| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#281
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
"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. It is NOT a neutral test. It does not remove the expectation effects of those who have preconceived notions that there are no differences. But it does eliminate any possibility that guys like you will fake the results or imagine you hear things from a favored or not favored unit with a sighted comparison. Howard Ferstler |
|
#282
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... 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 certainly is neutral towards those who expect to hear differences, however. If it is so inadequate it would be easy for guys like you to hear differences when participating. You cannot, however. You then look for an excuse and blame those who cannot hear differences and are satisfied with those results as having preconceptions that plug their ears. 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. It hits the nail on the head when true believers in amp-sound differences participate and cannot hear differences. Howard Ferstler |
|
#283
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: you don't need the test to do that! But you do need to properly level match, and you also need to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior. That's the point, it only neuters one set of preconceotions And if the person has preconceptions that they will sound the same, the test WILL NOT neuter those preconceptions. Why not? Actually, it might be as you say for some individuals, but certainly not for all of them. I mean, some of those engineer and pre-conception types have as serious an interest in perfect-sound audio as you. And of course, this does not eliminate the fact that SOME people who participate in DBT comparisons have preconceptions that say that the amps should sound different. When those people cannot hear differences, some may wise up, but others will come up with excuses related to stress, pressure, the weather, etc. DBT tests for audio are actually designed to provide a biased result of there being no difference. Your position only holds for those who have serious preconceptions about amps sounding the same. However, some participants have exactly the opposite preconceptions. Yet, all of those participants are in the same boat: they cannot hear differences with a DBT, assuming the amps are decent and the levels are matched. you do not employ the DBT protocol there is no way to tell if the participant is hearing differences or simply imagining things - or saying that he hears differences in order to sell a product. See, you are using a test for the purpose of arriving at a predetermined result. It is NOT a proper test. The DBT test is no way to tell if those that have a predetermined bias against hearing differences are actually NOT hearing differences, or if they are merely 'deluding' themselves in ignoring differences that actually exist! Yeah, but you seem to assume that everyone who takes such tests and cannot hear differences have those preconceptions. However, some, like you, have just the opposite. Yet, they still cannot hear differences. Obviously, then, a level-matched DBT is most dramatic when a guy like you participates. Howard Ferstler |
|
#284
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 Well, I certainly would not say that, and Stewart would probably not say that, either. why should any "design changes" have a "*real*" audible effect? 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" ? Most such design changes beyond cosmetics and maybe surround-sound embellishments are minimal. On the other hand, if companies want to stay in business they have to make changes of some kind that will appeal to the spending public. In other words, they do what they do because it is business. DBT's do not work, been there done that. Simple fact. 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 is a pretty cheap receiver. However, let's just say that a slightly more upscale amp (with a tuner and surround sound thrown in as a bonus) will sound the same as that expensive integrated unit. Heck, it might, given what some upscale amp designers may do to make their product stand out, sound better. Howard Ferstler |
|
#285
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 How could this be? With the ABX protocol the participant, be he blessed with my point of view or with yours, can compare A and B openly, knowing exactly which is which. With the switch to X he can then decide if X sounds like A or B, both of which, as I noted can be known by the participant. The ABX test is both a blind and sighted test at the same time. This participant can indeed be like me and be generally predisposed to believe that differences will not be audible. That may make you feel smug, but how do you explain the failure of those who think they CAN hear differences prior to taking the test not being able to hear those differences blind? They had expectation effects that were just the opposite of those you claim prejudice the tests in favor of differences not being audible. Howard Ferstler |
|
#286
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
That may make you feel smug, but how do you explain the failure of those who think they CAN hear differences prior to taking the test not being able to hear those differences blind? They had expectation effects that were just the opposite of those you claim prejudice the tests in favor of differences not being audible. This includes at last half of the people who initially developed the ABX test. We developed it to give ourselves the best chance of hearing differences while remaining a true blind test. |
|
#287
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... snip How could this be? With the ABX protocol the participant, be he blessed with my point of view or with yours, can compare A and B openly, knowing exactly which is which. With the switch to X he can then decide if X sounds like A or B, both of which, as I noted can be known by the participant. The ABX test is both a blind and sighted test at the same time. This participant can indeed be like me and be generally predisposed to believe that differences will not be audible. That may make you feel smug, but how do you explain the failure of those who think they CAN hear differences prior to taking the test not being able to hear those differences blind? They had expectation effects that were just the opposite of those you claim prejudice the tests in favor of differences not being audible. It's very simple, Howard. The test gets in the way of how the ear/brain combine normally listens to music. It uses the left brain "comparative" as opposed to the right brain (and primitive brain's) basically sensate response to music...and it is this part of the brain that would have to respond differently if it is to detect a difference in reproducing music. Moreover, it can only do this in context, which quick-switch, comparative switching tends to destroy. So we have a test that those who don't think there are difference doen't really think too hard about, because it gives them the answer they want. And a test that makes it difficult to hear much in the way of differences reproducing music EXCEPT for those that are loudness based (and even then it is not as sensitive as white noise). So it is not only useless but misleading as a test for evaluating audio equipment. |
|
#288
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
It's very simple, Howard. The test gets in the way of how the ear/brain combine normally listens to music. And the proof lies where besides your fertile mind, Harry? It uses the left brain "comparative" as opposed to the right brain (and primitive brain's) basically sensate response to music...and it is this part of the brain that would have to respond differently if it is to detect a difference in reproducing music. And which Sunday-suppliment psychology textbook did you get that from, Harry? Moreover, it can only do this in context, which quick-switch, comparative switching tends to destroy. Independent, authoritatiove Citation for this odd piece of theory? So we have a test that those who don't think there are difference doen't really think too hard about, because it gives them the answer they want. As oppposed to Harry's sighted tests for those who already know for sure that there are differences, and don't really think too hard. It gives them the answer they want. And a test that makes it difficult to hear much in the way of differences reproducing music EXCEPT for those that are loudness based (and even then it is not as sensitive as white noise). I wonder if Harry has ever done any DBTs to back his wild theories up? So it is not only useless but misleading as a test for evaluating audio equipment. Right, what the world needs is more of Harry's sighted tests for those who already know for sure that there are differences, and don't really think too hard. It gives them the answer they want. |
|
#289
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote: The test gets in the way of how the ear/brain combine normally listens to music. Fascinating a probable but how could anyone prove such an assertion without resorting to methods that negate 'normal' listening? Me, I'll just go on deluding myself that I'm enjoying the music and stay well away from the whole ABX debate. I will confess to one remaining puzzlement. Despite having spent huge amounts on gear at individual retailers over the years, I've yet to get even one of them to agree to play the ABX gave with what they have in stock. |
|
#290
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:10:13 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Clyde Slick wrote: "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. It is NOT a neutral test. It does not remove the expectation effects of those who have preconceived notions that there are no differences. But it does eliminate any possibility that guys like you will fake the results or imagine you hear things from a favored or not favored unit with a sighted comparison. Howard Ferstler Ha, I love it when Howard goes on the rampage, running down a thread trying to slash and burn but only making dents in the furniture. |
|
#291
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:00:48 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd. It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem. However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the protection circuits are doing. Well, you're just plain wrong. In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an overpriced item that appeals to suckers. Not at all - see above for why. Not that I'd want to be the *first* purchaser...... :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#292
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:00:48 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd. It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem. However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the protection circuits are doing. Well, you're just plain wrong. Define near short and define mute. It will probably put most amps into current limit. In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an overpriced item that appeals to suckers. A Krell KSA will blow that short like a fuse  Instant repair.ScottW |
|
#293
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler said:
This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is because there is something seriously wrong with it. Here I have two exactly the same Pioneer receivers, which, by your previous admission, will sound adequate enough. One of the two has both its tone controls set to 3 o'clock, the tone controls of the other amp are in straight position. They both sound different on the same speakers. Is there something seriously wrong with amp nr. 1 or amp nr. 2? And why? Properly align the tone controls on the first receiver, tweako. Even you should realize that cranking over the tone controls will make that receiver sound different from the one with the controls nulled out. Good. Now re-read your first paragraph and explain to me why, when a component sounds different, there's "something seriously wrong" with it. Please. Remember, the two receivers are exactly the same. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#294
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 19 Jul 2005 09:49:34 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:00:48 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd. It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem. However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the protection circuits are doing. Well, you're just plain wrong. Define near short and define mute. It will probably put most amps into current limit. But not all................. :-) In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an overpriced item that appeals to suckers. A Krell KSA will blow that short like a fuse Instant repair.Quite so! :-) Even if the near short is current-capable, the Krell will still provide enough current to drive both the short and the speaker. Since they're in parallel, there won't be any reduction of voltage (and hence volume) to the speaker. Shame that Howard doesn't understand this. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#295
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Of course, your suggestion that I was incorrect held no weight with any reader on any forum, given your complete ignorance of modern electronic devices and their technical features. It is this point where I am most incensed. Most incensed? Get a life. **And I'll tell you again: I am qualified to discuss technical issues with audio equipment. You are not. You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd. It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem. **It is not "likely". It is an irrefutable fact. One which you continue to obfuscate. However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the protection circuits are doing. **And again, you are wrong. Here is where you are wrong (which you have been told many times): * A 'short circuit' is NEVER Zero Ohms. Not ever. * A study of Thevenin's Theorem will show you where you are wrong. * Other channels may still operate normally, 'till the protection system shuts them down. As for you being correct, for all of my limitations I do not make silly claims about amplifier and wire "sound" as you have in the past. I do not offer up a bill of goods to customers who are perceived as big-spending suckers. **Strawman noted. For the record: I don't make silly claims about amplifiers and wire, either. All my so-called "claims" are backed up by actual facts. A point you continue to ignore. SOP. **Indeed. They sound identical to other amplifiers which measure identically to them. There has never been any argument over this point. Yeah, but below a certain point ultra-super measurements are gilding the lily. I claim that even a good, mid-priced receiver will have as good an amplifier sound as your exotic amp. **You may make as many claims as you wish. You're still operating from a point of ignorance. Like the subjectivists, I hear what I hear. Unlike most subjectivists, however, I do not hear the artifacts that you and your kind claim inhabit amps and wires. **That you can't hear obvious problems is not, well, my problem. Of course, for a defender of Bose, that is not altogether surprising. Add to that the existence of a preamp section, surround sound (still more channels) and a tuner, and the receiver wins the contest, hands down. Your amp is a money pit. **Really? Let's talk about obsolescence sometime. See how much a 5 year old receiver sells for. Then go price a 10 year old Krell. The Krell will have hled more of it's value than your 5 year old receiver. So what? **You're talking about money pits. Typical cheap audio equipment (particularly surround sound amps) plummet in value very rapidly. Decent equipment (such as Krells) tend to hold a reasonable portion of their original purchase price for many years. Are you saying that people are purchasing gear in order to sell it down the line? **Most do. Unless they buy cheap gear, which goes out with the trash. Oops, I forgot that you are a hi-fi salesman. **Indeed. I am also a qualified tech, with 30 odd years hands on experience. In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an overpriced item that appeals to suckers. **Perhaps. Smart shoppers get an upscale receiver and use the money saved to purchase more recordings. **Which becomes obsolete within 18 months. If they are equipment junkies they can use the money saved to get better speakers, subwoofers, etc. **IF I had said such a thing (which I have not), then you would be entitled to say so. OK, so your amp sounds like all other good amps. **No. It sounds like all other amps which posses IDENTICAL specs. And I'll bet that no other amp out there has such specs. **Possibly. Actually, even specs are suspect, because there is a point beyond which it makes no sense to go. **Which point would that be? Please, give us your TECHNICAL opinion on the relevance of various specifications. That is, even if your amp has superior specs compared to most others those specs live in a realm that is beneath the point where they would be audible. **Possibly. Some systems place different demands on amplifiers. **Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times. Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp. **Actually, not that far. Depending on the speaker, of course. And that is the difference between you and me. You state, unequivocally, that speaker cables are all the same. I argue that certain systems can benefit from low inductance cables. IOW: You are wrong. Such speaker systems are too problematic to fool with. **That is an opinion you get to have. It is not one shared by many listeners. The hobby is infested with deluded people. **Most of us are well aware of your delusions, Howard. Many, if not most, so-called serious audio enthusiasts are jerks with too much spare cash. **Indeed. However, these strawman arguments have little to do with electrostatic speakers. Electrostatics manage some performance parameters which are simply impossible with other designs. Those performance parameters come at a cost (amplifier-wise). Make no mistake: Electrostatic speakers are not perfect. Far from it. They can often be comprehensively outperformed by far less expensive designs. Just how long a speaker run are we talking about, by the way. **Is that a question, Mr Professional Writer? OK, you tweako sales clerk: just how long a speaker WIRE run are we talking about? **As little as 3-4 Metres, depending on the load. By the way, I am retired and not a professional writer. However, at least, unlike you, I have published material. **So what? You write about stuff you have no real knowledge of. That does not make it a particularly valid point. You write about stuff you PRETEND to have knowledge of. I actually sort out problems with system, because I actually HAVE the knowledge. **See what I mean? I prove you wrong. Completely, utterly wrong and you insult me. That is what I am talking about. You are a nasty individual. It takes a nasty individual to deal with the tweakos and con artists occupying audio these days. Frankly, I would prefer that the FBI do the work, but they are occupied elsewhere. **The problem is you can't argue with knowledgable "tweakos" (to use your terminology), because you lack the knowledge and experience. Try and stay on topic and keep to the facts. I proved you wrong. You know (or shoudl know it) and everyone else knows it. You should cut your losses and admit it. Well, I misunderstood the poster's question and got myself off on a tangent. **No one else "misunderstood" it. You "misunderstood" the question, because: * You did not READ what was written. * You don't possess the knowledge to deal with problems of moderate complexity. You popped up and I remembered what kind of person you were and got even further off on a tangent. People like you do that sort of thing to me. **What? People who actually know what they're talking about? How curious. You should listen to me. You might just learn something. Well, they will do me no harm, whatsoever. **Very likely true. You are already a laughing stock. You can't sink much lower. Four books and one big technical editing job completed, tweako, plus 170+ magazine articles. Not bad work for a laughing stock, tweako. On the other hand, you will at least lose some points in your home area because of your performance here. I suggest you cut and run while you have the chance. **You know very little about me. I don't cut and run from someone who is wrong. There is no figuring the ignorant man. **You got that right. I will continue to attack, until you admit your mistakes and apologise. I will not stop. There is also no figuring the fanatical man. I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are conventional amps out there that are also able to handle rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is still nothing exotic about their design. **How would you know? They sounded the same as all the others, tweako. **I'll ask the question again: How would you know? I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but the stuff sounded the same. Oops, a subjectivist would have claimed that they sounded different, with a favored model having all sorts of mesmerizing sound qualities. Yeah, I am a subjectivist down deep, but unlike most other subjectivists I am not deluded. I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong with it. **IOW: You don't know. Well, you are the guy who claims that the amp sounds "better" than most of the competition. If the competition all sounds pretty much the same, I think that we can conclude that those amps sound that way because they have inaudible distortion. I mean what is the chance that all of those somewhat different topologies all had identical audible distortions? **Very high, since all use similar topologies, WRT Global NFB. So what. They still are built differently enough for audible artifacts to allow them to sound at least a tad different. **Your lack of knowledge about what Global NFB does to an amplifier is duly noted. They do not, and when a con artist like you says that his very special amp has advantages over them, I roll my eyes and remember just how much of a bad joke this hobby has become. If your amp sounds different from the crowd, as far as I am concerned it is less accurate than they. **And again, you speak from a position of ignorance. Nobody is fully free of ignorance, but at least I am honest in my claims. **You can't claim honesty as a defence, just because you're ignorant. That won't wash. I do not con people into spending big on overkill items. **How about your books? They certainly qualify. Hey, I never said it would not shut down. I simply said that at any level it would not be able to put any sound into the speakers. **The poster said that the amp did not shut down 'till moderate levels were reached. You claimed that this was not possible. Well, I do not remember saying that. But if I did I was wrong. In any case, there should have been no sound coming from the speaker hooked up to the offending, near-shorted line. **You have been told many times, by many people, that you are wrong in this point. When will you learn and admit your error? This would be the case, because the VAST bulk of the current flow would be through the shorted-together lead in parallel with the speaker. **The vast bulk of the output from ONE CHANNEL. The other channels would be unaffected (within reason). Good point. I suppose that would result in noise from those other channels. But I was talking about amps in general. **So am I. And, as I have explained many times, there are many different types of protection systems in domestic amplifiers. They all have different effects. I even found a very interesting one used by a range of Sony surround sound receivers. All 5 channels were linked to the same protection system. When one channel failed, the fault took out the other 4 channels, causing severe PCB damage in the process. This would be one of the "competent, inexpensive" products you continually talk about. I just call it dumb, penny-pinching design. The kind of design crap I face daily. You, on the other hand, are working to build up points with customers. **No. I am waiting for an apology and an admission from you that you are wrong. **I will admit that all amps, which demonstrate identical specs, do, indeed, sound identical. And now I suppose you are going to say that your very special amp has specs that are superior to all (or at least most) others. My contention, however, is that once you get below a certain audibility threshold all amps, including yours, assuming it is properly designed, sound the same - at least with standard speaker loads and below clipping levels. **What is a "standard speaker load"? How can you guarantee that an amp remains below clipping at ALL times? Well, you cannot? **Exactly. Without unlimited power, it is important for an amplifier to clip in a fashion which is the least unpleasant. However, I think that most people vastly overestimate the amount of power they need to achieve decent sound levels in normal listening rooms. **What do you base this opinion on? Going beyond that point is overkill. Also, going below distortion requirements that are not all that low to begin with is also overkill. **I agree. In fact, to achieve VERY low levels of THD, other performance parameters can be negatively affected. Frankly, I think the whole issue boils down to economics: people want to sell amps and wires, and they will do or say what it takes to do so, even to the point of believing their own nonsense. **Indeed. That is possible. As for whether they REALLY believe all the poppycock, I could not say. Some no doubt are full-tilt con artists, but others may be as deluded as their customers. decently thick lamp cord works as well as exotic speaker wire. **For most systems, yes. For SOME systems, no. Systems that nobody would use in a typical home-listening environment. **Wrong. I'll wager that under most listening conditions with those special speakers (with runs that are not ridiculously long) even YOU would not be able to tell the difference between heavy lamp cord and your "special" and expensive wire. **I'm not discussing me. My opions and listening abilities (or lack thereof) are not the issue. And even if by some miracle you could hear a difference you would not be able to tell which is best. **Wrong. Not only could I hear it, but I could produce the measurements to prove it. You seem to by under the delusion that some speaker cables are actually MEASURABLY better than others. Frankly, it makes no sense at all to invest in speakers that require weird wire to operate optimally. **I could say the same thing about my mate's Ferrari. He has to use expensive petrol, or the manufacturer will void his warranty and the engine will be damaged. At least it made no sense to me, until after he let me take it for a spin. Hell, I'd even use distilled newborn babies, if it made the car run properly. Very sweet ride. Same deal electrostatic speakers. After you listen to a good pair, properly set up, with decent amplification and low inductance speaker cables, get back to me. Then we can talk. Tell me, just how often do you recommend heavy lamp cord for typical home installations? **Pretty much every day, in fact. It's all most people need for their crappy surround sound systems. Anything else is massive over-kill. Ah, crappy surround-sound systems. This is it in a nutshell: you are basically saying that most people listen to junk, and so lamp cord is OK. **Duh. Except for SACD and DVD-A, surround sound schemes are extremely lossy systems. Quality is sacrificed. MOST surround sound receiver manufacturers are aware of this and they make serious compromises in the analogue sections of their products. However, for really discriminating people (like you) only the exotic wires will work with those demanding exotic speakers. What bunk. **Really? Do some tests and get back to me. Do you push the exotic stuff even in those more mundane situations, as well as in these situations that involve SOME systems? **Nope. Never. In fact, I never "push" fancy speaker cables. Depending on the system, I may make a reccommendation for low inductance speaker cables. Hair splitting: pushing vs recommending. Funny how language can make a con artist feel good about what he does. **It is a BIG difference. I even suggest where people can buy those cables. Dick Smith Electronics is one of the outlets I suggest. Which, of course, you'd know, if you did even a modicum of research. DSE sell the fancy, low inductance cable for 4 Bucks a Metre. Google it, if you don't beleive me. Thick lamp cord sells here in the USA for about 30 cents a foot. I'd choose that over your fancy stuff and use the change to purchase more recordings. **And I would expect RG213 would be very inexpensive in the US. If you say that I will apologize for what I have written about you. **No, you won't. You're pig-ignorant. You will NEVER apologise to me. Well, not now I won't. **You have managed to meet my expectations of you. And, as usual, you have met mine, tweako. **Snap. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#296
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... snip "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but the stuff sounded the same. Oops, a subjectivist would have claimed that they sounded different, with a favored model having all sorts of mesmerizing sound qualities. Yeah, I am a subjectivist down deep, but unlike most other subjectivists I am not deluded. This is rich! Howard claims he is a subjectivist. But since God gave him the power to read minds, he knows that HE is a rationale, careful listener. However, the rest of we subjectivists are simply deluded. How does he know? How does Howard ever know? Those who read his posts KNOW he reads minds. They also know his mindreading is always off by 180 degrees. Everything he thinks he knows about others is wrong! Everything he thinks he knows about himself is wrong! Howard is the original "Wrong Way Corrigan" when it comes to understanding this hobby. |
|
#297
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... snip "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but the stuff sounded the same. Oops, a subjectivist would have claimed that they sounded different, with a favored model having all sorts of mesmerizing sound qualities. Yeah, I am a subjectivist down deep, but unlike most other subjectivists I am not deluded. This is rich! Howard claims he is a subjectivist. I'm also a subjectivist. A scientific or reliable subjectivist. I think that how people perceive sound quality is more important that mere numbers. However unlike Harry I'm not naive about the uncontrolled variables that are significant in his wildly anti-scientific and totally uncontrolled listening tests. Furthermore, unlike Harry I have a fair amount of hearing acuity left. Therefore I can reliably perceive the egregious technical problems of the LP format and 30 ips tapes, which Harry is well known to be unable to do. |
|
#298
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ayn Marx" wrote in message oups.com... I will confess to one remaining puzzlement. Despite having spent huge amounts on gear at individual retailers over the years, I've yet to get even one of them to agree to play the ABX gave with what they have in stock. Our top dealers have progressed far beyond that. I've been invited several times to events where recorded sound is compared to live microphone feed. As Don King says, "Only in America!" Perhaps you should shave your ears before you ask. Cheers, Margaret |
|
#299
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gordon" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "EddieM" wrote in message m **** You. Clearly posted in a moment of total clarity - Eddie style! ;-) Please stop cross posting to aus.hifi. Gordon After you please stop crossposting to RAO ----== 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 =---- |
|
#300
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news 
Having innards which are invariably at least five years behind the mass market doesn't help, of course... -- That's what a besotted life will do to 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 =---- |
|
#301
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:45:13 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:19:28 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message m... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:48:10 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in. It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!! ABX is hideously flawed. Bull****. What you mean is that ABX doesn't support your absolute knowledge that 'high-end' designer label gear *must* sound better than 'Chinky cheapies'. -- It doesn't support it because it is inherently designed to purposefully support the opposite conclusion. It is NOT a neutral test. It does not remove the expectation effects of those who have preconceived notions that there are no differences. Clearly you have no idea that these tests are used every day by major audio manufacturers, for the precise purpose of *revealing* small but real audible differences made by their R&D guys. Cretin. And who are the subjects taking such tests? The R&D engineers, and for final judgements, selected panels of listeners. Are they surveyed as to their perconceptions? Since the tests are blind, preconceptions are irrelevant. You never did grasp the basics, did you Art? Blind tests do not eliminate preconceptions that two items will be the same. you never have grasped that, Stewart. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#302
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... You seem to enjoy teaming up with Middius, Paul. It sure is more fun than hanging with you and pink noise. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#303
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... Clyde still doesn't get it: Now, as far as DBT and its removal of expectation effects, for the purposes of audio purchase decisions, a test subject would tend to have fairly strong preconceptions about whether there might be inherent differences between two items AS far as manufacturer's using DBT in support of parts or decsign decisions, the test subjets are likely to have minimal preconcptions over whatever is being tested. Which is precisely why DBT's are used for things like cel phones and hearing aids. They allow subtle differences to be heard if they are actually present. The issue of preconceptions has been addressed, simply supply some audible difference, unbeknownst to the listener and see if it shows up in the responses. The issue of one set of preconceptions is NOT addressed. That skews the results. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#304
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... jeffc whined: Like most "objectivists" you're ignoring reality to push your own prejudices, and bitching about listening to music because it doesn't support your fantasizing about measuring equipment. What is it exactly that makes you think perfectly normal people can't simply hear things? What are you SO afraid of exactly? The fact that people have very short memory of what they hear. Whay is it that is so scary about simply using your ears to do a comparison? All the rest is bull****. If you want to know if things sound the same or different, you use your ears, and only your ears. Thanks for admitting we shouldn't use the blind test results of listeners other than ourselves. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#305
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... snip "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but the stuff sounded the same. Oops, a subjectivist would have claimed that they sounded different, with a favored model having all sorts of mesmerizing sound qualities. Yeah, I am a subjectivist down deep, but unlike most other subjectivists I am not deluded. This is rich! Howard claims he is a subjectivist. I'm also a subjectivist. A scientific or reliable subjectivist. I think that how people perceive sound quality is more important that mere numbers. However unlike Harry I'm not naive about the uncontrolled variables that are significant in his wildly anti-scientific and totally uncontrolled listening tests. Naive about uncontrolled variables. I have been challenging you because you refuse to consider the possibility that your ABX testing creates the biggest uncontrolled variable of all...a block to the brains ability to process music in the normal listening sense! Also, Arny, I'm the one with over twenty years of experience designing controlled, blind tests, not you. The fact that I have proposed something more elegant and more sophisticated and at the same time simpler and more mainstream as a control test for ABX seems to have you terrified. Furthermore, unlike Harry I have a fair amount of hearing acuity left. Therefore I can reliably perceive the egregious technical problems of the LP format and 30 ips tapes, which Harry is well known to be unable to do. I've cited my hearing Arny. I've never seen you do so. And being flat in one ear to 16k and down in the other doesn't disqualify me from audio judgements. The brain has a marvelous built in ability to compensate.... You are just throwing up a smokescreen and you know it, since you have been unable to even to argue the merits of my proposal or to defend your test in any meaningful way, other than falling back on the measurement of sound, rather than the evaluation of music. |
|
#306
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... snip "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but the stuff sounded the same. Oops, a subjectivist would have claimed that they sounded different, with a favored model having all sorts of mesmerizing sound qualities. Yeah, I am a subjectivist down deep, but unlike most other subjectivists I am not deluded. This is rich! Howard claims he is a subjectivist. I'm also a subjectivist. A scientific or reliable subjectivist. I think that how people perceive sound quality is more important that mere numbers. However unlike Harry I'm not naive about the uncontrolled variables that are significant in his wildly anti-scientific and totally uncontrolled listening tests. Naive about uncontrolled variables. I have been challenging you because you refuse to consider the possibility that your ABX testing creates the biggest uncontrolled variable of all...a block to the brains ability to process music in the normal listening sense! Harry, how many times have I explained my consderations of that matter to you? Obviously Harry you think you are omniscient and know what I think better than I do. Also, Arny, I'm the one with over twenty years of experience designing controlled, blind tests, not you. Right, my experience with designing controlled blind tests goes back to 1974, which is 31 years ago. The fact that I have proposed something more elegant and more sophisticated and at the same time simpler and more mainstream as a control test for ABX seems to have you terrified. What might that elegant, sophisticated, and simple test be be, Harry? Last time you were proposing test procedures you were talking about brain scans, right? acuity left. Therefore I can reliably perceive the egregious technical problems of the LP format and 30 ips tapes, which Harry is well known to be unable to do. I've cited my hearing Arny. Harry you've also admitted your inability to hear the well-known loss of bass that is inherent in 30 ips tape, which I documented to you from an authoritative source. I tried to cut you a pass on the grounds that your speakers don't go low enough., but you've provided pretty good evidence that isn't true. So Harry, you have no excuse. I ve never seen you do so. Harry we both know that regular hearing tests don't go very low or high by HiFi standards. And being flat in one ear to 16k and down in the other doesn't disqualify me from audio judgements. The brain has a marvelous built in ability to compensate.... Harry, this is about bass, not treble. You are just throwing up a smokescreen and you know it, since you have been unable to even to argue the merits of my proposal or to defend your test in any meaningful way, other than falling back on the measurement of sound, rather than the evaluation of music. Harry, just because you are blind, doesn't mean that I haven't shed a great deal of light on this issue. |
|
#307
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:00:48 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd. It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem. However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the protection circuits are doing. Well, you're just plain wrong. I'm certainly willing to learn. Now, with this near short pulling just about all of the juice out of the amp, where does this speaker load, with a resistance way, way higher than the near short in parallel with it, get the juice to make any noise? Howard Ferstler |
|
#308
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Jul 2005 09:49:34 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:00:48 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd. It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem. However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the protection circuits are doing. Well, you're just plain wrong. Define near short and define mute. It will probably put most amps into current limit. But not all................. :-) In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an overpriced item that appeals to suckers. A Krell KSA will blow that short like a fuse Instant repair.Quite so! :-) Even if the near short is current-capable, the Krell will still provide enough current to drive both the short and the speaker. Since they're in parallel, there won't be any reduction of voltage (and hence volume) to the speaker. Shame that Howard doesn't understand this. How can any current be flowing through the speaker? All of it will be passing through the short in parallel. Howard Ferstler |
|
#309
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... A Krell KSA will blow that short like a fuse Instant repair.Quite so! :-) OK try it with a copper bus bar, and let me know the result. Even if the near short is current-capable, the Krell will still provide enough current to drive both the short and the speaker. Since they're in parallel, there won't be any reduction of voltage (and hence volume) to the speaker. Shame that Howard doesn't understand this. You are simply defining "near" short to suit the argument. How near? Regardless there *WILL* always be a reduction in voltage. Mr Thevenin and Mr Kirchoff will prove that. Even a Krell has SOME output resistance. (a "near short" in series with a "near short" will drop half the voltage :-) Exactly how much reduction can be readily calculated if you provide ACTUAL figures for your hypothetical. MrT. |
|
#310
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Blind tests do not eliminate preconceptions that two items will be the same. you never have grasped that, Stewart. You simply prove that ANY other listener CAN properly tell the difference in the same ABX test. Have you grasped that? MrT. |
|
#311
|
|||
|
|||
|
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: Of course, your suggestion that I was incorrect held no weight with any reader on any forum, given your complete ignorance of modern electronic devices and their technical features. It is this point where I am most incensed. Most incensed? Get a life. **And I'll tell you again: I am qualified to discuss technical issues with audio equipment. You are not. And I suppose this also qualifies you to tell people that special amps (ones that you sell) and special wires perform better than mainstream versions that may cost considerably less? However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the protection circuits are doing. **And again, you are wrong. Here is where you are wrong (which you have been told many times): * A 'short circuit' is NEVER Zero Ohms. Not ever. I said "near short." Learn to read. And if it is in parallel with a speaker load that has way, way more resistance (not to mention the additional AC impedance added) just how much current is going to be available to pass through the speaker? * A study of Thevenin's Theorem will show you where you are wrong. * Other channels may still operate normally, 'till the protection system shuts them down. Here, I will agree with you. But I was talking about the channel with the short. As for you being correct, for all of my limitations I do not make silly claims about amplifier and wire "sound" as you have in the past. I do not offer up a bill of goods to customers who are perceived as big-spending suckers. **Strawman noted. For the record: I don't make silly claims about amplifiers and wire, either. All my so-called "claims" are backed up by actual facts. A point you continue to ignore. SOP. My take on this is if that special amp of yours sounds different from mainstream units of decent quality (this would require a DBT of some kind to make the comparison worthwhile) there is something wrong with your amp. Like the subjectivists, I hear what I hear. Unlike most subjectivists, however, I do not hear the artifacts that you and your kind claim inhabit amps and wires. **That you can't hear obvious problems is not, well, my problem. Of course, for a defender of Bose, that is not altogether surprising. I do not know where you got the idea that I am a defender of Bose. I have reviewed the 901 systems (and published a review), but my guess is that you never read the review. I thought it was an interesting system with notable limitations. Add to that the existence of a preamp section, surround sound (still more channels) and a tuner, and the receiver wins the contest, hands down. Your amp is a money pit. **Really? Let's talk about obsolescence sometime. See how much a 5 year old receiver sells for. Then go price a 10 year old Krell. The Krell will have hled more of it's value than your 5 year old receiver. So what? **You're talking about money pits. Typical cheap audio equipment (particularly surround sound amps) plummet in value very rapidly. So what? The user has purchased them to use for home enjoyment and not for investment purposes. Audio gear is not a commodity. It is a means to an end. Are you saying that people are purchasing gear in order to sell it down the line? **Most do. Unless they buy cheap gear, which goes out with the trash. Obviously, you hang around with weird audio buffs too much. Mix it up with some music lovers some time: those who purchase gear to enjoy and not to resell. Oops, I forgot that you are a hi-fi salesman. **Indeed. I am also a qualified tech, with 30 odd years hands on experience. One could be well-trained as hell and still be a con artist. Goebbels had a Phd. Smart shoppers get an upscale receiver and use the money saved to purchase more recordings. **Which becomes obsolete within 18 months. Well, they may indeed face that problem in the realm of surround sound. However, you can purchase a LOT of upscale receivers over the years for what one super amp costs. Throw in the money saved by purchasing lamp cord instead of exotic speaker wires, and that leaves lots of cash for purchasing recordings. OK, so your amp sounds like all other good amps. **No. It sounds like all other amps which posses IDENTICAL specs. And I'll bet that no other amp out there has such specs. **Possibly. My guess is that it has problems, assuming that it really does sound different from good mainstream units. Actually, even specs are suspect, because there is a point beyond which it makes no sense to go. **Which point would that be? Please, give us your TECHNICAL opinion on the relevance of various specifications. Any full reply would be a long-winded post, and this series is too long as it is. Suffice to say that even rather mundane receivers have distortion levels low enough to be essentially transparent with typical speaker loads. What more would anyone want? Oops, I forgot, a typical tweako wants an amp (and wires) that he can puff himself up over, and brag about. The hobby is infested with deluded people. **Most of us are well aware of your delusions, Howard. At least I do not con suckers into spending big on overkill amps and wires. Many, if not most, so-called serious audio enthusiasts are jerks with too much spare cash. **Indeed. However, these strawman arguments have little to do with electrostatic speakers. Electrostatics manage some performance parameters which are simply impossible with other designs. Read Stanley Lip****z' paper on the limitations of line-source radiators. It is available as an AES reprint. Those performance parameters come at a cost (amplifier-wise). Make no mistake: Electrostatic speakers are not perfect. Far from it. They can often be comprehensively outperformed by far less expensive designs. So why purchase them? I mean, they have all sorts of limitations and I see no sonic advantages to them at all. Just how long a speaker run are we talking about, by the way. **Is that a question, Mr Professional Writer? OK, you tweako sales clerk: just how long a speaker WIRE run are we talking about? **As little as 3-4 Metres, depending on the load. This is claptrap of the highest order. Congratulations: you win the con-artist award of the day. By the way, I am retired and not a professional writer. However, at least, unlike you, I have published material. **So what? You write about stuff you have no real knowledge of. But I do not CON people, pal. I do not sell them a bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of amps and wire. I do not "recommend" that they spend big for zero results. That does not make it a particularly valid point. You write about stuff you PRETEND to have knowledge of. I actually sort out problems with system, because I actually HAVE the knowledge. This is crap. Your comments about wire performance automatically show that while you MAY have knowledge in some areas, you are not above spouting baloney to make money. **See what I mean? I prove you wrong. Completely, utterly wrong and you insult me. That is what I am talking about. You are a nasty individual. It takes a nasty individual to deal with the tweakos and con artists occupying audio these days. Frankly, I would prefer that the FBI do the work, but they are occupied elsewhere. **The problem is you can't argue with knowledgable "tweakos" (to use your terminology), because you lack the knowledge and experience. One does not need to be a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing. Similarly, one does not need to be an audio engineer to see when someone is spouting claptrap for cash. Try and stay on topic and keep to the facts. I proved you wrong. You know (or shoudl know it) and everyone else knows it. You should cut your losses and admit it. Well, I misunderstood the poster's question and got myself off on a tangent. **No one else "misunderstood" it. You "misunderstood" the question, because: * You did not READ what was written. * You don't possess the knowledge to deal with problems of moderate complexity. Go read some of my books, as well as some of my entries and editing work in the new edition of The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound (Routledge, 2005), and see if you can understand some of the stuff I write about basic audio. You popped up and I remembered what kind of person you were and got even further off on a tangent. People like you do that sort of thing to me. **What? People who actually know what they're talking about? How curious. You should listen to me. You might just learn something. Only if I decided to become a soft-pedaling racketeer in the audio business. They do not, and when a con artist like you says that his very special amp has advantages over them, I roll my eyes and remember just how much of a bad joke this hobby has become. If your amp sounds different from the crowd, as far as I am concerned it is less accurate than they. **And again, you speak from a position of ignorance. Nobody is fully free of ignorance, but at least I am honest in my claims. **You can't claim honesty as a defence, just because you're ignorant. That won't wash. Well, who is superior: the honest man with limited knowledge and common sense or the con artist who has knowledge but uses it for underhanded results? For the record, if I was as ignorant as you claim I would never have been able to get four books published, nor would Routledge have asked me to do the technical editing work on The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound. I do not con people into spending big on overkill items. **How about your books? They certainly qualify. They at least do not con people into spending on overkill and overpriced amps and wires, tweako. Well, I do not remember saying that. But if I did I was wrong. In any case, there should have been no sound coming from the speaker hooked up to the offending, near-shorted line. **You have been told many times, by many people, that you are wrong in this point. When will you learn and admit your error? Well, just how much current is passing through that speaker in parallel with the near short? If no current is flowing the speaker will not make sound. You, on the other hand, are working to build up points with customers. **No. I am waiting for an apology and an admission from you that you are wrong. Don't hold your breath. I do not apologize to people like you. However, I think that most people vastly overestimate the amount of power they need to achieve decent sound levels in normal listening rooms. **What do you base this opinion on? Listening to music and measuring the sound level at sane levels. Yeah, I know that rocko-socko freaks like to crack plaster, and in that case such idiots may need all the power they can afford. Going beyond that point is overkill. Also, going below distortion requirements that are not all that low to begin with is also overkill. **I agree. In fact, to achieve VERY low levels of THD, other performance parameters can be negatively affected. Which is why it is not necessary for amps, including mainstream jobs, to have ultra-special specs. I'll wager that under most listening conditions with those special speakers (with runs that are not ridiculously long) even YOU would not be able to tell the difference between heavy lamp cord and your "special" and expensive wire. **I'm not discussing me. My opions and listening abilities (or lack thereof) are not the issue. Well, I disagree. For me, they are the crux of the issue. And even if by some miracle you could hear a difference you would not be able to tell which is best. **Wrong. Not only could I hear it, but I could produce the measurements to prove it. You seem to by under the delusion that some speaker cables are actually MEASURABLY better than others. Well, really thin wires would certainly have a higher resistance. In any case, typical runs of speaker wire of reasonable thickness just do not have an impact on sound quality that matters. Frankly, it makes no sense at all to invest in speakers that require weird wire to operate optimally. **I could say the same thing about my mate's Ferrari. So would I. He has to use expensive petrol, or the manufacturer will void his warranty and the engine will be damaged. At least it made no sense to me, until after he let me take it for a spin. Hell, I'd even use distilled newborn babies, if it made the car run properly. Very sweet ride. There is no figuring the childish mind. Same deal electrostatic speakers. After you listen to a good pair, properly set up, with decent amplification and low inductance speaker cables, get back to me. Then we can talk. Some people like speakers that, when listened to from a precisely determined sweet spot, sound like super-sized headphones. Not my cup of tea from a live-music perspective. Tell me, just how often do you recommend heavy lamp cord for typical home installations? **Pretty much every day, in fact. It's all most people need for their crappy surround sound systems. Anything else is massive over-kill. Ah, crappy surround-sound systems. This is it in a nutshell: you are basically saying that most people listen to junk, and so lamp cord is OK. **Duh. Except for SACD and DVD-A, surround sound schemes are extremely lossy systems. Quality is sacrificed. You need to get out more. MOST surround sound receiver manufacturers are aware of this and they make serious compromises in the analogue sections of their products. Perhaps in the phono preamp and tuner sections. But that is not something that interests me that much. In the amp and control sections, I think that modern receivers of mid-pack quality can hold their own against the upscale stuff you worship. However, for really discriminating people (like you) only the exotic wires will work with those demanding exotic speakers. What bunk. **Really? Do some tests and get back to me. I have done tests - listening tests. What you say is so obviously a con as to be patently outrageous. Then, again, perhaps you are just deluded. Do you push the exotic stuff even in those more mundane situations, as well as in these situations that involve SOME systems? **Nope. Never. In fact, I never "push" fancy speaker cables. Depending on the system, I may make a reccommendation for low inductance speaker cables. Hair splitting: pushing vs recommending. Funny how language can make a con artist feel good about what he does. **It is a BIG difference. To you, maybe. Howard Ferstler |
|
#312
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... snip "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but the stuff sounded the same. Oops, a subjectivist would have claimed that they sounded different, with a favored model having all sorts of mesmerizing sound qualities. Yeah, I am a subjectivist down deep, but unlike most other subjectivists I am not deluded. This is rich! Howard claims he is a subjectivist. Yep. I do a bit of objective work, of course, but the bottom line easily visible in all of my product reviews is subjectivism. But since God gave him the power to read minds, he knows that HE is a rationale, careful listener. No. Rather, unlike glassy-eyed, puffed-up tweakos whose worlds revolve around their exotic audio systems, I consider an audio system as a means to an end, and do not become enamored of exotic and overkill products that do nothing more than suck money out of wallets. However, the rest of we subjectivists are simply deluded. No doubt. How does he know? One need only spend a bit of time here to see the proof put forth for all to read. How does Howard ever know? Those who read his posts KNOW he reads minds. Actually, those with limited intellect probably do believe that people with insight claim to be able to read minds. Insight is something fools have problems understanding. They also know his mindreading is always off by 180 degrees. Everything he thinks he knows about others is wrong! Everything he thinks he knows about himself is wrong! Get a life, tweako. Howard is the original "Wrong Way Corrigan" when it comes to understanding this hobby. Well, I do understand that the high-end contingent is mostly (not entirely, but mostly) populated by freaks. I understand this hobby well enough to realize just how goofy and psychologically inadequate some of the participants happen to be. Howard Ferstler |
|
#313
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
Howard Ferstler said: This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is because there is something seriously wrong with it. Here I have two exactly the same Pioneer receivers, which, by your previous admission, will sound adequate enough. One of the two has both its tone controls set to 3 o'clock, the tone controls of the other amp are in straight position. They both sound different on the same speakers. Is there something seriously wrong with amp nr. 1 or amp nr. 2? And why? Properly align the tone controls on the first receiver, tweako. Even you should realize that cranking over the tone controls will make that receiver sound different from the one with the controls nulled out. Good. Now re-read your first paragraph and explain to me why, when a component sounds different, there's "something seriously wrong" with it. Please. Because with audio gear (amps, players, wires, definitely) the components with fixed outputs or fixed abilities should be transparent. If a user wants to modify the sound he should have the ability to do so as an option. Applying the same colorations to all recordings (as is the case with those weird amps you build) is like looking at the world with colored glasses all the time - indoors, outdoors, rain, or shine. Remember, the two receivers are exactly the same. There is no way to judge if one (or perhaps even both) unless the tone controls are nulled out. You did not do that. Howard Ferstler |
|
#314
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message That may make you feel smug, but how do you explain the failure of those who think they CAN hear differences prior to taking the test not being able to hear those differences blind? They had expectation effects that were just the opposite of those you claim prejudice the tests in favor of differences not being audible. This includes at last half of the people who initially developed the ABX test. We developed it to give ourselves the best chance of hearing differences while remaining a true blind test. Yes, I thought this was the case, and the results you encountered when your own group participated are proof positive that your critics are deluded and unwilling to grow up. Howard Ferstler |
|
#315
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... snip How could this be? With the ABX protocol the participant, be he blessed with my point of view or with yours, can compare A and B openly, knowing exactly which is which. With the switch to X he can then decide if X sounds like A or B, both of which, as I noted can be known by the participant. The ABX test is both a blind and sighted test at the same time. This participant can indeed be like me and be generally predisposed to believe that differences will not be audible. That may make you feel smug, but how do you explain the failure of those who think they CAN hear differences prior to taking the test not being able to hear those differences blind? They had expectation effects that were just the opposite of those you claim prejudice the tests in favor of differences not being audible. It's very simple, Howard. I agree, which is why I find it odd that you people have so much trouble understanding the issue. The test gets in the way of how the ear/brain combine normally listens to music. It uses the left brain "comparative" as opposed to the right brain (and primitive brain's) basically sensate response to music...and it is this part of the brain that would have to respond differently if it is to detect a difference in reproducing music. Moreover, it can only do this in context, which quick-switch, comparative switching tends to destroy. Nothing is stopping you from switching at greater intervals. In any case, your apologetics are a copout. You desperately want to have those differences exist in order for the hobby to mean something to you, and so you come up with every excuse you can to mythologize listening evaluations. So we have a test that those who don't think there are difference doen't really think too hard about, because it gives them the answer they want. And a test that makes it difficult to hear much in the way of differences reproducing music EXCEPT for those that are loudness based (and even then it is not as sensitive as white noise). Get a life. The test puts your kind in your place and the best you can do is squirm and scratch for idiotic excuses. So it is not only useless but misleading as a test for evaluating audio equipment. Only for those for whom an audio system is an end in itself and a means for those who need bragging points to gain a degree of misdirected self esteem. Howard Ferstler |
|
#316
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:18:41 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again. Indeed - that's why the tests are done blind........... Idiot, the test removes some expectation effects, but not others. It is more biased than sighted listening. What on earth are you selling, pal? Howard Ferstler |
|
#317
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote: Well, you're just plain wrong. I'm certainly willing to learn. Now, with this near short pulling just about all of the juice out of the amp, where does this speaker load, with a resistance way, way higher than the near short in parallel with it, get the juice to make any noise? Howard, you know your way around libraries, yeah? At least that's the rumor. See if you can find your way clear to looking up something called "Ohm's Law." When you've mastered that, check out "Kirchoff's Current Law." Once you've done that, try the following: Imagine a circuit consisting of three resistors hooked to a voltage source. On one side of the voltage source one end of one resistor, call it R1, is connected. On the other side of that resistor, both ends of the other two resistors, called R2 and R3 are connected, and the other sides of those resistors are connected to the other side of the voltage source. If you actually knew something about the topic on which you choose to hold forth, you might recognize the following as a SPICE netlist for the circuit I just described: Vsrc 1 0 AC SIN 10.0 0.0 R1 1 2 0.5 R2 2 0 4.0 R3 2 0 0.2 Now, if you did indeed know something, you would notice that R1, which we'll pretend is the resistance of the very thin wire the OP is using is 0.5 Ohm. And the "speaker" has a resistance of 4 ohms, and the "near short" whisker has a resistance of 0.2 ohms. Real quick, Howard, since you are a "widely published" author in the field, can you determine from the above description whether or not ANY signal flows through R2, the "speaker" in this case. If the value is NOT 0, the speaker WILL make sound. All of this can be calculated with freshman high-school level algebra. Dum de dum de dum ..... Give up? Well, in fact, we can first say that the series combination of R1 and the R2 and R3 in parallel form a voltage divider whose gain is determined by essentially the parallel result of R2+R3, which is: R2 R3 /(R2 + R3) 4 * 0.2 /(4 + 0.2) 0.8 / 4.2 or 0.19 ohms, call it Rp for convenience. The gain of the circuit is: Rp / (R1 + Rp) 0.19 / (0.5 + 0.19) 0.19 / 0.69 or a gain of 0.275. That means if that the amplifier can produce a voltage of 1 volt into that load, then 0.275 volts of that will appear across BOTH the "speaker" and the "short." And since the total load is simply: R1 + Rp or 0.69 ohms, (wait for it) .... according to Ohm's Law: I = E/R I = 1/0.69 or 1.45 amps. And, by the same reckoning, we can calculate the current through the "speaker" and the "near short:" I2 = 0.275/4 I2 = 0.0688 A I3 = 0.275/0.2 I3 = 1.375 A And, just to satisfy the conservation-of-energy accountants and Mr. Kirchoff: It = I2 + I3 It = 0.0688 + 1.375 which is satisfyingly close to 1.45 amps. So, it seems that even with a "near short," some current does flow through the speaker. Enough, in fact, to produce I2 * 0.275V about 20 milliwatts worth of power in the "speaker". Assume the speaker has a reference efficiency of about 1%, for argument's sake, that means 0.2 milliwatts of acoustic power output, equivalent to a sound pressure level at one meter of about 72 dB at 1 meter (1 acoustic watt at 1 meter produces an SPL of 109 dB, 0.2 milliwatts is 37 dB below 1 watt). 72 dB SPL. 72 dB SPL. Got it? 72 dB SPL That's quite audible, don't you think? It's more audible that you're insistance on 0 output, don't you think? Now, what might you think happens if you hook this to an amplifier that is capable of playing into a 1 ohm load only at low levels, but say when the current drawn exceeds something like, oh, 2 amps, the over current protection circuitry turns on? And what do you think might happen if that overcurrent protection is built into the large hybrid integrated circuit that's the power output module for THAT channel, and operates independently from the other channel? Yup, one channel would have weak sound until the volume got turned past a certain level, and then it would shut down. Now, where did I get all this stuff from? Well, Howard, I took a Sony amplifier, which happens to be built pretty much as I described above and hooked it up pretty much like what the OP described AND I GOT EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS AS THE ORIGINAL POSTER. Well, Howard? Howard? Howard? Are you still with us? Do you now understand why, when people know a LOT more than you, it's because they know a LOT more than you? Do you NOW see why, Howard, you're such a dumb, arrogant moron and why it's a good idea either to make at least a token attempt to understand that which you choose to hold forth as an expert on, or simply drop the silly pretense, admit you're clueless, and go take up shuffleboard to fill out the rest of your retirement in the obscurity you have so richly earned? Haven't you done enough damage with your "books" and "articles?" |
|
#318
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... snip "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but the stuff sounded the same. Oops, a subjectivist would have claimed that they sounded different, with a favored model having all sorts of mesmerizing sound qualities. Yeah, I am a subjectivist down deep, but unlike most other subjectivists I am not deluded. This is rich! Howard claims he is a subjectivist. Yep. I do a bit of objective work, of course, but the bottom line easily visible in all of my product reviews is subjectivism. But since God gave him the power to read minds, he knows that HE is a rationale, careful listener. No. Rather, unlike glassy-eyed, puffed-up tweakos whose worlds revolve around their exotic audio systems, I consider an audio system as a means to an end, and do not become enamored of exotic and overkill products that do nothing more than suck money out of wallets. However, the rest of we subjectivists are simply deluded. No doubt. How does he know? One need only spend a bit of time here to see the proof put forth for all to read. How does Howard ever know? Those who read his posts KNOW he reads minds. Actually, those with limited intellect probably do believe that people with insight claim to be able to read minds. Insight is something fools have problems understanding. They also know his mindreading is always off by 180 degrees. Everything he thinks he knows about others is wrong! Everything he thinks he knows about himself is wrong! Get a life, tweako. Howard is the original "Wrong Way Corrigan" when it comes to understanding this hobby. Well, I do understand that the high-end contingent is mostly (not entirely, but mostly) populated by freaks. I understand this hobby well enough to realize just how goofy and psychologically inadequate some of the participants happen to be. Howard Ferstler I rest my case. ;-] |
|
#319
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Jul 2005 09:49:34 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:00:48 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd. It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem. However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the protection circuits are doing. Well, you're just plain wrong. Define near short and define mute. It will probably put most amps into current limit. But not all................. :-) In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an overpriced item that appeals to suckers. A Krell KSA will blow that short like a fuse Instant repair.Quite so! :-) Even if the near short is current-capable, the Krell will still provide enough current to drive both the short and the speaker. Since they're in parallel, there won't be any reduction of voltage (and hence volume) to the speaker. Shame that Howard doesn't understand this. How can any current be flowing through the speaker? All of it will be passing through the short in parallel. Howard Ferstler The only way the current through the speaker is zero is if the voltage across the speaker is zero or the speaker is fried and has infinite impedance. We'll assume the speaker is ok. Since the speaker and the short are in parallel.. they will both have the same voltage across them. Clearly the current required to generate a voltage across a true zero ohm short is infinite (I = V/R)... but a true zero ohm short is physically impossible (well maybe the superconductor guys have something close). So... if the amp hasn't shut down and is producing a voltage at all across the short (which isn't really a perfect short) .... the same voltage will be present across the speaker and current will flow thru the speaker. ScottW |
|
#320
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message u... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Blind tests do not eliminate preconceptions that two items will be the same. you never have grasped that, Stewart. You simply prove that ANY other listener CAN properly tell the difference in the same ABX test. Have you grasped that? MrT. I really don't care what any other listener hears or doesn't hear. I am purchasing equipment for my own use, not manufacturing it for sale. Is that too hard for you to fathom? ----== 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 =---- |
| 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 | |||
Linear Mode
