Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:48:10 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:13:32 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. Clyde, don't you know that "expectation effects" only apply to those of us who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no difference. :-) 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. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" said:
** You're paying for what you get. Not at all. A lot of the $kilobuck players have the same operational guts as the $200 players. Examples please? -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:58:40 +0300, Fella wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: DBT tests for audio are actually designed to provide a biased result of there being no difference. Bull****. They're used every day by mainstream manufacturers to determine whether design changes had any *real* audible effect. Since everything sounds the same all the time why should any "design changes" have a "*real*" audible effect? 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. It also plays movies! Sice amps and CD players are at the zenith of perfection, since they can't be bettered in any way (so say your tests) why would any "mainstream manufacturers" bother to make any "design changes" ? See above DBT's do not work, been there done that. Simple fact. If you've really been there and done that, you'll know that they really do work. Of course, if you were *expecting* that they'd prove how 'high-end' gear sounds better, then I'm not surprised that you're disappointed.............. This *is* about envy with you low-income nerd types, isn't it? You imagine your yamaha metallic sound $120 receiver as sounding the same as some $5000 BAT integrated amp, yes? That's how you are able to consume that edgy, glaringly digital, transistor sound you get from your piece of **** gear. You really are a prat, aren't you? See my page he http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/ Piece of **** gear? I don't think so................ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:38:14 GMT, "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). 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! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
"Fella" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: Obviously, everything doesn't sound the same all the time, Take the issue up with pinkerton there. Not his problem, not my problem. Guess what Fella, audio equipment has other attributes than sound quality. Guess what krueger, sound quality is the foremost attribute to be taken into consideration. Fella, like your leader Middius, you have a wonderful command of the obvious. Then comes durability and reliability. Then comes pleasing esthetics. Then comes price, ease of use, etc. You paraphrase me well, grasshopper. Examples are size, cost, weight, appearance, reliability, ease-of-use, and so on. Agreed. What are your priorities? Tell us. First and foremost sound quality. But reliability is a close second. I don't recall reading any detailed descriptions of your own personal DBTs, Fella. Well take that up with your head-doctor. IOW Fella, you are a no-show when it comes to personal experience with that which you are critical of. That follows from the fact that you have shown yourself to be highly unfamiliar with a certain high end integrated amp whose name you just dropped. Actually, being a nerd is a pretty good way to have a high income. Was. Is. You imagine your yamaha metallic sound $120 receiver as sounding the same as some $5000 BAT integrated amp, yes? Interesting possibility, no? Interesting IMpossiblity, yes. Since you exposed your ignorance about the BAT integrated amp, this claim is obviously bogus. BTW Fella, there don't appear to be any such things as $120 Yamaha receivers being sold as new equipment. Why buy new? Why quote prices of used equipment when they can vary all over the map? Does this mean that the rest of your post is equally invalid? So you validate all the posts around here? Sometimes its interesting to do a little fact-checking Fella. See how nicely it exposed your ignorance and posturing. That's how you are able to consume that edgy, glaringly digital, transistor sound you get from your piece of **** gear. I think you really need to check your facts, Fella. The $5995 BAT VK 300x integrated amplifier you mentioned has a lot of solid state and not a lot of tubes in it. Check out the article below from their web site - note the solid state power amp heat sinks on each side, the absence of any visible glass bottles, and the admission that the only tube that this BAT integrated amp might have is an extra-cost option? http://www.balanced.com/products/amp/Vk-300x/ no relevant reply from Fella |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
That they are taken by people from both sides is irrelevant. Not at all. Its the test design that skews the results, so that they tend to be the same The ABX test was designed to be very sensitive to differences that are actually audible. This contrasts with your hobby-horse sighted, non-level-matched, non-time-synched auditions that can be counted on to sound different for reasons that are irrelevant to sound quality. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
Idiot, the test removes some expectation effects, but not others. As I showed in another post, ABX tests can be used to detect both false positives and false negatives. It is more biased than sighted listening. That's bad joke! There is very little that is more susceptable to bias than sighted listening. After all that's one reason why all the high end magazines and audio shops employ it so religiously. It facilitates them to bias customers and readers in ways that are profitable for the audio shops and ragazines. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" said: ** You're paying for what you get. Not at all. A lot of the $kilobuck players have the same operational guts as the $200 players. Examples please? Theta-Digital http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2653a388212cc9 McCormack http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...73dd41bd672652 |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" said:
Not at all. A lot of the $kilobuck players have the same operational guts as the $200 players. Examples please? Theta-Digital http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2653a388212cc9 McCormack http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...73dd41bd672652 DVD players.........interesting. 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. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:14:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Sander deWaal" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" said: ** You're paying for what you get. Not at all. A lot of the $kilobuck players have the same operational guts as the $200 players. Examples please? Theta-Digital http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2653a388212cc9 McCormack http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...73dd41bd672652 Yes and no. Those are both Pioneer-transport-based but they do have different PS, audio and, in the case of the Theta, video boards. In fact, you can add the BelCanto Pl-1 and the Moon Orbiter to that list but, again, each does have different proprietary circuit boards and PS circuits as well as different video options and controls. Same Pioneer OSD, of course. Kal |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:58:52 +1000, "roughplanet" wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message Harry Lavo wrote: Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell. snip Would it be too much to ask the members of other Usenet groups to delete aus.hi-fi from their newsgroup lists? I think I speak for most of the members of this group when I say that we really aren't interested in your squabbling, as we have more than enough of it here already. Thanks in anticipation of your assistance. ruff Seconded, Ruff. I feel like I've been dragged back down into that nightmare hell-hole known as RAO after only lately escaping it. Names I'm still trying to forget keep appearing before my startled gaze like phantoms of the underworld. Please make it stop. Paul and Ruff, how is this for a Utopian ideal "When the RAO gang leave perhaps they could take one or two more with them that wish to carry on like this all the time" ;-) BTW I only have read one or two posts here (from non-local posters) and it still confirms they are a rather sad bunch - still. Cheers Terry |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
"roughplanet" wrote in message ... "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message Harry Lavo wrote: Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell. snip Would it be too much to ask the members of other Usenet groups to delete aus.hi-fi from their newsgroup lists? I think I speak for most of the members of this group when I say that we really aren't interested in your squabbling, as we have more than enough of it here already. Thanks in anticipation of your assistance. ruff I'll follow your lead, to the "T". ----== 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 =---- |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... 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. This is the usual audiophilia-dupe answer, which is what we should expect from an audiophilia-dupe like Art. Please note that Art has so much confidence in his baseless accusations that he doesn't even post under his true name. Art is obviously afraid of his senseless natterings on Usenet being associated with his true identity. So much for my secret identity! I know exactly how ABX was designed because I was there when it was designed almost 30 years ago. ABX was designed to be as sensitive as possible to audible differences. It is NOT a neutral test. ABX is as neutral of a test for consciiously-perceived differences as is known to exist. It's not neutral towards those who preconcieve that there will be no difference It does not remove the expectation effects of those who have preconceived notions that there are no differences. ABX tests and other DBTs can be used to determine when a listener is biased against hearing differences. You simply present candidate listeners with audible differences that other listeners have been able to hear in DBTs without much difficulty. If the listener develops random results when listening to differences that are known to be readily audible in DBTs or by other means, then it is proof or at least a strong indication that he is biased against hearing differences. That has nothing to do with the preconceptions about any differences or preferences betweeen the two test items. Your pretest does not address that issue, its irrelevant. The PCABX web site uses a "Listener Training Test" to filter out listners and listening environments that are biased against hearing differences. This facility is freely available at http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm . That has nothing to do with any [reconceptions about the two items to be comapred for preference. ----== 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 =---- |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Fist of all, Art gratuiously introduces a OT discussion of something involving a fist. What might that be? For the purposes of my purchase decisions, any test results derived from other subjects are completely irrelevant to my decision. This only makes sense if Art's hearing or Art's listening environment is so atypical that no other person's hearing or listening environment would be relevant. IOW, it suggests that Art's hearing has become vastly degraded due to his age and personal activities, and that his home audio system is full of masking noises and distortions. I could not care less what the unknown masses do or do not hear. Note that Art can't comprehend of any other individual having the same serious hearing problems that he has. 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. Agreed - given that retail outlets and manufacturer's have strong economic incentives to give people favorable preconceptions about the products they sell. 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. At last Art correctly perceives that one of the benefits of DBTs is that they can help identify and reduce or elminate the effects of preconceptions. That is not what I said. Not at all. ----== 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 =---- |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:58:52 +1000, "roughplanet" wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message Harry Lavo wrote: Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell. snip Would it be too much to ask the members of other Usenet groups to delete aus.hi-fi from their newsgroup lists? I think I speak for most of the members of this group when I say that we really aren't interested in your squabbling, as we have more than enough of it here already. Thanks in anticipation of your assistance. ruff Seconded, Ruff. I feel like I've been dragged back down into that nightmare hell-hole known as RAO after only lately escaping it. Names I'm still trying to forget keep appearing before my startled gaze like phantoms of the underworld. Please make it stop. Yes, I will slavishly follow your lead in removing crossposts. ----== 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 =---- |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:48:10 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:13:32 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. Clyde, don't you know that "expectation effects" only apply to those of us who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no difference. :-) 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? ----== 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 =---- |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-) That they are taken by people from both sides is irrelevant. Its the test design that skews the results, so that they tend to be the same Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do indeed tend to be the same. That's because most decent equipment really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools like you would like to believe. Sure, it sounds the same to people who have preconceived notions that it will sound the same. ----== 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 =---- |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Fella, like your leader Middius, you have a wonderful command of the obvious. Too bad that the command of the obvious continues to evade you. ----== 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 =---- |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
dean wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the price of the laser assembly. Can you please recommend some new players comparable to the XA7ES for $200USD? Thanks With $2000 USD you can browse "e-Bay" or "Audiogon" websites for these: Meridian 508-24, Pioneer PD-95; Accuphase DP-65V or 70V...etc I have heard them in action and they are awesome machines and you can probably pick one up for much less than $2000 USD from the mentioned sites. Cheers Dean Dean, the price is $200USD, not $2000USD. Arny had said for the price of replacing the laser in the XA7ES (less than $200USD), I could get a new one which sounds as good. So I asked him to name some player for under $200USD, which he did. Althought I'm not entirely convinced that it will sound as good though. |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick said to ****-for-Brains: Too bad that the command of the obvious continues to evade you. Not entirely. Arnii has often boasted of recognizing poor Susan's true market value. ;-) |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... The PCABX web site uses a "Listener Training Test" to filter out listners and listening environments that are biased against hearing differences. This facility is freely available at http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm . That has nothing to do with any [reconceptions about the two items to be comapred for preference. I agree, http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm has nothing to do with [reconceptions about the two items to be comapred for preference. More specifically it has nothing to do with [reconceptions, it has nothing to do with times to be comapred, and ABX tests have nothing to do with preference. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Fella, like your leader Middius, you have a wonderful command of the obvious. Too bad that the command of the obvious continues to evade you. Art this is just a lame, non-specific come-back. For example, you cite no relevant examples. Art you were just whining about how poor ABX tests were as tests of preference, right? It is well known and obvious to all that ABX tests are tests for differences and not tests for preferences. Therefore Art it appears that command of the obvious evades you, and I have a specific example of that in your recent postings. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-) That they are taken by people from both sides is irrelevant. Its the test design that skews the results, so that they tend to be the same Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do indeed tend to be the same. That's because most decent equipment really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools like you would like to believe. Sure, it sounds the same to people who have preconceived notions that it will sound the same. I just showed how we can use ABX tests to identify people who are prone towards false negatives. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:14:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sander deWaal" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" said: ** You're paying for what you get. Not at all. A lot of the $kilobuck players have the same operational guts as the $200 players. Examples please? Theta-Digital http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2653a388212cc9 McCormack http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...73dd41bd672652 Yes and no. Those are both Pioneer-transport-based but they do have different PS, audio and, in the case of the Theta, video boards. In fact, you can add the BelCanto Pl-1 and the Moon Orbiter to that list but, again, each does have different proprietary circuit boards and PS circuits as well as different video options and controls. Same Pioneer OSD, of course. We found that the McCormack was using the Pioneer audio board for signal processnig, but just tacked on a fancy overbuilt buffer and power supply for the buffer. Without closer examination, we don't know how much of the Pioneer circuitry the others actually used. But in the case of the McCormack, a lot more than just the Pioneer transport was being used. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... and ABX tests have nothing to do with preference. unless a normal proclaims a preference for a particular item, at which time you throw another ABX hissy fit. ----== 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 =---- |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Fella, like your leader Middius, you have a wonderful command of the obvious. Too bad that the command of the obvious continues to evade you. Art this is just a lame, non-specific come-back. For example, you cite no relevant examples. Art you were just whining about how poor ABX tests were as tests of preference, right? Learn to read moron. BTW, this gotcha will cost you a loss of 15 debating trade frequent liar points. But keep trying, 250 points gets you another sound card. ----== 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 =---- |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-) That they are taken by people from both sides is irrelevant. Its the test design that skews the results, so that they tend to be the same Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do indeed tend to be the same. That's because most decent equipment really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools like you would like to believe. Sure, it sounds the same to people who have preconceived notions that it will sound the same. I just showed how we can use ABX tests to identify people who are prone towards false negatives. ----== 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 =---- |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-) That they are taken by people from both sides is irrelevant. Its the test design that skews the results, so that they tend to be the same Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do indeed tend to be the same. That's because most decent equipment really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools like you would like to believe. Sure, it sounds the same to people who have preconceived notions that it will sound the same. I just showed how we can use ABX tests to identify people who are prone towards false negatives. that's not relative to preconceived notions about the particular two items to be tested. ----== 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 =---- |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... and ABX tests have nothing to do with preference. unless a normal proclaims a preference for a particular item, at which time you throw another ABX hissy fit. Mere posturing. ABX is clearly over your head, Art. ABX are tests for differences not preferences. |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Fella, like your leader Middius, you have a wonderful command of the obvious. Too bad that the command of the obvious continues to evade you. Art this is just a lame, non-specific come-back. For example, you cite no relevant examples. Art you were just whining about how poor ABX tests were as tests of preference, right? Learn to read moron. Nice try at not taking responsibility for your own claims, Art. You've already conceded this point in another post. BTW, this gotcha will cost you a loss of 15 debating trade frequent liar points. But keep trying, 250 points gets you another sound card. Meaningless posturing. You're cornered Art, but you're obviously too stupid and arrogant to realize it. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-) That they are taken by people from both sides is irrelevant. Its the test design that skews the results, so that they tend to be the same Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do indeed tend to be the same. That's because most decent equipment really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools like you would like to believe. Sure, it sounds the same to people who have preconceived notions that it will sound the same. I just showed how we can use ABX tests to identify people who are prone towards false negatives. ----== 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 =---- Note that Art has lost it again, and is just responding with null replies. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-) That they are taken by people from both sides is irrelevant. Its the test design that skews the results, so that they tend to be the same Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do indeed tend to be the same. That's because most decent equipment really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools like you would like to believe. Sure, it sounds the same to people who have preconceived notions that it will sound the same. I just showed how we can use ABX tests to identify people who are prone towards false negatives. that's not relative to preconceived notions about the particular two items to be tested. The listener in an ABX test need not know what the particular items being tested are, exactly. Art, what is unclear to you about the phrase "Bind Test"? The answer to that question is obviously: LOTS! |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... and ABX tests have nothing to do with preference. unless a normal proclaims a preference for a particular item, at which time you throw another ABX hissy fit. Mere posturing. ABX is clearly over your head, Art. ABX are tests for differences not preferences. Whenever it suits your agenda. ----== 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 =---- |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Fella, like your leader Middius, you have a wonderful command of the obvious. Too bad that the command of the obvious continues to evade you. Art this is just a lame, non-specific come-back. For example, you cite no relevant examples. Art you were just whining about how poor ABX tests were as tests of preference, right? Learn to read moron. Nice try at not taking responsibility for your own claims, Art. Hah! they are not my claims, they are merely the claims you claiim I claimed. You've already conceded this point in another post. BTW, this gotcha will cost you a loss of 15 debating trade frequent liar points. But keep trying, 250 points gets you another sound card. Meaningless posturing. You're cornered Art, but you're obviously too stupid and arrogant to realize it. Debating trade trick no 28. Purposefully misinterpret and misrepresent waht I say, and then prove the misinterpreted misrepresentation is wrong. You got your 15 frequent liar points reinstated. Congrats! ----== 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 =---- |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote: Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since they should all sound the same according to tests. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT says more about you as a true believer than it does about any kind of audio gear. Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus, this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards producing your "expected" results. Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-) That they are taken by people from both sides is irrelevant. Its the test design that skews the results, so that they tend to be the same Still the same old mantra, eh Sackman? The results do indeed tend to be the same. That's because most decent equipment really does sound the same, whatever guillible fools like you would like to believe. Sure, it sounds the same to people who have preconceived notions that it will sound the same. I just showed how we can use ABX tests to identify people who are prone towards false negatives. Sure!, of other items that are not the units being compared. You might as well pretest them on the taste of toothpaste. ----== 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 =---- |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Art, what is unclear to you about the phrase "Bind Test"? Well, I am not sure if you are talking about rope or duct tape. ----== 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 =---- |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Art, what is unclear to you about the phrase "Bind Test"? Well, I am not sure if you are talking about rope or duct tape. Capt. Johnny's space mask (SNL). Thats a black plastic bag (no holes) and a rubber band. ScottW |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... In level-matched blind listening tests, these three players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect. It's true - any reasonable person would expect that you can't hear the difference between any audio components. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Like most of the 'subjectivists', you're ignoring reality to push your own prejudices, and bitching about ABX because it doesn't support your fantasising about the sound of 'high-end' equipment. 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? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: from $0.99 SONY Theater RECEIVER ($600 less!) dOUBLEdECK AND headphones HiFi awesome | Marketplace | |||
FA: Sony MZ-E55 Portable MD Player inc New Battery, charger, MDs, rack | Marketplace | |||
[?]Sourcing SONY DAT recorder 7-pin connector (and lead). | Pro Audio | |||
Sony Digital Amps (and SACD) vs. Sony Analog Amps | High End Audio |