In article , says...



You've got me confused with a stopped-up toilet.

Don't be hurt, Arnii. It's a natural mistake to make. ;-)


The pot floweth over in the floor
And the stench is hard to ignore.
Such a terrible aroma..
Could send you in a coma
An' it flows from Arny and Tor.

Hammingaway Inc.

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...


If I was going to test tubes for being microphonic, I'd
put the equipment under test in a sound field that was
created by a different set of equipment playing
different music, and listen to the equipment under test
with no music playing at all, or while playing some
other music so that any sounds that were created by the
microphonic effect, would really stand out.


Good. Perhaps you should note on your website this type
of distortion is not covered by your procedure, and if
severe could be audible.

You've got me confused with someone who takes tubed
equipment seriously.


Hey.. don't be egocentric AK.

OK, I'll leave being egocentric to you.

The caveat would be for the benefit of and in fairness to
your users.

My users????

Or is your preference all that matters to you?

For the same functionality, SS equipment reproduces music
more accurately, is far more reliable, and even costs less.
Is choosing SS all about preference, or do practical
considerations count as something else?

`Your answer should be interesting, or is it time
to duck out again?

So says someone who hides behind a silly alias.

jclause said:

You've got me confused with a stopped-up toilet.

Don't be hurt, Arnii. It's a natural mistake to make. ;-)

The pot floweth over in the floor
And the stench is hard to ignore.
Such a terrible aroma..
Could send you in a coma
An' it flows from Arny and Tor.


Now ‘borgs are as stubborn as donkeys
And smarts-wise they’re nothing but pygmies
They run quick to their mommies
In fact they’re just pussies
‘Cause their “tests” are as stinky as, uh, floobies. G

In article , says...

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...


If I was going to test tubes for being microphonic, I'd
put the equipment under test in a sound field that was
created by a different set of equipment playing
different music, and listen to the equipment under test
with no music playing at all, or while playing some
other music so that any sounds that were created by the
microphonic effect, would really stand out.


Good. Perhaps you should note on your website this type
of distortion is not covered by your procedure, and if
severe could be audible.

You've got me confused with someone who takes tubed
equipment seriously.


Hey.. don't be egocentric AK.

OK, I'll leave being egocentric to you.

The caveat would be for the benefit of and in fairness to
your users.

My users????


Those using your ABX test. Just answer the question please.


Or is your preference all that matters to you?

For the same functionality, SS equipment reproduces music
more accurately, is far more reliable, and even costs less.
Is choosing SS all about preference, or do practical
considerations count as something else?


Shopenhammer # ? In other words, since you prefer solid
state, you will not provide the caveat above?



`Your answer should be interesting, or is it time
to duck out again?

So says someone who hides behind a silly alias.


Are you saying no one else here has claimed you duck out?

JC the elder

In article , says...



jclause said:

You've got me confused with a stopped-up toilet.

Don't be hurt, Arnii. It's a natural mistake to make. ;-)

The pot floweth over in the floor
And the stench is hard to ignore.
Such a terrible aroma..
Could send you in a coma
An' it flows from Arny and Tor.


Now ‘borgs are as stubborn as donkeys
And smarts-wise they’re nothing but pygmies
They run quick to their mommies
In fact they’re just pussies
‘Cause their “tests” are as stinky as, uh, floobies. G


Let me say this now with a wink
“ES” could have done better I think ::G::
Your heart's in the right place
But you could use some grace,
'cause your rhymin' could drive a man to drink.

Hammingaway Inc.

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:
As Mr. Sullivan, an impassioned advocate of blind testing, had
introduced the subject of listening test experience, it seems
reasonable to ask Mr. Sullivan about his own experience?

My primary experience with ABX is in comparing sound files.
I have certainly achieved both positive (comparing re-EQed
remasters, or mediocre MP3s to source) and negative (e.g.
bit-identical 'remasters', high-quality MP3 to source) results.

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. (Though I must admit, I am not sure
what you mean by "bit-identical" MP3s. Do you mean losslessly
compressed files?)

No, I meant
1) bit identical 'remasters'
and
2) high-quality MP3s


Lacking an ABX box, or a means for quick randomized
switching, I haven't any component comparisons
worth mentioning.

And as I have been pointing out to you, arranging such a
test of _real_ components without introducing interfering
variables is difficult and time-consuming.

Yes , but so are most scientific experiments. Btu given that
your two pronged refrain in the face of a DBT advocacy seems to be
1) many DBTs you know of were poorly set up
2) even when they;re not, they're not to be believed
if they contradict the results of 'sighted listening',
especially long-term listening

I have to wonder why Stereophile doesn't back up these
claims by consuming the time and effort to do so.

I should remind
you of the parable I told at the HE2005 debate: that in
essence, the man with limited or no experience is more
confident of his knowledge than the man _with_ such
experience.

I don't recall that particular parable -- I do remember
your tale of two amps that *seemed* not sound different,
but which you decided later, did....but in
any case, alas, parables aren't proof. And as I mentioned
in my question to you about that *other* tale, it wasn't
exactly proof of your claim, either.

Now, have you heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes....?




--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:
As Mr. Sullivan, an impassioned advocate of blind testing, had
introduced the subject of listening test experience, it seems
reasonable to ask Mr. Sullivan about his own experience?

My primary experience with ABX is in comparing sound files.
I have certainly achieved both positive (comparing re-EQed
remasters, or mediocre MP3s to source) and negative (e.g.
bit-identical 'remasters', high-quality MP3 to source) results.

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. (Though I must admit, I am not sure
what you mean by "bit-identical" MP3s. Do you mean losslessly
compressed files?)

No, I meant
1) bit identical 'remasters'
and
2) high-quality MP3s


Lacking an ABX box, or a means for quick randomized
switching, I haven't any component comparisons
worth mentioning.

And as I have been pointing out to you, arranging such a
test of _real_ components without introducing interfering
variables is difficult and time-consuming.

Yes , but so are most scientific experiments. Btu given that
your two pronged refrain in the face of a DBT advocacy seems to be
1) many DBTs you know of were poorly set up
2) even when they;re not, they're not to be believed
if they contradict the results of 'sighted listening',
especially long-term listening

I have to wonder why Stereophile doesn't back up these
claims by consuming the time and effort to do so.

I should remind
you of the parable I told at the HE2005 debate: that in
essence, the man with limited or no experience is more
confident of his knowledge than the man _with_ such
experience.

I don't recall that particular parable -- I do remember
your tale of two amps that *seemed* not sound different,
but which you decided later, did....but in
any case, alas, parables aren't proof. And as I mentioned
in my question to you about that *other* tale, it wasn't
exactly proof of your claim, either.

Now, have you heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes....?


Atkinson thought it a Savile Row suit! :-D

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said to ****-for-Brains:

It is true that I am not all that rich. Not even close.
But I don't spend much on audio equipment.
Lots less than you do.

HardlyT Mr. Slickman when you, consider the quantity of sound cards Arnii
owns. Arnii's cost per unit is very very low. He sound cards, power
amplifiers, and microphones stacked up to the ceiling. And how much did
Mr. **** pay for all those 100's and 100's of fabulous high-tech items?
Krooger will tell you the *cost per unit* is very low. This is the
important fact. You spend as much as $2000 on a SINGLE item such as a
power amplifier, but Krooger spends the same amount and has dozens of
separate items to show for it. Who's the smarter buyer Mr. Clyde?



Let's apply Pewkie's hp/ltr analogy. LOL!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


Which raises an interesting question: What is Art's real name?

John Parcher.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Margaret von B." wrote in message
.. .
What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about a car race,
starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he really capable of outrunning a
500 hp AMG Mercedes with his little Audi?


Obviously, the "Merc" driver didn't want to get too close
to the drunk, so he stayed a safe distance behind.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:33:26 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
m...

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the
'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias.
That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.


DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Use some logic and common sense, boy.
Your expectation is that
there would be no difference, either sighted or blind.

Typical horsehit from Sad Sack. I *always* expect differnces under
sighted conditions - that's what makes it useless.

Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?

The irony of it all!!
Those are the ones who spend more time and effort
taking those tests.

Bull**** - we certainly *proctor* tests where we don't expect
difference, but I've never actually *taken* one where I felt there was
no possibility of difference.


I don't believe that your self analysis is at all honest.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:41:35 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


Doesn't matter. The question is *first*, whether there was any
real audible differemce *at all*, not whether it turned your preference
one way or another. Nor, it seems, did you bother level-matching,
another elementary precaution before concluding 'difference exists'.

Level matching? I wasn't A/Bing here, I was enjoying music in the way
it was meant to be enjoyed, sitting back in a recliner eyes closed
with no thought but for how well, or otherwise, I could picture the
orchestra before me. Was I thinking of any of Arny's infernal
machines? Not on your nelly!

Which brings me to my next confusion:

No, I think you shoudl stop right here, and re-assess your current
'knowledge' in light of long-standing tenets of perceptual
psychology.

I think I "shoudl" be allowed to keep going, perceptual psychology or
no. :-)

No one can stop you from flaunting ignorance here.

Nor you.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:45:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 05:49:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


I confess I have a veritable hive of confusions about
this whole ABX thing.

Listening to Middius' prattle will do that to a naive
person.

Still on about my imagined alliance with Middius? I do my
own thinking.

OK Paul, the fact that you behave like you were programmed
like Middius kinda faked me ou.

Sound you "t"s, Arnie.


Firstly, I don't understand why
A/Bing never seems to show up any but the grossest
differences; I only know it doesn't. How do I know that?
Because I only have to play one 5 minute track off any
CD through the two components in question to easily
perceive the difference--the difference that was not at
all apparent on A/B switching.

It still gives me more pleasure and thus serves the ends
of
the hobby. In other words, if it sounds better to me, why
should it bother you?

It doesn't bother me at all. I see tons of people with far
more serious problems than amplifier mystecism all the time.
Their gun, their bullet, their foot.

Snotty, Arnie. Snotty and silly, a terrible combination

For myself I'm a cheapskate.
I'd prefer to believe that the cheapest items are as
good as the other sort given similar specs;

What's this fascination with similar specs?

Just another way of saying "All things being equal..."

Try saying something accurate and meaningful, just for
grins...

Double snotty.


Audiophile listening tests are often crap anyway, because
audiophiles tend to evaluate equipment with music that
makes it sound good, when the more difficult test often
involves music that makes it sound bad.

See what I mean? The "favorite track" myth rides again.
Often if you want to actually hear a difference between
amps, you may easily end up listening to your
least-favorte track. You know, the one that tends to
make your system sound like **** because it stresses it
so much.

"Favourite track" is just an expression. Often I'll use a
least favourite track, as you suggest something that
stresses the system. Don't be too literal, Arnie.

Nex time try saying something accurate and meaningful, just
for grins...

Triple snotty. You're outdoing yourself, Arnie.


I don't understand,
above all, how this debate ever arose in the first
place, or what currently sustains it when the evidence
is clear.

A good rule of thumb is that other than speakers and LP
playback equipment, if the evidence of a difference is
clear, you're probably doing the evaulation wrong.

This is astonishingly silly as written.

Try saying something accurate and meaningful, just for
grins...

Well, how snotty can you get? It's all over me.

I can only assume
you had some explanatory thought you didn't actually set
down.

Paul, you're so deep into imaginary perceptions that it
would seem that there's no possible help, at least until you
wake up.

Sudden awakening? I didn't realize you were a guru, Arnie.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:49:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


Agreed. There is something laughable when otherwise
rational people decide to deny the evidence of their ears
because they can't repeat a notable audible difference
with A/B switching.

Yep Paul, the whole rest of the audio world is crazy and
some misguided audiophiles who have bought any number of
bills of goods about magic rocks, gigbuck CD players, and
funny cables know exactly how things really work.

Let's not get carried away. I've never believed expensive cable etc
makes much if any difference, and certainly isn't worth the money. I
don't know what magic rocks you're talking about, but I'd expect a
well designed gigabuck CD player to sound pretty good. Am I naive?

On another tack, Arnie assured me on aus.hi-fi that for
headphones I would be far better off with a low impedance
source, virtually ANY low impedance source, than a high
impedance one like the HP socket on my Marantz PM8200.

You know your Marantz PM8200 best. I don't now if its
headphone socket is high impedance, low impedance or what.

I claim it's taken from the output stage. Let's say high impedance.

Yet I know this isn't true, as I once auditioned an MF
X-Can v2 and was totally unimpressed.

Yup, all headphone amplifiers sound the same.

This is a flippant statement or what?

Subsequently I
bought a Marantz PM4000 budget integrated and was highly
impressed--it drove my Sennheiser 595s beautifully, and
certainly better than the X-Can.

Yup, all integated amplifiers sound the same.

This is a flippant statement or what?

So is this another
example of subjectivism denying audio science? Arnie, if
you happen to read this, please come in.

Where's to come to - the state of confusion?

Better than the state of snottiness you're currently in.

On 15 Aug 2005 08:20:09 -0700, George Middius
wrote:


Wow! Pretty good Kroodown, paulie. Mr. **** is near-apoplectic and you only made
a couple of posts.

Now, George, no open encouragement or Arnie will think we're having an
affair, and that will cause a meltdown! He's suspicious already.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:16:02 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:33:26 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
om...

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the
'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias.
That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.


DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Use some logic and common sense, boy.
Your expectation is that
there would be no difference, either sighted or blind.

Typical horsehit from Sad Sack. I *always* expect differnces under
sighted conditions - that's what makes it useless.

Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?

The irony of it all!!
Those are the ones who spend more time and effort
taking those tests.

Bull**** - we certainly *proctor* tests where we don't expect
difference, but I've never actually *taken* one where I felt there was
no possibility of difference.


I don't believe that your self analysis is at all honest.

For someone whose self-esteem is so low that he hides behind a stupid
alias, that's kinda ironic....

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:46:22 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:41:35 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Doesn't matter. The question is *first*, whether there was any
real audible differemce *at all*, not whether it turned your preference
one way or another. Nor, it seems, did you bother level-matching,
another elementary precaution before concluding 'difference exists'.

Level matching? I wasn't A/Bing here, I was enjoying music in the way
it was meant to be enjoyed, sitting back in a recliner eyes closed
with no thought but for how well, or otherwise, I could picture the
orchestra before me. Was I thinking of any of Arny's infernal
machines? Not on your nelly!

Level-matched DBTs have nothing to do with any 'infernal machine'.
They do however have to do with applying a modicum of knowledge and
intelligence to the matter of deciding whether there is a *real*
physical difference in sound quality between two items.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:01:32 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:49:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


Agreed. There is something laughable when otherwise
rational people decide to deny the evidence of their ears
because they can't repeat a notable audible difference
with A/B switching.

Yep Paul, the whole rest of the audio world is crazy and
some misguided audiophiles who have bought any number of
bills of goods about magic rocks, gigbuck CD players, and
funny cables know exactly how things really work.

Let's not get carried away. I've never believed expensive cable etc
makes much if any difference, and certainly isn't worth the money. I
don't know what magic rocks you're talking about, but I'd expect a
well designed gigabuck CD player to sound pretty good. Am I naive?

Yes. A couple of the most expensive CD players are seriously broken -
one of them doesn't even have a reconstruction filter, which is an
*essential* part of the whole AD/DA process!

OTOH, most any 'mainstream' player (DVD or CD) over $200 may be relied
upon to provide audibly identical performance. Given the wide range of
technologies in use, that's a pretty good indication that they're all
doing it right. After all, it's not like they have the output demands
of a power amplifier to cause a quality differential in their output
stages, contrary to the bleatings of some of the more ignorant around
here.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:59:20 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

"Margaret von B." wrote in message
. ..
What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about a car race,
starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he really capable of outrunning a
500 hp AMG Mercedes with his little Audi?

Obviously, the "Merc" driver didn't want to get too close
to the drunk, so he stayed a safe distance behind.

Just the sort of braindead braying we expect from you, Sad Sack.
Besides, he started out ahead of me, and didn't like being overtaken
by a mere hatchback.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:16:02 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:33:26 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:fclff15op4tsd3c7smihsdv4fa5h8ds7n9@4ax. com...

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the
'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias.
That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.


DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Use some logic and common sense, boy.
Your expectation is that
there would be no difference, either sighted or blind.

Typical horsehit from Sad Sack. I *always* expect differnces under
sighted conditions - that's what makes it useless.

Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?

The irony of it all!!
Those are the ones who spend more time and effort
taking those tests.

Bull**** - we certainly *proctor* tests where we don't expect
difference, but I've never actually *taken* one where I felt there was
no possibility of difference.


I don't believe that your self analysis is at all honest.

For someone whose self-esteem is so low that he hides behind a stupid
alias, that's kinda ironic....


If you don't know my identity, you are a complete idiot.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Lord Pinkerton says in his customary courtly, old Scottish
landed gentry, way:

"You really are a sad sack of ****. Have you ever heard the Lab 5,
developed directly from the Archimedes project? It is by *any*
standard a superb loudspeaker - with the bonus that it looks quite
stunning, as with all B&O products. It's even good value at ten grand,
considering what's in it.
I answered

Pray Milaird what has it all to do with A POSITIVE REPORT OF COMPARING
COMPONENTS BY ABX?

He answered:
That's how they worked on the Archimedes project (as they do every day
at Harman International, KEF, B&W,. Meridian etc etc etc) , as noted
in the link I cited, or can you also not read?

And that was what* I *read:.(see foot note quotes)

Now it is Pinkerton's time to quote anything in that site ABOUT
COMPARING AUDIO COMPONENTS BY ABX.
.. 48 hrs enough for you? Just one paragraph will do.
(I don't need to encourage you to add one paragraph of filthy, personal
comments. That goes with Pinkerton correspondence)
Ludovic Mirabel
Website quotes follow
Eureka/Archimedes website
_______________________________
"Technology gives individuals the power to move their world" - the
Archimedes Project, 2002 AD

In the late 1980s, Bang and Olufsen initiated the Archimedes Project.
Three partners shared the work: the Acoustics Laboratory of the
Technical University of Denmark, KEF Electronics of England and Bang &
Olufsen of Denmark. The Project was involved in psycho-acoustic
research and was funded under the European Eureka scheme and was
conducted at the Danish Acoustical Laboratory near Copenhagen. Its
primary objective was to quantify the subjective influence of room
acoustics and loudspeaker directivity and reproduced sound. The project
had a planned span of five years, starting in 1987 and terminating in
1992. Its director was Soren Bech - an acquaintance and colleague of
Sausalito Audio Works' co-founder David Moulton. Upon the project's
completion, Bech joined the research staff at Bang & Olufsen. Knowing
of Moulton's involvement with wide-dispersion lenses and knowing of
their potential desirability from his ground-breaking work on the
Archimedes project, he recommended that Bang & Olufsen and Sausalito
Audio Works should meet to consider the use of Acoustic Lens Technology
in new loudspeaker products."

Another extract:
"Project E!105 Archimedes, which ran from 1987 until 1992, was a
partnership between Bang & Olufsen, the Department of Acoustic
Technology at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and KEF Audio
Ltd in the UK. Its goal was to investigate how sound quality in the
home is affected by the surroundings and how to compensate for factors
that have a negative impact on it, according to Soren Bech from Bang &
Olufsen:"

" We concentrated on looking at the relationships between the
loudspeaker, the listener and the room, and how the sound quality was
perceived. We used both computer simulations and panel tests in
different listening rooms at B&O, DTU and KEF. The Cube in Factory 1
and DTU's anechoic room also played an important role in the project "
Soren Bech comments.

_The results__

"One of the most important factors to affect sound quality in the home
is the sound reflected off the floor and ceiling. Based on the results
from the project, Bang & Olufsen developed a new loudspeaker concept: a
groundbreaking speaker that reduces these reflections by sending out
sound rather like a lighthouse spreads light."
End of quotes.

Steven Sullivan wrote in
message
John Atkinson wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:
As Mr. Sullivan, an impassioned advocate of blind testing, had
introduced the subject of listening test experience, it seems
reasonable to ask Mr. Sullivan about his own experience?

My primary experience with ABX is in comparing sound files.
I have certainly achieved both positive (comparing re-EQed
remasters, or mediocre MP3s to source) and negative (e.g.
bit-identical 'remasters', high-quality MP3 to source) results.

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. (Though I must admit, I am not sure
what you mean by "bit-identical" MP3s. Do you mean losslessly
compressed files?)

No, I meant 1) bit identical 'remasters' and 2) high-quality MP3s

My misunderstanding. I would be interested at what bit rate you
find MP3s to start to become hard to differentiate from CD
data? At 128kbps, I find MP3s very easy to identify in A/B
comparisons; less so at 256kpbs; and AAC at 320kpbs I miss some
of the time, depending on the music.

Lacking an ABX box, or a means for quick randomized
switching, I haven't any component comparisons worth
mentioning.

And as I have been pointing out to you, arranging such a
test of _real_ components without introducing interfering
variables is difficult and time-consuming.

Yes, but so are most scientific experiments.

Who has said otherwise, other than Arny Krueger?

But given that your two pronged refrain in the face of a
DBT advocacy seems to be
1) many DBTs you know of were poorly set up
2) even when they;re not, they're not to be believed
if they contradict the results of 'sighted listening',
especially long-term listening
I have to wonder why Stereophile doesn't back up these
claims by consuming the time and effort to do so.

As I have told you before, Mr. Sullivan, in
message .com
I have organized or taken part in blind tests "consuming the
time and effort to do so." Perhaps you didn't see that
message.

I should remind you of the parable I told at the HE2005
debate: that in essence, the man with limited or no
experience is more confident of his knowledge than the
man _with_ such experience.

I don't recall that particular parable...

Doesn't mean I didn't say it, Mr. Sullivan, your memory
notwithstanding. I know you were at the debate, and the
recording of the debate is freely available at
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate.

I do remember your tale of two amps that *seemed* not
sound different, but which you decided later, did...but in
any case, alas, parables aren't proof.

No, but they do reveal a relevant truth, which is the point
of telling them.

And as I mentioned in my question to you about that *other*
tale, it wasn't exactly proof of your claim, either.

My claim, Mr. Sullivan, was that the amplifier that was
cheaper, smaller, more appealing, more powerful, that had
apparently sounded the same as the "high-end" amps in the
1978 blind tests, let me down in much longer-term listening.
My dissatisfaction was not a "claim" but real. Your question
at HE2005 was basically that I then should have performed a
second blind test of the amplifier?

I fail to see what would have been achieved if I had done so.
Science is also about parsimony. If that DBT had again produced
negative results -- and at that time I had no reason to think
otherwise -- should I then have kept the Quad? Despite my
feeling, arrived at over 2 years and in the face of all its
non-audio aspects, that it was the weak link in my system? If
that DBT had produced positive results, then I would have done
what I did anyway: replaced the Quad.

Remember, all I was doing was looking for an amplifier to use
in my system just like any other audiophile. Why on earth
would you have me ignore my very real dissatisfaction with
the amplifier in favor of abstract constructs? Did _you_, Mr.
Sullivan, perform repeated DBTs to choose the amplifier for your
system? You can find my final thoughts on this matter, BTW, at
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi.

Now, have you heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes....?

Indeed I have, Mr. Sullivan, and I believe my parable of the
Quad is a prime example: here was an amplifier that by all
rights should have given me long-term satisfaction, yet ultimately
I worked through the cognitive dissonance between my expectations
and the evidence of my senses to recognize that it didn't. End of
story, as far as I was concerned.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:


snipped

My claim, Mr. Sullivan, was that the amplifier that was
cheaper, smaller, more appealing, more powerful, that had
apparently sounded the same as the "high-end" amps in the
1978 blind tests, let me down in much longer-term listening.
My dissatisfaction was not a "claim" but real. Your question
at HE2005 was basically that I then should have performed a
second blind test of the amplifier?

I fail to see what would have been achieved if I had done so.
Science is also about parsimony. If that DBT had again produced
negative results -- and at that time I had no reason to think
otherwise -- should I then have kept the Quad? Despite my
feeling, arrived at over 2 years and in the face of all its
non-audio aspects, that it was the weak link in my system? If
that DBT had produced positive results, then I would have done
what I did anyway: replaced the Quad.

Remember, all I was doing was looking for an amplifier to use
in my system just like any other audiophile. Why on earth
would you have me ignore my very real dissatisfaction with
the amplifier in favor of abstract constructs? Did _you_, Mr.
Sullivan, perform repeated DBTs to choose the amplifier for your
system? You can find my final thoughts on this matter, BTW, at
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi.


After wading through this pile of bovine manure, we find this:


"However, over time I began to realize that even though the sound of my
system with the Quad was THE SAME AS IT HAD EVER BEEN [emphasis added
via caps], the magic was gone."


In other words, Atkinson's dissatisfaction with the Quad 405 was due to
"non-audio factors", which will never be apparent in a blind test.

: snip, irrelevant
: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
: ...

: hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format,
: there were definite incentives to get the sample size
: and rate as low as possible: to get an adequate duration
: with the limitations of the technically & economically
: viable solution available in 1980.
: that's not an opinion, but a fact :-)
: Rudy
:
: nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit
: linear coded format. Sony upped that to 16....come on,
: 14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin? Listening tests ???
:
: Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits
: equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music
: master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly
: dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem?
:: snip, irrelevant
:
Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant
to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range.

Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some
-- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range.

this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart:
http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html
so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-)

no numbers, but interesting anyway :
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html

Rudy
heard a concert grand played up close
80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:44:01 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:16:02 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:33:26 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:fclff15op4tsd3c7smihsdv4fa5h8ds7n9@4ax .com...

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the
'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias.
That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.


DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Use some logic and common sense, boy.
Your expectation is that
there would be no difference, either sighted or blind.

Typical horsehit from Sad Sack. I *always* expect differnces under
sighted conditions - that's what makes it useless.

Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?

The irony of it all!!
Those are the ones who spend more time and effort
taking those tests.

Bull**** - we certainly *proctor* tests where we don't expect
difference, but I've never actually *taken* one where I felt there was
no possibility of difference.


I don't believe that your self analysis is at all honest.

For someone whose self-esteem is so low that he hides behind a stupid
alias, that's kinda ironic....

If you don't know my identity, you are a complete idiot.

That's waht makes it so stupid, Sad Sack..................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:


: snip, irrelevant
: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
: ...

: hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format,
: there were definite incentives to get the sample size
: and rate as low as possible: to get an adequate duration
: with the limitations of the technically & economically
: viable solution available in 1980.
: that's not an opinion, but a fact :-)
: Rudy
:
: nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit
: linear coded format. Sony upped that to 16....come on,
: 14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin? Listening tests ???
:
: Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits
: equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music
: master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly
: dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem?
:: snip, irrelevant
:
Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant
to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range.

It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass.

Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some
-- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range.

Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB, even under *very*
exceptional circumstances, and is more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range.

this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart:
http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html
so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-)

You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that
will exceed 65dB dynamic range.

no numbers, but interesting anyway :
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html

Rudy
heard a concert grand played up close
80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose

You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor*
will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 15 Aug 2005 23:11:46 -0700, wrote:

Lord Pinkerton says in his customary courtly, old Scottish
landed gentry, way:

"You really are a sad sack of ****. Have you ever heard the Lab 5,
developed directly from the Archimedes project? It is by *any*
standard a superb loudspeaker - with the bonus that it looks quite
stunning, as with all B&O products. It's even good value at ten grand,
considering what's in it.
I answered

Pray Milaird what has it all to do with A POSITIVE REPORT OF COMPARING
COMPONENTS BY ABX?

Everything, for those who can read plain English. As ever, you need to
lie and blow smoke in a desperate attempt to duck out of the basic
*truth* that audio professionals use DBTs every working day, it's only
deluded clowns like you who bury their heads in the sand.

He answered:
That's how they worked on the Archimedes project (as they do every day
at Harman International, KEF, B&W,. Meridian etc etc etc) , as noted
in the link I cited, or can you also not read?

And that was what* I *read:.(see foot note quotes)

Now it is Pinkerton's time to quote anything in that site ABOUT
COMPARING AUDIO COMPONENTS BY ABX.

More typical lies and deception from Mirabel.

Try this from the same article, which you clearly tried to avoid: " An
acoustically transparent screen surrounded the listening chair, hiding
the exact loudspeaker positions and the rest of the chamber
environment from the listener."

It's a matter of recorded fact that the Archimedes experiments used
DBT protocols - after all, they already knew back then that sighted
listening was useless.

As ever, Mirabel, this is just smoke and mirrors, sheer bluster
concealing the essential fact that *you* can offer *nothing* in
support of your pathetic delusions.

. 48 hrs enough for you? Just one paragraph will do.
(I don't need to encourage you to add one paragraph of filthy, personal
comments. That goes with Pinkerton correspondence)

My keyboard and screen are perfectly clean, thanks, and I don't use
the kind of language that would be necessary for a *full* description
of a lowlife like you. Go crawl back under your rock.

Ludovic Mirabel
Website quotes follow
Eureka/Archimedes website
_______________________________
"Technology gives individuals the power to move their world" - the
Archimedes Project, 2002 AD

In the late 1980s, Bang and Olufsen initiated the Archimedes Project.
Three partners shared the work: the Acoustics Laboratory of the
Technical University of Denmark, KEF Electronics of England and Bang &
Olufsen of Denmark. The Project was involved in psycho-acoustic
research and was funded under the European Eureka scheme and was
conducted at the Danish Acoustical Laboratory near Copenhagen. Its
primary objective was to quantify the subjective influence of room
acoustics and loudspeaker directivity and reproduced sound. The project
had a planned span of five years, starting in 1987 and terminating in
1992. Its director was Soren Bech - an acquaintance and colleague of
Sausalito Audio Works' co-founder David Moulton. Upon the project's
completion, Bech joined the research staff at Bang & Olufsen. Knowing
of Moulton's involvement with wide-dispersion lenses and knowing of
their potential desirability from his ground-breaking work on the
Archimedes project, he recommended that Bang & Olufsen and Sausalito
Audio Works should meet to consider the use of Acoustic Lens Technology
in new loudspeaker products."

Another extract:
"Project E!105 Archimedes, which ran from 1987 until 1992, was a
partnership between Bang & Olufsen, the Department of Acoustic
Technology at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and KEF Audio
Ltd in the UK. Its goal was to investigate how sound quality in the
home is affected by the surroundings and how to compensate for factors
that have a negative impact on it, according to Soren Bech from Bang &
Olufsen:"

" We concentrated on looking at the relationships between the
loudspeaker, the listener and the room, and how the sound quality was
perceived. We used both computer simulations and panel tests in
different listening rooms at B&O, DTU and KEF. The Cube in Factory 1
and DTU's anechoic room also played an important role in the project "
Soren Bech comments.

_The results__

"One of the most important factors to affect sound quality in the home
is the sound reflected off the floor and ceiling. Based on the results
from the project, Bang & Olufsen developed a new loudspeaker concept: a
groundbreaking speaker that reduces these reflections by sending out
sound rather like a lighthouse spreads light."
End of quotes.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

My claim, Mr. Sullivan, was that the amplifier that was
cheaper, smaller, more appealing, more powerful, that had
apparently sounded the same as the "high-end" amps in the
1978 blind tests, let me down in much longer-term
listening.

There's so many things wrong with this statement that I
almost don't know where to start.

1978 was what 27 years ago?

It is quite clear that this one questionable test done under
undisclosed conditions no matter how flawed, is in
Atkinson's mind *the* one defining moment for *all* blind
tests.

My dissatisfaction was not a "claim" but real.

Dissatisfaction is not tangible. Therefore, it's only real
for the person with the dissatisfaction. It would appear
that all of Atkinson't haranguing about the evils of blind
tests is his primal reaction to this one defining event in
his life.

Your question at HE2005 was basically that I then should
have performed
a second blind test of the amplifier?

On a good day *something* meaningful would have been done
besides just the uttering of a mighty Yeccch!

I fail to see what would have been achieved if I had done
so.

Since we know nothing at all about the first DBT, its hard
to predict what the second one would have entailed, let
alone whether it might have been beneficial.

For example, it has evolved that power amp tests can be
highly load-dependent. It's possible that the first,
favorable DBT might have been done with a low-resolution,
and/or high impedance and/or a low-reactance speaker in a
room that might or might not had had a number of acoustical
masking influences.

The point is that if we for a moment accept the insane
Stereophile dogma that DBTs lack sensitivity, due to
attributes of the first listening test that have nothing to
do with sighted versus blind, but rather had to do with here
versus there.

Science is also about parsimony.

Horsefeathers. Science is not about thrift at the expense of
finding reliable information.

In this 27 year-old anecdote, Atkinson seems to have
revealed a hidden cheapskate nerve when it comes to time
spent doing anything but long-term sighted evaluations.

It strikes me that if the Quad amplifier had audible
difficulty in Atkinson's listening environment, a second
blind test in that listening environment might have been
amazingly revealing. As noted above, the room, the speakers,
and the music which caused audible difficulty with the Quad
amplfier should have been well-known to Atkinson at that
point, if it existed at all. He should have been able to
sail through a blind test with flying colors. Furthermore,
his positive results might have been a defining moment in
audio, because of the generally favorable critical
impression of the Quad amplifier at the time.

If that DBT had
again produced negative results -- and at that time I had
no reason to think otherwise

This speaks to Atkinson's flawed logic. Lots of potentially
signfificant things, as I just pointed out, might have
happened while Atkinsons had been struggling with the Quad
amp. If the amp was that bad, a listener who is as skilled
as Atkinson claims to be would know exactly what is wrong
with it and how to make it obvious during a proper listening
test.

should I then have kept the Quad?

It seems to me that if the Quad's problems weren't
Atkinson's well-known audiophool nervosa, then it would have
been dead meat when put under the ABX microscope.

Despite my feeling, arrived at over 2 years and
in the face of all its non-audio aspects, that it was the
weak link in my system? If that DBT had produced positive
results, then I would have done what I did anyway:
replaced the Quad.

If the DBT had produced positive results there would have
been an interesting article along the lines of HFN's "Some
Amplifiers Do Sound Different", some 5 years earlier, and
over Atkinson's name not mine.

In rec.audio.tech paul packer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:41:35 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


Doesn't matter. The question is *first*, whether there was any
real audible differemce *at all*, not whether it turned your preference
one way or another. Nor, it seems, did you bother level-matching,
another elementary precaution before concluding 'difference exists'.

Level matching? I wasn't A/Bing here, I was enjoying music in the way
it was meant to be enjoyed, sitting back in a recliner eyes closed
with no thought but for how well, or otherwise, I could picture the
orchestra before me. Was I thinking of any of Arny's infernal
machines? Not on your nelly!

Fine, but now you know why your beliefs about *why* you heard
what you heard, might not actually be correct. You might have
been hearing simple level differences, for example, not something
intrinsic to the gear.


Which brings me to my next confusion:

No, I think you shoudl stop right here, and re-assess your current
'knowledge' in light of long-standing tenets of perceptual
psychology.

I think I "shoudl" be allowed to keep going, perceptual psychology or
no. :-)

No one can stop you from flaunting ignorance here.

Nor you.

Nor anyone's. Welcome to Usenet. But some people's
ignorance about a subject is temporary. Others seem
immune to any attempt to abolish it.

What category do you belong to?




--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

In rec.audio.tech John Atkinson wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in
message
John Atkinson wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:
As Mr. Sullivan, an impassioned advocate of blind testing, had
introduced the subject of listening test experience, it seems
reasonable to ask Mr. Sullivan about his own experience?

My primary experience with ABX is in comparing sound files.
I have certainly achieved both positive (comparing re-EQed
remasters, or mediocre MP3s to source) and negative (e.g.
bit-identical 'remasters', high-quality MP3 to source) results.

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. (Though I must admit, I am not sure
what you mean by "bit-identical" MP3s. Do you mean losslessly
compressed files?)

No, I meant 1) bit identical 'remasters' and 2) high-quality MP3s

My misunderstanding. I would be interested at what bit rate you
find MP3s to start to become hard to differentiate from CD
data? At 128kbps, I find MP3s very easy to identify in A/B
comparisons; less so at 256kpbs; and AAC at 320kpbs I miss some
of the time, depending on the music.

bitrate is one dimension; sample encoding difficulty another;
encoder quality yet another. I've not tested anywhere near
the entire range of combinations. However, the folks at
hydrogenaudio.org have tested many.

Personally, I've found variable bitrate centered around
196 kbps (--alt preset standard; IIRC the low end of bitrates here
is 128, up to the max that MP3 allows) encoding using LAME
to be un-ABXable from source for all samples I've tried (and any that
I have set up for others to try), whihc have
included rock, jazz, and classical samples. I have not
however tried any of the collection of 'difficult'
samples that have been identified and used by the
codec development community or HA.org to improve MP3.
I know there are people at HA.org who have reported positive ABX
results even for very high bitrates, using 'difficult'
samples.



Lacking an ABX box, or a means for quick randomized
switching, I haven't any component comparisons worth
mentioning.

And as I have been pointing out to you, arranging such a
test of _real_ components without introducing interfering
variables is difficult and time-consuming.

Yes, but so are most scientific experiments.

Who has said otherwise, other than Arny Krueger?

But given that your two pronged refrain in the face of a
DBT advocacy seems to be
1) many DBTs you know of were poorly set up
2) even when they;re not, they're not to be believed
if they contradict the results of 'sighted listening',
especially long-term listening
I have to wonder why Stereophile doesn't back up these
claims by consuming the time and effort to do so.

As I have told you before, Mr. Sullivan, in
message .com
I have organized or taken part in blind tests "consuming the
time and effort to do so." Perhaps you didn't see that
message.

I may not have. However, can you point me to Stereophile's
DBTs that actually support the claim that long-term
acclimation to two amps reveals real differences between
them?


I should remind you of the parable I told at the HE2005
debate: that in essence, the man with limited or no
experience is more confident of his knowledge than the
man _with_ such experience.

I don't recall that particular parable...

Doesn't mean I didn't say it, Mr. Sullivan, your memory
notwithstanding. I know you were at the debate, and the
recording of the debate is freely available at
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate.

I do remember your tale of two amps that *seemed* not
sound different, but which you decided later, did...but in
any case, alas, parables aren't proof.

No, but they do reveal a relevant truth, which is the point
of telling them.

Is the truth *more* relevant to high end than the one revealed by the
Emperor's New Clothes?

And as I mentioned in my question to you about that *other*
tale, it wasn't exactly proof of your claim, either.

My claim, Mr. Sullivan, was that the amplifier that was
cheaper, smaller, more appealing, more powerful, that had
apparently sounded the same as the "high-end" amps in the
1978 blind tests, let me down in much longer-term listening.
My dissatisfaction was not a "claim" but real. Your question
at HE2005 was basically that I then should have performed a
second blind test of the amplifier?

One (perhaps wrongly?) presumes that the 'let down' refers to
what one *heard*. Therefore it is a claim of audible
difference -- one that appeared over long term listening.
So, yes, *of course* you should have performed a second
blind test, if you wanted to show that the first one
gave a false negative. Which was the *point* of your
story, was it not?


I fail to see what would have been achieved if I had done so.
Science is also about parsimony. If that DBT had again produced
negative results -- and at that time I had no reason to think
otherwise -- should I then have kept the Quad? Despite my
feeling, arrived at over 2 years and in the face of all its
non-audio aspects, that it was the weak link in my system? If
that DBT had produced positive results, then I would have done
what I did anyway: replaced the Quad.

THere are any number of reasons one might keep an amp that
failed an audible difference test -- you can 'like' and amp for reasons
that aren't really about its sound. The issue is your claims
about the amp's *sound*. The only thing you *should* do
after such a test is temper your claims about how
different one amp sounds from the other amp. In other
words, face reality, rather than hammer it into the
shape you prefer.


Remember, all I was doing was looking for an amplifier to use
in my system just like any other audiophile. Why on earth
would you have me ignore my very real dissatisfaction with
the amplifier in favor of abstract constructs? Did _you_, Mr.
Sullivan, perform repeated DBTs to choose the amplifier for your
system? You can find my final thoughts on this matter, BTW, at
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi.

You're indulging in another typical, tiresome audiophile
trope. No, I don't perform DBTs on my amp purchases. I
*also* don't make poorly-founded claims of audible difference
about them.

I'm not having you 'ignore the real dissatisfaction' etc.
I'm questioning the chain of logic that leads from
"I am dissatisfied' to "the amps must sound different'.
Based on the evidence you provided, that chain is faulty.


Now, have you heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes....?

Indeed I have, Mr. Sullivan, and I believe my parable of the
Quad is a prime example: here was an amplifier that by all
rights should have given me long-term satisfaction, yet ultimately
I worked through the cognitive dissonance between my expectations
and the evidence of my senses to recognize that it didn't. End of
story, as far as I was concerned.

If the evidence of one's senses was the 'end of story' for
establishing the truth of a claim, then science, law and
a great many other human endeavors would be vastly
easier. If one isn't particularly interested in the
the truth of a claim, well, the Emperor's court seems
always to have room to spare.

No one questions that you were 'dissatisfied'. But it's entirely
reasonable to question whether your *beliefs* about *the source*
of your dissatisfaction, are accurate. You haven't
established that the amplifiers actually sounded different;
you haven't established an independent reason why they
*should* sound different (e.g., measurements);
so to assert that that difference was the source of
your dissatisfaction, is at best premature.



--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
: :
: : Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits
: : equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music
: : master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly
: : dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem?
: :: snip, irrelevant
: :
: Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant
: to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range.
:
: It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass.
:
: Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some
: -- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range.
:
: Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB,
: even under *very* exceptional circumstances, and is
: more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range.

So you're saying a 90 dB dynamic range is there for the taking,
but your listening room's awfully noisy airco makes it impossible
to enjoy ? No wonder you claim all amps sound the same :-)
:
: this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart:
: http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html
: so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-)
:
: You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that
: will exceed 65dB dynamic range.
:
: no numbers, but interesting anyway :
: http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html
:
: Rudy
: heard a concert grand played up close
: 80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose
:
: You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor*
: will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL.
: --
-you mean, you've got _that much_ noise coming from your speakers
.... that's sad.
-- you are confusing facts with your overheated imagination, SP
--- omniscience claim noted.

: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

As from environmental factors, 27 dB daytime eq. reported in NL iirc.
That's in average living rooms, should be better in your dedicated room
, i presume.

I'm not confusing, i'm detracting one from the other, eh ?
in this case*, 110 - 20 = 90 dB range. but anyway, surely you're not
saying that the background noise level in a listening room should
dictate the range that should be captured on a medium ?
That's silly,
really,
Rudy
* a studio

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:44:01 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:16:02 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:33:26 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:5mduf1lsccumkd21mt9m60ed2p4qu4flqs@4ax. com...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:fclff15op4tsd3c7smihsdv4fa5h8ds7n9@4a x.com...

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the
'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation
bias.
That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.


DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Use some logic and common sense, boy.
Your expectation is that
there would be no difference, either sighted or blind.

Typical horsehit from Sad Sack. I *always* expect differnces under
sighted conditions - that's what makes it useless.

Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?

The irony of it all!!
Those are the ones who spend more time and effort
taking those tests.

Bull**** - we certainly *proctor* tests where we don't expect
difference, but I've never actually *taken* one where I felt there was
no possibility of difference.


I don't believe that your self analysis is at all honest.

For someone whose self-esteem is so low that he hides behind a stupid
alias, that's kinda ironic....

If you don't know my identity, you are a complete idiot.

That's waht makes it so stupid, Sad Sack..................


Then certainly, I am not hiding.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:56:47 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
: :
: : Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits
: : equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music
: : master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly
: : dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem?
: :: snip, irrelevant
: :
: Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant
: to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range.
:
: It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass.
:
: Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some
: -- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range.
:
: Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB,
: even under *very* exceptional circumstances, and is
: more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range.

So you're saying a 90 dB dynamic range is there for the taking,
but your listening room's awfully noisy airco makes it impossible
to enjoy ? No wonder you claim all amps sound the same :-)

Are you being deliberately obscure, or are you just stupid? I'm
referring to the dynamic range of the *original performance*.

Besides, I live in the UK, and as is the norm here, I don't have
aircon. I do have one slow-running fan in the room, in my Krell, and
that does set the noise floor in the room, at something in the
mid-20s. It's a *very* quiet room - one advantage of living in the
country, with a concrete slab floor, 13" thick walls and deep triple
glazing. The *room* is certainly capable of achieving 90dB dynamic
range, even if there's no available *recording* with that range.

: this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart:
: http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html
: so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-)
:
: You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that
: will exceed 65dB dynamic range.
:
: no numbers, but interesting anyway :
: http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html
:
: Rudy
: heard a concert grand played up close
: 80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose
:
: You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor*
: will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL.
: --
-you mean, you've got _that much_ noise coming from your speakers
... that's sad.
-- you are confusing facts with your overheated imagination, SP
--- omniscience claim noted.

Your idiocy continues. That's the noise floor of the concert hall,
only studio recordings are able to get below a 30dB noise floor, and
that would require pretty quiet breathing on the part of the
performers. As noted above, with only me sitting quietly in it, my
listening room is somewhere in the mid-20s (very difficult to measure
due to self-noise in the microphone).

: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

As from environmental factors, 27 dB daytime eq. reported in NL iirc.
That's in average living rooms, should be better in your dedicated room
, i presume.

I have yet to find an *average* living room that quiet, I'd have said
that 30-35 dB was more normal in daytime, more for urban dwellings.

I'm not confusing, i'm detracting one from the other, eh ?
in this case*, 110 - 20 = 90 dB range.

From where did you get the 20?

but anyway, surely you're not
saying that the background noise level in a listening room should
dictate the range that should be captured on a medium ?

No, you completely misread what I wrote. For most people, it does
however set a limit of around 70-80dB in the replay system, from the
30-35 of the room noise floor to the 105-110 of the system at the
listening position. Exceptionally quiet rooms housing exceptionally
powerful systems can extend this to a little more than 90dB, which is
wider than you'll ever need.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:34:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Level-matched DBTs have nothing to do with any 'infernal machine'.
They do however have to do with applying a modicum of knowledge and
intelligence to the matter of deciding whether there is a *real*
physical difference in sound quality between two items.

I fear I don't know what a "real physical difference in sound quality"
is. I wasn't even aware that sound had mass.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:20:57 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:34:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Level-matched DBTs have nothing to do with any 'infernal machine'.
They do however have to do with applying a modicum of knowledge and
intelligence to the matter of deciding whether there is a *real*
physical difference in sound quality between two items.

I fear I don't know what a "real physical difference in sound quality"
is. I wasn't even aware that sound had mass.

It's a compression/rarefaction wave, it certainly *needs* mass. And
don't be an arsehole, you know perfectly well that acoustics is a
branch of physics, and therefore lives in the *real* world, not just
that fairyland between your ears....................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In rec.audio.tech paul packer wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:34:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Level-matched DBTs have nothing to do with any 'infernal machine'.
They do however have to do with applying a modicum of knowledge and
intelligence to the matter of deciding whether there is a *real*
physical difference in sound quality between two items.

I fear I don't know what a "real physical difference in sound quality"
is. I wasn't even aware that sound had mass.

This is a curious claim. Do you consider all sound to be imaginary?

Sound requires wave motion (repeated round of compression and
expansion of density) of molecules (usually air). Which of course
have mass. That's why in the vaccuum of space, no one can hear
you scream.

Any real difference in sound is a difference in those waves.



--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

paul packer wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:34:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart
Pinkerton wrote:


Level-matched DBTs have nothing to do with any 'infernal
machine'. They do however have to do with applying a
modicum of knowledge and intelligence to the matter of
deciding whether there is a *real* physical difference
in sound quality between two items.

I fear I don't know what a "real physical difference in
sound quality" is.

That should have been clear from the other things you have
said, Paul.

I wasn't even aware that sound had mass.

Must two things each have mass to be different?

For example, 2 3. Does 2 and/or 3 have mass?

In article , says...

In article , says...

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...




Attention Arny Krueger: Did you not see my last post? It is
copied below for your perusal. Or do you wish to duck out?



If I was going to test tubes for being microphonic, I'd
put the equipment under test in a sound field that was
created by a different set of equipment playing
different music, and listen to the equipment under test
with no music playing at all, or while playing some
other music so that any sounds that were created by the
microphonic effect, would really stand out.


Good. Perhaps you should note on your website this type
of distortion is not covered by your procedure, and if
severe could be audible.

You've got me confused with someone who takes tubed
equipment seriously.


Hey.. don't be egocentric AK.

OK, I'll leave being egocentric to you.

The caveat would be for the benefit of and in fairness to
your users.

My users????


Those using your ABX test. Just answer the question please.


Or is your preference all that matters to you?

For the same functionality, SS equipment reproduces music
more accurately, is far more reliable, and even costs less.
Is choosing SS all about preference, or do practical
considerations count as something else?


Shopenhammer # ? In other words, since you prefer solid
state, you will not provide the caveat above?



`Your answer should be interesting, or is it time
to duck out again?

So says someone who hides behind a silly alias.


Are you saying no one else here has claimed you duck out?

JC the elder

jclause said:

Attention Arny Krueger: Did you not see my last post? It is
copied below for your perusal. Or do you wish to duck out?

Ducking out is, sad to say, one of Krooger's main "debating trade" tools.
And the Beast's new disciple, Sillyborg, has chosen to emulate him.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech paul packer wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:34:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Level-matched DBTs have nothing to do with any 'infernal machine'.
They do however have to do with applying a modicum of knowledge and
intelligence to the matter of deciding whether there is a *real*
physical difference in sound quality between two items.

I fear I don't know what a "real physical difference in sound quality"
is. I wasn't even aware that sound had mass.

This is a curious claim. Do you consider all sound to be imaginary?

Sound requires wave motion (repeated round of compression and
expansion of density) of molecules (usually air). Which of course
have mass. That's why in the vaccuum of space, no one can hear
you scream.

Any real difference in sound is a difference in those waves.


no,. that's just a difference in the sound waves.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----