Clyde Slick wrote:



According to his manual of "Bad Science"!
That is, unless the definition of a * well designed*
amp is one that is designed to sound like sound like some cheap
Onkyo/Pioneer/Whateverothermassmarketbrandyouwanttoinclude,
that is, if they even all sound the same.


Actually before going high-end I owned an onkyo high-end wanna-be a9711
integra integrated amp. It had punchy bass, no sound stage to speak of,
imparted little detail (I know now!) and the most difficult speaker
terminals ever to work with. When the time to change that came (it's
source select needed replacing) and I started to audition other mid-fi
stuff I heard many differences amongst them. Kenwood, for instance was
thin sounding, very little, almost rationed out bass, a pioneer
integrated of similar class as the onkyo almost was the same, except
that it didn't have that warmish sound that is probably the house sound
of onkyo. Yamaha was just metallic, etc. I remember when I first
connected this densen. WOW! what an experience!

But yes, under an ABX they'd all sound the same, of course. I think that
that's what's fooling these borgs. At least some of them really do
beleive everything sounds the same since they've been fooled by the fals
promises of the ABX premise. Not this puke stew of warts though. He owns
a krell, makes his own "nterconnects", etc, but just wants to spoil and
ruin the ride for others on account of being a piece of ****.

Sander deWaal wrote:

The Krell schematic is, basically, the same as a Yamaha schematic.
The way things are worked out is what makes the difference.


Thanks Sander. I will contact you as soon as I am through the rounds
here and go and come back from summer vacation.

Lord Drunkerton harrumphed:

For anybody who is not familiar with Pukey's backstory, here's a recap. Once
upon a time, before he turned all bitter and smug, Stewie actually enjoyed
music.

I still do, and I don't suffer your bitter, twisted psyche, Gorge.

The evidence points to the opposite conclusion. And stop with the IKYABWAIs
already.

He also enjoyed buying, using, and fiddling with high-end audio stuff. He
didn't worry about "proof" and he didn't have a stick up his butt about "tests".
He was able to integrate audiophilia into the rest of his life. In short, he
used to be Normal.

Our village has a traditional village idiot. When asked how he is
today, he invariable replies "normal, surree, normal". Seems
appropriate.

Take the marbles out of your mouth and they'll understand you better.

Then something happened. We don't know what; Pukey has guarded that secret
zealously.

Another typical lie from the Hiddius Gorge. I have often recounted how
I was enjoying the tremendous bass slam and sweet liquid treble of my
trusty Krell in comparison to a Yamaha AX-570 - and then discovered
that the Yamaha was still connected! It was at this point that I took
rather more care about comparing audio gear.

And the angels burst into a heavenly chorus, and the light poured down from
the heavens above, and it was good. Amen.

But now, everything has changed. No longer is simply liking audio
gear enough; now, Pukey is consumed by a 'borgish fever. All preferences are now
"claims" and must be "proven" with "tests". When Pukey goes into one of his
frenzies, he's indistinguishable from a really hard case like Arnii Krooger.

Preference has nothing to do with it. It's only bull**** claims that
certain 'high end' things sound different that need to be proven.

'Cause it says so right there in your Big Book Of Audio Bull****, right?

Nowadays, audio isn't a means to an end for Pukey. It's an avenue of religious
devotion. He has absolute faith that if people are forcibly subjected to
"tests", they will renounce their love of music and audio gear and join him in
his pseudo-communistic prayer rituals. So off he goes to Usenet, day after day,
to spread the good news and crusade against the E.H.E.E.

Oh no, I want people to continue to love music and audio gear. I
particularly want to demonstrate to them that they needn't waste their
money on 'high end' electronics and cables. That way, they can spend
the bulk of the budget where it counts, on the speakers.

In the future, it would be well for you to quote chapter and verse when
offering dicta from your private scriptures, Pukey. That way the unbelievers
can follow along with your literary devotions and not have to come running
back to you every couple of days for another round of abuse -- er, I mean a
refresher in the faith.

One wonders why some people find this offensive........

God only knows what addiction you'll take up if you ever get off the sauce.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


The above, if verified, has obvious implications for
audio testing, and the implication directly contradicts
the use of short-segment, quick switch comparative
testing *when the purpose is open-ended musical
evaluation". Which is presumably what is relevant to
evaluating audio equipment for the home.

Other than the fact that he's a consummate hypocrite, I
can't imagine why a testing a procedure this completely odd
and dissimilar from normal listening to music, isn't sending
Art into orbit.

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


The evidence points to the opposite conclusion. And stop
with the IKYABWAIs already.

George, are you claiming that neither you or any of the
Normals ever resorts to IKYABWAIs?

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:41:33 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:48 +0300, Fella wrote:

I would have no objections to designers of gear to do DBT's, even the
sellers could do it also, the point is not that at all. If you take a
look at this what I said to puke:

"And Mark Levinson you say? Making same sounding amps as yamahas? Why'd
they use DTB's? To see of their amps sound the same as yamahas?"

The whole argument revolves around puke claiming all amps, cd's, etc,
sound the same.

Just another typical lie from the 6-year-old Mr Tio. OTOH, it's true
that all *well-designed* amps and CD players sound the same.
--

According to his manual of "Bad Science"!
That is, unless the definition of a * well designed*
amp is one that is designed to sound like sound like some cheap
Onkyo/Pioneer/Whateverothermassmarketbrandyouwanttoinclude,
that is, if they even all sound the same.

Nope, they all sound like my Krell.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:02:09 +0300, Fella wrote:

Actually before going high-end I owned an onkyo high-end wanna-be a9711
integra integrated amp. It had punchy bass, no sound stage to speak of,
imparted little detail (I know now!) and the most difficult speaker
terminals ever to work with. When the time to change that came (it's
source select needed replacing) and I started to audition other mid-fi
stuff I heard many differences amongst them. Kenwood, for instance was
thin sounding, very little, almost rationed out bass, a pioneer
integrated of similar class as the onkyo almost was the same, except
that it didn't have that warmish sound that is probably the house sound
of onkyo. Yamaha was just metallic, etc. I remember when I first
connected this densen. WOW! what an experience!

But yes, under an ABX they'd all sound the same, of course.

That's right - the reason being that they actually *do* all sound the
same. In sighted listening, your imagination fills in all that other
garbage you were spouting above.

I think that
that's what's fooling these borgs. At least some of them really do
beleive everything sounds the same since they've been fooled by the fals
promises of the ABX premise. Not this puke stew of warts though. He owns
a krell, makes his own "nterconnects", etc, but just wants to spoil and
ruin the ride for others on account of being a piece of ****.

Poor Mr Tio, you just can't handle reality, can you? Not my fault that
you spent way too much on that diddy Densen, that sounds exactly the
same as an Arcam at a third of the price.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:33:49 +0300, Fella wrote:

Make a temporary mail account in yahoo or something you puke, what's
important is to agree upon how and where and when.

Why would anyone want to do this by email? We've already discussed the
how, all we need now is an impartial observer, the location and timing
is entirely up to you.

I see now, how you are going to squirm your way out of this,

I'm not the one who's taking the test, you cretin. Ugly, deaf *and*
stupid is no way to go through life................

as if
squirming out of an asshole as a piece of **** you are, like the way you
did when you first came to be to polute existence. You are the moral
equivalent of a leech. You are a disease, you puerile one-handed
slack-jawed drooling meatslapper of a waste of flesh drool of a sixty
year old piece ultra concentrated dense piece of ****!

Poor Mr Tio, you just can't handle the thought of arranging a public
demonstration of your delusions, can you? What's with all this email
chicken****? WTF are you scared of setting it all up in this forum?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Fella" wrote in message
...

The *first* words pukerton wrote to me were "if this puts a bug up your
ass" .. He is getting exactly the treatment he asked for.

Besides I wouldn't step into that pukes puke ridden "home". Of course
whatever test there is to be done it will be in a lab.

And it will go exactly like the last time you did a DBT, you'll fail to get
it right withonly your ears to guide you and then spew some horsehit about
how you KNOW this thing is better than thing no matter what.

You are a glutton for punishment, assuming of course you have the balls to
try again.



The details will be sorted out between wart stew of puke and myself.
Where the test will be arranged, proctor, etc. Though a FULL account of
the matter, AS IT GOES DOWN, will be posted on RAO and RAT.

We shall all look forward to you making an ass of yourself again.

"Fella" wrote in message
...
Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.


Never mind academic papers,


Just beleive you me, eh, Mr. Pearce? Sure. Never mind academic papers,
science says that you shouldn't beleive what you hear if you see it. Ok.



experience it for yourself


Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
observations to RAO also.

In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise,

Naturally, there is zero evidence that any of the things make any
difference. Certianly one want an amp capable of driving the load presented
by the speakers being used. If, however one is wise, one finds great
sounding speakers that don't present difficult loads.
In any case as long as the amps being compared are capable of driving the
speakers you have, (or in your case the furniture), then the amps will not
sound different.

We've already had one fool who was absolutely positive that he could hear
differences in wires, he also chose not to have an ABX box, he, like was a
foul mouthed, bile spewing little toad. He, like you will be assuming you
actaully show up was shown that those differences disappear when you don't
know for sure which wires you listening to.

If you're smart (like that's a possibility) will chose to use an ABX box,
because as been demonstrated many times, the wuicker you can switch DUT's,
the better chance you have of hearing any differnences, if they actaully
exist.

I also think in your case there should be a loser pays proviso. No one
should have to be subjected to all your filth and then meet you in person
and not get paid when you lose.



and
when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the
tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real
world sound similar in an artificial abx environment.

You mean when once agan you can see what you hear. Cut the bull****, you
couldn't hear what wasn't there and now you are making excuses.

I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you
"objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you..

The only ones confused are the ones that make the claim that ABX boxes make
things sound the same, or any of the other long list of excuses made by the
everything sounds different, especially if it costs a lot more than it
should crowd.

" wrote in
message
k.net
"Fella" wrote in message
...


Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests.
Amps that sounded HUGELY different in the real world
sounded confusingly similar when subjected to an ABX.

I can safely predict that any listening methodology that
matches levels and removes sighted cues will have a similar
effect.

I, in a sincere manner, relayed my observations to RAO
also.

Oh, that's the purpose of the abusive language - convince us
all how sincere Fella is.

In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety
of volume levels, in a variety rooms, with varying
speakers of reactionary loads.

None of which need be different from ABX tests.

And THERE ARE NO thousand
and one banana connections,

Need not be used and has been avoided in ABX tests - as if
a properly-used banana jack has any audible effect at all.

level matching boxes,

Need not be used and has been avoided in ABX tests - as if
a properly-used level matching box has any audible effect at
all.

ABX relay boxes, etc

Need not be used and has been avoided in ABX tests - as if
a properly-used relay box has any audible effect at all.

in between the amps and the speakers.

There need not be anything but the finest wire between the
amps and speakers in an ABX test and this has been done, as
if good speaker wire has any audible effect at all.

So when you guys effectively *make* the amps sound
similar with the abx premise,

That's the Middius dogma - that ABX is designed to make amps
sound the same regardless of their innate properties.

Naturally, there is zero evidence that any of the things
make any difference.

Agreed - Fella is citing a bunch of audiophile urban legends
as if they are revealed truth.

Certianly one want an amp capable
of driving the load presented by the speakers being used.

OTOH, ABX tests have definately shown up amps that could not
drive the speaker load at hand.


We've already had one fool who was absolutely positive
that he could hear differences in wires, he also chose
not to have an ABX box,

This would be Greg Singh - a Middius disciple who has failed
at a number of things he has attempted.

He, like was a foul mouthed, bile spewing little toad.

There is a similarity.

He, like you will be assuming you
actaully show up was shown that those differences
disappear when you don't know for sure which wires you
listening to.

He believed the same urban myths that Fells spouts of so
glibly.

If you're smart (like that's a possibility) will chose to
use an ABX box, because as been demonstrated many times,
the wuicker you can switch DUT's, the better chance you
have of hearing any differnences, if they actaully exist.

Trouble is, if you buy into the idea that an ABX does not
cause audible problems with speaker cables, a lot of the
mythology surrounding speaker cables themselves will be
blown away.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:41:33 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:48 +0300, Fella wrote:

I would have no objections to designers of gear to do DBT's, even the
sellers could do it also, the point is not that at all. If you take a
look at this what I said to puke:

"And Mark Levinson you say? Making same sounding amps as yamahas?
Why'd
they use DTB's? To see of their amps sound the same as yamahas?"

The whole argument revolves around puke claiming all amps, cd's, etc,
sound the same.

Just another typical lie from the 6-year-old Mr Tio. OTOH, it's true
that all *well-designed* amps and CD players sound the same.
--

According to his manual of "Bad Science"!
That is, unless the definition of a * well designed*
amp is one that is designed to sound like sound like some cheap
Onkyo/Pioneer/Whateverothermassmarketbrandyouwanttoinclude,
that is, if they even all sound the same.

Nope, they all sound like my Krell.



To you.
Exptrapolate that!



----== 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 Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:02:09 +0300, Fella wrote:

Actually before going high-end I owned an onkyo high-end wanna-be a9711
integra integrated amp. It had punchy bass, no sound stage to speak of,
imparted little detail (I know now!) and the most difficult speaker
terminals ever to work with. When the time to change that came (it's
source select needed replacing) and I started to audition other mid-fi
stuff I heard many differences amongst them. Kenwood, for instance was
thin sounding, very little, almost rationed out bass, a pioneer
integrated of similar class as the onkyo almost was the same, except
that it didn't have that warmish sound that is probably the house sound
of onkyo. Yamaha was just metallic, etc. I remember when I first
connected this densen. WOW! what an experience!

But yes, under an ABX they'd all sound the same, of course.

That's right - the reason being that they actually *do* all sound the
same. In sighted listening, your imagination fills in all that other
garbage you were spouting above.


Granted the above, (which I don't), everything else
being equal, I would select the one that
tickled my imagination. Why deprive oneself of pleasure?



----== 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 =----

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


The above, if verified, has obvious implications for
audio testing, and the implication directly contradicts
the use of short-segment, quick switch comparative
testing *when the purpose is open-ended musical
evaluation". Which is presumably what is relevant to
evaluating audio equipment for the home.

Other than the fact that he's a consummate hypocrite, I
can't imagine why a testing a procedure this completely odd
and dissimilar from normal listening to music, isn't sending
Art into orbit.

Going into a gently-lit room, sitting in a comfy chair, and hearing a
moderately long piece of uninterrupted music is "completely odd and
dissimilar" to ordinary listening?

Stephen

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:41:33 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:48 +0300, Fella wrote:

I would have no objections to designers of gear to do DBT's, even the
sellers could do it also, the point is not that at all. If you take a
look at this what I said to puke:

"And Mark Levinson you say? Making same sounding amps as yamahas?
Why'd
they use DTB's? To see of their amps sound the same as yamahas?"

The whole argument revolves around puke claiming all amps, cd's, etc,
sound the same.

Just another typical lie from the 6-year-old Mr Tio. OTOH, it's true
that all *well-designed* amps and CD players sound the same.
--

According to his manual of "Bad Science"!
That is, unless the definition of a * well designed*
amp is one that is designed to sound like sound like some cheap
Onkyo/Pioneer/Whateverothermassmarketbrandyouwanttoinclude,
that is, if they even all sound the same.

Nope, they all sound like my Krell.


Not necessarily a good thing. Some Krells sound better than others but I
suspect it would be impossible for anyone to tell through those rotting
mosquito screens of yours. I can see why a narcissistic egomaniac like you
would buy a Krell regardless of the way it "sounds". Dan knew what he was
doing when he named his product.

Cheers,

Margaret


PS. You seem to have stolen Howie's act and doing no better than that
ape-brain.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:02:09 +0300, Fella wrote:

Actually before going high-end I owned an onkyo high-end wanna-be a9711
integra integrated amp. It had punchy bass, no sound stage to speak of,
imparted little detail (I know now!) and the most difficult speaker
terminals ever to work with. When the time to change that came (it's
source select needed replacing) and I started to audition other mid-fi
stuff I heard many differences amongst them. Kenwood, for instance was
thin sounding, very little, almost rationed out bass, a pioneer
integrated of similar class as the onkyo almost was the same, except
that it didn't have that warmish sound that is probably the house sound
of onkyo. Yamaha was just metallic, etc. I remember when I first
connected this densen. WOW! what an experience!

But yes, under an ABX they'd all sound the same, of course.

That's right - the reason being that they actually *do* all sound the
same. In sighted listening, your imagination fills in all that other
garbage you were spouting above.

I think that
that's what's fooling these borgs. At least some of them really do
beleive everything sounds the same since they've been fooled by the fals
promises of the ABX premise. Not this puke stew of warts though. He owns
a krell, makes his own "nterconnects", etc, but just wants to spoil and
ruin the ride for others on account of being a piece of ****.

Poor Mr Tio, you just can't handle reality, can you? Not my fault that
you spent way too much on that diddy Densen, that sounds exactly the
same as an Arcam at a third of the price.........

Why Arcam? Why not a Pioneer receiver for $89 like Arny has? They all sound
the same.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:48 +0300, Fella wrote:

I would have no objections to designers of gear to do DBT's, even the
sellers could do it also, the point is not that at all. If you take a
look at this what I said to puke:

"And Mark Levinson you say? Making same sounding amps as yamahas? Why'd
they use DTB's? To see of their amps sound the same as yamahas?"

The whole argument revolves around puke claiming all amps, cd's, etc,
sound the same.

Just another typical lie from the 6-year-old Mr Tio.

I'm not sure what to make of that slip. I hope you have your trousers
zipped...


Margaret

Clyde Slick said:

Why deprive oneself of pleasure?

Oh great. We haven't heard from Krooger in a couple of days, and here you go
baiting him.

MINe 109 said:

Going into a gently-lit room, sitting in a comfy chair, and hearing a
moderately long piece of uninterrupted music is "completely odd and
dissimilar" to ordinary listening?

Of course it is. (If you're a 'borg.) Where are the meters and probes? How
about the blinding equipment, the earplugs, the essential proximity to noisy
household appliances? Not to mention the Sameness Prayer session, the ritual
desecration of images of high-end equipment, and the Stereophile Snotfest?

Thanks Mr. McElron for admitting the scenario to which you're referring is
hardly™ ordinary. LOt"S!

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:33:49 +0300, Fella wrote:

Make a temporary mail account in yahoo or something you puke, what's
important is to agree upon how and where and when.

Why would anyone want to do this by email? We've already discussed the
how, all we need now is an impartial observer, the location and timing
is entirely up to you.


If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, I can provide the
perfect place for you. I will be moving to my new house in August. Got a
dedicated, professionally designed music/theater quarters with some of the
world's best speakers and top equipment. Got a guest house available, if
needed, and on-site armed security too, in case things get unruly. :-) The
only requirement regarding your equipment is that my tech gets to check out
any component for safe operation before hookup. There is no requirement to
socialize with anyone beyond the challenge but I get to approve of the guest
list up front. And I will keep all commercial rights to the event although I
honestly expect them to have zero value.

So there you go.

Cheers,

Margaret

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Ugly, deaf *and*
stupid is no way to go through life................

You are stuck with yourself you goofy ****bag, take it to whatever
borgish god you believe in.



as if
squirming out of an asshole as a piece of **** you are, like the way you
did when you first came to be to polute existence. You are the moral
equivalent of a leech. You are a disease, you puerile one-handed
slack-jawed drooling meatslapper of a waste of flesh drool of a sixty
year old piece ultra concentrated dense piece of ****!


Poor Mr Tio, you just can't handle the thought of arranging a public
demonstration of your delusions,

We will not do the arrangments in public. The *demostration* or test,
will be brought to the public.

can you? What's with all this email
chicken****? WTF are you scared of setting it all up in this forum?


You might not be able to figure this one out, of course, being a piece
of dense ****, you have brains made of dense ****. Are you so dumb as to
not be able to setup an email for this? What's the difference if we
arrange the location, setting privately. Don't worry, I will kick the
**** out of you (which will leave you with nothing left) also in private
exhanges, much worse, actually.

Margaret von B. wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:33:49 +0300, Fella wrote:


Make a temporary mail account in yahoo or something you puke, what's
important is to agree upon how and where and when.

Why would anyone want to do this by email? We've already discussed the
how, all we need now is an impartial observer, the location and timing
is entirely up to you.



If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, I can provide the
perfect place for you. I will be moving to my new house in August. Got a
dedicated, professionally designed music/theater quarters with some of the
world's best speakers and top equipment. Got a guest house available, if
needed, and on-site armed security too, in case things get unruly. :-) The
only requirement regarding your equipment is that my tech gets to check out
any component for safe operation before hookup. There is no requirement to
socialize with anyone beyond the challenge but I get to approve of the guest
list up front. And I will keep all commercial rights to the event although I
honestly expect them to have zero value.

So there you go.

Cheers,

Margaret




Texas? I've never been there. I am game if pukey the puke stew of
warts dense piece of **** goofball is.

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Fella" wrote in message
...
Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.


Never mind academic papers,


Just beleive you me, eh, Mr. Pearce? Sure. Never mind academic papers,
science says that you shouldn't beleive what you hear if you see it. Ok.



experience it for yourself


Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
observations to RAO also.

In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise,

Naturally, there is zero evidence that any of the things make any
difference. Certianly one want an amp capable of driving the load
presented
by the speakers being used. If, however one is wise, one finds great
sounding speakers that don't present difficult loads.
In any case as long as the amps being compared are capable of driving the
speakers you have, (or in your case the furniture), then the amps will not
sound different.

We've already had one fool who was absolutely positive that he could hear
differences in wires, he also chose not to have an ABX box, he, like was a
foul mouthed, bile spewing little toad. He, like you will be assuming you
actaully show up was shown that those differences disappear when you don't
know for sure which wires you listening to.

If you're smart (like that's a possibility) will chose to use an ABX box,
because as been demonstrated many times, the wuicker you can switch DUT's,
the better chance you have of hearing any differnences, if they actaully
exist.

I also think in your case there should be a loser pays proviso. No one
should have to be subjected to all your filth and then meet you in person
and not get paid when you lose.


I say the loser has to eat haggis.



----== 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
...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:33:49 +0300, Fella wrote:

Make a temporary mail account in yahoo or something you puke, what's
important is to agree upon how and where and when.

Why would anyone want to do this by email? We've already discussed the
how, all we need now is an impartial observer, the location and timing
is entirely up to you.


If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, I can provide
the perfect place for you. I will be moving to my new house in August. Got
a dedicated, professionally designed music/theater quarters with some of
the world's best speakers and top equipment. Got a guest house available,
if needed, and on-site armed security too, in case things get unruly. :-)
The only requirement regarding your equipment is that my tech gets to
check out any component for safe operation before hookup. There is no
requirement to socialize with anyone beyond the challenge but I get to
approve of the guest list up front. And I will keep all commercial rights
to the event although I honestly expect them to have zero value.

So there you go.

Cheers,

Margaret



Ooh! A rich bitch.
now I really want to go out with you. I don't
even care about your looks.



----== 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 =----

Is duh mikey the goofball in this too? Do me a favor slick, edit the
parts of goofy "writings" that you wanto to comment on. I don't want to
read duh!text.


Clyde Slick wrote:

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Fella" wrote in message
. ..

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:



Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.


Never mind academic papers,


Just beleive you me, eh, Mr. Pearce? Sure. Never mind academic papers,
science says that you shouldn't beleive what you hear if you see it. Ok.




experience it for yourself


Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
observations to RAO also.

In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise,

Naturally, there is zero evidence that any of the things make any
difference. Certianly one want an amp capable of driving the load
presented
by the speakers being used. If, however one is wise, one finds great
sounding speakers that don't present difficult loads.
In any case as long as the amps being compared are capable of driving the
speakers you have, (or in your case the furniture), then the amps will not
sound different.

We've already had one fool who was absolutely positive that he could hear
differences in wires, he also chose not to have an ABX box, he, like was a
foul mouthed, bile spewing little toad. He, like you will be assuming you
actaully show up was shown that those differences disappear when you don't
know for sure which wires you listening to.

If you're smart (like that's a possibility) will chose to use an ABX box,
because as been demonstrated many times, the wuicker you can switch DUT's,
the better chance you have of hearing any differnences, if they actaully
exist.

I also think in your case there should be a loser pays proviso. No one
should have to be subjected to all your filth and then meet you in person
and not get paid when you lose.



I say the loser has to eat haggis.



----== 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 =----

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Margaret von B." wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:33:49 +0300, Fella wrote:

Make a temporary mail account in yahoo or something you puke, what's
important is to agree upon how and where and when.

Why would anyone want to do this by email? We've already discussed the
how, all we need now is an impartial observer, the location and timing
is entirely up to you.


If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, I can provide
the perfect place for you. I will be moving to my new house in August.
Got a dedicated, professionally designed music/theater quarters with some
of the world's best speakers and top equipment. Got a guest house
available, if needed, and on-site armed security too, in case things get
unruly. :-) The only requirement regarding your equipment is that my tech
gets to check out any component for safe operation before hookup. There
is no requirement to socialize with anyone beyond the challenge but I get
to approve of the guest list up front. And I will keep all commercial
rights to the event although I honestly expect them to have zero value.

So there you go.

Cheers,

Margaret



Ooh! A rich bitch.
now I really want to go out with you. I don't
even care about your looks.

You need to work on your strategy.

:-(

Margaret

"Fella" wrote in message
.. .


Is duh mikey the goofball in this too? Do me a favor slick, edit the
parts of goofy "writings" that you wanto to comment on. I don't want to
read duh!text.




Sure, but two haggis' for 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 =----

"Fella" wrote in message
.. .
Sander deWaal wrote:
Fella said:


http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html


eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da"..



Strange.....all I heard was "BaBaBaBa", either with my eyes open or
closed.

Is there a conclusion to draw from this?


The conclusion is that we should never listen to music from our gear with
our eyes open.

Listen with your eyes open all you want, but just don't expect anything
meaningful in terms of comparisons for subtle differences if you do.

"Fella" wrote in message
.. .


Is duh mikey the goofball in this too? Do me a favor slick, edit the
parts of goofy "writings" that you wanto to comment on. I don't want to
read duh!text.


Then stop writing it, toad.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:34 +0300, Fella wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.


Never mind academic papers

I just can't get over this, Mr Pierce. You say:

"we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias"

as if in a manner that just as an "audible difference" is a well known,
observed phenomenon, a "psychosomatically generated internal difference
based on sighted bias" is also such a widely acknowledged, observed
phenomenon. But when asked to put forth some academic *scientific*
research on the subject, even competent books, tv documentaries
WHAT!EVER!, you snap back: "Never mind academic papers". How does this
come about?

Because I have no confidence that you would believe an academic paper,
no matter how learned. I offered you instead the possibility of doing
your own, very quick, "academic" research. Did you try it? Convincing,
isn't it?


I remeber once reading, was it from pinkerton or the krooborg, about an
incident where this mixing engineer thinks he has flipped some switch
and he hears the differences he is expecting to hear in the sound
whereas all the while it was a wrong switch. So hearsay anecdotes like
this and non-applicable, faulty abx/dbt:ing made you people lose faith
in your own ears then? Am I correct?

What is well known is that most recording engineers have a "producer
control" - a disconnected pot they can twiddle when some busybody
producer feels his ego being threatened and wants to put his stamp on
the music. "Give me a bit more presence" he might say. The engineer
will then carefully twiddle the pot, asking "is that how you want
it?". The producer will be a happy bunny.

d

The Beach Boys had an dead board set up for their father, because of is
constant carping. He never realized that it made no difference to what was
being recorded, it just kept him quiet.

"Fella" wrote in message
.. .
Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:34 +0300, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:



Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.


Never mind academic papers

I just can't get over this, Mr Pierce. You say:

"we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias"

as if in a manner that just as an "audible difference" is a well known,
observed phenomenon, a "psychosomatically generated internal difference
based on sighted bias" is also such a widely acknowledged, observed
phenomenon. But when asked to put forth some academic *scientific*
research on the subject, even competent books, tv documentaries
WHAT!EVER!, you snap back: "Never mind academic papers". How does this
come about?


Because I have no confidence that you would believe an academic paper,
no matter how learned. I offered you instead the possibility of doing
your own, very quick, "academic" research. Did you try it? Convincing,
isn't it?

I told you I tried it and eyes open or shut I heard dadadaa. I'll get me
coat (as they say in the "faast show") and go for an ear check-up to the
doctor.



What is well known is that most recording engineers have a "producer
control" - a disconnected pot they can twiddle when some busybody
producer feels his ego being threatened and wants to put his stamp on
the music. "Give me a bit more presence" he might say. The engineer
will then carefully twiddle the pot, asking "is that how you want
it?". The producer will be a happy bunny.


Ok, there is no doubt in my mind anymore, all audio equipment sound the
same.

That still makes you a ****ing idiot, since in the real world some equipment
does sound different, and nobody has ever claimed otherwise. Speakers sound
so different in most cases they don't require a DBT to demonstrate it. CD
players and amps on the other hand, if built properly, and not driven into
clipping, will sound alike, assuming they are designed to produce flat
response across the audio bandwidth.

"Fella" wrote in message


Sander deWaal wrote:
Fella said:


http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html

eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da
da da da"..

Strange.....all I heard was "BaBaBaBa", either with my
eyes open or closed.

Is there a conclusion to draw from this?

The conclusion is that we should never listen to music
from our gear with our eyes open.

Obvious conclusion - Fella is just having fun. Sincerity =
0.0

"Fella" wrote in message

Is duh mikey the goofball in this too? Do me a favor
slick, edit the parts of goofy "writings" that you wanto
to comment on. I don't want to read duh!text.

More evidence that Fella is just in it for the yucks.
Sincerity = 0.0

"MINe 109" wrote in message



Going into a gently-lit room, sitting in a comfy chair,
and hearing a moderately long piece of uninterrupted
music is "completely odd and dissimilar" to ordinary
listening?

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

"Their heads were fixed in individually molded helmet-shaped
rests that were contoured to leave their ears undisturbed. "

"For each of the FRS, HCS, and LCS presentations, 30 mCi of
15O-labeled water was injected into the right cubital vein
80 s after the beginning of each session."

Sounds like ordinary listening to me! ;-)

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message



Going into a gently-lit room, sitting in a comfy chair,
and hearing a moderately long piece of uninterrupted
music is "completely odd and dissimilar" to ordinary
listening?

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

"Their heads were fixed in individually molded helmet-shaped
rests that were contoured to leave their ears undisturbed. "

"For each of the FRS, HCS, and LCS presentations, 30 mCi of
15O-labeled water was injected into the right cubital vein
80 s after the beginning of each session."

Sounds like ordinary listening to me! ;-)

Other than that...!

Stephen

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"MINe 109" wrote in message



Going into a gently-lit room, sitting in a comfy chair,
and hearing a moderately long piece of uninterrupted
music is "completely odd and dissimilar" to ordinary
listening?

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

"Their heads were fixed in individually molded helmet-shaped
rests that were contoured to leave their ears undisturbed. "

"For each of the FRS, HCS, and LCS presentations, 30 mCi of
15O-labeled water was injected into the right cubital vein
80 s after the beginning of each session."

Sounds like ordinary listening to me! ;-)



That's the physiological part of the test, not the evaluative listening
part. Being a bit misleading aren't we, Arny?

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:54:19 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:41:33 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:48 +0300, Fella wrote:

I would have no objections to designers of gear to do DBT's, even the
sellers could do it also, the point is not that at all. If you take a
look at this what I said to puke:

"And Mark Levinson you say? Making same sounding amps as yamahas?
Why'd
they use DTB's? To see of their amps sound the same as yamahas?"

The whole argument revolves around puke claiming all amps, cd's, etc,
sound the same.

Just another typical lie from the 6-year-old Mr Tio. OTOH, it's true
that all *well-designed* amps and CD players sound the same.
--

According to his manual of "Bad Science"!
That is, unless the definition of a * well designed*
amp is one that is designed to sound like sound like some cheap
Onkyo/Pioneer/Whateverothermassmarketbrandyouwanttoinclude,
that is, if they even all sound the same.

Nope, they all sound like my Krell.

To you.
Exptrapolate that!

Not just to me, but also to some thirty or forty assorted audiophiles
who have shared this experience over the years.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:56:20 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:02:09 +0300, Fella wrote:

Actually before going high-end I owned an onkyo high-end wanna-be a9711
integra integrated amp. It had punchy bass, no sound stage to speak of,
imparted little detail (I know now!) and the most difficult speaker
terminals ever to work with. When the time to change that came (it's
source select needed replacing) and I started to audition other mid-fi
stuff I heard many differences amongst them. Kenwood, for instance was
thin sounding, very little, almost rationed out bass, a pioneer
integrated of similar class as the onkyo almost was the same, except
that it didn't have that warmish sound that is probably the house sound
of onkyo. Yamaha was just metallic, etc. I remember when I first
connected this densen. WOW! what an experience!

But yes, under an ABX they'd all sound the same, of course.

That's right - the reason being that they actually *do* all sound the
same. In sighted listening, your imagination fills in all that other
garbage you were spouting above.


Granted the above, (which I don't), everything else
being equal, I would select the one that
tickled my imagination. Why deprive oneself of pleasure?

Indeed, and no one *ever* said that you should base a buying decision
solely on sound quality.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:52:39 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news

Nope, they all sound like my Krell.

Not necessarily a good thing. Some Krells sound better than others

Not really, but of course you're not goiung to let reality get in the
way of a good story......

but I
suspect it would be impossible for anyone to tell through those rotting
mosquito screens of yours.

Oh, you mean the ones that Colloms used as references for many years,
being the little brothers of the ones that Ken Kessler *still* uses as
references? Deaf *and* dumb bitch.

I can see why a narcissistic egomaniac like you
would buy a Krell regardless of the way it "sounds". Dan knew what he was
doing when he named his product.

So Maggie, we know the colour of the sky on Altair IV, what colour is
the sky on *your* planet?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:23:37 +0300, Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Poor Mr Tio, you just can't handle the thought of arranging a public
demonstration of your delusions,

We will not do the arrangments in public.

Why not? Of what are you so afraid?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering