Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Drunkie said:

It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.


If you think "tests" are the only thing "stopping people wasting money", you
must be a different species from homo sapiens.


Correct, I am a member of homo sapiens sapiens.


Top off the laird, innkeeper.




  #82   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)

So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?

It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
different than my Sony or Pioneer.


DBT details please.


No need to overstate the bleedin' obvious.


Well, the obvious would be, "Did you actually DO a head to head dbt
between these three players"? I don't think it's an "overstatement" to
wonder.

  #83   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:25:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
something that you disagree with.


No, I got the Krell/Apogee pair from the same dealer at a really good
price.


So? You could sell the Krell, buy a Behringer or similar "PA" amp that
will perform just as well and have a few thousand left over for cases
of Lagavulin (surely one NEVER has enough of that).

Of course, Howard doesn't take HIS own advice either, since he's got
plenty of "expensive" or superceded equipment.

Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost
vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
the gear, just as YOU aren't.


Indeed, but they get *really* crap sound! :-)


DBT info please. Perhaps you might not even be able to tell the
difference.
  #85   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No, I am not an engineer and don't claim to be. The NI line consists
of very expensive PCI and CompactPCI modules that are not what Arny is
talking about and almost invariably go int ATE setups, not what a bench
tech would use. The bare backplane and chassis for CompactPCI costs
several times what a loaded commodity PC does.

Having an x86-instruction set microcontroller is a long way from being
"PC-based." Most test equipment is based on a off the shelf embedded
platform, but does not run an OS that can be accessed as one would a
computer-the Infiniium scopes and some Tek/R&S logic analyzers and comm
boxes are an exception, and, I would argue, unfortunate ones. A local
organization had to format and reload a half dozen of the infiniiums
when the Sasser worm got in them and rendered them inoperative.



  #86   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:06:48 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Don Pearce said:

DBT details please.


Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.


Trouble reading, Don?



None at all, George. You?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #87   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Pearce said:

DBT details please.


Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.


Trouble reading, Don?


None at all, George. You?


Pardon?

In case you ain't seen it, this issue done been hashed to death. Why won't
Ferstler admit his crackpot pseudo-tests are worthless? Because the
"results" confirm what he already "knows". Why does Pukey rail on and on
about "wasting" money on audio gear when he has some super-expensive stuff
of his own? Because he knows how ridiculous it is to mix personal preference
in the same pot with "objective tests" (even though they're not really
objective and not really tests).

Maybe you really haven't seen Pukey's ranting and raving about DBTs. He
prescribes them for everybody else, you see. That's because he claims he did
a series of tests once upon a time. Those tests, whose details remain
unknown to this day, are alleged by Pukey to have established that his Krell
and his Yamahaha and his something or other all sound indistinguishable when
he doesn't know which one is playing. That's when he got religion.

In the real world, if two amps have a sonic performance that's so close to
indistinguishable that you really do need a DBT to see if you can tell them
apart, well then, the choice isn't really about sonics, is it? Any human
being would be much better off choosing one of the amps on some other basis.
That's what being human is all about. That's what sets us apart from
machines. Of course, some might wish they were machines instead of flesh and
blood. Nothing to be done about that except shake your head.





  #88   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default



dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
floor.

So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
something that you disagree with.


Why resort to Kroologic to make your point?


It's NOT Kroologic at all. I was just wondering if he agreed with it,


If you wonder ask... instead you make statements of conslusion that
extrapolate beyond the facts.
Always playing the game, always portraying people as something other
than what they are rather than accepting them for themselves.

since he's always taking people to task for considering expensive gear
that he claims doesn't make a difference in sound.

Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you
become a mirror of what you despise.


I don't see how you figure.


Do you like being portrayed as something you're not?

I didn't say that I agreed with Howard.

Speaking of zealous, how do you explain your obsession with me?


I rest my case. You never stop with the portrayals.

ScottW

  #89   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
different than my Sony or Pioneer.


DBT details please.


Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.


Guaranteed Ferstler result....no difference.

ScottW


  #90   Report Post  
Mr.T
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker
cables come in different lengths and its often good to use
the shorter cable that gets the job done.


Even when the distance is longer?


Wouldn't get the job done then, would it?

chuckle

You are easily amused it seems.

MrT.




  #91   Report Post  
Mr.T
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?


So you know that the extra kiloDollar or whatever, is mainly for looks and
profit.
Then you can make an INFORMED choice.

MrT.


  #92   Report Post  
Mr.T
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction
'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse.


Of course you can.
(It is OK to prefer inferior though if you want.)

One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which
in itself is debatable).


The only debate is whether YOU want that level of performance.

As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area.


Of course. Much more so in music PRODUCTION though.
It is generally accepted by most intelligent people however, that in audio
*REPRODUCTION*, it is better to have an output as faithful to the input as
is possible, within the imposed constraints such as cost.

MrT.


  #93   Report Post  
Mr.T
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
the gear, just as YOU aren't.


So good luck to them. People don't buy a Rolls Royce because of it's
performance either.
At least they don't pretend it will beat a Ferrari, or even a Subaru WRX
around a race track.

I don't think many people buy a Rolex for their time keeping accuracy
either!

One should at least know WHAT you are buying IMO.

MrT.


  #94   Report Post  
Mr.T
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
The commodisumer PC is not a piece of test equipment. It is
unbenchworthy for many reasons.


Strange then that most test labs are full of them.
A real test/measurement/calibration engineer knows when and how to select
appropriate equipment for his intended purpose.

Those that don't are better off sticking with what is cheapest, often a PC
solution. At least then their useless results don't cost them so much.

MrT.


  #95   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 16 Jul 2005 19:02:33 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
floor.

So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
something that you disagree with.


Why resort to Kroologic to make your point?


It's NOT Kroologic at all. I was just wondering if he agreed with it,


If you wonder ask... instead you make statements of conslusion that
extrapolate beyond the facts.
Always playing the game, always portraying people as something other
than what they are rather than accepting them for themselves.

since he's always taking people to task for considering expensive gear
that he claims doesn't make a difference in sound.

Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you
become a mirror of what you despise.


I don't see how you figure.


Do you like being portrayed as something you're not?

I didn't say that I agreed with Howard.

Speaking of zealous, how do you explain your obsession with me?


I rest my case. You never stop with the portrayals.


Are you not constantly going after me?

You need to look in the mirror YOURSELF before you start casting
stones.

This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of
your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR
conversations. Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently.



  #96   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:59:30 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker
cables come in different lengths and its often good to use
the shorter cable that gets the job done.


Even when the distance is longer?


Wouldn't get the job done then, would it?

chuckle

You are easily amused it seems.


Well, yes. Aren't you?

BTW, this was a play on a previous post, so Johnny-come-latelys
probably DO have trouble seeing the joke.

  #97   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:24:45 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
the gear, just as YOU aren't.


So good luck to them. People don't buy a Rolls Royce because of it's
performance either.
At least they don't pretend it will beat a Ferrari, or even a Subaru WRX
around a race track.


If everyone had the same objective hearing system, you could equate
absolute sound to track times. Unfortunately for your argument, people
respond to musical stimuli differently, either because of variations
in the hearing organ itself, cognitive differences, or cultural
biases.

You also can't pretend that a Ferarri will carry four people and a
week's worth of luggage either. This is part of the "performance"
aspect of the car. You can't pretend that a Ferarri will outperform a
Rolls-Royce in the cabin noise parameter either. Nor can you claim
that the Ferarri performs as well in stop and go traffic either.

I don't think many people buy a Rolex for their time keeping accuracy
either!


Although they're accurate enough for wrist wear.

One should at least know WHAT you are buying IMO.


Somoeone spending $60,000 for an Audio Note amplifier is likely top
know what they are buying.

  #98   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:29:54 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Don Pearce said:

DBT details please.


Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.


Trouble reading, Don?


None at all, George. You?


Pardon?

In case you ain't seen it, this issue done been hashed to death. Why won't
Ferstler admit his crackpot pseudo-tests are worthless? Because the
"results" confirm what he already "knows". Why does Pukey rail on and on
about "wasting" money on audio gear when he has some super-expensive stuff
of his own? Because he knows how ridiculous it is to mix personal preference
in the same pot with "objective tests" (even though they're not really
objective and not really tests).

Maybe you really haven't seen Pukey's ranting and raving about DBTs. He
prescribes them for everybody else, you see. That's because he claims he did
a series of tests once upon a time. Those tests, whose details remain
unknown to this day, are alleged by Pukey to have established that his Krell
and his Yamahaha and his something or other all sound indistinguishable when
he doesn't know which one is playing. That's when he got religion.

In the real world, if two amps have a sonic performance that's so close to
indistinguishable that you really do need a DBT to see if you can tell them
apart, well then, the choice isn't really about sonics, is it? Any human
being would be much better off choosing one of the amps on some other basis.
That's what being human is all about. That's what sets us apart from
machines. Of course, some might wish they were machines instead of flesh and
blood. Nothing to be done about that except shake your head.



George, I've no idea what you are talking about. My post was
addressing a specific point raised by Weil. I'm not interested in as
you say - all the other rantings and ravings. I was pointing out that
there is no value in subjecting to DBT somebody who hears no
difference sighted; it will tell you nothing. DBT only has a purpose
in testing a claim of difference.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #99   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:44:13 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)

So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?

It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
different than my Sony or Pioneer.

DBT details please.


No need to overstate the bleedin' obvious.


Well, the obvious would be, "Did you actually DO a head to head dbt
between these three players"? I don't think it's an "overstatement" to
wonder.


OK, let me rephrase - I *hope* it won't sound any different than my
Sony or Pioneer, because then it would be broken. When you've done a
couple of dozen comparisons, and only the whacko stuff like the
seriously broken Audio Note sounds different, then you get a degree of
confidence that all well-designed players sound the same. This leaves
you free to buy on other criteria. I've no reason to suppose that the
Oracle isn't a good standard player, so I can happily consider
purchase for the sheer beauty of it. If push comes to shove, I'd
probably go for the transport only, and hook it up to a Benchmark
DAC-1. That way, I can *guarantee* SOTA sound.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #100   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:48:48 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:25:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
something that you disagree with.


No, I got the Krell/Apogee pair from the same dealer at a really good
price.


So? You could sell the Krell, buy a Behringer or similar "PA" amp that
will perform just as well and have a few thousand left over for cases
of Lagavulin (surely one NEVER has enough of that).


Actually, I doubt that I'd get more than a grand for the Krell. OTOH,
that's what I paid for it. And a grand won't buy me anything with the
same current reserves as that old Krell.

Of course, Howard doesn't take HIS own advice either, since he's got
plenty of "expensive" or superceded equipment.

Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost
vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
the gear, just as YOU aren't.


Indeed, but they get *really* crap sound! :-)


DBT info please. Perhaps you might not even be able to tell the
difference.


Oh yeah, I can tell the difference, it's not in *any* way subtle! SET
amps are absolutely hopeless unless you use them with ultrasensitive
speakers, which brings its own raft of sonic problems.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #101   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 16 Jul 2005 15:10:20 -0700, wrote:

No, I am not an engineer and don't claim to be. The NI line consists
of very expensive PCI and CompactPCI modules that are not what Arny is
talking about and almost invariably go int ATE setups, not what a bench
tech would use.


Hey Chalky, a PC-based test setup *is* an ATE. I designed them for
fifteen years at Marconi and Hughes, so I know wherof I speak!

The bare backplane and chassis for CompactPCI costs
several times what a loaded commodity PC does.


Yes, but NI make ordinary PC cards too.

Having an x86-instruction set microcontroller is a long way from being
"PC-based." Most test equipment is based on a off the shelf embedded
platform, but does not run an OS that can be accessed as one would a
computer-the Infiniium scopes and some Tek/R&S logic analyzers and comm
boxes are an exception, and, I would argue, unfortunate ones. A local
organization had to format and reload a half dozen of the infiniiums
when the Sasser worm got in them and rendered them inoperative.


The OS is a different matter. The old HP 9000 series (pretty similar
architecture to a Mac) used an extremely efficient OS that did
*exactly* what you told it to, right away, no second chances, no namby
pamby "are you absolutely definitely sure" intermediate steps. The
command del *.* did exactly what it said on the tin - probably the
first user-hostile OS................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #102   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"dave weil" wrote in message
...
Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella:

Speaker
cables come in different lengths and its often good to

use
the shorter cable that gets the job done.


Even when the distance is longer?


Wouldn't get the job done then, would it?

chuckle

You are easily amused it seems.


Weil is desperately in need of attention from me, not to
mention he needs a life.


  #104   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


George, I've no idea what you are talking about.


George is proselytizing for his know-nothing religion again.

My post was
addressing a specific point raised by Weil. I'm not

interested
in as you say - all the other rantings and ravings. I was
pointing out that there is no value in subjecting to DBT
somebody who hears no difference sighted; it will tell you
nothing. DBT only has a purpose in testing a claim of
difference.


DBTs are also good for preference testing when it is known
that a difference exists to base preference on.


  #105   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mr.T" MrT@home said:


And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction
'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse.


Of course you can.
(It is OK to prefer inferior though if you want.)



"Inferior" implies a judgement on all accounts, including preference.


One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which
in itself is debatable).


The only debate is whether YOU want that level of performance.



The entire "hifi" standard is debatable. See below.


As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area.


Of course. Much more so in music PRODUCTION though.
It is generally accepted by most intelligent people however, that in audio
*REPRODUCTION*, it is better to have an output as faithful to the input as
is possible, within the imposed constraints such as cost.



This standard is debatable in the way that what YOU are looking for,
by the above admission, is 'fidelity" from source to speakers only.
That leaves out: a: the recording and mastering in all its stages,
b. the room and speaker interaction.

True fidelity is an exact reproduction of what a certain band,
orchestra or performer sounded like during the recodring, where we
still have a choice in listening position.
True fidelity is NOT, IMHO, taking just a "perfect" source spinning a
disk of whatever kind, combined with a "perfect" amplifier.

From all this follows that "high fidelity" in itself doesn't exist, at
its best it's is strictly personal and might very well ask for
components with deviating behaviour from the "ideal".

Thinking that "high fidelity" can be achieved with 0.0001% THD and a
frequency response from DC to light is simply absurd.
This is something that not may people are ready to accept, especially
when they're some kind of audio "professional" ( usually with blinders
on).

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005


  #106   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 06:18:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
. au
"dave weil" wrote in message
...
Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella:

Speaker
cables come in different lengths and its often good to

use
the shorter cable that gets the job done.

Even when the distance is longer?


Wouldn't get the job done then, would it?

chuckle

You are easily amused it seems.


Weil is desperately in need of attention from me, not to
mention he needs a life.


Wow, right on schedule. Thanks for the attention, Arnold.
  #107   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:12:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:35:47 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:49:51 GMT,

(Don
Pearce) wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve
sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I

know it
won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer.

DBT details please.

Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be
appropriate.

Well, it *wouldn't* be appropriate if we didn't care

about
this statement as applicable to anyone other than

Stewart.
And if this were the case, then his statement doesn't

mean
anything really.

Surely you or Stewart would be demanding a dbt if someone

was
claiming that they knew that the Oracle kicked the Sony

or
Pioneer's ass. It works the other way as well.


So you don't understand DBTs.


You said a mouthful!

If you did you would know that
they are inapplicable in a situation where the putative
subject has expressed an opinion that there is NO

difference.

True, but it won't stop Weil from trolling.


You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL
expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there
are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the
test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and
Stewart.

Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if
you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to
do such a thing.
  #108   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:02:11 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL
expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there
are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the
test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and
Stewart.

A DBT can only expose dishonesty in a falsely claimed positive. A
badly run DBT can easily provide a false positive, but it would be
hard put to give a false negative.

Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if
you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to
do such a thing.


As you have clearly already strained yours to this extent, and mine
won't strain any further, please enlighten.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #109   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:11:08 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:02:11 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL
expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there
are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the
test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and
Stewart.

A DBT can only expose dishonesty in a falsely claimed positive.


See below as to how a dbt *could* prove disprove a negative.

A badly run DBT can easily provide a false positive, but it would be
hard put to give a false negative.

Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if
you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to
do such a thing.


As you have clearly already strained yours to this extent, and mine
won't strain any further, please enlighten.


Let me propose this test.

Howard Ferstler claims that he can't hear the difference between
"properly designed amps". He also claims that, not only are SETs NOT
properly designed amps because they introduce onerous distortions that
run counter to "hi-fi" and let's take this further and say that he
claims that he could identify them based on these characterizations
(these are restatements of the very things that Howard has said on
this newsgroup).

All one would have to do to test this is a variation of what an
"objectivist" talked about recently (Stewart, I think) whereby you
fake switching between two components that the listener THINKS are
different, while all the time they are listening to the same component
and they end up "hearing a difference". Sure, the score would probably
prove them wrong.

But, flip this on its head and take two components that Howard thinks
*should* sound the same, such as a Yamaha amp and Stewart's Krell
(operating within parameters of course), but secretely substitute an
SET that is measurably and audibly quite different for one of the
amps. I'd suggest that there's a good chance that someone convinced of
their ability to judge the SET inferior wouldn't find any differences
and would score randomly (as a matter of fact, Howard claims to have
just started guessing during a test of amplifiers after a few trials),
because they wouldn't trust their own ears, plus, they would be
inclined to support their bias.

Now, you've cast doubt on two things - their honesty in conducting the
test (are they simply SAYING that they think everything sounds the
same and basically just guessing randomly?) and their ability to
actually determine differences in the first place.

One could easily construct the same sort of test with Stewart secretly
substituting a NAIM CD player that he thinks has a "signature sound".

The upshot of this? If someone were as disabused of their abilities as
you claim that someone like Zip should have been after his amp test,
theoretically, they might actually take the next test with fewer
preconceptions and might lose the "dishonest" aspect of their trials
by actually being FORCED to listen for differences that they might
have overlooked in the past.

In any case, you've cast doubt on their ability to discern
differences. All of this is assuming, of course, that they wouldn't be
able to tell the difference, and I'm sure that until such a test is
made, that they would continue to insist that there is no way that
they wouldn't. But now we're back to bias and pure, untested opinion.
Of course, *my* comments fall into the same speculation, and I grant
this. But, the test *could* be constructed in such a manner and that's
what you asked.



  #110   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:42:51 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:11:08 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:02:11 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL
expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there
are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the
test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and
Stewart.

A DBT can only expose dishonesty in a falsely claimed positive.


See below as to how a dbt *could* prove disprove a negative.

A badly run DBT can easily provide a false positive, but it would be
hard put to give a false negative.

Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if
you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to
do such a thing.


As you have clearly already strained yours to this extent, and mine
won't strain any further, please enlighten.


Let me propose this test.

Howard Ferstler claims that he can't hear the difference between
"properly designed amps". He also claims that, not only are SETs NOT
properly designed amps because they introduce onerous distortions that
run counter to "hi-fi" and let's take this further and say that he
claims that he could identify them based on these characterizations
(these are restatements of the very things that Howard has said on
this newsgroup).

All one would have to do to test this is a variation of what an
"objectivist" talked about recently (Stewart, I think) whereby you
fake switching between two components that the listener THINKS are
different, while all the time they are listening to the same component
and they end up "hearing a difference". Sure, the score would probably
prove them wrong.

But, flip this on its head and take two components that Howard thinks
*should* sound the same, such as a Yamaha amp and Stewart's Krell
(operating within parameters of course), but secretely substitute an
SET that is measurably and audibly quite different for one of the
amps. I'd suggest that there's a good chance that someone convinced of
their ability to judge the SET inferior wouldn't find any differences
and would score randomly (as a matter of fact, Howard claims to have
just started guessing during a test of amplifiers after a few trials),
because they wouldn't trust their own ears, plus, they would be
inclined to support their bias.

Well, you have two possible outcomes here. Either he hears the
difference and reports it, or he doesn't.

In neither case have you proved anything other than that he couldn't
(or wouldn't) identify a difference. Now it is up to you to prove
which it is - and you can't.

Now, you've cast doubt on two things - their honesty in conducting the
test (are they simply SAYING that they think everything sounds the
same and basically just guessing randomly?) and their ability to
actually determine differences in the first place.

One could easily construct the same sort of test with Stewart secretly
substituting a NAIM CD player that he thinks has a "signature sound".

The upshot of this? If someone were as disabused of their abilities as
you claim that someone like Zip should have been after his amp test,
theoretically, they might actually take the next test with fewer
preconceptions and might lose the "dishonest" aspect of their trials
by actually being FORCED to listen for differences that they might
have overlooked in the past.

In any case, you've cast doubt on their ability to discern
differences. All of this is assuming, of course, that they wouldn't be
able to tell the difference, and I'm sure that until such a test is
made, that they would continue to insist that there is no way that
they wouldn't. But now we're back to bias and pure, untested opinion.
Of course, *my* comments fall into the same speculation, and I grant
this. But, the test *could* be constructed in such a manner and that's
what you asked.


None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to
hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is
still patently absurd however you look at it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


  #111   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:53:03 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:42:51 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:11:08 GMT,
(Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:02:11 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL
expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there
are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the
test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and
Stewart.

A DBT can only expose dishonesty in a falsely claimed positive.


See below as to how a dbt *could* prove disprove a negative.

A badly run DBT can easily provide a false positive, but it would be
hard put to give a false negative.

Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if
you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to
do such a thing.

As you have clearly already strained yours to this extent, and mine
won't strain any further, please enlighten.


Let me propose this test.

Howard Ferstler claims that he can't hear the difference between
"properly designed amps". He also claims that, not only are SETs NOT
properly designed amps because they introduce onerous distortions that
run counter to "hi-fi" and let's take this further and say that he
claims that he could identify them based on these characterizations
(these are restatements of the very things that Howard has said on
this newsgroup).

All one would have to do to test this is a variation of what an
"objectivist" talked about recently (Stewart, I think) whereby you
fake switching between two components that the listener THINKS are
different, while all the time they are listening to the same component
and they end up "hearing a difference". Sure, the score would probably
prove them wrong.

But, flip this on its head and take two components that Howard thinks
*should* sound the same, such as a Yamaha amp and Stewart's Krell
(operating within parameters of course), but secretely substitute an
SET that is measurably and audibly quite different for one of the
amps. I'd suggest that there's a good chance that someone convinced of
their ability to judge the SET inferior wouldn't find any differences
and would score randomly (as a matter of fact, Howard claims to have
just started guessing during a test of amplifiers after a few trials),
because they wouldn't trust their own ears, plus, they would be
inclined to support their bias.

Well, you have two possible outcomes here. Either he hears the
difference and reports it, or he doesn't.

In neither case have you proved anything other than that he couldn't
(or wouldn't) identify a difference. Now it is up to you to prove
which it is - and you can't.


It really doesn't matter in this case. You have shown that he can't
even tell a difference when there *is* a verifiable difference. I
think this is an important point.
Now, you've cast doubt on two things - their honesty in conducting the
test (are they simply SAYING that they think everything sounds the
same and basically just guessing randomly?) and their ability to
actually determine differences in the first place.

One could easily construct the same sort of test with Stewart secretly
substituting a NAIM CD player that he thinks has a "signature sound".

The upshot of this? If someone were as disabused of their abilities as
you claim that someone like Zip should have been after his amp test,
theoretically, they might actually take the next test with fewer
preconceptions and might lose the "dishonest" aspect of their trials
by actually being FORCED to listen for differences that they might
have overlooked in the past.

In any case, you've cast doubt on their ability to discern
differences. All of this is assuming, of course, that they wouldn't be
able to tell the difference, and I'm sure that until such a test is
made, that they would continue to insist that there is no way that
they wouldn't. But now we're back to bias and pure, untested opinion.
Of course, *my* comments fall into the same speculation, and I grant
this. But, the test *could* be constructed in such a manner and that's
what you asked.


None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to
hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is
still patently absurd however you look at it.


But what you HAVE proved is that he can't hear differences even then
there *are* differences. This casts doubt on his ability to make the
first claim.

And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
differences).

  #112   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:28:30 -0500, dave weil
wrote:


And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
differences).


But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you
need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather
than unable to identify a difference.

And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say
about the possible result of another test.

Stick to using these DBTs where they demonstrably have value - in
testing an identified difference.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #113   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default



dave weil wrote:

Are you not constantly going after me?


Did you not just make a gratuitous reference to me in another thread?
You inspired this.


You need to look in the mirror YOURSELF before you start casting
stones.

This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of
your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR
conversations.


Like you haven't? Get real Dave.

But unlike you I don't expect a usenet exchange to be a private or
one-on-one. You want that... take if offline.

Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently.


We've all heard far too much about the struggles in your life. I'm
not going there.

ScottW

  #114   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default



dave weil wrote:

You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY,


How can anyone other than the subject know they did that?

In this scenario you were calling for DBT results from someone who said
"no difference". DBT results from them that say "no difference" don't
really have any significance as DB is irrelevant to that conclusion.

You really should examine your argument closely before the gratuitous
insults start flying.

ScottW

  #115   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default



dave weil wrote:

None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to
hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is
still patently absurd however you look at it.


But what you HAVE proved is that he can't hear differences even then
there *are* differences.


No you didn't. All you did was prove that you could bias the listener
to a false negative through sighted perception. He doesn't think he
heard a difference sighted... why should he hear one blind? You have
attacked his mental stamina and degraded his motivation for critical
listening and then you call the outcome "rotten". Give us a break,
Dave.

But show how you can accomplish the reverse when the listener believes
he hears a difference sighted. This bias is what the test is designed
to confirm or deny and nothing else.

This casts doubt on his ability to make the
first claim.

And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
differences).


I can think on no more "rotten behavior" than what you propose to do
as a test administrator and the conclusion you erroneously claim a no
difference outcome would demonstrate.

ScottW



  #116   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Pearce said:

And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
differences).


But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you
need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather
than unable to identify a difference.


With certain individuals, it's laughably easy to demonstrate the
unwillingness -- just ask them.

And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say
about the possible result of another test.


Absolutely true. Perhaps the 'borgs will take note of this small caveat.
Tommi, are you listening? Harold, ten-HUT!





  #118   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 17 Jul 2005 09:39:30 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:

Are you not constantly going after me?


Did you not just make a gratuitous reference to me in another thread?


I don't know. You tell me.

You inspired this.


We can go back and forth on this. You've been taking me on for several
years now. A this point, who knows who inspired what?

You need to look in the mirror YOURSELF before you start casting
stones.

This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of
your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR
conversations.


Like you haven't? Get real Dave.


I DON'T. As you know. You are participating in two threads right now
that I'm not participating in AT ALL. I'm not jumping in to tell you
how full of **** you are.

But unlike you I don't expect a usenet exchange to be a private or
one-on-one. You want that... take if offline.


All I know that you're obsessed with me. That's *your* issue, not
mine. I only point it out.

Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently.


We've all heard far too much about the struggles in your life. I'm
not going there.


Yeah, life is a real struggle for me. I've got a job that I like, I
have flexibility in the hours that I work, I have a house that's
appreciating like nobody's business and I have fun.

And I live smack dab in the middle of BBQ country, where BBQ is real
and not some imported affair.

  #120   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 17 Jul 2005 09:56:33 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:

None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to
hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is
still patently absurd however you look at it.


But what you HAVE proved is that he can't hear differences even then
there *are* differences.


No you didn't. All you did was prove that you could bias the listener
to a false negative through sighted perception. He doesn't think he
heard a difference sighted... why should he hear one blind? You have
attacked his mental stamina and degraded his motivation for critical
listening and then you call the outcome "rotten". Give us a break,
Dave.

But show how you can accomplish the reverse when the listener believes
he hears a difference sighted. This bias is what the test is designed
to confirm or deny and nothing else.

This casts doubt on his ability to make the
first claim.

And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
differences).


I can think on no more "rotten behavior" than what you propose to do
as a test administrator and the conclusion you erroneously claim a no
difference outcome would demonstrate.

ScottW


Four replies this morning. I rest my case about "obsession".
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Arny vs. Atkinson debat - Could someone post a blow by blow? Victor Martell Audio Opinions 1154 July 18th 05 10:16 PM
The Bill May Report on Single-Ended Output Transformers for 300B etc [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 6 May 4th 05 03:16 AM
Sub Amps - a Follow up Question T Tech 26 April 29th 05 05:26 PM
Yet another DBT post Andrew Korsh High End Audio 205 February 29th 04 07:36 PM
Run Rabbit Run Patrick Turner Vacuum Tubes 8 November 24th 03 01:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:23 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"