opinion, however, Arny promotes himself as someone who has done definitive studies of audibility of amplifiers, sound card, and so forth. He chose this newsgroup because it has many people who are completely subjective and are incapable of performing any kind of experiment. The abundance of snake oil polarized Arny, but in doing so, he committed an error of extremism himself, and lost his objectivity. Some of his work appears to be decent work, and some of it does not. His claims about the audibility of amplifiers seem to be compromised by small sample size and a prejudicial attitude. If you look at his posts on rec.audio.opinion regarding this subject, they are highly confrontational. To be a scientist is not like being an attorney. Arny's attitude is more like that of an attorney than a scientist. He casts himself as an advocate of the point of view that "all properly operating amplifiers of the same power class" sound the same. An attorney is encouraged in his advocacy to use every trick of debate or logic to promote a point of view favorable to his client. By contrast, a scientist has an obligation to search for contradictions, to openly seek them out and investigate them. He is not an advocate of a theory; his job is to search out the truth. When there is confusion in the mind of the investigator between above two roles, it becomes impossible to trust his validation of the myriad details of an experimental protocol. The most trustworthy investigator is one who doesn't care what the outcome is. The middle ground usually gets lost in these debates. Personally, I am inclined to think that some amplifiers are very nearly perfect, and as a class are not likely to be distinguishable. There may be many other classes of amplifiers with similar defects, so that class members are not distinguishable. From my personal experience, I am inclined to think that most amplifiers which are considered to be of very high quality are in fact not perfect enough to rule out audible differences. The samples in my possession which are distinguishable to me have excellent specifications, which to me implies that current specs are not adequate to characterize amplifiers. |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: [omitted] You appear to postulate that Arny has claimed to constitute A scientist. It would assist greatly in making sense of your thread if you could substantiate that claim. To my knowledge - based on incomplete reading of the internet - Arny comes across as a computer technician/sound engineer and as an excellent source of knowhow, but I have no recollection of him ever claiming to be a scientist. [dangling remnants of topposting discarded] It is my impression that, as you say, Arny is a pretty competent engineer and, as you say, an excellent source of knowhow. On the group rec.audio.opinion, however, Arny promotes himself as someone who has done definitive studies of audibility of amplifiers, sound card, and so forth. He chose this newsgroup because it has many people who are completely subjective and are incapable of performing any kind of experiment. The abundance of snake oil polarized Arny, but in doing so, he committed an error of extremism himself, and lost his objectivity. Some of his work appears to be decent work, and some of it does not. His claims about the audibility of amplifiers seem to be compromised by small sample size and a prejudicial attitude. If you look at his posts on rec.audio.opinion regarding this subject, they are highly confrontational. To be a scientist is not like being an attorney. Arny's attitude is more like that of an attorney than a scientist. He casts himself as an advocate of the point of view that "all properly operating amplifiers of the same power class" sound the same. An attorney is encouraged in his advocacy to use every trick of debate or logic to promote a point of view favorable to his client. By contrast, a scientist has an obligation to search for contradictions, to openly seek them out and investigate them. He is not an advocate of a theory; his job is to search out the truth. When there is confusion in the mind of the investigator between above two roles, it becomes impossible to trust his validation of the myriad details of an experimental protocol. The most trustworthy investigator is one who doesn't care what the outcome is. The middle ground usually gets lost in these debates. Personally, I am inclined to think that some amplifiers are very nearly perfect, and as a class are not likely to be distinguishable. There may be many other classes of amplifiers with similar defects, so that class members are not distinguishable. From my personal experience, I am inclined to think that most amplifiers which are considered to be of very high quality are in fact not perfect enough to rule out audible differences. The samples in my possession which are distinguishable to me have excellent specifications, which to me implies that current specs are not adequate to characterize amplifiers. |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
Robert Morein wrote:
You appear to postulate that Arny has claimed to constitute A scientist. It would assist greatly in making sense of your thread if you could substantiate that claim. If you look at his posts on rec.audio.opinion regarding this subject, they are highly confrontational. I have seen the spill-over from that newsgroup and thus never felt strongly compelled to devote diskspace to it. To be a scientist is not like being an attorney. Arny's attitude is more like that of an attorney than a scientist. Which is the very same as you yourself stating that postulating that he is a Bad Scientist is a false and misleading claim. You do not include any example of Arny claiming to constitute A scientist nor do you prove by example that he has falsified test results, which happens to be the general definition of a bad scientist. Thank you for the clarification. Isolated from the assertion you try to get across there are technnical points we can agree on and are good common sense, but they have no relevance for the main point you try to promote and do not in any way substantiate and/or support it, which is why I have omitted them and skipped commenting on them. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ************************************************** *********** * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ************************************************** *********** |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
Robert Morein wrote:
You appear to postulate that Arny has claimed to constitute A scientist. It would assist greatly in making sense of your thread if you could substantiate that claim. If you look at his posts on rec.audio.opinion regarding this subject, they are highly confrontational. I have seen the spill-over from that newsgroup and thus never felt strongly compelled to devote diskspace to it. To be a scientist is not like being an attorney. Arny's attitude is more like that of an attorney than a scientist. Which is the very same as you yourself stating that postulating that he is a Bad Scientist is a false and misleading claim. You do not include any example of Arny claiming to constitute A scientist nor do you prove by example that he has falsified test results, which happens to be the general definition of a bad scientist. Thank you for the clarification. Isolated from the assertion you try to get across there are technnical points we can agree on and are good common sense, but they have no relevance for the main point you try to promote and do not in any way substantiate and/or support it, which is why I have omitted them and skipped commenting on them. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ************************************************** *********** * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ************************************************** *********** |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: [omitted] You appear to postulate that Arny has claimed to constitute A scientist. It would assist greatly in making sense of your thread if you could substantiate that claim. To my knowledge - based on incomplete reading of the internet - Arny comes across as a computer technician/sound engineer and as an excellent source of knowhow, but I have no recollection of him ever claiming to be a scientist. [dangling remnants of topposting discarded] It is my impression that, as you say, Arny is a pretty competent engineer and, as you say, an excellent source of knowhow. On the group rec.audio.opinion, however, Arny promotes himself as someone who has done definitive studies of audibility of amplifiers, sound card, and so forth. The word "definitive" would be the author's perception, not anything based on facts. He chose this newsgroup because it has many people who are completely subjective and are incapable of performing any kind of experiment. Mr. Morien's ability to read my mind is pretty amazing, isn't it? First off, I didn't choose RAO, it was simply the first newsgroup that I posted to until I found out that there are a host of other audio-related newsgroups. Secondly, I currently post routinely to about a dozen or more audio newsgroups. Thirdly, Mr. Morien posts to RAO, and claims to be a scientist or at least a person who has placed himself of other people that he thinks are scientists. He claims to have competence in various fields of engineering and science. He claims that he can do a wide variety of experiments, yet he seems to be incapable of doing a simple level-matched, bias-controlled listening test, even with the full resources of www.pcabx.com at his disposal. The abundance of snake oil polarized Arny, but in doing so, he committed an error of extremism himself, and lost his objectivity. Where did I claim to be objective? For the record I don't think that true objectivity is possible in humans, including me. Some of his work appears to be decent work, and some of it does not. What is the meaning of this? His claims about the audibility of amplifiers seem to be compromised by small sample size and a prejudicial attitude. Since my only claim is that some amplifiers sound different and some don't, how much of a sample is needed once I've found amplifiers that fit in one category or the other? If you look at his posts on rec.audio.opinion regarding this subject, they are highly confrontational. As if Mr. Morien's comments aren't highly confrontational? To be a scientist is not like being an attorney. Arny's attitude is more like that of an attorney than a scientist. He casts himself as an advocate of the point of view that "all properly operating amplifiers of the same power class" sound the same. I get it, only opinions that Mr. Morien agrees with should be shared on rec.audio.opinion. An attorney is encouraged in his advocacy to use every trick of debate or logic to promote a point of view favorable to his client. Actually attorneys aren't supposed to use any trick that compromises justice and the integrity of the law. Therefore the claim that "An attorney is encouraged in his advocacy to use every trick of debate or logic to promote a point of view favorable to his client." is a false claim. By contrast, a scientist has an obligation to search for contradictions, to openly seek them out and investigate them. He is not an advocate of a theory; his job is to search out the truth. Ironic isn't it that with all his electronics expertise and laboratory full of sophisticated equipment, Morein can't seem to be able to do a proper level-matched, bias-controlled, time-synched listening test? When there is confusion in the mind of the investigator between above two roles, it becomes impossible to trust his validation of the myriad details of an experimental protocol. The most trustworthy investigator is one who doesn't care what the outcome is. The person who really doesn't care about the outcome of an experiment is very hard to find. Therefore, experimental protocols are adopted that will obtain reliable results even when conducted by people who desperately want results that conform to their previous beliefs. The middle ground usually gets lost in these debates. Personally, I am inclined to think that some amplifiers are very nearly perfect, and as a class are not likely to be distinguishable. There may be many other classes of amplifiers with similar defects, so that class members are not distinguishable. From my personal experience, I am inclined to think that most amplifiers which are considered to be of very high quality are in fact not perfect enough to rule out audible differences. The samples in my possession which are distinguishable to me have excellent specifications, which to me implies that current specs are not adequate to characterize amplifiers. The definitive experiments that would support or deny Morein's beliefs would be level-matched, bias-controlled, and time-synched. There's a detailed, relatively neutral document from a widely-recognized international standards group that goes into quite a bit of detail about how to properly do experiments of this kind. It's called EBU Recommendation BS 1116-2. Let Morien do experiments that meet this standard group's recommendation and report his results. |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: [omitted] You appear to postulate that Arny has claimed to constitute A scientist. It would assist greatly in making sense of your thread if you could substantiate that claim. To my knowledge - based on incomplete reading of the internet - Arny comes across as a computer technician/sound engineer and as an excellent source of knowhow, but I have no recollection of him ever claiming to be a scientist. [dangling remnants of topposting discarded] It is my impression that, as you say, Arny is a pretty competent engineer and, as you say, an excellent source of knowhow. On the group rec.audio.opinion, however, Arny promotes himself as someone who has done definitive studies of audibility of amplifiers, sound card, and so forth. The word "definitive" would be the author's perception, not anything based on facts. He chose this newsgroup because it has many people who are completely subjective and are incapable of performing any kind of experiment. Mr. Morien's ability to read my mind is pretty amazing, isn't it? First off, I didn't choose RAO, it was simply the first newsgroup that I posted to until I found out that there are a host of other audio-related newsgroups. Secondly, I currently post routinely to about a dozen or more audio newsgroups. Thirdly, Mr. Morien posts to RAO, and claims to be a scientist or at least a person who has placed himself of other people that he thinks are scientists. He claims to have competence in various fields of engineering and science. He claims that he can do a wide variety of experiments, yet he seems to be incapable of doing a simple level-matched, bias-controlled listening test, even with the full resources of www.pcabx.com at his disposal. The abundance of snake oil polarized Arny, but in doing so, he committed an error of extremism himself, and lost his objectivity. Where did I claim to be objective? For the record I don't think that true objectivity is possible in humans, including me. Some of his work appears to be decent work, and some of it does not. What is the meaning of this? His claims about the audibility of amplifiers seem to be compromised by small sample size and a prejudicial attitude. Since my only claim is that some amplifiers sound different and some don't, how much of a sample is needed once I've found amplifiers that fit in one category or the other? If you look at his posts on rec.audio.opinion regarding this subject, they are highly confrontational. As if Mr. Morien's comments aren't highly confrontational? To be a scientist is not like being an attorney. Arny's attitude is more like that of an attorney than a scientist. He casts himself as an advocate of the point of view that "all properly operating amplifiers of the same power class" sound the same. I get it, only opinions that Mr. Morien agrees with should be shared on rec.audio.opinion. An attorney is encouraged in his advocacy to use every trick of debate or logic to promote a point of view favorable to his client. Actually attorneys aren't supposed to use any trick that compromises justice and the integrity of the law. Therefore the claim that "An attorney is encouraged in his advocacy to use every trick of debate or logic to promote a point of view favorable to his client." is a false claim. By contrast, a scientist has an obligation to search for contradictions, to openly seek them out and investigate them. He is not an advocate of a theory; his job is to search out the truth. Ironic isn't it that with all his electronics expertise and laboratory full of sophisticated equipment, Morein can't seem to be able to do a proper level-matched, bias-controlled, time-synched listening test? When there is confusion in the mind of the investigator between above two roles, it becomes impossible to trust his validation of the myriad details of an experimental protocol. The most trustworthy investigator is one who doesn't care what the outcome is. The person who really doesn't care about the outcome of an experiment is very hard to find. Therefore, experimental protocols are adopted that will obtain reliable results even when conducted by people who desperately want results that conform to their previous beliefs. The middle ground usually gets lost in these debates. Personally, I am inclined to think that some amplifiers are very nearly perfect, and as a class are not likely to be distinguishable. There may be many other classes of amplifiers with similar defects, so that class members are not distinguishable. From my personal experience, I am inclined to think that most amplifiers which are considered to be of very high quality are in fact not perfect enough to rule out audible differences. The samples in my possession which are distinguishable to me have excellent specifications, which to me implies that current specs are not adequate to characterize amplifiers. The definitive experiments that would support or deny Morein's beliefs would be level-matched, bias-controlled, and time-synched. There's a detailed, relatively neutral document from a widely-recognized international standards group that goes into quite a bit of detail about how to properly do experiments of this kind. It's called EBU Recommendation BS 1116-2. Let Morien do experiments that meet this standard group's recommendation and report his results. |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message "Peter Larsen" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: [snip] Arny wrote: Since my only claim is that some amplifiers sound different and some don't, how much of a sample is needed once I've found amplifiers that fit in one category or the other? [snip] The first part of the above sentence is a quite moderate statement. The second part, involving sample size, is contemptuous of your duty as a self declared practitioner of the scientific method. I retrieved the following phrase from the below post that you authored: "All good accurate amplifiers sound the same whether they are based on tubes, bipolar transistors, FETs, ICs or combinations of them. BAD SCIENCE! "Accurate" is not a well defined term. Indeed, I would agree with the above statement, if it were agreed that there are no accurate amplifiers. If the term is amended to "reasonably accurate", then the boundaries of the class are in question. You have not been consistent on the subject. In other posts made by you, you have made statements about amplifier differentiation I would agree with. It would appear that the the position you take in a post depends upon who or what you are arguing about. Groups Advanced Groups Search Preferences Groups Help Groups search result 16 for amplifiers sound same group:rec.audio.opinion author:Arny author:Krueger . Industrial, Radio, Audio, Amps, Ham Thousands In Stock. All Brands . www.vacuumtubes.net Sponsored Links tube amplifier swiss made . phono-line-pre- & we300b-amplifier with transformer coupling. . www.da-vinci-audio.com 12AU7 / 5814 / ECC82 . 12AU7 tubes for high end audio. Low prices and next day shipping. . thetubestore.com Search Result 16 From: Arny Krueger ) Subject: Tube/Transistor sound View: Complete Thread (135 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion Date: 2003-01-29 19:26:03 PST "JeffD" wrote in message ... Hi -- just a quick question (maybe a stupid one, but I'm curious): Is there (or has there ever been) a solid-state Hi-Fi stereo amplifier or receiver that is/was regarded as having a "tube-like" sound quality? A number of them. If so, what about its design was responsible for that? It varied. I think a good question to ask is whether or not tubed amps and solid state amps necessarily sound different. The answer to this question has been investigated over the years and been found to be "no". All good accurate amplifiers sound the same whether they are based on tubes, bipolar transistors, FETs, ICs or combinations of them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Google Home - - Business Solutions - Services & Tools - Jobs, Press, & Help ©2003 Google |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message "Peter Larsen" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: [snip] Arny wrote: Since my only claim is that some amplifiers sound different and some don't, how much of a sample is needed once I've found amplifiers that fit in one category or the other? [snip] The first part of the above sentence is a quite moderate statement. The second part, involving sample size, is contemptuous of your duty as a self declared practitioner of the scientific method. I retrieved the following phrase from the below post that you authored: "All good accurate amplifiers sound the same whether they are based on tubes, bipolar transistors, FETs, ICs or combinations of them. BAD SCIENCE! "Accurate" is not a well defined term. Indeed, I would agree with the above statement, if it were agreed that there are no accurate amplifiers. If the term is amended to "reasonably accurate", then the boundaries of the class are in question. You have not been consistent on the subject. In other posts made by you, you have made statements about amplifier differentiation I would agree with. It would appear that the the position you take in a post depends upon who or what you are arguing about. Groups Advanced Groups Search Preferences Groups Help Groups search result 16 for amplifiers sound same group:rec.audio.opinion author:Arny author:Krueger . Industrial, Radio, Audio, Amps, Ham Thousands In Stock. All Brands . www.vacuumtubes.net Sponsored Links tube amplifier swiss made . phono-line-pre- & we300b-amplifier with transformer coupling. . www.da-vinci-audio.com 12AU7 / 5814 / ECC82 . 12AU7 tubes for high end audio. Low prices and next day shipping. . thetubestore.com Search Result 16 From: Arny Krueger ) Subject: Tube/Transistor sound View: Complete Thread (135 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion Date: 2003-01-29 19:26:03 PST "JeffD" wrote in message ... Hi -- just a quick question (maybe a stupid one, but I'm curious): Is there (or has there ever been) a solid-state Hi-Fi stereo amplifier or receiver that is/was regarded as having a "tube-like" sound quality? A number of them. If so, what about its design was responsible for that? It varied. I think a good question to ask is whether or not tubed amps and solid state amps necessarily sound different. The answer to this question has been investigated over the years and been found to be "no". All good accurate amplifiers sound the same whether they are based on tubes, bipolar transistors, FETs, ICs or combinations of them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Google Home - - Business Solutions - Services & Tools - Jobs, Press, & Help ©2003 Google |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bad Scientist Alert!
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message "Peter Larsen" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: [snip] Arny wrote: Since my only claim is that some amplifiers sound different and some don't, how much of a sample is needed once I've found amplifiers that fit in one category or the other? [snip] The first part of the above sentence is a quite moderate statement. The second part, involving sample size, is contemptuous of your duty as a self declared practitioner of the scientific method. I retrieved the following phrase from the below post that you authored: "All good accurate amplifiers sound the same whether they are based on tubes, bipolar transistors, FETs, ICs or combinations of them. As usual it's an out of context quote. Here's the context: "I think a good question to ask is whether or not tubed amps and solid state amps necessarily sound different. "The answer to this question has been investigated over the years and been found to be "no". "All good accurate amplifiers sound the same whether they are based on tubes, bipolar transistors, FETs, ICs or combinations of them. Clearly I was not primarily addressing the idea that all amps sound the same or they all sound different. I was pointing out that it is possible to build good amps using a variety of technologies. BAD SCIENCE! No, it's all about Morien's inability to read and/or ask for clarifications if he has relevant questions. It's also about his inability to consider context. "Accurate" is not a well defined term. The phrases "sonically accurate" and "sonic accuracy", which I use often and was obviously referring to, have a well-defined meaning. If you don't know what it is, ask! Indeed, I would agree with the above statement, if it were agreed that there are no accurate amplifiers. There are no perfectly accurate amplifiers but there are a goodly number of sonically accurate amplifiers. If the term is amended to "reasonably accurate", then the boundaries of the class are in question. Sorry Morien, but the phrase "sonically accurate" has been around for a long time, and has a well-understood meaning. I'm not going to stop using it, or derivatives of it because you can't remember what I said in the recent past and/or are unwilling to ask for clarifications for. You have not been consistent on the subject. I try! In other posts made by you, you have made statements about amplifier differentiation I would agree with. Does that prove that I'm inconsistent, or does it reflect on your inability to consider context, Morien? It would appear that the the position you take in a post depends upon who or what you are arguing about. I think that with your proven and recently demonstrated ability to grotesquely misrepresent what I've said Morien, there's nothing that I can do until you clean up your act! |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 1/5) | Car Audio | |||
| Help with setting up component system | Car Audio | |||
| Sound, Music, Balance | High End Audio | |||
| Need advice on setting up in-home system | Audio Opinions | |||
| Tannoy System 10 Dual Concentric Studio Monitors | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
