"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message
...

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point
is that the 'objectivists' are well aware that
*everyone* has expectation bias. That's why it needs to
be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.

DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Neither does sighted evaluation.

What comes down to that DBT is enough work that a person
has to be pretty hard-headed to avoid getting caught up
in the moment and listen hard and carefully to make the
best possible showing. Hope springs eternal. Of course,
being so proud of having zero personal
experience with DBT Art, you know nothing about this.

Listening is easy. If it gets hard, it just isn't worth
doing.

Art, you shape up as your typical audiophool with more money
than brains. Thing is, you aren't even all that rich,
financially.

I don't listen to music just to get
hernias in my ears.

Then Art how do you explain your obviously herniated brain?

"Margaret von B." wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


you never designed an ashtray for an Omni.

Nor have I.

OTOH, I've never been the editor of what many believe to
the largest single perpetrator of audio snake oil in the
world.

Considering that even the most basic language eludes you
...
So, I have to admit that Atkinson has that *advantage*
on me.

Yes, Atkinson is an elephant in the world of audio.

OK, Maggie, so you are in love with the man.

And you are a dung beetle, Arny.

Get back with us Maggie when you solve your sexual identity
crisis.

EddieM wrote
Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote
Arny Krueger wrote



What, your grauitous, unscientific claim?


Well don't get mad 'cause I think that Rao is now able to
get Mr. Norm Strong to recognize that abx/dbt isn't a
valid methodology for audiophiles to discern subtle
differences.

No such thing.


For the love of God, have you got anything more to add to the
13 Protocols ?




Cuckkacattowww .... hmm, I wonder how much a dozen eggs
sells for in Michigan.

Sausage in the morning, sausage in the evening

even when you're freezing 'cause sausage is the best

when eaten along with eggs.

"Arny Krueger"




Sausage in the morning !
Sausage in the evening !

Sausage when I'm thinking
sausage let me fill me

Sausage when I'm feeling
sausage let me feel me

**** the sausage!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


Listening is easy. If it gets hard, it just isn't worth
doing.

Art, you shape up as your typical audiophool with more money than brains.
Thing is, you aren't even all that rich, financially.


It is true that I am not all that rich. Not even close.
But I don't spend much on audio equipment.
Lots less than you do.





----== 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 =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Margaret von B." wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


you never designed an ashtray for an Omni.

Nor have I.

OTOH, I've never been the editor of what many believe to
the largest single perpetrator of audio snake oil in the
world.

Considering that even the most basic language eludes you
...
So, I have to admit that Atkinson has that *advantage*
on me.

Yes, Atkinson is an elephant in the world of audio.

OK, Maggie, so you are in love with the man.


Are you jealous?

And you are a dung beetle, Arny.

Get back with us Maggie when you solve your sexual identity crisis.


Roll another one, Mr. ****!

Cheers,

Margaret

Clyde Slick said to ****-for-Brains:

It is true that I am not all that rich. Not even close.
But I don't spend much on audio equipment.
Lots less than you do.

Hardly™ Mr. Slickman when you, consider the quantity of sound cards Arnii
owns. Arnii's cost per unit is very very low. He sound cards, power
amplifiers, and microphones stacked up to the ceiling. And how much did
Mr. **** pay for all those 100's and 100's of fabulous high-tech items?
Krooger will tell you the *cost per unit* is very low. This is the
important fact. You spend as much as $2000 on a SINGLE item such as a
power amplifier, but Krooger spends the same amount and has dozens of
separate items to show for it. Who's the smarter buyer Mr. Clyde?

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:26:28 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Glad to see that Ford has a cutting edge motor in play.

No normally aspirated Ford (or
Ford-owned) stock engine is even close to 100 BHP/litre output.

Well, you're right, except for the "close" part. They have a 1.9l with
170 hp motor. I admit that I misremembered the specs though.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:28:08 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:35:33 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

I'd gladly live in Austin.

Nah, Houston's where it's at. Especially Rice.

Performance cars on Houston freeways!

What, you mean to say that a free man can't do whatever he likes in
Texas, if it harms no other man? Shock, horror!

Houston. Yuck. I'd rather live in Atlanta, and since I HATE Atlanta,
that's saying a lot.

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

Clyde Slick said to ****-for-Brains:

It is true that I am not all that rich. Not even close.
But I don't spend much on audio equipment.
Lots less than you do.

HardlyT Mr. Slickman when you, consider the quantity of
sound cards Arnii owns. Arnii's cost per unit is very
very low.

At this point I own more microphones than sound cards.

He sound cards, power amplifiers, and
microphones stacked up to the ceiling.

Whatever that means in Middlish.

Note that Middius is trying to convey the false impression
that I don't have and loudspeakers, digital player,
equalizers, mixing consoles, cables etc.

And how much did Mr. Krueger pay for all those 100's and
100's of fabulous
high-tech items?

As little as possible, consistent with high quality.

Krueger will tell you the *cost per unit* is very low.

Middius seems to have the same problem with omniscience as
John Atkinson. Are delusions of omniscience symptomatic of
some STD?

This is the important fact.

Actually, its a non-fact, but since when has Middius been
constrained by the mere truth?

You spend
as much as $2000 on a SINGLE item such as a power
amplifier, but Krooger spends the same amount and has
dozens of separate items to show for it.

Well, maybe two or three items.

Who's the smarter buyer Mr. Clyde?

Which raises an interesting question: What is Art's real
name? What is George's real name? If these guys are so brave
and such bastions of truth, why do they systematically lie
about who they are?

"Margaret von B." said:

What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about a car race,
starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he really capable of outrunning a 500
hp AMG Mercedes with his little Audi?


If he's a skilled driver (and why shouldn't he be?) in the conditions
he explained, it's entirely possible IMO.

--

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:44:04 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Shame that you know nothing about cars. No normally aspirated Ford (or
Ford-owned) stock engine is even close to 100 BHP/litre output.

When are you going to take torque curves (the true measure of a cars
performance) into consideration instead of banging endlessly on HP/liter?

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

Torque is hardly the "true measure" of a car's performance.

But I agree that it's more important to have a balance between HP AND
torque than to have one or the other. Otherwise, you might as well
just either drive a tractor-trailer rig or a go-cart.

In one sense, I agree with Stewart's outlook though. I'd much rather
drive a last edition turbo RX-7 than a 'vette. I prefer some
nimbleness. Which is one of the reasons that I don't care one whit
about big fat "high performance saloons". I'll stick to the small
cars, thank you very much...

"Margaret von B." wrote in
message

What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about
a car race, starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he
really capable of outrunning a 500 hp AMG Mercedes with
his little Audi?

There are a number of hidden agendas in any street race,
including the skills of the drivers and their willingness to
take risks.

There is definately a sort of primacy of the cheaper car.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:03:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


How do I
know that? Because I only have to play one 5 minute track off any CD
through the two components in question to easily perceive the
difference--the difference that was not at all apparent on A/B
switching.

Your reasoning is a bit faulty here. You haven't proved anything
by this test, since it ignores the role of sighted bias. In fact it's
easy to 'easily perceive' differences in situations where no
difference is really likely at all (e.g. a 'phantom switch'
situation, where the user THINKS something has changed, but
realizes/is later informed that nothing was changed).

If you're saying what I hear is affected by what I see, I don't buy
it. Recently I compared two amps: a Marantz PM8200 and NAD 7020e
vintage budget receiver. I was actually hoping I'd prefer the NAD, or
at least hear little difference, as I only use headphones and the
Marantz is an extravagance; I wanted to sell it for the pretty penny
it's worth. Unfortunately the difference was only too obvious, and not
in the NAD's favour. The latter seemed shut in and very ordinary, with
none of the HF extension, precision or airiness of the Marantz. The
sound just wasn't in the same class, and though I kept repeating the
comparison on successive days, hoping to reach a different conclusion,
ultimately I just couldn't deny the evidence of my ears. So I kissed
my $300 goodbye (the difference between the value of the units on
Ebay), dried my tears and put the Marantz back in my equipment
cabinet.
If this was sighted bias, it was against my wishes!

Which brings me to my next confusion:

No, I think you shoudl stop right here, and re-assess your current
'knowledge' in light of long-standing tenets of perceptual
psychology.

I think I "shoudl" be allowed to keep going, perceptual psychology or
no. :-)

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:06:07 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

or audio designers attempting to achieve the best
sound BEYOND the noise and distortion figures?

Please explain what you mean by that cok,ment.

Well, at first I thought this was a technical term, but then realized
you wanted me to explain my comment. I meant that for many designers
there's a shangri-la beyond mere technical measurements. For instance,
when Rotel upgraded their budget 931 amp to a Mk ll, they claimed to
make around 30 component changes based solely on listening, not
measurement (the amp already measured fine but some reviewers disliked
it). I wonder what Rotel's engfineers would say about your contention
that "premium" components add nothing to the sound.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:03:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


How do I
know that? Because I only have to play one 5 minute
track off any CD through the two components in question
to easily perceive the difference--the difference that
was not at all apparent on A/B switching.

Your reasoning is a bit faulty here. You haven't proved
anything
by this test, since it ignores the role of sighted bias.
In fact it's easy to 'easily perceive' differences in
situations where no difference is really likely at all
(e.g. a 'phantom switch' situation, where the user
THINKS something has changed, but realizes/is later
informed that nothing was changed).

If you're saying what I hear is affected by what I see, I
don't buy it.

Then Paul, you have intentionally limited the quality,
reliability and sensitivity of your perceptions.

Not a heck of a lot I can do for you Paul, as long as you
adamantly continue to listen in a naive, poorly-informed,
insensitive, unreliable way.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:06:07 +0000 (UTC), Stewart
Pinkerton wrote:

or audio designers attempting to achieve the best
sound BEYOND the noise and distortion figures?

Please explain what you mean by that cok,ment.

Well, at first I thought this was a technical term, but
then realized you wanted me to explain my comment. I
meant that for many designers there's a shangri-la beyond
mere technical measurements. For instance, when Rotel
upgraded their budget 931 amp to a Mk ll, they claimed to
make around 30 component changes based solely on
listening, not measurement (the amp already measured fine
but some reviewers disliked it).


I wonder what Rotel's
engfineers would say about your contention that "premium"
components add nothing to the sound.

I'm sure that Rotel has a big enough engineering staff than
there is at least one resident skeptic.

What you don't seem to get Paul is the fact that these
so-called upgrades are driven by the marketing department.

Paul, you're a riot - you're so adamantly skeptical of good
science, and so easily and so completely sucked in by
anti-science, anti-technology and big, impressive,
unsupported claims.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:27:26 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


Of course, he can't explain why my Onkyo preamp, with actually superior
"specs" for the most part, sounds far less "real" in my system thtn does my
Audio Research preamp. I haven't done an ABX, so of course my "claim" can't
be taken seriously. Sometimes this argument gets so laughable on its face
that one just needs to walk away for awhile.

Agreed. There is something laughable when otherwise rational people
decide to deny the evidence of their ears because they can't repeat a
notable audible difference with A/B switching. There's something
determinedly dogged in the denials too, as if they all had a vested
interest in proving their JVC integrateds sound as good as a Krell
pre/power.

On another tack, Arnie assured me on aus.hi-fi that for headphones I
would be far better off with a low impedance source, virtually ANY low
impedance source, than a high impedance one like the HP socket on my
Marantz PM8200. Yet I know this isn't true, as I once auditioned an MF
X-Can v2 and was totally unimpressed. Subsequently I bought a Marantz
PM4000 budget integrated and was highly impressed--it drove my
Sennheiser 595s beautifully, and certainly better than the X-Can. So
is this another example of subjectivism denying audio science? Arnie,
if you happen to read this, please come in.

paul packer said:

No, I think you shoudl stop right here, and re-assess your current
'knowledge' in light of long-standing tenets of perceptual
psychology.

I think I "shoudl" be allowed to keep going, perceptual psychology or
no. :-)

Yes you should, as any Normal should.

You've certainly come a long way since your earlier stumping in favor of
roboticization. Congratulations, paulie.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 05:49:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


I confess I have a veritable hive of confusions about
this whole ABX thing.

Listening to Middius' prattle will do that to a naive
person.

Still on about my imagined alliance with Middius? I do my own
thinking.

Firstly, I don't understand why
A/Bing never seems to show up any but the grossest
differences; I only know it doesn't. How do I know that?
Because I only have to play one 5 minute track off any CD
through the two components in question to easily perceive
the difference--the difference that was not at all
apparent on A/B switching.

Your problem is again naivate. Do you actually think that
you perceive everything exactly as it is? Have you never
perceived an optical illusion? Do you think that everything
is exactly as you perceive it?

Here's a thought, Arnie. If hi-fi is a hobby for pleasure, what does
it matter if the superiority I percieve in one amp over another can't
be measured? It still gives me more pleasure and thus serves the ends
of the hobby. In other words, if it sounds better to me, why should it
bother you?

Do they ever move on to Step 2, and if so,
and assuming they actually hear a difference, do they
then say, "This must be imagined, or it would have shown
up on A/Bing".

Well Paul, the right answer seems to be smacking you in the
face, and you still don't get it!

I usually ignore things that smack me in the face. It's very rude.

For myself I'm a cheapskate.
I'd prefer to believe that the cheapest items are as good
as the other sort given similar specs;

What's this fascination with similar specs?

Just another way of saying "All things being equal..."

Audiophile listening tests are often crap anyway, because
audiophiles tend to evaluate equipment with music that makes
it sound good, when the more difficult test often involves
music that makes it sound bad.

See what I mean? The "favorite track" myth rides again.
Often if you want to actually hear a difference between
amps, you may easily end up listening to your least-favorte
track. You know, the one that tends to make your system
sound like **** because it stresses it so much.

"Favourite track" is just an expression. Often I'll use a least
favourite track, as you suggest something that stresses the system.
Don't be too literal, Arnie.


I don't understand,
above all, how this debate ever arose in the first place,
or what currently sustains it when the evidence is clear.

A good rule of thumb is that other than speakers and LP
playback equipment, if the evidence of a difference is
clear, you're probably doing the evaulation wrong.

This is astonishingly silly as written. I can only assume you had some
explanatory thought you didn't actually set down.

The Wrong Rev. Big **** gets up on his ****ty little pulpit.

I wonder what Rotel's
engfineers would say about your contention that "premium"
components add nothing to the sound.

What you don't seem to get Paul

You're showing your delusions again, Turdy. You don't know what anybody "seems
to get", other than, of course, disgusted with you.

Paul, you're a riot - you're so adamantly skeptical of good
science, and so easily and so completely sucked in by
anti-science, anti-technology and big, impressive,
unsupported claims.

Wow! Pretty good Kroodown, paulie. Mr. **** is near-apoplectic and you only made
a couple of posts.

If you were to lecture Turdborg on his horrible "christian" character, you'd
probably be able to drive him to tears.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 05:49:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


I confess I have a veritable hive of confusions about
this whole ABX thing.

Listening to Middius' prattle will do that to a naive
person.

Still on about my imagined alliance with Middius? I do my
own thinking.

OK Paul, the fact that you behave like you were programmed
like Middius kinda faked me ou.

Firstly, I don't understand why
A/Bing never seems to show up any but the grossest
differences; I only know it doesn't. How do I know that?
Because I only have to play one 5 minute track off any
CD through the two components in question to easily
perceive the difference--the difference that was not at
all apparent on A/B switching.

Your problem is again naivate. Do you actually think that
you perceive everything exactly as it is? Have you never
perceived an optical illusion? Do you think that
everything is exactly as you perceive it?

Here's a thought, Arnie. If hi-fi is a hobby for
pleasure, what does it matter if the superiority I
percieve in one amp over another can't be measured?

This isn't about measuring, its about hearing.

It still gives me more pleasure and thus serves the ends
of
the hobby. In other words, if it sounds better to me, why
should it bother you?

It doesn't bother me at all. I see tons of people with far
more serious problems than amplifier mystecism all the time.
Their gun, their bullet, their foot.

Do they ever move on to Step 2, and if so,
and assuming they actually hear a difference, do they
then say, "This must be imagined, or it would have shown
up on A/Bing".

Well Paul, the right answer seems to be smacking you in
the face, and you still don't get it!

I usually ignore things that smack me in the face. It's
very rude.

You've set yourself up to take some rude falls, Paul.

For myself I'm a cheapskate.
I'd prefer to believe that the cheapest items are as
good as the other sort given similar specs;

What's this fascination with similar specs?

Just another way of saying "All things being equal..."

Try saying something accurate and meaningful, just for
grins...

Audiophile listening tests are often crap anyway, because
audiophiles tend to evaluate equipment with music that
makes it sound good, when the more difficult test often
involves music that makes it sound bad.

See what I mean? The "favorite track" myth rides again.
Often if you want to actually hear a difference between
amps, you may easily end up listening to your
least-favorte track. You know, the one that tends to
make your system sound like **** because it stresses it
so much.

"Favourite track" is just an expression. Often I'll use a
least favourite track, as you suggest something that
stresses the system. Don't be too literal, Arnie.

Nex time try saying something accurate and meaningful, just
for grins...

I don't understand,
above all, how this debate ever arose in the first
place, or what currently sustains it when the evidence
is clear.

A good rule of thumb is that other than speakers and LP
playback equipment, if the evidence of a difference is
clear, you're probably doing the evaulation wrong.

This is astonishingly silly as written.

Try saying something accurate and meaningful, just for
grins...

I can only assume
you had some explanatory thought you didn't actually set
down.

Paul, you're so deep into imaginary perceptions that it
would seem that there's no possible help, at least until you
wake up.

paul packer said to the Brain-Dead Krooborg:

Listening to Middius' prattle will do that to a naive
person.

Still on about my imagined alliance with Middius? I do my own
thinking.

Krooger's maelstrom of conspiracies and alliances seems to stretch out into
infinity. Sometimes Turdy rants that I'm the linchpin and other times he calls
me a dupe. Sometimes the plots encompass all of Usenet and other times Mr. ****
accuses a handful of individuals.

The bottom line for Krooger's crack-brain conspiracy theories is that unless I
label you a 'borg, you are totally allied with me. And even then, he makes
exceptions.

Here's a thought, Arnie. If hi-fi is a hobby for pleasure, what does
it matter if the superiority I percieve in one amp over another can't
be measured? It still gives me more pleasure and thus serves the ends
of the hobby. In other words, if it sounds better to me, why should it
bother you?

Did you miss the 500 or so posts where Krooger klaimed to be an "audio
professoinal"? Of course this conceit on Mr. ****'s part is purely imaginary. He
has no professional experience of any sort, no business operations, no
references, no publications. Just a godawful web site and some fatuous claims
about "tests". The ****tiest part of Mr. ****'s "tests" is that you can't use
his aBxism rituals for actual testing because they only comprise recorded
snippets of sound.

By human standards of reality, Krooger isn't even a hobbyist. He simply amasses
larger and larger piles of junk in order to "test" them. The information he
derives has no practical value because by the time he "publishes" it, the
equipment he "tests" is out of date and no longer available.


See what I mean? The "favorite track" myth rides again.

"Favourite track" is just an expression. Often I'll use a least
favourite track, as you suggest something that stresses the system.
Don't be too literal, Arnie.

Literal is all Krooger has. You may have noticed Mr. **** responding in total
seriousness to mocking posts. And all those "lies" TUrdborg rants about are
instances of Normals poking fun at him. The Krooglebeast is incapable of
abstract thought. This is a symptom of several kinds of mental illness, although
we have several ad-hoc impressions by professionals indicating that Krooger
suffers from Paranoid Personality Disorder.

A good rule of thumb is that other than speakers and LP
playback equipment, if the evidence of a difference is
clear, you're probably doing the evaulation wrong.

This is astonishingly silly as written. I can only assume you had some
explanatory thought you didn't actually set down.

Only his overwhelming fear of all things he can't afford.

"paul packer" wrote in message


Agreed. There is something laughable when otherwise
rational people decide to deny the evidence of their ears
because they can't repeat a notable audible difference
with A/B switching.

Yep Paul, the whole rest of the audio world is crazy and
some misguided audiophiles who have bought any number of
bills of goods about magic rocks, gigbuck CD players, and
funny cables know exactly how things really work.


There's something determinedly dogged
in the denials too, as if they all had a vested interest
in proving their JVC integrateds sound as good as a Krell
pre/power.

Ironically you've got it exactly bass-ackwards Paul.
Pinkerton seems to think that his Krell power amp is as good
as a JVC intergrated that he doesn't even own.

On another tack, Arnie assured me on aus.hi-fi that for
headphones I would be far better off with a low impedance
source, virtually ANY low impedance source, than a high
impedance one like the HP socket on my Marantz PM8200.

You know your Marantz PM8200 best. I don't now if its
headphone socket is high impedance, low impedance or what.

Yet I know this isn't true, as I once auditioned an MF
X-Can v2 and was totally unimpressed.

Yup, all headphone amplifiers sound the same.

Subsequently I
bought a Marantz PM4000 budget integrated and was highly
impressed--it drove my Sennheiser 595s beautifully, and
certainly better than the X-Can.

Yup, all integated amplifiers sound the same.

So is this another
example of subjectivism denying audio science? Arnie, if
you happen to read this, please come in.

Where's to come to - the state of confusion?

In article , says...


If I was going to test tubes for being microphonic, I'd put
the equipment under test in a sound field that was created
by a different set of equipment playing different music, and
listen to the equipment under test with no music playing at
all, or while playing some other music so that any sounds
that were created by the microphonic effect, would really
stand out.


Good. Perhaps you should note on your website this type of
distortion is not covered by your procedure, and if severe
could be audible.

JC the elder

"Arny Krueger" said:

What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about
a car race, starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he
really capable of outrunning a 500 hp AMG Mercedes with
his little Audi?

There are a number of hidden agendas in any street race,
including the skills of the drivers and their willingness to
take risks.

There is definately a sort of primacy of the cheaper car.


I'm sure Stewart will weigh in on this as well, but heya!
Despite the fact that an Audi A3 looks like little more than a
rebadged Golf, the superb V6 engine, DSG gearbox, the 4-wheel drive
system and a finely tuned suspension will make for a very fast and
agile car, that will outperform most other, heavier vehicles in the
hands of a skilled driver, under the circumstances that Stewart wrote
about.

--

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:44:04 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Shame that you know nothing about cars. No normally aspirated Ford (or
Ford-owned) stock engine is even close to 100 BHP/litre output.

When are you going to take torque curves (the true measure of a cars
performance) into consideration instead of banging endlessly on HP/liter?

Typical braindead Yank thinking.

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

Interesting that you cite an article which proves that you are flat
out wrong! To take the closing quote, mentioned twice in that article:
"It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you
can take advantage of *gearing*."

Torque at high rpm = *power*.

True... but some cars torque goes into the ****ter everytime you
change gears. Peak torque vs wide band torque is often worth
considering.

ScottW

In rec.audio.opinion Arny Krueger wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:57:30 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message

But also, from my experience of having taken part in
some of those tests as
a listener, it is because the proctor wanted to
introduce an element of confusion into the scoring,
thus increasing the possibility of a null result.

Yet another example of Atkinson's paranoia.

hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format,
there were definite incentives to get the sample size
and rate as low as possible: to get an adequate duration
with the limitations of the technically & economically
viable solution available in 1980.
that's not an opinion, but a fact :-)
Rudy

nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit
linear coded format. Sony upped that to 16....come on,
14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin? Listening tests ???

Vinyl, on the best day of it's life, is around 12 bits
equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music
master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly
dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem?

The problem is that too many newbies have been mis-educated
by high end ragazines with the lie that analog has infinite
resolution. I wonder how many times that lie has been
published in say Stereophile or TAS?

And too, the impression a newbie would likely get from Stereophile
is that *of course* cables sound different, need break
in, and OF COURSE amps sound different, need break-in and
OF COURSE digital can be very good but it doesn't
beat vinyl. A sort of irritating foundational *presumption*
of the truth of these scientifically dubious propositions,
coupled with an often sneering rejection of the *contrary*
opinion on these issues,
is what distinguishes TAS and Stereophile's content
and readership from the mainstream mags, and I suspect
it's what e.g., encouraged Aczel to take the equal-but-opposite
tack in his puplication.





--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...


If I was going to test tubes for being microphonic, I'd
put the equipment under test in a sound field that was
created by a different set of equipment playing
different music, and listen to the equipment under test
with no music playing at all, or while playing some
other music so that any sounds that were created by the
microphonic effect, would really stand out.


Good. Perhaps you should note on your website this type of
distortion is not covered by your procedure, and if severe
could be audible.

You've got me confused with someone who takes tubed
equipment seriously.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.opinion Arny Krueger
wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message


Vinyl, on the best day of it's life, is around 12 bits
equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music
master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a
properly dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the
problem?

The problem is that too many newbies have been
mis-educated by high end ragazines with the lie that
analog has infinite resolution. I wonder how many times
that lie has been published in say Stereophile or TAS?

And too, the impression a newbie would likely get from
Stereophile is that *of course* cables sound different,

I read it in Stereophile & TAS and on any number of
golden-ear web sites.

need break in,

I read it in Stereophile & TAS and on any number of
golden-ear web sites.

and OF COURSE amps sound different,

Every last one of them, I read it in Stereophile & TAS and
on any number of golden-ear web sites.

need break-in and

I read it in Stereophile & TAS and on any number of
golden-ear web sites.

OF COURSE digital can be very good but it doesn't beat
vinyl.

I read it in Stereophile & TAS and on any number of
golden-ear web sites.

A sort of irritating foundational
*presumption*
of the truth of these scientifically dubious propositions,

Known as: "(some of) The BIG LIES OF AUDIO"

coupled with an often sneering rejection of the *contrary*
opinion on these issues,

Everybody who can't hear these things is deaf, has cheap
substandard equipment or is blinded by envey.

is what distinguishes TAS and Stereophile's content
and readership from the mainstream mags, and I suspect
it's what e.g., encouraged Aczel to take the
equal-but-opposite tack in his puplication.

It's ironic that the simple truth can be so elusive and
rare.

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" said:

What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about
a car race, starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he
really capable of outrunning a 500 hp AMG Mercedes with
his little Audi?

There are a number of hidden agendas in any street race,
including the skills of the drivers and their willingness to
take risks.

There is definately a sort of primacy of the cheaper car.


I'm sure Stewart will weigh in on this as well, but heya!
Despite the fact that an Audi A3 looks like little more than a
rebadged Golf, the superb V6 engine, DSG gearbox, the 4-wheel drive
system and a finely tuned suspension will make for a very fast and
agile car, that will outperform most other, heavier vehicles in the
hands of a skilled driver, under the circumstances that Stewart wrote
about.

Exactly... its all about the circumstance. When I was in high school
I had a '74 Civic with that silly 2 speed semi-auto tranny. There was
this big wide 4 lane one way road running through downtown that was
always empty late at night. People would cruise it looking for a race.
About a couple hundred yards from the first light there was a wicked S
curve and then a long straight. I zipped past a 'vette sitting at the
light (I caught it turning green). The vette punched it an laid rubber
to catch me going into the curve. I was on the inside of the first
curve and he just got past me on the outside but I was able to duck low
and get back inside into the second turn and good thing as his back end
broke free and he spun out.

So my lowly 1170 cc civic dusted that 'vette .

ScottW

The Krooborg is on the warpath.

Good. Perhaps you should note on your website this type of
distortion is not covered by your procedure, and if severe
could be audible.

You've got me confused with a stopped-up toilet.

Don't be hurt, Arnii. It's a natural mistake to make. ;-)

In rec.audio.opinion paul packer wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:03:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


How do I
know that? Because I only have to play one 5 minute track off any CD
through the two components in question to easily perceive the
difference--the difference that was not at all apparent on A/B
switching.

Your reasoning is a bit faulty here. You haven't proved anything
by this test, since it ignores the role of sighted bias. In fact it's
easy to 'easily perceive' differences in situations where no
difference is really likely at all (e.g. a 'phantom switch'
situation, where the user THINKS something has changed, but
realizes/is later informed that nothing was changed).

If you're saying what I hear is affected by what I see, I don't buy
it.

Alas, what you 'buy' or not doesn't change the scientific facts.
The very fact that you are comparing two different things is likely
to lead you to 'hear' a difference of some sort...even when there's
no difference.


Recently I compared two amps: a Marantz PM8200 and NAD 7020e
vintage budget receiver. I was actually hoping I'd prefer the NAD, or
at least hear little difference, as I only use headphones and the
Marantz is an extravagance; I wanted to sell it for the pretty penny
it's worth. Unfortunately the difference was only too obvious, and not
in the NAD's favour. The latter seemed shut in and very ordinary, with
none of the HF extension, precision or airiness of the Marantz. The
sound just wasn't in the same class, and though I kept repeating the
comparison on successive days, hoping to reach a different conclusion,
ultimately I just couldn't deny the evidence of my ears. So I kissed
my $300 goodbye (the difference between the value of the units on
Ebay), dried my tears and put the Marantz back in my equipment
cabinet.
If this was sighted bias, it was against my wishes!

Doesn't matter. The question is *first*, whether there was any
real audible differemce *at all*, not whether it turned your preference
one way or another. Nor, it seems, did you bother level-matching,
another elementary precaution before concluding 'difference exists'.


Which brings me to my next confusion:

No, I think you shoudl stop right here, and re-assess your current
'knowledge' in light of long-standing tenets of perceptual
psychology.

I think I "shoudl" be allowed to keep going, perceptual psychology or
no. :-)

No one can stop you from flaunting ignorance here.


--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

In rec.audio.opinion paul packer wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:27:26 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


Of course, he can't explain why my Onkyo preamp, with actually superior
"specs" for the most part, sounds far less "real" in my system thtn does my
Audio Research preamp. I haven't done an ABX, so of course my "claim" can't
be taken seriously. Sometimes this argument gets so laughable on its face
that one just needs to walk away for awhile.

Agreed. There is something laughable when otherwise rational people
decide to deny the evidence of their ears because they can't repeat a
notable audible difference with A/B switching.


Actually, they're simply acknowledging facts of human psychology that
are *completely* uncontroversial, and which are the basis for
the use of 'controls' in all branches of scientific discovery, as
well for the use of blind testing in industry and marketing.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:33:26 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the
'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias.
That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.


DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Use some logic and common sense, boy.
Your expectation is that
there would be no difference, either sighted or blind.

Typical horsehit from Sad Sack. I *always* expect differnces under
sighted conditions - that's what makes it useless.

Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?

The irony of it all!!
Those are the ones who spend more time and effort
taking those tests.

Bull**** - we certainly *proctor* tests where we don't expect
difference, but I've never actually *taken* one where I felt there was
no possibility of difference.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"ScottW" said:

Exactly... its all about the circumstance. When I was in high school
I had a '74 Civic with that silly 2 speed semi-auto tranny. There was
this big wide 4 lane one way road running through downtown that was
always empty late at night. People would cruise it looking for a race.
About a couple hundred yards from the first light there was a wicked S
curve and then a long straight. I zipped past a 'vette sitting at the
light (I caught it turning green). The vette punched it an laid rubber
to catch me going into the curve. I was on the inside of the first
curve and he just got past me on the outside but I was able to duck low
and get back inside into the second turn and good thing as his back end
broke free and he spun out.

So my lowly 1170 cc civic dusted that 'vette .


Heh! This brings back memories, since my very first car was.....
a '75 Honda Civic 1.2 :-)

Be it that mine had a manual gearbox.
It was like riding a kart.

--

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

On 15 Aug 2005 09:57:13 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:44:04 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Shame that you know nothing about cars. No normally aspirated Ford (or
Ford-owned) stock engine is even close to 100 BHP/litre output.

When are you going to take torque curves (the true measure of a cars
performance) into consideration instead of banging endlessly on HP/liter?

Typical braindead Yank thinking.

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

Interesting that you cite an article which proves that you are flat
out wrong! To take the closing quote, mentioned twice in that article:
"It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you
can take advantage of *gearing*."

Torque at high rpm = *power*.

True... but some cars torque goes into the ****ter everytime you
change gears. Peak torque vs wide band torque is often worth
considering.

Not if the gearbox is properly matched to the engine characteristics.
A perfect system drops from peak power to peak torque at every change,
or in the lower gears, from red line to peak torque, since the chances
are that the redline torque at the wheels will still be greater than
the peak torque in the next gear up, for the first two gears at least.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , says...

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...


If I was going to test tubes for being microphonic, I'd
put the equipment under test in a sound field that was
created by a different set of equipment playing
different music, and listen to the equipment under test
with no music playing at all, or while playing some
other music so that any sounds that were created by the
microphonic effect, would really stand out.


Good. Perhaps you should note on your website this type of
distortion is not covered by your procedure, and if severe
could be audible.

You've got me confused with someone who takes tubed
equipment seriously.


Hey.. don't be egocentric AK. The caveat would be for the benefit
of and in fairness to your users. Or is your preference all that
matters to you? Your answer should be interesting, or is it time
to duck out again?

JC the elder

On 15 Aug 2005 10:10:38 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" said:

What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about
a car race, starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he
really capable of outrunning a 500 hp AMG Mercedes with
his little Audi?

Yup. Given a twisty road and/or a poor surface. Obviously, I can't
outdrag one on a dry straightaway.

There are a number of hidden agendas in any street race,
including the skills of the drivers and their willingness to
take risks.

There is definately a sort of primacy of the cheaper car.

I'm sure Stewart will weigh in on this as well, but heya!
Despite the fact that an Audi A3 looks like little more than a
rebadged Golf, the superb V6 engine, DSG gearbox, the 4-wheel drive
system and a finely tuned suspension will make for a very fast and
agile car, that will outperform most other, heavier vehicles in the
hands of a skilled driver, under the circumstances that Stewart wrote
about.

I note that the muttering rotters are drooling over VW plans to make a
new R32, with an uprated 250 horse engine, advanced 4WD system,
enormous 345mm front brakes, the magic DSG box and of course the
excellent-handling Mk V Golf chassis.

Hmmmm, that'll be exactly the same as my A3, then............. :-)

Exactly... its all about the circumstance. When I was in high school
I had a '74 Civic with that silly 2 speed semi-auto tranny. There was
this big wide 4 lane one way road running through downtown that was
always empty late at night. People would cruise it looking for a race.
About a couple hundred yards from the first light there was a wicked S
curve and then a long straight. I zipped past a 'vette sitting at the
light (I caught it turning green). The vette punched it an laid rubber
to catch me going into the curve. I was on the inside of the first
curve and he just got past me on the outside but I was able to duck low
and get back inside into the second turn and good thing as his back end
broke free and he spun out.

So my lowly 1170 cc civic dusted that 'vette .

Quite so. In my case, as previously stated, it was a wet and twisty
road, and while I could apply my measly 250 horses all the time
through all four wheels, the guy in the SL looked like he couldn't
even get half of his mighty 500 down. Since he weighs about 500 lbs
more than I do, simple physics tells you the rest. I not only whipped
around the bends faster, I also outdragged him out of them (in fact,
that's how I got past him in the first place - I hung back on the
straight, and built up closing speed through the bend and blew by on
the next straight). I could tell that he was trying hard and at one
point switched off his traction control, because he pulled a *very*
lurid fishtail coming out of one bend! He dropped back a bit after
that...... :-)

After a few miles, we came onto the motorway, and I politely indicated
left on the sliproad, dropped my window and cheerily waved him by. He
was *not* a happy bunny, as he had the obligatory dolly blonde in the
passenger seat, and doubtless got lots of earache!

Probably my ear-to-ear grin and blown kiss didn't help.... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:05:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

"Margaret von B." said:

What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about a car race,
starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he really capable of outrunning a 500
hp AMG Mercedes with his little Audi?

If he's a skilled driver (and why shouldn't he be?) in the conditions
he explained, it's entirely possible IMO.

Well, I'm certainly an *experienced* driver, and I used to do road
rallies, but that was a long time ago...................

Let's just say that in those conditions, I'm glad I wasn't driving the
Honda S2000 which was also on my shopping list when I bought the A3.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering