Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
wrote in message
ink.net I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new A500 Behringer amp against another amp of similar wattage and current capabilities. I say cut to the chase, and just do a straight-wire bypass test of the A500. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message oups.com So let's be realistic he Mike McKelvy and Steven Sullivan have already admitted that they did not use PCABX or even old-fashioned ABX to help them purchase their audio systems. However, as you have a claim to be the originator of PCABX and as you have clearly outlined a procedure whereby you feel PCABX can be of use in a purchase situation, it is to be expected that you have indeed followed that procedure when choosing what components to buy. This is an unreasonable expectation for many reasons. First off, I buy mostly speakers, earphones and microphones, and ABX tests of speakers and earphones and microphones always have positive outcomes. Therefore there's really no logical reason to do ABX tests on speakers, earphones and microphones. Secondly, ABX tests were originally developed to resolve controversies about whether certain kinds of components really sound different from each other. Att his time there are few such controversies in my mind, based on about 30 years of experience with AB testing. Thirdly, I am generally unsucessful in borrowing equipment that interests me, prior to testing it. In general just about every component that I have been interested in testing, I had to buy first and test second. Since cycling audio components between my listening room and various dealers is not my idea of fun, I generally only buy components that I can reasonably expect to perform as I desire in ABX tests. I'm pretty good at doing this, based on the components that I bought and did subsequently ABX test. Fourthly, Whether a piece of equipment would pass a highly sensitive ABX test is not always the determining factor in my equipment choices. ABX tests are so sensitive that a piece of equipment could be reliably detectable in an ABX test, and still be the best possible overall choice, based on non-sonic considerations. When, for example, you purchased a digital mixer for your live sound mixing at your church, it is reasonable to assume that you followed your own advice above. See (3) and (4) above. Did you indeed do so? Did you do so for the microphones you purchased? See (1) and (4) above. Did you do so for your amplifiers? See (2) and (3) above. For your speakers? See (1) and (4) above. If you didn't for even one of those purchases, then don't you feel that odd, just as I find odd the fact that the most vocal proponents for ABX testing have little or no experience of it, even when their own money is tied up in the decision? Asked and answered. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new A500 Behringer amp against another amp of similar wattage and current capabilities. I say cut to the chase, and just do a straight-wire bypass test of the A500. But where would the embarassment factor come from? :-) |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
said:
I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new A500 Behringer amp against another amp of similar wattage and current capabilities. I say cut to the chase, and just do a straight-wire bypass test of the A500. But where would the embarassment factor come from? :-) Is that something like reverse bragging rights? ;-) -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
Now, let me ask, since you and your magazine claim to be interested in how stuff really sounds, why do you adhere to a demonstrably flawed method for determining that, and why don't you adopt an accepted scientific method for verifying your sighted perceptions? Since John can be counted on to either slough or try to double-talk his way out of this critical question... It's all about power and control. Stereophile's current listening test procedure is wide-open to manipulation, whether conscious or unconscious. Science is, by definition, out of anybody's control, least of all Stereophile. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... said: I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new A500 Behringer amp against another amp of similar wattage and current capabilities. I say cut to the chase, and just do a straight-wire bypass test of the A500. But where would the embarassment factor come from? :-) Is that something like reverse bragging rights? ;-) Same coin, different side. The idea of some looney like Fremer not being able to differentiate between a $179.00 amp and one that sells for several times that amount and having had a glowing review, would be priceless. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
"John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote please tell me how a consumer can make meaningful use of your PCABX computer program in making a buying decision? (1) Identify a sound quality issue relating to a buying decision. (2) Encapsulate that issue in a set of files for a PCABX test. (3) Distribute PCABX files to interested consumers for their review, using a PCABX comparator running in their PC. (4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality issue on the outcome of his personal PCABX listening test. (5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound quality issue into his buying decision. In the case at hand: (1) Consumer has a concern about the sound quality of the Dolby decoder in one or more surround receivers. (2) PCABX files based on operation of the Dolby decoder(s) are prepared in the lab. (3) Distribute PCABX files to consumers interested in the surround receiver(s) for their review, using a PCABX comparator running in their PC. (4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality of the Dolby Digital decoders in the various receiver(s) on the outcome of his personal PCABX listening test. (5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound quality issue into his buying decision related to the surround receiver(s). Thank you for finally addressing the issue rather than retreating into abusive langage, Mr. Krueger. I must admit that while the procedure you outline above is logically sound, it is also extraordinarily complex for someone wanting to use to choose what components to buy. The purchaser need only compete steps 4 and 5. But then he would have nothing to compare in his "personal PCABX listening test," Mr. Krueger. I have to admit that I'm getting sick of being lied to, and having lies told about what I wrote. No-one is doing so Mr. Krueger. I am merely contesting your assertions. You have said in the past that for me to do so shows a lack of respect, but that is disingenuous of you. So let's be realistic he Mike McKelvy and Steven Sullivan have already admitted that they did not use PCABX or even old-fashioned ABX to help them purchase their audio systems. However, as you have a claim to be the originator of PCABX and as you have clearly outlined a procedure whereby you feel PCABX can be of use in a purchase situation, it is to be expected that you have indeed followed that procedure when choosing what components to buy. When, for example, you purchased a digital mixer for your live sound mixing at your church, it is reasonable to assume that you followed your own advice above. Did you indeed do so? Did you do so for the microphones you purchased? Did you do so for your amplifiers? For your speakers? No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question. It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make purchase decisions. In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about reason. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Do you always make your decisions based only on the sound of a peice of equipment? Are there never any other factors that might influence your purchase? |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article .com, "John Atkinson" wrote: No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question. It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make purchase decisions. In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about reason. IIRC, Arny has made purchases for the purpose of performing tests. Sure, the other way round makes more sense given his advocacy. Sullivan's position echoes one I used against Howard's seemingly incessant exhortations to perform home blind tests: if you believe it all sounds the same, one needn't test at all. Stephen Sure, if one believes it all sounds the same, the test will not remove that bias. I'm not sure that there is any way to remove that bias. Poor souls are completely stuck in a life of imagining that everything sounds the same. All that self deception, and no way to cure it. I am absolutely convinced that SET amps sound different than any decent SS amp. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article .com, "John Atkinson" wrote: No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question. It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make purchase decisions. In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about reason. IIRC, Arny has made purchases for the purpose of performing tests. Sure, the other way round makes more sense given his advocacy. Sullivan's position echoes one I used against Howard's seemingly incessant exhortations to perform home blind tests: if you believe it all sounds the same, one needn't test at all. Stephen Sure, if one believes it all sounds the same, the test will not remove that bias. I'm not sure that there is any way to remove that bias. Poor souls are completely stuck in a life of imagining that everything sounds the same. All that self deception, and no way to cure it. I am absolutely convinced that SET amps sound different than any decent SS amp. The usual qualifiers apply/ We don't need to keep repeating the obvious and the given. Tube and SET are always excluded from this discussion. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article .com, "John Atkinson" wrote: No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question. It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make purchase decisions. In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about reason. IIRC, Arny has made purchases for the purpose of performing tests. Sure, the other way round makes more sense given his advocacy. Sullivan's position echoes one I used against Howard's seemingly incessant exhortations to perform home blind tests: if you believe it all sounds the same, one needn't test at all. Stephen Sure, if one believes it all sounds the same, the test will not remove that bias. I'm not sure that there is any way to remove that bias. Poor souls are completely stuck in a life of imagining that everything sounds the same. All that self deception, and no way to cure it. I am absolutely convinced that SET amps sound different than any decent SS amp. The usual qualifiers apply/ We don't need to keep repeating the obvious and the given. Tube and SET are always excluded from this discussion. I don't believe everything sounds the same, I belive and there is evidence to back me up, that equipmenmt that measures closely enough will sound the same. |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message oups.com However, as you have a claim to be the originator of PCABX and as you have clearly outlined a procedure whereby you feel PCABX can be of use in a purchase situation, it is to be expected that you have indeed followed that procedure when choosing what components to buy. When, for example, you purchased a digital mixer for your live sound mixing at your church, it is reasonable to assume that you followed your own advice above. Did you indeed do so? Did you do so for the microphones you purchased? Did you do so for your amplifiers? For your speakers? No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question. It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make purchase decisions. This would be a false claim. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: If it wasn't for AES demos and the like, how many ABX tests would the current Stereophile staff participated in? I have participated in five blind tests organized by officers of the AES and held at AES Conventions at meetings, of which three used the ABX protocol. Regarding other blind tests, as you are well aware because you heard me say so at the HE2005 debate, Mr. Krueger, I have taken in a large number of blind tests, many of which used the ABX protocol or box, sme hsich were ABC/HR, and many of involved monadic testing with a hidden reference. In all, I have participated in well over 100 such tests since my first in 1977. I'll make this short, since I have a life to live. How'd you do? More to the point, did you think that any differences you did hear (assuming you heard any with components that were bench checked and found to be operationally up to mainstream hi-fi standards) were a big enough deal to warrant the copy space utilized hyping (either in ads or in reviews) high-priced components in assorted high-end magazines? Howard Ferstler |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
John Atkinson wrote:
Perhaps you didn't read the text of mine that you quoted above, Mr. Sullivan. I wrote that of the five blind tests I took that were organized by the AES, three used an ABX box. But as I also wrote above, I have participated in over 100 of blind tests overall, using all the common protocols, including ABX, ABC/HR, etc. Just in case you missed my questions in another part of the thread, regarding all of these listening sessions, just how did you do? More to the point, did you think that any differences you did hear (assuming you heard any with components that were bench checked and found to be operationally up to mainstream hi-fi standards) were a big enough deal to warrant the copy space utilized hyping (either in ads or in reviews) high-priced components in assorted high-end magazines? Don't expect a long-winded debate, by the way, I have a life to live, and it no longer includes debating true believers at length on RAO. Howard Ferstler |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
Brother Horace the Hideously Unethical Science-Trasher dorked: I have participated in well over 100 such tests since my first in 1977. I'll make this short, since I have a life to live. How'd you do? At least(TM) Mr. Atkinson did not falsify his results, or lie about them, or stop trying and simply take random guesses. Unlike you, Mr. Fraudster. The larger picture here is that you, like the lesser 'borgs duh-Mikey and Sillybot, are obsessed with "tests" because you are incapable of perceiving and appreciating high-performance audio gear. We know all about what you like, Clerkie -- bells and whistles for surround processing. You couldn't care less about fidelity to the original sound. Your silence on the important (to Normals) issues of tonality, timbre, and dynamics delineate your complacent adherence to mediocrity. Like the maniacal Dr. Not, all you really care about is boosting bass so much it drowns out mid- and high-frequency sounds. Don't bother us with your nonsense about "tests", you simpering fool. You have nothing to say about anything of interest to Normals. You're a closed-minded, dogmatic old fart, and you're deaf and dumb to boot. Beat it, Clerkie. You're dumber than the average clown and everybody here is laughing at you. .. .. .. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey admits he's a stooge of Arny!
wrote in message k.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message .net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message nk.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news "surf" wrote in message . .. " wrote ... "Robert Morein" wrote... The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX. At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid and that it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference testing. Have you ever done an ABX test Mike? No "Nuf said. Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny. This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope right, and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so badly. Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never. Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight. Or are you just lying, Mikey? My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting your ass kicked in a moderated forum. It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked. And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about damping factor, or amplifers in general. Thanks for admitting you don't understand I know all about the definition of damping factor. Yawn. Thanks for admitting you have nothing to say. I just get bored when you are so completely, utterly and consistently wrong about damn near everything, Robert. Your predictability is nothing short of stunning. Here, we have a typical distortion. What do you predict I'll say next? |