"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message
...

Actually, the reason that many of us unsubscribed from
RAO is
that it's 'regulars' are gullible idiots like Art
Sackman,
and pointless no-life cripples like Hiddius Gorge.


Thanks for admitting you incompetence. You can't
even fool gullible people.

This time only two copies of the same post. Art's on a roll!

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:07:05 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Use DBTs, and you'll realise that it also works the other
way - a $10,000 'designer label' CD player simply does *not* sound
better - or even different - than a $200 'Chinky cheapy' universal
player such as the Pioneer DV-575A. Of course, you don't get bragging
rights with the Pioneer........


Why not? I've been bragging ever since I got mine.

The rest of your post is wrong too.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:15:45 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


If you unsubscribed from RAO, Stewart, why are you cross-posting from
there?

I'm not, I'm posting from rec.audio.tech.

But still debating the same tired points with your old pals.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"EddieM" wrote in message
m

**** You.

Clearly posted in a moment of total clarity - Eddie style!
;-)

Please stop cross posting to aus.hifi.
Gordon

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:38:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:20:58 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:47:17 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Nowadays, they mostly don't. Most modern R&D in amps and CD players is
biased towards cost reduction. That's why my 'Chinky cheapy' Pioneer
DV-575A will play any kind of silver disc while providing sound
quality identical to that of a SOTA 'audiophile brand' CD player

Care to provide the dbt details that supports your statement?

Same protocol as always, and compared with a Meridian 588.

So, when you said "*a* SOTA 'audiophile brand' CD player", you were
speaking only of the Meridian, not any other player, right? It sounded
as if you were speaking "generally".

Nice try, but no cigar. I've compared numerous 'audiophile' players to
the Sony in the last five years, and the only one that sounded
different was the Audio Note - which is *seriously* broken! Even a
Naim CDX (IIRC) didn't sound different, although I have previously
heard Naims which were also somewhat broken in an attempt to sound
different from the 'common herd'. Having innards which are invariably
at least five years behind the mass market doesn't help, of course...
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:45:13 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:19:28 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:48:10 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their
expectations
in.
It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!!
ABX is hideously flawed.

Bull****. What you mean is that ABX doesn't support your absolute
knowledge that 'high-end' designer label gear *must* sound better than
'Chinky cheapies'.
--

It doesn't support it because it is inherently designed
to purposefully support the opposite conclusion.
It is NOT a neutral test. It does not remove
the expectation effects of those who
have preconceived notions that there are no differences.

Clearly you have no idea that these tests are used every day by major
audio manufacturers, for the precise purpose of *revealing* small but
real audible differences made by their R&D guys. Cretin.

And who are the subjects taking such tests?

The R&D engineers, and for final judgements, selected panels of
listeners.


Are they surveyed as to their
perconceptions?

Since the tests are blind, preconceptions are irrelevant. You never
did grasp the basics, did you Art?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:47:27 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Sure, it sounds the same to people who have
preconceived notions that it will sound the same.

It also sounds the same to gullible fools - they just refuse to
believe it, and shell out for fancy nameplates. It's a bit like the
idiots who buy 'designer label' plain white T-shirts for $40.


How the hell can you know that.

Easy - not one of you gullible fools has ever been able to tell the
difference, when you don't *know* what's playing. Granted, it does
make it more difficult when you stick your fingers in your ears and
sing the lala song.........................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:14:09 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:38:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:20:58 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:47:17 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Nowadays, they mostly don't. Most modern R&D in amps and CD players is
biased towards cost reduction. That's why my 'Chinky cheapy' Pioneer
DV-575A will play any kind of silver disc while providing sound
quality identical to that of a SOTA 'audiophile brand' CD player

Care to provide the dbt details that supports your statement?

Same protocol as always, and compared with a Meridian 588.

So, when you said "*a* SOTA 'audiophile brand' CD player", you were
speaking only of the Meridian, not any other player, right? It sounded
as if you were speaking "generally".

Nice try, but no cigar. I've compared numerous 'audiophile' players to
the Sony in the last five years, and the only one that sounded
different was the Audio Note - which is *seriously* broken! Even a
Naim CDX (IIRC) didn't sound different, although I have previously
heard Naims which were also somewhat broken in an attempt to sound
different from the 'common herd'. Having innards which are invariably
at least five years behind the mass market doesn't help, of course...

OK, dbt details please.

BTW, what do you mean by "nice try but no cigar"? I asked you for
details and you named only one player. So I was right that you WERE
speaking generally.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message



Easy - not one of you gullible fools has ever been able to
tell the difference, when you don't *know* what's playing.
Granted, it does make it more difficult when you stick
your
fingers in your ears and sing the lala
song.........................

Nice summary of the Middius crew's approach to reasoned
discussion of the topic.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:15:45 +0000 (UTC), Stewart
Pinkerton
wrote:


If you unsubscribed from RAO, Stewart, why are you
cross-posting from there?

I'm not, I'm posting from rec.audio.tech.

But still debating the same tired points with your old
pals.

You seem to enjoy teaming up with Middius, Paul.

Stewart "I'm a qualified physicist and an engineer" Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote
calcerise wrote:





Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
they should all sound the same according to tests.

And indeed the good ones *do*, if we're talking about *listening*
tests. I have a Sony CDP-715E, one of the best-performing players
Sony ever made, although lacking the 'battleship' build of the XA7ES,
I have access to a Meridian 588, probably the finest 'high tech' SOTA
CD player on the planet, and I also own a Pioneer DV-575A 'universal'
player that cost less than the quoted price of a new laser assembly
for the XA7ES. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.

Any reasonable person would most likely also ask that ... when you
were performing a level-matched blind listening test among your
three cd players namely:

1. Sony CDP-715E

2. Meridian 588

3. Pioneer DV-575A

Were you also comparing their sounds from each other?

I have no idea what that means.

I was wondering what exactly were you talking about when you said
you did a *listening* test as you had mentioned above. You said
that you did a *level-matched* blind listening test among the 3 players
and that towards the end, you concluded that all 3 sounded the same.
So I wonder how you carried out your test. Did you listen separately or
did you made an active comparison using a switch during the test?

Switched between two players at a time, (normally the Pioneer and any
'audiophile contender' nowadays, but the Meridian's been compared
against both Pioneer and Sony), using identical CD-Rs synchronised as
closely as possible, and with levels set to be the same +/- 0.1dB at
the speaker terminals, using -20dB test tones at 20Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz.
Since no statistically significant identification was possible, it
seems that the synch was adequate!

And how would a person go about concluding with reasonable expectation
that all three players will sound identical without having made an active
comparison

Irrelevant, given the existence of an 'active' comparison (whatever
that's supposed to mean). [...]


All I meant by that is whether you were actively making comparison between
the two or three player through a switching device during your test in order
to determine presence of subtle differences that may exist.

Why is that irrelevant for me to ask ?


[...] OTOH, anyone with any understanding of the
optics and electronics involved, would indeed expect that they would
most likely sound identical, unless one had a serious problem. Here's
a handy hint - many so-called 'high end' players *do* have serious
design problems, for which you are charged a stratospheric price!


As you're saying above, assuming your good understanding of the optics
and electronics involved influences you to reasonably conclude that the
three players would sound identical, how would you prevent yourself from
reasonably expecting that the three players would sound different when
performing a listening test without doing such thing as active comparison
using a switch during the test ?

How does using a switching device prevent you from the influences that
the three unit would not sound identical -- ?




Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


*****


Is there any particular reason why you, yet again, appear to be neglecting
to respond to the rather simple question I have for you above?

If your keybaord is malfunctioning, about how much more time do you
need ?

"Fella" wrote in message


Ok, so this must be trick no 2. You do this all the
time arny.

You're delusional, Fella.

I accepted my mistake with not seeing the word "in" in
pinkertons post. It was a mistake, this mr T pointed it
out,
and yes, I acknowledged it.

Only for the purpose of beating me up in this post.

The most important aspect here is that I did not do it
*intentionally*.

So you say. Yes Fella, you're as pure as the driven snow.
All of your misrepresntations of what I've said and what I
stand for are just "mistakes".

But you, arny, you have bad will,

Yes, I've gotten a lot of bad will from you Fella. You still
haven't apologized to me for the trouble your misake caused
me, but instead are trying make me look like I'm a bad guy
for being mislead by your mistake.

you are totaly bereft of any
kind of a human dignity whatsoever.

Yes Fella statements like this are typical of one gets from
people who are the salt of the earth. You make a mistake, I
call you for it, you never apologize to me for your mistake,
and then you try to turn your mistake and obfuscation of it
into some personal act of courage on your part. Middius is
no doubt very proud of you.

You intentionally twist
and pervert, you are one of lowest, cheapest kind of a
demagouge I've ever had the displeasure to meet.

Fella, have you no self-awareness at all? You just
described yourself!

All that matters for you is to "win" (hahaaa) these
"debates" in the
eyes of the other dumskull borgs that follow you to your
blind
alley..

Sue me for being mislead by your mistake, which you still
haven't properly apologized to me for, Fella.

How long ago did they remove your self-awareness?

If IRONY would...

Exactly. You're far worse than you make me out to be, Fella.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 05:11:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:15:45 +0000 (UTC), Stewart
Pinkerton
wrote:


If you unsubscribed from RAO, Stewart, why are you
cross-posting from there?

I'm not, I'm posting from rec.audio.tech.

But still debating the same tired points with your old
pals.

You seem to enjoy teaming up with Middius, Paul.

How do you draw that conclusion from my comment? There's no logical
connection.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 05:11:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:15:45 +0000 (UTC), Stewart
Pinkerton
wrote:


If you unsubscribed from RAO, Stewart, why are you
cross-posting from there?

I'm not, I'm posting from rec.audio.tech.

But still debating the same tired points with your old
pals.

You seem to enjoy teaming up with Middius, Paul.

How do you draw that conclusion from my comment? There's
no
logical connection.

Yeah, sure.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:00:14 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:14:09 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:38:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:20:58 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:47:17 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Nowadays, they mostly don't. Most modern R&D in amps and CD players is
biased towards cost reduction. That's why my 'Chinky cheapy' Pioneer
DV-575A will play any kind of silver disc while providing sound
quality identical to that of a SOTA 'audiophile brand' CD player

Care to provide the dbt details that supports your statement?

Same protocol as always, and compared with a Meridian 588.

So, when you said "*a* SOTA 'audiophile brand' CD player", you were
speaking only of the Meridian, not any other player, right? It sounded
as if you were speaking "generally".

Nice try, but no cigar. I've compared numerous 'audiophile' players to
the Sony in the last five years, and the only one that sounded
different was the Audio Note - which is *seriously* broken! Even a
Naim CDX (IIRC) didn't sound different, although I have previously
heard Naims which were also somewhat broken in an attempt to sound
different from the 'common herd'. Having innards which are invariably
at least five years behind the mass market doesn't help, of course...

OK, dbt details please.

You've seen them posted dozens of times, so stop whining. Same
proptocols every time, and except for the broken by design 'high end'
model noted, the results are always the same - no statistically
significant difference.

BTW, what do you mean by "nice try but no cigar"? I asked you for
details and you named only one player. So I was right that you WERE
speaking generally.

As you are perfectly well aware, I *was* speaking generally, because
I've not only tested *one* 'audiophile' player. Just because you whine
and cry about 'details', doesn't mean that anyone is obliged to supply
them.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:53:10 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Nice try, but no cigar. I've compared numerous 'audiophile' players to
the Sony in the last five years, and the only one that sounded
different was the Audio Note - which is *seriously* broken! Even a
Naim CDX (IIRC) didn't sound different, although I have previously
heard Naims which were also somewhat broken in an attempt to sound
different from the 'common herd'. Having innards which are invariably
at least five years behind the mass market doesn't help, of course...

OK, dbt details please.

You've seen them posted dozens of times,

Actually I haven't. That's why I asked.

so stop whining. Same
proptocols every time, and except for the broken by design 'high end'
model noted, the results are always the same - no statistically
significant difference.

OK, you don't want to be responsive. That's fine.

BTW, what do you mean by "nice try but no cigar"? I asked you for
details and you named only one player. So I was right that you WERE
speaking generally.

As you are perfectly well aware,

I am NOT perfectly aware. I don't think I've EVER read anything from
you regarding hear-to-head dbts of CD players. The only thing I
remember from you is something about having a lesser Denon CD player
in your kitchen (lesser than the one I had for years, that is).

I *was* speaking generally, because
I've not only tested *one* 'audiophile' player. Just because you whine
and cry about 'details', doesn't mean that anyone is obliged to supply
them.

No, you're not obliged to supply anything. And if asking you about
details of controversial statements is "whining", well then Stewart,
that's a perceptual problem from you. If want to bring your ground axe
to this discussion, you're welcome to. But, absent any relevant
details, I'll just take your comments as unsupported opinion.

Stewart "I'm a qualified physicist and an engineer" Pinkerton wrote

EddieM wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote
EddieM wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote
calcerise wrote:





Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
they should all sound the same according to tests.

And indeed the good ones *do*, if we're talking about *listening*
tests. I have a Sony CDP-715E, one of the best-performing players
Sony ever made, although lacking the 'battleship' build of the XA7ES,
I have access to a Meridian 588, probably the finest 'high tech' SOTA
CD player on the planet, and I also own a Pioneer DV-575A 'universal'
player that cost less than the quoted price of a new laser assembly
for the XA7ES. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.


snip

*****


I am so deeply disturbed with your sudden reluctance to discuss
your listening test further.

I am troubled, and sadden in coming to realize your unwillingness
to add just a few more tiny, itty-bitty details regarding your blind-
listening procedure.

I am discomforted and I wonder if there still more possible ways
to clarify and to elucidate how the test you perform demonstrated
how your cd players would have, indeed, sound identical.


Is it because that you are no longer proud of your blind-listening test,
and wish no longer to share them with audiophiles at Rao ?




Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


*****


Again, if your keyboard is functioning erratically, say it so with a
short note describing it so.

"EddieM" wrote in message
m

I am so deeply disturbed with your sudden reluctance to
discuss
your listening test further.

Eddie, why don't you tell us about your last listening test?

Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote



I am so deeply disturbed with your sudden reluctance to
discuss your listening test further.

Eddie, why don't you tell us about your last listening test?


Of what ??

"EddieM" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote



I am so deeply disturbed with your sudden reluctance to
discuss your listening test further.

Eddie, why don't you tell us about your last listening
test?

Of what ??

If I have to tell you Eddie, then you obviously lack what it
takes to play.

Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote
Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote



I am so deeply disturbed with your sudden reluctance to
discuss your listening test further.

Eddie, why don't you tell us about your last listening
test?

Of what ??

If I have to tell you Eddie, then you obviously lack what it
takes to play.



Play? Yes ! I almost forgot. I forgot that you always wanted to play
'cause you're here for "FUN" as you said, right?


Well, don't blame me for straying off and carelessly roam unto the
crumbled and mangled intellect of Mr. Pinkerton. His everlasting
drunken stupor is a wonder for everyone to behold at Rao.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 04:44:07 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote
Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote



I am so deeply disturbed with your sudden reluctance to
discuss your listening test further.

Eddie, why don't you tell us about your last listening
test?

Of what ??

If I have to tell you Eddie, then you obviously lack what it
takes to play.



Play? Yes ! I almost forgot. I forgot that you always wanted to play
'cause you're here for "FUN" as you said, right?


Well, don't blame me for straying off and carelessly roam unto the
crumbled and mangled intellect of Mr. Pinkerton. His everlasting
drunken stupor is a wonder for everyone to behold at Rao.

Hi Gorge, I thought that was your hand in the EddieM sock. Now creep
off, crip.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote



Hi Gorge, I thought that was your hand in the EddieM sock. Now creep
off, crip.

Not really trying to chastise you out from your state of eternal confusion,
but now that you keyboard seem to work again, what else can you add
about your blind-listening experiment concerning the three aforementioned
cd players you spoke about ?


How's it say, let's start a brand new subthread.


Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Arny Krueger wrote:
"EddieM" wrote in message
m

I am so deeply disturbed with your sudden reluctance to
discuss
your listening test further.

Eddie, why don't you tell us about your last listening test?

Why don't you stop cross posting this to Aus.Hi-Fi?

Clyde still doesn't get it:

Now, as far as DBT and its removal of expectation effects,
for the purposes of audio purchase decisions, a
test subject would tend to have fairly strong preconceptions
about whether there might be inherent differences
between two items


AS far as manufacturer's using DBT in support of
parts or decsign decisions, the test subjets
are likely to have minimal preconcptions
over whatever is being tested.

Which is precisely why DBT's are used for things like cel phones and
hearing aids. They allow subtle differences to be heard if they are
actually present.

The issue of preconceptions has been addressed, simply supply some
audible difference, unbeknownst to the listener and see if it shows up
in the responses.

jeffc whined:

Like most "objectivists" you're ignoring reality to push your own
prejudices, and bitching about listening to music because it doesn't support
your fantasizing about measuring equipment. What is it exactly that makes
you think perfectly normal people can't simply hear things? What are you SO
afraid of exactly?

The fact that people have very short memory of what they hear. Whay is
it that is so scary about simply using your ears to do a comparison?
All the rest is bull****. If you want to know if things sound the same
or different, you use your ears, and only your ears.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote



Hi Gorge, I thought that was your hand in the EddieM sock. Now creep
off, crip.

Not really trying to chastise you out from your state of eternal confusion,
but now that you keyboard seem to work again, what else can you add
about your blind-listening experiment concerning the three aforementioned
cd players you spoke about ?


How's it say, let's start a brand new subthread.


****

What happened? Still nothing?

Are you emblazing yourself in order to flaunt accross audio newsgroups
your unheralded mastery in the fine art of tucking a tail between the legs ?

Do you know what the word "coward" means? Around here, it's about
the same as koward which happen to rhyme with "Howard".

Anyway, you've probably taught yourself the aforestated art from that
rec.audio."low-end" pub you frequent . Go on now, go back there and
curl up in shelter under that big mommy Dress.



Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 16 Jul 2005 01:29:20 -0700, "Ayn Marx"
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"EddieM" wrote in message
m

I am so deeply disturbed with your sudden reluctance to
discuss
your listening test further.

Eddie, why don't you tell us about your last listening test?

Why don't you stop cross posting this to Aus.Hi-Fi?

Why don't you go shoot the idiot who named you? BTW, who elected you
gatekeeper of Oz?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewbie said:

Well, don't blame me for straying off and carelessly roam unto the
crumbled and mangled intellect of Mr. Pinkerton. His everlasting
drunken stupor is a wonder for everyone to behold at Rao.

Hi Gorge, I thought that was your hand in the EddieM sock. Now creep
off, crip.

The first RAOer to make an issue of your chronic drunkenness was trotsky.
Maybe you should unmask both me and Eddie as Gregipus, hmmm? Or better yet,
accuse all three of us of channeling Zippy, who also spotted you as an
abuser. (Set an addict to catch an addict, and you'll never go wrong.)

Pukey said:

Why don't you stop cross posting this to Aus.Hi-Fi?

Why don't you go shoot the idiot who named you?

I say -- that's humor, wot? This is what distinguishes you so readily from
the likes of the Krooborg and Tommi "Audio is a deadly serious business"
Nousiane.

BTW, who elected you gatekeeper of Oz?

Good question. I'll bet it wasn't Bwian McLardass.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 07:17:30 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Stewbie said:

Well, don't blame me for straying off and carelessly roam unto the
crumbled and mangled intellect of Mr. Pinkerton. His everlasting
drunken stupor is a wonder for everyone to behold at Rao.

Hi Gorge, I thought that was your hand in the EddieM sock. Now creep
off, crip.

The first RAOer to make an issue of your chronic drunkenness was trotsky.
Maybe you should unmask both me and Eddie as Gregipus, hmmm? Or better yet,
accuse all three of us of channeling Zippy, who also spotted you as an
abuser. (Set an addict to catch an addict, and you'll never go wrong.)

Zip had the grace to apologise before his untimely demise, you other
interchangeable sockpuppets have no excuse for your scumminess.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Slimey Scummerton said:

The first RAOer to make an issue of your chronic drunkenness was trotsky.
Maybe you should unmask both me and Eddie as Gregipus, hmmm? Or better yet,
accuse all three of us of channeling Zippy, who also spotted you as an
abuser. (Set an addict to catch an addict, and you'll never go wrong.)

Zip had the grace to apologise before his untimely demise, you other
interchangeable sockpuppets have no excuse for your scumminess.

Oh, so now everybody who dares to point out your monumental hypocrisy is
an "interchangeable sockpuppet".

How about the others who have tired of trying to hold you accountable for
your contradictions and double-talk? Bruce, dave, Marc, Jason -- all
"interchangeable sockpuppets"?

BTW, you might want to recalibrate your "scumminess" scale. You're the one
who's always throwing up on your own shoes.

Sadner said:

With CD players, the only 2 examples I know of are the Rega Planet
(earlier versions) and the Ah Tjoeb 99, which was in fact a lower-end
Marantz with an added tube stage.


Both weren't kilobuck players, BTW.


Sander I know for a fact that Kinergetics used an $80.00 Phillips in
their $600.00 CD player they sold some 20 years ago. True they added
about 2 cents worth of wire looped into a coil and a couple of chip
resistors, then put it in one of their boxes with their logo, but the
essence was a Phillips player. Their price was high for for the
Phillips because the weren't buyng them wholesale but through a
middleman. I know this because I was in the factory and saw it being
done. At the time they also made some sort of equipment for off shore
oil drilling which was their main business.

Clyde said:



Now, as far as DBT and its removal of expectation effects,
for the purposes of audio purchase decisions, a
test subject would tend to have fairly strong preconceptions
about whether there might be inherent differences
between two items


AS far as manufacturer's using DBT in support of
parts or decsign decisions, the test subjets
are likely to have minimal preconcptions
over whatever is being tested.




Rao's A #1 repugnant Jerk-off, prone to eating bugs, puke and disgorge:



Which is precisely why DBT's are used for things like cel phones and
hearing aids. They allow subtle differences to be heard if they are
actually present.

The issue of preconceptions has been addressed, simply supply some
audible difference, unbeknownst to the listener and see if it shows up
in the responses.


Your above series of statements is precisely the reason why you are
a ****in asshole. The issue addressed above regards the
comparable differences when executing DBT for the purpose of
Audio Purchases vs DBT for the purposes of supporting mfr.'s R & D.

Tell me, ****in asshole, on what basis and how the ****in preconception
have been addressed, ?

EddieM said:

Your above series of statements is precisely the reason why you are
a ****in asshole. The issue addressed above regards the
comparable differences when executing DBT for the purpose of
Audio Purchases vs DBT for the purposes of supporting mfr.'s R & D.

You may not be aware of this, but some years ago, Turdborg actually
Kroo-klaimed that a designer's objectives are exactly congruent to a
consumer's. Perhaps Mickey has been mainlining some Kroo-turds and that's
why he's spewing such idiotic crap.

jeffc wrote





Like most "objectivists" you're ignoring reality to push your own
prejudices, and bitching about listening to music because it doesn't
support your fantasizing about measuring equipment.



The insuppressibly defective mental moron named Stewart "I'm a qualified
physicist" Pinkerton type:



ABX is a *listening* test, moron.


No you mentally defective moron. The so-called ABX is a
ridiculous listening "test" to "measure" or quantify sound
differences.


If it's all about listening, what the **** are you testing ?




Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



Now reread the rest of what you had said, but please come back.

jeffc said:




Like most "objectivists" you're ignoring reality to push your own
prejudices, and bitching about listening to music because it doesn't support
your fantasizing about measuring equipment. What is it exactly that makes
you think perfectly normal people can't simply hear things? What are you SO
afraid of exactly?




The exceptionally indolent imbecile replied:


The fact that people have very short memory of what they hear.



Long-term memory ?







The rest of what you said below are well-formed contextual bull****
put forth by your descending colon.



Whay is it that is so scary about simply using your ears to do a comparison?
All the rest is bull****. If you want to know if things sound the same
or different, you use your ears, and only your ears.

George M. Middius said
EddieM said:




Your above series of statements is precisely the reason why you are
a ****in asshole. The issue addressed above regards the
comparable differences when executing DBT for the purpose of
Audio Purchases vs DBT for the purposes of supporting mfr.'s R & D.

You may not be aware of this, but some years ago, Turdborg actually
Kroo-klaimed that a designer's objectives are exactly congruent to a
consumer's. Perhaps Mickey has been mainlining some Kroo-turds and
that's why he's spewing such idiotic crap.


I'm quite positive he's putting his cephalic vein to good use.

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Of course, your suggestion that I was incorrect held no weight with
any reader on any forum, given your complete ignorance of modern electronic
devices and their technical features. It is this point where I am most
incensed.

Most incensed? Get a life.

You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT
ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick
Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd.

It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem.
However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a
speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the
protection circuits are doing.

As for you being correct, for all of my limitations I do not
make silly claims about amplifier and wire "sound" as you
have in the past. I do not offer up a bill of goods to
customers who are perceived as big-spending suckers.

**Indeed. They sound identical to other amplifiers which measure
identically
to them. There has never been any argument over this point.

Yeah, but below a certain point ultra-super measurements are
gilding the lily. I claim that even a good, mid-priced
receiver will have as good an amplifier sound as your exotic
amp.

**You may make as many claims as you wish. You're still operating from a
point of ignorance.

Like the subjectivists, I hear what I hear. Unlike most
subjectivists, however, I do not hear the artifacts that you
and your kind claim inhabit amps and wires.

Add to that the existence of a preamp section, surround
sound (still more channels) and a tuner, and the receiver
wins the contest, hands down. Your amp is a money pit.

**Really? Let's talk about obsolescence sometime. See how much a 5 year old
receiver sells for. Then go price a 10 year old Krell. The Krell will have
hled more of it's value than your 5 year old receiver.

So what? Are you saying that people are purchasing gear in
order to sell it down the line? Oops, I forgot that you are
a hi-fi salesman.

In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an
overpriced item that appeals to suckers. Smart shoppers get
an upscale receiver and use the money saved to purchase more
recordings. If they are equipment junkies they can use the
money saved to get better speakers, subwoofers, etc.

**IF I had said such a thing (which I have not), then you would be
entitled
to say so.

OK, so your amp sounds like all other good amps.

**No. It sounds like all other amps which posses IDENTICAL specs.

And I'll bet that no other amp out there has such specs.
Actually, even specs are suspect, because there is a point
beyond which it makes no sense to go. That is, even if your
amp has superior specs compared to most others those specs
live in a realm that is beneath the point where they would
be audible.

**Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how
SOME
cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times.

Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp.

**Actually, not that far. Depending on the speaker, of course. And that
is
the difference between you and me. You state, unequivocally, that speaker
cables are all the same. I argue that certain systems can benefit from
low
inductance cables. IOW: You are wrong.

Such speaker systems are too problematic to fool with.

**That is an opinion you get to have. It is not one shared by many
listeners.

The hobby is infested with deluded people. Many, if not
most, so-called serious audio enthusiasts are jerks with too
much spare cash.

Just
how long a speaker run are we talking about, by the way.

**Is that a question, Mr Professional Writer?

OK, you tweako sales clerk: just how long a speaker WIRE run
are we talking about? By the way, I am retired and not a
professional writer. However, at least, unlike you, I have
published material.

**See what I mean? I prove you wrong. Completely, utterly wrong and you
insult me. That is what I am talking about. You are a nasty individual.

It takes a nasty individual to deal with the tweakos and con
artists occupying audio these days. Frankly, I would prefer
that the FBI do the work, but they are occupied elsewhere.

Try
and stay on topic and keep to the facts. I proved you wrong. You know (or
shoudl know it) and everyone else knows it. You should cut your losses and
admit it.

Well, I misunderstood the poster's question and got myself
off on a tangent. You popped up and I remembered what kind
of person you were and got even further off on a tangent.
People like you do that sort of thing to me.

Well, they will do me no harm, whatsoever.

**Very likely true. You are already a laughing stock. You can't sink much
lower.

Four books and one big technical editing job completed,
tweako, plus 170+ magazine articles. Not bad work for a
laughing stock, tweako.

On the other
hand, you will at least lose some points in your home area
because of your performance here. I suggest you cut and run
while you have the chance.

**You know very little about me. I don't cut and run from someone who is
wrong.

There is no figuring the ignorant man.

I will continue to attack, until you admit your mistakes and
apologise. I will not stop.

There is also no figuring the fanatical man.

I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at
matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies
notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their
respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird
speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the
speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are
conventional amps out there that are also able to handle
rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is
still nothing exotic about their design.

**How would you know?

They sounded the same as all the others, tweako.

**I'll ask the question again: How would you know?

I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but the stuff sounded
the same. Oops, a subjectivist would have claimed that they
sounded different, with a favored model having all sorts of
mesmerizing sound qualities. Yeah, I am a subjectivist down
deep, but unlike most other subjectivists I am not deluded.

I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if
your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong
with it.

**IOW: You don't know.

Well, you are the guy who claims that the amp sounds
"better" than most of the competition. If the competition
all sounds pretty much the same, I think that we can
conclude that those amps sound that way because they have
inaudible distortion. I mean what is the chance that all of
those somewhat different topologies all had identical
audible distortions?

**Very high, since all use similar topologies, WRT Global NFB.

So what. They still are built differently enough for audible
artifacts to allow them to sound at least a tad different.
They do not, and when a con artist like you says that his
very special amp has advantages over them, I roll my eyes
and remember just how much of a bad joke this hobby has
become.

If your amp sounds different from the
crowd, as far as I am concerned it is less accurate than
they.

**And again, you speak from a position of ignorance.

Nobody is fully free of ignorance, but at least I am honest
in my claims. I do not con people into spending big on
overkill items.

Hey, I never said it would not shut down. I simply said that
at any level it would not be able to put any sound into the
speakers.

**The poster said that the amp did not shut down 'till moderate levels were
reached. You claimed that this was not possible.

Well, I do not remember saying that. But if I did I was
wrong. In any case, there should have been no sound coming
from the speaker hooked up to the offending, near-shorted
line.

This would be the case, because the VAST bulk of
the current flow would be through the shorted-together lead
in parallel with the speaker.

**The vast bulk of the output from ONE CHANNEL. The other channels would be
unaffected (within reason).

Good point. I suppose that would result in noise from those
other channels. But I was talking about amps in general.
You, on the other hand, are working to build up points with
customers.

**I will admit that all amps, which demonstrate identical specs, do,
indeed,
sound identical.

And now I suppose you are going to say that your very
special amp has specs that are superior to all (or at least
most) others. My contention, however, is that once you get
below a certain audibility threshold all amps, including
yours, assuming it is properly designed, sound the same - at
least with standard speaker loads and below clipping levels.

**What is a "standard speaker load"? How can you guarantee that an amp
remains below clipping at ALL times?

Well, you cannot? However, I think that most people vastly
overestimate the amount of power they need to achieve decent
sound levels in normal listening rooms. Going beyond that
point is overkill. Also, going below distortion requirements
that are not all that low to begin with is also overkill.
Frankly, I think the whole issue boils down to economics:
people want to sell amps and wires, and they will do or say
what it takes to do so, even to the point of believing their
own nonsense.

As for whether they REALLY believe all the poppycock, I
could not say. Some no doubt are full-tilt con artists, but
others may be as deluded as their customers.

decently thick lamp cord works as well as
exotic speaker wire.

**For most systems, yes. For SOME systems, no.

Systems that nobody would use in a typical home-listening
environment.

**Wrong.

I'll wager that under most listening conditions with those
special speakers (with runs that are not ridiculously long)
even YOU would not be able to tell the difference between
heavy lamp cord and your "special" and expensive wire. And
even if by some miracle you could hear a difference you
would not be able to tell which is best. Frankly, it makes
no sense at all to invest in speakers that require weird
wire to operate optimally.

Tell me, just how often do you recommend heavy
lamp cord for typical home installations?

**Pretty much every day, in fact. It's all most people need for their crappy
surround sound systems. Anything else is massive over-kill.

Ah, crappy surround-sound systems. This is it in a nutshell:
you are basically saying that most people listen to junk,
and so lamp cord is OK. However, for really discriminating
people (like you) only the exotic wires will work with those
demanding exotic speakers. What bunk.

Do you push the
exotic stuff even in those more mundane situations, as well
as in these situations that involve SOME systems?

**Nope. Never. In fact, I never "push" fancy speaker cables. Depending on
the system, I may make a reccommendation for low inductance speaker cables.

Hair splitting: pushing vs recommending. Funny how language
can make a con artist feel good about what he does.

I even suggest where people can buy those cables. Dick Smith Electronics is
one of the outlets I suggest. Which, of course, you'd know, if you did even
a modicum of research. DSE sell the fancy, low inductance cable for 4 Bucks
a Metre. Google it, if you don't beleive me.

Thick lamp cord sells here in the USA for about 30 cents a
foot. I'd choose that over your fancy stuff and use the
change to purchase more recordings.

If you say that I will apologize for
what I have written about you.

**No, you won't. You're pig-ignorant. You will NEVER apologise to me.

Well, not now I won't.

**You have managed to meet my expectations of you.

And, as usual, you have met mine, tweako.

Howard Ferstler

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
because there is something seriously wrong with it.

Here I have two exactly the same Pioneer receivers, which, by your
previous admission, will sound adequate enough.
One of the two has both its tone controls set to 3 o'clock, the tone
controls of the other amp are in straight position.
They both sound different on the same speakers.

Is there something seriously wrong with amp nr. 1 or amp nr. 2?
And why?

Properly align the tone controls on the first receiver,
tweako. Even you should realize that cranking over the tone
controls will make that receiver sound different from the
one with the controls nulled out.

Howard Ferstler