"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:34:38 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

severian a écrit :
wrote in message
oups.com...

severian wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
m...

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:22:22 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:


Note that when Nousaine visited our little friend down in
Miami some time back, the DBT involved a pair of expensive
Pass monoblocks and a rather vintage Yamaha integrated amp,
and Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.

Opinion stated as fact.

The fact is that Zipser could not tell the difference, he amply

demonstrated

that in the test. How is that "opinion?" Let alone "opinion stated as

fact?"


Generic excuse: blind tests make the listener(s) "stress out",
rendering their golden ears tin and making them unable to tell ****
fron shineola.

Specific excuses:
1)Zipser had a hangover
2)the testers made "noises"
3)Zipser was just "getting it" when the test was ended by a bad ABX
box.


Excuses, excuses!!



True, excuses excuses, but any observation or whining on his part about
the
test being biased or noises preventing him or whatever does not alter
the
FACT that in this test he could not tell the difference. So when dave
weil
says "opinion" that's a complete piece of BS, the FACT is he couldn't
tell
the difference, end of discussion. People can and undoubtedly will
whine and
make excuses, but that he couldn't and didn't distinguish between the
amps
in this test is not an opinion, it's a FACT. Intellectual dishonesty or
sloppiness like that is not going to win many converts to an argument.

Were you really waiting for intellectual honesty from dave
weil ?
These 2 words are at the antipode of his way of living.

:-(

Perhaps you should go back and review the record. It is clear, and
even the "objectivists" were forced to admit it, that the Zipser tests
weren't conducted to the normal "gold standard" of dbts. It is also
clear that the trend, when the test was prematurely stopped, was that
Mr. Zipser was approaching getting a statistically signignicant number
of trials correct.

There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.

Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point is, REGARDLESS of
whether or not you or anyone else feels the test was properly conducted, he
FAILED to discern the difference IN THIS TEST, therefore it is not OPINION,
but FACT. Obviously you have a significant challenge wrt understanding the
difference.

And ol'Zipperhead was one of the most bloviated and dishonest people it's
been my displeasure to ever know, his claim he was zeroing in on it is
bull****, and that was most definitely not the story right after the test,
but after he'd had time to come up with some kind of bull to cover his
deafness. The day after the test, indeed later in the day of the test, his
posted thoughts were that he definitely couldn't tell the difference, and he
was taken aback and was really acting as if he had to rethink his views.
Then his usual attitude and ego stepped back in and away he went into lies
and obsfucation, which was his classical approach to everything. If he
ripped off a customer and they complained, why, the customer was trying to
attack him with no provocation. Yeah, I can flip a coin there times, get 2
heads, then stop and CLAIM I was about to get statistically significant
increase in the number of heads that come up, doesn't mean anything.

Amazing ain't it, everytime one of your subjectivist ilk gets their
metaphorical ass handed to them, the test is always faulty, whine, moan,
****, wheeze, blubber...a real fool is one who, when an opportunity is
offered to learn something, not only doesn't but attacks the people offering
him the chance.

wrote in message
ups.com...

. Intellectual dishonesty
or
sloppiness like that is not going to win many converts to an
argument.


We are in complete agreement on this.


I think we are making some headway into your
acknowledgement of Fustian's shortcomings.



----== 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 =----

Sander deWaal a écrit :
dave weil said:


Perhaps you should go back and review the record. It is clear, and
even the "objectivists" were forced to admit it, that the Zipser tests
weren't conducted to the normal "gold standard" of dbts. It is also
clear that the trend, when the test was prematurely stopped, was that
Mr. Zipser was approaching getting a statistically signignicant number
of trials correct.


There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.



What's the big deal?
I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are no audible differences
between the Yamaha and the Pass amps in a DBT.

As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening,

This is and will be surely the only pertinent comment of
this thread.

any difference heard in
sighted listening is valid to the listener, regardless whether visual
or other clues are responsible for that. End of story.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Sander deWaal a écrit :


As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening,

This is and will be surely the only pertinent comment of this thread.


But for reasons that are completely over your head.



----== 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 =----

On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:55:36 GMT, "severian"
wrote:

There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.

Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point is, REGARDLESS of
whether or not you or anyone else feels the test was properly conducted, he
FAILED to discern the difference IN THIS TEST, therefore it is not OPINION,
but FACT. Obviously you have a significant challenge wrt understanding the
difference.

So, your opinion is that if a test isn't conducted to the standards
that are demanded of that specific test, the results of that test are
valid?

I disagree totally. There are specific guidelines that are required BY
PROPONENTS OF SUCH TESTING that are necessary to insure the validity
of the testing. This particular test violated several of them.

Clyde Slick a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Sander deWaal a écrit :


As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening,

This is and will be surely the only pertinent comment of this thread.



But for reasons that are completely over your head.

You are right Sackman some of good musics are still over my
head... Everyday different, everyday more detailled,
everyday more pleasant...
What's a pity that you cannot understand. :-(

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:55:36 GMT, "severian"
wrote:

There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.

Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point is, REGARDLESS
of
whether or not you or anyone else feels the test was properly conducted,
he
FAILED to discern the difference IN THIS TEST, therefore it is not
OPINION,
but FACT. Obviously you have a significant challenge wrt understanding the
difference.

So, your opinion is that if a test isn't conducted to the standards
that are demanded of that specific test, the results of that test are
valid?

Valid for what purpose? There is no such thing as universal validity.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:55:36 GMT, "severian"
wrote:

There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.

Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point is, REGARDLESS
of
whether or not you or anyone else feels the test was properly conducted,
he
FAILED to discern the difference IN THIS TEST, therefore it is not
OPINION,
but FACT. Obviously you have a significant challenge wrt understanding
the
difference.

So, your opinion is that if a test isn't conducted to the standards
that are demanded of that specific test, the results of that test are
valid?

I disagree totally. There are specific guidelines that are required BY
PROPONENTS OF SUCH TESTING that are necessary to insure the validity
of the testing. This particular test violated several of them.

Are you really that reading or logically challenged? The validity of the
test in question has absolutely nothing to do with the original statement
you made. See if you can parse this train of thought:

Zipser failed to detect a difference in the test (and I don't care if it was
a bogus test or not).

A statement was made to that effect.

You said Opinion Stated as Fact.

The FACT is he couldn't hear a difference in THAT test, regardless of what
you think of the validity of that test.

Ergo, it is not OPINION stated as fact, it is FACT.

Argue about the merits of lack thereof of that test all you want, it is a
FACT that he couldn't hear a difference, not an OPINION! Jesus Christ on a
pogo stick, I've hardly ever seen such a combination of pedantic mixed with
confused logic mixed with obsfucation in my life.

Now you can go on and argue to your hearts content about the relative merits
or validity of that test, but that doesn't affect the facts.

And I've heard and seen the whole thing real time the first time around, and
all the post test whining doesn't alter it, I think the test was reasonable
enough that he should have been able to hear a difference, after all, he was
confident he could, and was allegedly getting 10 out of 10 before they
showed up and level matched the systems. A reasonable person would have at
least been forced to come to the conclusion that whatever differences were
apparent between the amps before the test, they obviously were in large part
due to level imbalances and were nowhere near as large or easy to discern as
was thought. That at least should point to the relative magnitude of these
allegedly night and day differences between amps. You can quibble then over
if the test was sensitive or masking enough due to talking, etc. to make it
hard to hear subtle differences, but you can't continue with any degree of
common sense or logic to continue to claim that the differences are as huge
as they are claimed to be.

And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been part of
one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous times.
People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've never
participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their opinions
are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and toe
downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Sander deWaal a écrit :


As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening,

This is and will be surely the only pertinent comment of this thread.


But for reasons that are completely over your head.


There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's much much more like
what people call "real" listening, there's no time limit required. It
generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity to small
differences, but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.

severianborg said:

Zipser failed to detect a difference in the test (and I don't care if it was
a bogus test or not).

If you call the Zippy exercise a "test", then you can take home the trophy
on this one.

And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been part of
one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous times.

Is that why you sound like a raging bull being stuck by picadors?

People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've never
participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation.

snicker

Their opinions
are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and toe
downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.

Oh, I see now -- you do the "tests" for fun. And Normal people who listen to
music for enjoyment aren't having the right kind of "fun".

Perhaps you'd like to tell us how these "tests" you've endured enhanced your
enjoyment of music or your sound system.

severianborg said:

There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's much much more like
what people call "real" listening, there's no time limit required. It
generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity to small
differences, but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.

This is the definition of "mental masturbation".

severian a écrit :
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Sander deWaal a écrit :

As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening,

This is and will be surely the only pertinent comment of this thread.


But for reasons that are completely over your head.



There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's much much more like
what people call "real" listening, there's no time limit required. It
generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity to small
differences,

The problems is how to objectively quantify what you call
"small differences" and their *real* prejudice on the
listening pleasure.
In a second time you will be perhaps obliged to establish an
objective ponderation system to take in count the difference
of the above prejudice on the pleasure of the tester and the
pleasure of the subject...

Good luck !

;-)

but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.

severian a écrit :
"dave weil" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:55:36 GMT, "severian"
wrote:


There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.

Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point is, REGARDLESS

of

whether or not you or anyone else feels the test was properly conducted,

he

FAILED to discern the difference IN THIS TEST, therefore it is not

OPINION,

but FACT. Obviously you have a significant challenge wrt understanding

the

difference.

So, your opinion is that if a test isn't conducted to the standards
that are demanded of that specific test, the results of that test are
valid?

I disagree totally. There are specific guidelines that are required BY
PROPONENTS OF SUCH TESTING that are necessary to insure the validity
of the testing. This particular test violated several of them.


Are you really that reading or logically challenged?

LOL !
:-D


The validity of the
test in question has absolutely nothing to do with the original statement
you made. See if you can parse this train of thought:

Zipser failed to detect a difference in the test (and I don't care if it was
a bogus test or not).

A statement was made to that effect.

You said Opinion Stated as Fact.

The FACT is he couldn't hear a difference in THAT test, regardless of what
you think of the validity of that test.

Ergo, it is not OPINION stated as fact, it is FACT.

Argue about the merits of lack thereof of that test all you want, it is a
FACT that he couldn't hear a difference, not an OPINION! Jesus Christ on a
pogo stick, I've hardly ever seen such a combination of pedantic mixed with
confused logic mixed with obsfucation in my life.

Now you can go on and argue to your hearts content about the relative merits
or validity of that test, but that doesn't affect the facts.

And I've heard and seen the whole thing real time the first time around, and
all the post test whining doesn't alter it, I think the test was reasonable
enough that he should have been able to hear a difference, after all, he was
confident he could, and was allegedly getting 10 out of 10 before they
showed up and level matched the systems. A reasonable person would have at
least been forced to come to the conclusion that whatever differences were
apparent between the amps before the test, they obviously were in large part
due to level imbalances and were nowhere near as large or easy to discern as
was thought. That at least should point to the relative magnitude of these
allegedly night and day differences between amps. You can quibble then over
if the test was sensitive or masking enough due to talking, etc. to make it
hard to hear subtle differences, but you can't continue with any degree of
common sense or logic to continue to claim that the differences are as huge
as they are claimed to be.

And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been part of
one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous times.
People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've never
participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their opinions
are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and toe
downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.

"severian" wrote in message
ink.net...


And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been part
of
one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous times.
People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've
never
participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their
opinions
are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and
toe
downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.


What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
have to participate in one to know that. It's like
bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
I would not have had to have done that to understand how
idiotic it would be.



----== 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 =----

"severian" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

But for reasons that are completely over your head.


There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's much much more
like
what people call "real" listening, there's no time limit required. It
generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity to small
differences, but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.



"shouldn't have shown differences"? That certainly is
presumptive, determing the answer before the test.
So, thanks for proving you went into the test haveing a bias
that you would find no difference.



----== 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 =----

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


severianborg said:

Ah, labeling me, dehumanizing and objectifying me already, first resort of
someone who either has no intelligent argument, or who cares only about
rabble rousing.


Zipser failed to detect a difference in the test (and I don't care if it
was
a bogus test or not).

If you call the Zippy exercise a "test", then you can take home the trophy
on this one.

It was a test, you may not think it was a good test, but it meets the
definition of test. Attempts to create confusion by semantic mislabeling is
another cheap trick.


And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been
part of
one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous times.

Is that why you sound like a raging bull being stuck by picadors?

Better that than sounding like a neurotic, obsessive compulsive who as far
as can be determined by his/her comments doesn't even own a stereo.


People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've
never
participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation.

snicker

Their opinions
are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and
toe
downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.

Oh, I see now -- you do the "tests" for fun. And Normal people who listen
to
music for enjoyment aren't having the right kind of "fun".

I do more things for "fun" than just plop my ass down on a couch in front of
a stereo, yes. I find the exploration of the engineering aspects of the
hobby (well, not entirely a hobby for me, I do get paid for it) and
psychoacoustics to be fun and interesting. And, if you're going to make some
kind of claim that "normal people" just listen to music for enjoyment, you
can't be talking about most subjective audiophiles. The kind of people who
obsess about things like wires, cables, magic bricks, and get depressed and
dissatisfied with a piece of gear they previously loved just because it
didn't get a good review are definitely not "just" enjoying music, many of
their antics are directly interfering with their ability to listen to music
for enjoyment. Now I'd agree that they are taking the act of listening to or
for equipment/artifacts for amusement/enjoyment. Which is not exactly the
same as listening to music for enjoyment.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us how these "tests" you've endured enhanced
your
enjoyment of music or your sound system.

It allowed me to determine what areas had real effects on sound quality, and
what were BS. That allowed me to spend money and often more importantly time
on areas and things that had a direct and significant effect on sound
quality, with the result that my system sounds very very good, is very
pleasing to me, makes music in a way that I can listen to the music without
worrying about the system, and is very satisfying. It has also meant that
I've been satisfied with the sound, and haven't felt the need to constantly
churn gear or make changes for a fairly long time, other than add a new
source (or an old one, my "new" old 10.5 in open reel is way cool). I've
enjoyed the music, and mainly forgotten about the gear.

But then, you know all this, you only argue and make insulting posts to
satisfy whatever bizarre need you seem to have for conflict and some
perverse sense of self satisfaction/narcicism. I still don't really believe
you are real, I think you're a poorly coded Turing Machine.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...


;-)

but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.



Where do they manufacture 'ponderation systems',
on the Ponderosa?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"severian" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

But for reasons that are completely over your head.


There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's much much more
like
what people call "real" listening, there's no time limit required. It
generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity to small
differences, but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.



"shouldn't have shown differences"? That certainly is
presumptive, determing the answer before the test.
So, thanks for proving you went into the test haveing a bias
that you would find no difference.


Where did I say that I thought that there shouldn't be a difference before I
did the test? Reading comprehension and the logical ability to parse the
English language is a real problem around here isn't it? Often I've not
known the exact measured performance of some items before I did the test, so
as not to prejudice it in any way. Afterwards, when quantified, there were
no differences that should have been audible, that is, any differences were
below what would have been predicted to be audible after I refered to the
literature on psychoacoustics. Don't assume that I knew where those limits
were before performing a test in every case.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"severian" wrote in message
ink.net...


And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been
part
of
one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous times.
People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've
never
participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their
opinions
are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and
toe
downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.


What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
have to participate in one to know that. It's like
bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
I would not have had to have done that to understand how
idiotic it would be.

I don't agree. If the purpose at hand is just to sit and listen to music,
you'd be right, it's not required. However, you and others are making
comments about the audibility of certain things, and the cause of them,
which is most definitely NOT just listening to music. Controlled testing is
directly relevant to issues of audibility, and claiming it isn't makes no
sense at all.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" wrote in message
...


;-)

but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.



Where do they manufacture 'ponderation systems',
on the Ponderosa?

I think Hoss was in charge of that branch...

"severian" wrote in message
nk.net...


I think you're a poorly coded Turing Machine.



George, I think he's in love with you.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

severianborg said:

Ah, labeling me, dehumanizing and objectifying me already, first resort of
someone who either has no intelligent argument, or who cares only about
rabble rousing.

If an intelligent argument is what you want, why are you babbling on the
stupid side of nonsensical issue?

If you call the Zippy exercise a "test", then you can take home the trophy
on this one.

It was a test, you may not think it was a good test, but it meets the
definition of test.

No, it does not.

Attempts to create confusion by semantic mislabeling is
another cheap trick.

Sorry, pinhead, but words have meanings. Just because you don't know the
correct word for something doesn't mean you get to choose whichever word you
want. It was not a test. It was an exercise, a prelude to a demonstration, a
mockup of a test.... pick your poison. But a test it was not.


Is that why you sound like a raging bull being stuck by picadors?

Better that than sounding like a neurotic, obsessive compulsive who as far
as can be determined by his/her comments doesn't even own a stereo.

Is that the side of you we will soon have the pleasure of discovering?


Oh, I see now -- you do the "tests" for fun. And Normal people who listen to
music for enjoyment aren't having the right kind of "fun".

[snip incoherent rambling]
(well, not entirely a hobby for me, I do get paid for it)

You get for what, exactly?

As an aside, you could mitigate your poor communication skills somewhat by
fixing your newsreader so it doesn't Kroogerize quoted text.

"severian" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"severian" wrote in message
ink.net...


And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been
part
of
one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous
times.
People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've
never
participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their
opinions
are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel
and
toe
downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.


What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
have to participate in one to know that. It's like
bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
I would not have had to have done that to understand how
idiotic it would be.

I don't agree. If the purpose at hand is just to sit and listen to music,
you'd be right, it's not required. However, you and others are making
comments about the audibility of certain things, and the cause of them,
which is most definitely NOT just listening to music. Controlled testing
is
directly relevant to issues of audibility, and claiming it isn't makes no
sense at all.



You are so wrong. We are not commenting upon
the audibility of sounds. We are commenting upon
our preferences for the equipment we choose for listening to music.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick said:

I think you're a poorly coded Turing Machine.

George, I think he's in love with you.

Did you see him foaming at the mouth about magic and Shakti stones? You
don't want to get between a 'borg and his meters.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"severian" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"severian" wrote in message
ink.net...


And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been
part
of
one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous
times.
People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests
they've
never
participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their
opinions
are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel
and
toe
downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.


What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
have to participate in one to know that. It's like
bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
I would not have had to have done that to understand how
idiotic it would be.

I don't agree. If the purpose at hand is just to sit and listen to
music,
you'd be right, it's not required. However, you and others are making
comments about the audibility of certain things, and the cause of them,
which is most definitely NOT just listening to music. Controlled testing
is
directly relevant to issues of audibility, and claiming it isn't makes
no
sense at all.



You are so wrong. We are not commenting upon
the audibility of sounds. We are commenting upon
our preferences for the equipment we choose for listening to music.

No, your preferences are not subject to argument, if you like X or Y, that's
fine. It's when comments like "Adcom amps suck" or "it sounds better
because" occur that makes controlled testing and the results relevant. When
you state that your preferences are predicated on there actually being a
difference in sound, then the ability to prove or disprove that such a
difference exists becomes relevant to the discussion. If you don't want to
get involved in the whole testing argument and such, just state your
preferences, but when you attempt to make your observations transportable to
other people or environments, then that's a different matter.

severianborg said:

It's when comments like "Adcom amps suck" or "it sounds better
because" occur that makes controlled testing and the results relevant. When
you state that your preferences are predicated on there actually being a
difference in sound, then the ability to prove or disprove that such a
difference exists becomes relevant to the discussion.

Mental masturbation alert!

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


severianborg said:

Ah, labeling me, dehumanizing and objectifying me already, first resort
of
someone who either has no intelligent argument, or who cares only about
rabble rousing.

If an intelligent argument is what you want, why are you babbling on the
stupid side of nonsensical issue?

Stupid in who's view, yours? Nonsensical, same comment.
If an intelligent argument is what I want, why am I on rec.audio.opinion, if
anything it's gotten worse over the years...


If you call the Zippy exercise a "test", then you can take home the
trophy
on this one.

It was a test, you may not think it was a good test, but it meets the
definition of test.

No, it does not.

Test:

# A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence,
quality, or truth of something; a trial: a test of one's eyesight;
subjecting a hypothesis to a test; a test of an athlete's endurance.
# A series of questions, problems, or physical responses designed to
determine knowledge, intelligence, or ability.
# A basis for evaluation or judgment

You were saying?
Calling it an exercise is disingenous at best.
Or is it your assertion that he wasn't attempting to show his ability with
it.

He sure was claiming he was going to ace that TEST in his posts leading up
to the event. Attempting to artificially and semantically shift the purpose
of it is not going to change the fact that he failed miserably, and wasn't
honest enough to admit it.


Attempts to create confusion by semantic mislabeling is
another cheap trick.

Sorry, pinhead, but words have meanings. Just because you don't know the
correct word for something doesn't mean you get to choose whichever word
you
want. It was not a test. It was an exercise, a prelude to a demonstration,
a
mockup of a test.... pick your poison. But a test it was not.


Is that why you sound like a raging bull being stuck by picadors?

Better that than sounding like a neurotic, obsessive compulsive who as
far
as can be determined by his/her comments doesn't even own a stereo.

Is that the side of you we will soon have the pleasure of discovering?


Oh, I see now -- you do the "tests" for fun. And Normal people who
listen to
music for enjoyment aren't having the right kind of "fun".

[snip incoherent rambling]
(well, not entirely a hobby for me, I do get paid for it)

You get for what, exactly?

I get paid for audio design and acoustical measurements. The fact that in
this area my vocation and avocation overlap is one of life's little rewards,
getting to do what I enjoy.


As an aside, you could mitigate your poor communication skills somewhat by
fixing your newsreader so it doesn't Kroogerize quoted text.

um, no?

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:EsLhe.6238$It1.4381@lakeread02...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

I think the Hafler might be overkill for the application I have in
mind.
I
am using bookshelfs and have a fairly smallish listening room. If it
helps,
my music tastes center around rock, guitar-centric jazz and
electronica.

You can get them really cheap on eBay.
Ridiculously cheap.
They build these things no frills for the pro market, yet they sound
exceptional, because the circuit topology is unique

Can you be more specific? Exactly what is so unique about the Hafler
topology?

ScottW

The Transnova Haflers, as opposed to the older ones, really are quite
unique, perhaps as unique as switching amps, but in their own way.

When MOSFET amplifiers were introduced, they were acclaimed for their
smoothness. These amplifiers can draw considerable bias current and run hot,
yet require no protection against thermal runaway, the bane of bipolar and
IGFET designs. They are free of crossover distortion. Some designs, however,
have been criticized for the so-called "MOSFET mist". A standard MOSFET
design is inherently soft-clipping, because the outputs cannot be driven
into saturation, because the gate voltage would have to be raised above the
drain voltage, which is usually the maximum rail in a design.

The Transnova circuit is radically different. The entire power supply bridge
rectifier floats with respect to ground, connected to ground through
alternate push-pull arrays of MOSFETs. The MOSFETS swing the entire bridge.
With this setup, the outputs can be driven into saturation with a 23 volt
rail, which, in Transnova amplifiers, is provided by a regulated supply.

These amplifiers have a huge damping factor. At the time the TNT-200 was
introduced, it was specified as unmeasurably high, so high that fuses were
omitted because the resistance in the fuse would compromise this remarkable
characteristic. Together with the regulated low voltage supply, they seem to
maintain the damping factor at high volume levels, which means that a small
Transnova amp can provide big bass.

They also have phenomenal bandwidth. My Acoustat TNT-200 amps, the original
design, are flat -3dB out to 400 kHz. The reason is simple: the output
devices actually produce gain, as opposed to the original design, where they
were merely impedance converters. Consequently, a Transnova design can be
accomplished with only three gain stages. Since the signal transit time is
reduced, there is no need to limit bandwidth to achieve stability. Contrast
this with many of the amps currently being sold today, which sag at 50 kHz.

Unfortunately, Acoustat, Hafler, and their descendent, Rockford, have been
unable to reap the full rewards of this technological prowess, because audio
does not sell on merit. In large part, I fault the audio press, including
Stereophile, for their failure to spotlight this technology. But in truth,
the amps are so damn good, and so cheap, they would pose a severe menace to
the cognitive dissonance that plagues audiophilia.

The Transnova design performs best with soft dome tweeters, as well as the
new Audax and Vifa ring tweeters. It does well with aluminum domes, matches
poorly to titanium domes, and curiously, doesn't do well with the
VonSchweikert Juniors, even though they have soft domes. It works magically
well with KEF Reference III, Kef Q1's, Polk LSi11, and old AR's. The extreme
speed of this design -- slew rate of 165 volts/microsecond, seems to wake
resonances in some metal domes that are better left to sleep.

It can tame any woofer.

"severian" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"severian" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"severian" wrote in message
ink.net...


And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been
part
of
one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous
times.
People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests
they've
never
participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their
opinions
are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel
and
toe
downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.


What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
have to participate in one to know that. It's like
bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
I would not have had to have done that to understand how
idiotic it would be.

I don't agree. If the purpose at hand is just to sit and listen to
music,
you'd be right, it's not required. However, you and others are making
comments about the audibility of certain things, and the cause of them,
which is most definitely NOT just listening to music. Controlled
testing
is
directly relevant to issues of audibility, and claiming it isn't makes
no
sense at all.



You are so wrong. We are not commenting upon
the audibility of sounds. We are commenting upon
our preferences for the equipment we choose for listening to music.

No, your preferences are not subject to argument, if you like X or Y,
that's
fine. It's when comments like "Adcom amps suck" or "it sounds better
because" occur that makes controlled testing and the results relevant.
When
you state that your preferences are predicated on there actually being a
difference in sound, then the ability to prove or disprove that such a
difference exists becomes relevant to the discussion. If you don't want to
get involved in the whole testing argument and such, just state your
preferences, but when you attempt to make your observations transportable
to
other people or environments, then that's a different matter.


Look, its a given, in our conversations here, that when we say that
something
'sucks', or 'sounds better than' something else that such statements are
individual opinions, and not offered as statements of fact. And we don't
need to preface each utterance with such a proviso, it is a a given here, on
rec.audio.OPINION. I think that your type might be much happier
posting on rec.audio.TECH.



----== 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 =----

"Robert Morein" said:

The Transnova Haflers, as opposed to the older ones, really are quite
unique, perhaps as unique as switching amps, but in their own way.

When MOSFET amplifiers were introduced, they were acclaimed for their
smoothness. These amplifiers can draw considerable bias current and run hot,
yet require no protection against thermal runaway, the bane of bipolar and
IGFET designs.


Most MOSFET designs using the Hitachi types, are/were used in source
follower configuration.
As such, the "smoothness" could well stem from their relatively high
output impedance (Rds-on), just like a tube amplifier.
One can even use the highish Cgs to "emulate" high-rolloff" just like
a crappy cathodyne tube phase inverter ;-)

A matter of preference, indeed.


They are free of crossover distortion.


That would depend on the applied bias.


Some designs, however,
have been criticized for the so-called "MOSFET mist". A standard MOSFET
design is inherently soft-clipping, because the outputs cannot be driven
into saturation, because the gate voltage would have to be raised above the
drain voltage, which is usually the maximum rail in a design.


The 2SK135/2SJ50 MOSFET family doesn't know saturation.
The limit, again, is their Rds-on, which is fairly high for a single
pair. That, and the limited Vg of +/- 12 V.
Even in the Transnova circuit this is the case, even with 3 pairs in
push pull. At least still higher than a single BJT pair in the usual
emitter follower circuit.


The Transnova circuit is radically different. The entire power supply bridge
rectifier floats with respect to ground, connected to ground through
alternate push-pull arrays of MOSFETs. The MOSFETS swing the entire bridge.
With this setup, the outputs can be driven into saturation with a 23 volt
rail, which, in Transnova amplifiers, is provided by a regulated supply.

These amplifiers have a huge damping factor. At the time the TNT-200 was
introduced, it was specified as unmeasurably high, so high that fuses were
omitted because the resistance in the fuse would compromise this remarkable
characteristic. Together with the regulated low voltage supply, they seem to
maintain the damping factor at high volume levels, which means that a small
Transnova amp can provide big bass.


Strickland wasn't a fool.
However, the circuit suffers from several well-known MOSFET problems
as well.
Rds-on in CDC is still high.
One of the unique features of his TNT200 design was the feedback
topology, IMHO. I'm quoting from memory here.
Remind me to look up the schematics, they're in a box somewhere, still
unpacked after the move.


They also have phenomenal bandwidth. My Acoustat TNT-200 amps, the original
design, are flat -3dB out to 400 kHz. The reason is simple: the output
devices actually produce gain, as opposed to the original design, where they
were merely impedance converters. Consequently, a Transnova design can be
accomplished with only three gain stages. Since the signal transit time is
reduced, there is no need to limit bandwidth to achieve stability. Contrast
this with many of the amps currently being sold today, which sag at 50 kHz.


High bandwidht is both the blessing and the curse of MOSFETs.
It's hard to NOT get 1 MHz of bandwidth out of a powerstage, unless
one's deliberately damping the gate drive (in order to prevent
oscillations).

--

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

Robert Morein wrote:
Unfortunately, Acoustat, Hafler, and their descendent, Rockford,
have been unable to reap the full rewards of this technological
prowess, because audio does not sell on merit. In large part, I
fault the audio press, including Stereophile, for their failure
to spotlight this technology.

Hi Bob, Stereophile raved over Jim Strickland's ingenious TransNova
topology back at the end of the 1980s and the Hafler amps using
it were very highly reviewed in my magazine. I have no idea why
the amps failed to gain market traction, but I don't think it was
because we didn't spotlight the technology.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
"Robert Morein" said:

The Transnova Haflers, as opposed to the older ones, really are quite
unique, perhaps as unique as switching amps, but in their own way.

When MOSFET amplifiers were introduced, they were acclaimed for their
smoothness. These amplifiers can draw considerable bias current and run
hot,
yet require no protection against thermal runaway, the bane of bipolar
and
IGFET designs.


Most MOSFET designs using the Hitachi types, are/were used in source
follower configuration.
As such, the "smoothness" could well stem from their relatively high
output impedance (Rds-on), just like a tube amplifier.

That's part of it, though the output impedance is also a function of
feedback.
There are also the following:
1. In order to turn a MOSFET all the way on, the gate voltage has to be
raised 0.6 volts above the drain voltage.
2. The drain capacitance is substantial, making the dynamic load for the
driver circuit a difficult one.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

I have no idea why
the amps failed to gain market traction, but I don't think it was
because we didn't spotlight the technology.

Maybe it was because you DID! Seems like the only successful audio products
are those NOT reviewed by Stereophile.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
Unfortunately, Acoustat, Hafler, and their descendent, Rockford,
have been unable to reap the full rewards of this technological
prowess, because audio does not sell on merit. In large part, I
fault the audio press, including Stereophile, for their failure
to spotlight this technology.

Hi Bob, Stereophile raved over Jim Strickland's ingenious TransNova
topology back at the end of the 1980s and the Hafler amps using
it were very highly reviewed in my magazine. I have no idea why
the amps failed to gain market traction, but I don't think it was
because we didn't spotlight the technology.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I think one of the reasons is that the marketing geniuses at Rockford/Hafler
did not realize that, with audio, it is constantly necessary to come up with
new packages of technology/appearance in order to maintain novelty and
exposure. In the case of DACs and speakers, this is very easy. But suppose
you have invented an extraordinary amplifier, which has no further
evolutionary path? What do you do? It is now clear that you go to the
Chinese manufacturers, who can come up with a new anodizing scheme every
year, or you go broke.

The audio press is complicit in this. But perhaps you're as stuck as they
are; the business of staying in the magazine business is a brutal one. This
is why my style of Stereophile "bashing" is so muted. But here's a positive
step you could take: establish an "ugly duckling" class of componentry.
Eligible for review would be components that make no concessions to
appearance. You could be instrumental in the revival of the original U.S.
closet industry, which traditionally focused on the biggest
bang-for-the-buck, while providing an entry for young enthusiasts, who at
their stage of their life, require no antidote to sexual frustration.

Dave Hafler, when he introduced the DH-200, originally intended that the
amplifier be placed out of sight, behind furniture. His logical mind could
conceive of no reason why anyone would want to see an amplifier. Mine are
stuck in a walk-in closet.

Fear not that "ugly ducking componentry" could compromise Stereophile's main
emphasis. While some readers might be astonished to learn that good sound
does not depend on blue LEDs, the vast majority would remain committed to
the purpose of building their little Hindu altars.

I read Stereophile's first "classic" review, but that thrust is not
coincident with the purpose I propose.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
rdnews.com...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

I have no idea why
the amps failed to gain market traction, but I don't think it was
because we didn't spotlight the technology.

Maybe it was because you DID! Seems like the only successful audio
products
are those NOT reviewed by Stereophile.

Forgery.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

The Transnova design performs best with soft dome tweeters, as well as the
new Audax and Vifa ring tweeters. It does well with aluminum domes,
matches
poorly to titanium domes, and curiously, doesn't do well with the
VonSchweikert Juniors, even though they have soft domes. It works
magically
well with KEF Reference III, Kef Q1's, Polk LSi11, and old AR's. The
extreme
speed of this design -- slew rate of 165 volts/microsecond, seems to wake
resonances in some metal domes that are better left to sleep.

Since I have titanium domes, the Haflers might not make be such a good
choice after all.

How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a high damping
factor?


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
"Robert Morein" said:

The Transnova Haflers, as opposed to the older ones, really are quite
unique, perhaps as unique as switching amps, but in their own way.

When MOSFET amplifiers were introduced, they were acclaimed for their
smoothness. These amplifiers can draw considerable bias current and run
hot,
yet require no protection against thermal runaway, the bane of bipolar
and
IGFET designs.


Most MOSFET designs using the Hitachi types, are/were used in source
follower configuration.
As such, the "smoothness" could well stem from their relatively high
output impedance (Rds-on), just like a tube amplifier.
One can even use the highish Cgs to "emulate" high-rolloff" just like
a crappy cathodyne tube phase inverter ;-)

A matter of preference, indeed.


They are free of crossover distortion.


That would depend on the applied bias.


Some designs, however,
have been criticized for the so-called "MOSFET mist". A standard MOSFET
design is inherently soft-clipping, because the outputs cannot be driven
into saturation, because the gate voltage would have to be raised above
the
drain voltage, which is usually the maximum rail in a design.


The 2SK135/2SJ50 MOSFET family doesn't know saturation.
The limit, again, is their Rds-on, which is fairly high for a single
pair. That, and the limited Vg of +/- 12 V.
Even in the Transnova circuit this is the case, even with 3 pairs in
push pull. At least still higher than a single BJT pair in the usual
emitter follower circuit.


The Transnova circuit is radically different. The entire power supply
bridge
rectifier floats with respect to ground, connected to ground through
alternate push-pull arrays of MOSFETs. The MOSFETS swing the entire
bridge.
With this setup, the outputs can be driven into saturation with a 23 volt
rail, which, in Transnova amplifiers, is provided by a regulated supply.

These amplifiers have a huge damping factor. At the time the TNT-200 was
introduced, it was specified as unmeasurably high, so high that fuses
were
omitted because the resistance in the fuse would compromise this
remarkable
characteristic. Together with the regulated low voltage supply, they seem
to
maintain the damping factor at high volume levels, which means that a
small
Transnova amp can provide big bass.


Strickland wasn't a fool.
However, the circuit suffers from several well-known MOSFET problems
as well.
Rds-on in CDC is still high.
One of the unique features of his TNT200 design was the feedback
topology, IMHO. I'm quoting from memory here.
Remind me to look up the schematics, they're in a box somewhere, still
unpacked after the move.


They also have phenomenal bandwidth. My Acoustat TNT-200 amps, the
original
design, are flat -3dB out to 400 kHz. The reason is simple: the output
devices actually produce gain, as opposed to the original design, where
they
were merely impedance converters. Consequently, a Transnova design can be
accomplished with only three gain stages. Since the signal transit time
is
reduced, there is no need to limit bandwidth to achieve stability.
Contrast
this with many of the amps currently being sold today, which sag at 50
kHz.


High bandwidht is both the blessing and the curse of MOSFETs.
It's hard to NOT get 1 MHz of bandwidth out of a powerstage, unless
one's deliberately damping the gate drive (in order to prevent
oscillations).

--

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

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

The Transnova design performs best with soft dome tweeters, as well as
the
new Audax and Vifa ring tweeters. It does well with aluminum domes,
matches
poorly to titanium domes, and curiously, doesn't do well with the
VonSchweikert Juniors, even though they have soft domes. It works
magically
well with KEF Reference III, Kef Q1's, Polk LSi11, and old AR's. The
extreme
speed of this design -- slew rate of 165 volts/microsecond, seems to
wake
resonances in some metal domes that are better left to sleep.

Since I have titanium domes, the Haflers might not make be such a good
choice after all.

True.
However, there is another choice, that works quite well with such
bookshelves: the Hafler Excelinear circuit. Specifically, the XL-280. An
evolution of the original DH series, it has a tuned circuit in the output
stage that can be adjusted by the user to reduce distortion to what Dave
Hafler claimed could not be matched by conventional designs. Conventionally,
this was done with the loan by a dealer of a Hafler nulling box, but I have
done it by ear. One review, possibly by Audio, stated that the degree of
resolution of low level detail was the best experienced.
Not a great match for low efficiency bass drivers, although Rich Hollis
reports a wonderful match with his top-of-the line VonSchweikert VR-7.
The XL-280 is a compact 31 lb brick that delivers 145wpc into 8 ohms, 200
wpc into four ohms, 400watts/8 ohms bridged. It has a dual mono supply, with
six MOSFETs per side. It's so small and so heavy, you'll be amazed at the
density.

I use a bridged pair to drive NEAR50m's. It's da' bomb! A related amp, the
XL-600, is still widely used in recording studios.

"severian" wrote in message
nk.net...
How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a high damping
factor?

Amplifier dynamic impedance is not determined by the impedance of the output
devices, at least not grossly.
In theory, you can get any damping factor you want, provided the output
stage is part of the global feedback loop, and the feedback loop leaves the
poles in the left-hand plane.
The lower the internal signal transit time, the faster the feedback loop can
be.

SanDerWaal's comment about high Rdc is also relevant. But from the results,
it is apparent that there are circuit topologies that get around these
problems, as well as solutions that look like they might work, but don't.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"severian" wrote in message
nk.net...
How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a high damping
factor?

Amplifier dynamic impedance is not determined by the impedance of the
output
devices, at least not grossly.
In theory, you can get any damping factor you want, provided the output
stage is part of the global feedback loop, and the feedback loop leaves
the
poles in the left-hand plane.
The lower the internal signal transit time, the faster the feedback loop
can
be.

SanDerWaal's comment about high Rdc is also relevant. But from the
results,
it is apparent that there are circuit topologies that get around these
problems, as well as solutions that look like they might work, but don't.



Interesting, I'm going to have to go back and refresh myself with respect to
amplifier design (I mainly do acoustic measurements and loudspeaker design).
However, from my memory damping factor was defined as the inverse of output
impedence, hence my question.

Unless dynamic impedance has a different connotation from what I was taught
was output impedance.

If you'd care to comment, I'd be interested. I am not sure how much longer
I'm going to be at this machine (probably thru tomorrow at least). I'm
cleaning up some LP to CD recordings I recently made at a friends work
machine. They're turning out just about perfect. (Woo Hoo, finally a really
good CD copy of The Mysterious Flying Orchestra) After that I usually don't
get on Usenet much.

The comment about not mating well with titanium domes would seem to me to
indicate some ultrasonic nastiness in the amp, something that the extended
HF response of titanium domes, coupled with their tendency to breakup and
resonate at very high freqs, could make problematic. FWIW, I think most
metal domes are the audio incarnation of the AntiChrist, I find few that I
can live with, and even fewer that I enjoy the sound of.